The URL can be used to link to this page

02-19-20 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Preliminary plat to subdivide 2.107 acres into 2 single family lots on property zoned RSF and located at 915 Pleasant View Road, Edwards Vogel Subdivision, Scott Edwards and David Vogel. 2. Americana Community Bank located at the northeast corner of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard; a. Preliminary plat to replat Lot 7, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza into one lot. b. Site plan review for a 7,268 square foot (2 story) building for Phase I and Phase II consisting of 4,200 square feet. OLD BUSINESS 3. Organizational Items: b. Adoption of Planning Commission By-laws c. Liaison Attendance at City Council Meetings d. Liaison Attendance at Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meetings 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning PUD Residential Standards (Additional materials will be provided at the meeting.) NEW BUSINESS 5. Adopt Resolution Stating that Modification Program for Development District No. 2, Modification of Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1; and adoption of Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-2, is Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 6. Adopt Resolution Stating that Modification No. 11 to Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan is Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 6. Discussion of Group Homes. 7. Discussion of amendment regarding sales of sexually oriented material. ADJOURNMENT CITY O F PC DATA...: 2/19/92 \ • CHANHASSE � N CC DATE: 3/9/92 CASE #: 92-2 SUB famimitssimirmiommirimimmammimiimmEmrimilowilmisimanirammul STAFF REPORT - PROPOSAL: Request to subdivide an existing metes and bounds parcel, 2.107 acres Z in size, into two lots of 1.246 acres and .86 acres. _ V LOCATION: 915 Pleasant View Road — a APPLICANT: Scott W. Edwards Q 915 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 — . PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 2.107 acres DENSITY: 1.05 u/a ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family residence S - RSF; Vineland Forest Subdivision - Q E - RSF; single family residence W - RSF; single family residence WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. _ PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains one single familyhome with a detached garage. MUM The site is relatively flat. There is a large stand of trees in the U) southeast corner. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Edwards Vogel Subdivision February 19, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a subdivision of a lot located a 915 Pleasant View Road. The applicant is requesting to split a lot that is 2.107 acres. The lot split would create two lots, Lot 1 would be 1.246 acres and Lot 2 would be .86 acres. There is a existing home and detached garage on Lot 1. This property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The minimum lot size in the RSF zone is 15,000 square feet. Both lots exceed this requirement. The requested subdivision is consistent with a conceptual layout that was revised several years ago in conjunction with the Vineland Forest plat. On the surface, this would appear as a simple lot split but there are a couple areas of concern. The first issue is that the creation of the second lot also creates a nonconforming setback to the existing lot. The second issue is that the second lot does not have frontage on a public right-of-way, a requirement of the subdivision regulations. The creation of the new lot does make the existing lot nonconforming, to the rear setback requirements of the zone. The minimum rear setback in the RSF zone is 30 feet. The location of the proposed lot split would create a 20 foot setback from the existing detached garage. The proposed lot split line should be moved 10 feet to the south so as not to create a nonconforming rear yard setback. Moving the line 10 feet to the south both lots would still exceed the minimum square footage requirement for the zone. Staff has proposed an appropriate condition to resolve this matter. - Lot 2, the lot being created, does not have frontage on a public street. When the Vineland Forest Subdivision was created in 1989, staff proposed a street layout for all of the parcels in this area. The developers of Vineland Forest platted two outlots. Outlot A was created to give access to the existing home on Lot 1, Block 2 of Vineland Forest. Outlot A is not being used and the property owner to the north, Mr. Cunningham, is pursuing purchasing it. Outlot B was dedicated to the city for access and utility purposes. The city would like to retain ownership of this property for utility purposes. Outlot B will provide acceptable access. Based upon our review, staff is recommending that the plat be approved without variances subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND This lot is a portion of Vineland Subdivision platted in 1887. Vineland Subdivision had 11 lots, this lot is part of the original Lot 3. Most of the original Vineland Subdivision has been replatted, including most recently Vineland Forest and Troendle Subdivisions. During the Vineland Forest plat, the potential division of this site was reviewed. Outlot B was specifically created to provide access consistent with that which is requested in the current proposal. Edwards Vogel Subdivision February 1.9, 1992 Page 3 STREETS/ACCESS The lot being created does not have frontage on a public street. Thus, it is subject to standards provided for a flag lot. The existing home on the lot has a private drive onto Pleasant View Road. When Vineland Forest subdivision was platted, one of the issues raised was limiting accesses onto Pleasant View Road. Access to the lot being created can be achieved a couple of ways. The first option would be along the 30 foot easement to the south. This easement, at one time, was a low area but has been filled. It now could be used as a driveway. The second option would be to access Nez Perce via Outlot B. The Engineering Department would like to maintain ownership of this lot for utility easements. The City Attorney has stated that the city may convey use of the property to the homeowner. Because there is no direct public frontage on a public street this lot will be developed as a flag lot. Staff agrees with the applicant that use of Outlot B constitutes the best option. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION There is a significant amount of vegetation of the southeastern edge of the property. A driveway onto Nez Perce would result in the elimination of some trees. Not all of these trees are of high value. Staff would recommend that a home placement plan be provided as well as a landscaping/tree preservation plan to ensure minimal tree loss. It appears that the vegetation would be the least disturbed by locating the home in the northwestern portion of the property. GRADING/DRAINAGE It appears there will be no grading on this lot. The lot is very flat. The storm water run off flows to the pond to the southwest of this site. No additional drainage controls are required. EASEMENTS/RIGHT-OF-WAY Pleasant View Road will eventually be upgraded which will require additional right-of-way. Currently, the road is 66 feet in width and will eventually be 80 feet when it is classified as a Collector-Class II. The applicant should be required to dedicate an additional 7 feet of right-of-way. The plat shows the standard utility easements on the front, side, and rear property lines. Edwards Vogel Subdivision February 19, 1992 Page 4 COMPLIANCE TABLE RSF District Lot 1 Lot 2 Minimum Lot 15, 000 sq ft 54,289 sq ft 37,483 sq ft — Lot Frontage 90 feet 169 feet 168' flag Min Depth 125 feet 333 feet 226 feet • Impervious 25% 23% Front Setback 30 feet 125 feet Rear Setback 30 feet 20 feet* Side Setback 10 feet 60 feet 20' flag lot * A variance to this standard has been proposed with this lot split. Staff is recommending — that by moving the rear lot line 10 feet to the south this variance will not be necessary. Except for the rear setback on Lot 1, the lots meet all of the standards for the RSF zone. Staff is recommending that the proposed property line split be moved a minimum of 10 feet to the south. A home placement plan has not been submitted for Lot 2 but the lot is sufficient in size to meet all of the setback requirements, even after the lot sizes have been altered to satisfy the setback requirements for Lot 1. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #92-2 with the following conditions: 1. The proposed property line for the lot split be moved a minimum of 10 feet to the south so that the existing home meets the setback standards of the RSF zone. — 2. Lot 2 gain access by receiving a right to use Outlot B to Nez Perce, from the city. 3. A landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plan be submitted for staff review and approval. — 4. At the time of building permit issuance of Lot 2, Block 1, a connection charge in the amount of $7,732.68 (1992 balance) should be collected. Edwards Vogel Subdivision February 19, 1992 Page 5 5. The City will provide and install sanitary sewer and water to the property at the time a building permit is issued for Lot 2. 6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat an additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road." Attachments 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 5, 1992. 2. Preliminary plat dated February 3, 1992. CITY OF - i CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician A.1/4_ DATE: February 5, 1992 SUBJ : Review of Preliminary Plat for Edwards/Vogel Addition LUR 92-2 Upon review of the preliminary plat dated October 16, 1991 prepared by DeMars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. , I offer the following comments: Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the parcel . Individual sanitary sewer and water service have been extended from Pleasant View Road to the property line for proposed Lot 1. However, for Lot 2 the City will need to extend sewer and water service to the property line either from Nez Perce Drive or the utility lines located adjacent the westerly property line of the parcel. The City' s assessment records indicate this parcel was previously assessed one connection charge. With the proposed subdivision, an additional connection charge should be collected at the time of building permit issuance for Lot 2, Block 1. The connection charge payable in 1992 is $7 , 732 . 68 . The City will be responsible for extending the sanitary sewer and water service to the property line. As with all subdivisions, typically a development contract is prepared. However, since this is a simple lot split and there are no public improvements being installed, staff feels it is not necessary to prepare a development contract. The preliminary plat indicates no lot grading in conjunction with the subdivision. Storm sewer improvements have been installed with Vineland Forest Addition that would accommodate this parcel . tali PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson February 5, 1992 Page 2 Appropriate erosion control measures will be employed at the time a building permit is issued. Streets Pleasant View Road currently exists with 33 feet of right-of-way south of centerline (66 feet total) . Eventually, Pleasant View Road will be upgraded which will require additional right-of-way. = According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Pleasant View Road is classified as a Collector-Class II which recommends 80 feet of right-of-way. Therefore, it is recommended the applicant dedicate to the City by the final plat, an additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. At the time of building permit issuance of Lot 2 , Block 1, a connection charge in the amount of $7 , 732 . 68 (1992 balance) should be collected. 2 . The City will provide and install sanitary sewer and water service to the property at the time a building permit is issued for Lot 2 . 3 . The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat an additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. jms c: Charles Folch, City Engineer _ _ ,_.,10 r a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHRISTMAS ' LAKE riL i aw / f KC .,.__, , ,, 6 '61moi► ��1 SUBJECT SITE r • 410Pir 1174614/W iv ma II141/ 2 VINELAND FOREST . .i M - I lia. mom -N44\‘ 4.'%-. 1.N\° / e k lk • mm---------1141410°•i 4, Iv* =Irmo. %„„ -. ,••••....,„, N ett, , E s\ 4 :T. la 111 ai attla At411140 Niel\ \ - 44 Q UM ROENDLE h � ,- tltAldl �I , --1 aR7I1111111111Ithil Fl lb CARV _•�tiormilsiA, Rimi . � � J �■ g s *Z, i41 r . . 814a;A • * b IVMRKHNEDO 1ap44L' • ANI A "ivy 1/ ��r iftrAVIIPS116it VI OLET , lit ROI � 'e ;RIII Oi. 1 a CS �_ - ,10411111.,_11 -r4, ROAD rim � � . �:� , 117: 71a -.As `\ • no �•� s, % NMI ��*�r.L T - FRANK JR & M BEDDOR GORD & P WHITEMAN WILLIAM P CUNNINGHAM C/O VICTORY ENVELOPE 825 PLEASANT VIEW RD 865 PLEASANT VIEW RD 1000 PARK ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 --CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HENRY JR & S GRAEF FRANK JR & M BEDDOR WM & B GULICKSON 855 PLEASANT VIEW RD 649 5TH AVE SO 830 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NAPLES FL 33940 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS & G MATHIESEN ARTHUR & R OWENS COUNTRYSIDE MANAGEMENT _ 850 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6535 PEACEFUL LANE 1935 WAYZATA BLVD W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LONG LAKE MN 55391 DAVID & L LUNDAHL S THOMAS & S MORGAN JAMES & K LEDIN 11852 HARVEST LANE 880 VINELAND COURT 840 VINELAND CT -- EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & N HAJT BENJAMIN & M LAMDERS CARTER & K KELLY 820 VINELAND CT 861 VINELAND CT #126 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 5101 BOARSHEAD RD MINNETONKA MN 55345 _ DAVID & P DONNA DANIEL & J SYVERSON 881 VINELAND CT 921 VINELAND CT F BRUNO & M SKALICKY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 6560 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - WM BOIRE JONATHAN & L MCGRATH TIMOTHY & T KLOUDA 801 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6381 FOX PATH 6401 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERICK & J JOHNSON EIDEN CONSTRUCTION CHARLES & B ENDERSON - 6411 FOX PATH 4100 BERKSHIRE 6431 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PLYMOUTH MN 55441 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN HACHTMAN JIMMY & M ROANE 860 FOX CT 6571 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 . C I TY O F PC DATE: 2/19/92 „ 1 �-%L CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 3/9/92 CASE # : 92-1 SITE 89-19 SUB B A1-Jaff•v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for an 7 , 268 Square Foot Bank and Office Building - Americana Community Bank 2) Replat Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1, Crossroads Plaza, into two parcels with areas of 70, 000 Square Feet and 164 ,762 Square Feet 3) Vacation of a cross access easement and an Q underlying utility and drainage easement located on Lot 2 , Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition. mmj LOCATION: North of Highway. 5, east of Market Boulevard, south of ^ Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul , and Pacific Railroad = a. APPLICANT: KRJ Associates City of Chanhassen < P 0 Box 635 690 Coulter Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Chanhassen, MN 55317 i PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business Services District ACREAGE: 234 , 762 Sq Ft (Plat) 70, 000 Sq Ft (Site Plan) DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BG and CBD, Filly's and Country Suites S - BH, Vacant E - BH, Vacant QW - BG, Vacant (Future Market Square) and CIFountain Q; WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. Limi PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site has been extensively altered due to the construction of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The site is flat and devoid of tree cover. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY This request is for the construction of a 7 , 268 square foot bank building on the westerly 70, 000 square feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza. This parcel is currently owned by the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The applicant is negotiating with the HRA to purchase the property. Approval of the purchase is scheduled to take place on February 20, 1992 . As part of the agreement, the city is replatting the subject property and adjacent property (Lot 2 , Block 1) which is also under the ownership of the HRA. The site plan is fairly well developed. The architecture of the bank building attempts to reflect the nearby Market Square Shopping Center through the use of stucco accent tiles, columns and accentuated gabled entries, as well as the roof line of the Country Suites Hotel. Staff is proposing that the type of shingle which resemble wood shakes from a distance be used similar to the Country Suites Hotel . One highly attractive feature of the site is the inclusion of a pedestrian plaza at the intersection of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. A four lane drive-thru is provided to the north of the building. The stacking area for the drive-thru will be on the northeast portion of the site. The location for the drive-thru is appropriate as it places car stacking away from Market Boulevard and West 79th street. The drive-thru is screened by the bank building and landscaping from West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. The site landscaping is generally of high quality. Landscaping materials along the railroad tracks may be restricted due to sight distance limitations as it may obstruct visibility of oncoming trains to traffic on Market Boulevard. The Twin Cities and Western Railroad has been sent a copy of the plans for review and comments. As of today, no comments have been received. Site access is of concern in this proposal . A previous subdivision and site plan for the Crossroads National Bank was approved with two access points via West 79th, the most easterly access was to be shared by the adjoining property. The site also had an access point on Market Boulevard with a right-in/left-in only. All of the above mentioned access points have been installed by the city. The applicant for Americana Community Bank requested two full access points. One via Market Boulevard (right/left in and out) , which will require cutting back the existing island on Market Boulevard and widening the existing driveway apron. Staff has some concerns regarding the Market Boulevard island cut and allowing a left turn in and out due to traffic safety concerns. Staff recommends that a traffic study be preformed prior to the city granting full access drive. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation study there is a potential for 7 , 400 trips per day on Market Boulevard by the year 2010. The second access point is through West 79th Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 3 Street. The access via West 79th street will be exclusively used by the applicant which in turn reduces one access drive. The bank representatives believe that the southbound left turn from the site on to Market Boulevard is critical to their operation. From a design standpoint, we believe this change is not likely to undermine the effectiveness of traffic flow on Market Boulevard. However, it is necessary to note that the City Engineering Department cc :.inues to have safety concerns with the left turn from the site to southbound Market Boulevard. If the applicant still desires to have a full access approved, they should pay for all associated costs related to preparation of a traffic study. The results of that study shall determine the feasibility of granting a full access. In an accompanying subdivision request, Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1, Crossroads F - - are being replatted into two lots, one of which will contain bank building and the second will be reserved for future development. The subdivision request is a relatively straight forward action. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the site plan, and subdivision requests for this proposal without variances and subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND On February 12 , 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plat for Crossroads Plaza Addition. The plat consisted of two lots and four outlots. Lot 1 , 2 . 47 Acres, and Lot 2 , 3 . 02 Acres. Two of the outlots were utilized for Highway 5 right-of-way dedication. The other two outlots were used for drainage and retention ponds. Lot 1 was to become the future site for the Crossroads National Bank. On October 23 , 1989 , the City Council approved the site plan for the bank. The site plan consisted of a bank and office building with a total area of 14 , 000 square feet. Operation of the bank was proposed to begin out of a modular banking facility while the permanent facility was being built. The city constructed a parking lot, three access points to the site, and installed light fixtures to prepare the site for the Crossroads National Bank' s temporary facility. The site plan proposed an entrance only along Market Boulevard with an exit only at the southwesterly portion of West 79th Street to accommodate a drive- thru teller. Another full access was provided at the southeast corner of the site to be shared with the adjacent property to the east (Lot 2) in the future. The plans never matured beyond the site plan and subdivision approvals (Attachment #2) . The application in front of the Planning Commission today will change the approved proposal for the Crossroads National Bank Site Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 4 Plan. The proposed Americana Community Bank will invalidate the Crossroads National Bank Site Plan. Therefore, considering action of approval of the Americana Community Bank is contingent upon the withdrawal of Crossroads National Bank Building Site Plan approval . On August 7 , 1991, the Planning Commission approved an application for Site Plan #91-3 for the Americana Community Bank Building to be located at the southwest corner of Market Boulevard and West 78th Street (Market Square Development) . A Planned Unit Development Amendment and a subdivision proposal were reviewed concurrently. The proposal was approved by the City Council on August 12 , 1991. The applicant elected not to proceed with construction on this site due to delays with Market Square Shopping Center and a design for increased visibility from Highway 5. SITE PLAN REVIEW General Site Plan/Architecture The building is proposed at the northeast corner of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. Site access is proposed from both West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. The majority of the parking is located to the east of the proposed building. Future parking is proposed to be added to the north of the site with phase II . Vehicle stacking is provided northeast of the building so that direct distant views from West 79th Street, to the south of the site, will be minimized. Direct views of the stacking lanes will be screened by the building and landscaping from the west of the site. The architecture of the bank building reflects the shopping center' s use of stucco accent tiles, columns and gabled entries . Colors and material types need to be specified for staff approval . Low gabled roofs and a strong masonry base complete the bank' s image for the prominent corner site. The applicant does not intend to have any roof top equipment. All equipment will be placed on the ground. The applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by a masonry wall using the same materials as the building and an air conditioning unit located on the northwest corner of the building. These units are screened by a berm and landscaping to the north, west and south. The applicant has illustrated a building addition on the south side of the building, paralleling West 79th Street, which represents potential future expansion of the bank facility. This addition will overlook the plaza area. Upon review of the plans, staff concluded that additional parking will be needed to support a building addition on this site. The applicant has illustrated 16 additional future spaces. This building addition is supported by staff but the applicant will have to reappear in front of the Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 5 Planning Commission and City Council for a Site Plan amendment at the time when the addition is to be built. Staff is recommending that the applicant illustrate how the roof line will be extended at the time the addition is built. The architect 's intent to combine the style of the shopping center building, along with other downtown buildings such as the Country Hospitality Suites, is a sound one. Parking/Interior Circulation The City' s parking ordinance requires one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The number of parking spaces required is 30 and the applicant is providing 36 parking spaces and 1 handicap space which satisfies the requirements of the ordinance. Traffic will be directed via West 79th Street running parallel to the easterly edge of the site then head west into the bank site or via Market Boulevard, parallel to the northerly property line. Traffic exiting the site would utilize the same entrance points located to the northwest and southeast of the site. A stop sign is recommended at both locations to regulate traffic exiting the site. In general , the interior circulation and entrances are fairly reasonable in our view. Access There are three existing driveway access points (curb cuts) to the site. One along Market Boulevard and two along West 79th Street. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the most westerly access, and abandoning the existing easterly access on West 79th Street which was to be shared by the adjoining property, and building a new curb cut for the banks exclusive use. The existing curb cuts will have to be eliminated and restored as boulevard. The new entrance on West 79th Street will serve the parking lot and the drive-thru facilities as proposed. This entrance will provide a reasonably safe access to this site since it provides adequate offset separation between this site entrance and Market Boulevard. We believe the current proposal along West 79th Street is acceptable. The second access point would expand the existing curb cut on Market Boulevard located on the northwest corner of the site. As proposed, this would serve as the entrance/exit to the drive-thru lanes and the bank building. The plans propose to expand the existing curb cut and reducing the island on Market Boulevard which was originally constructed for Crossroads National Bank. The applicant 's position is that they want full access to the bank from both West 79th Street and from Market Boulevard. Staff Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 6 recommends that the applicant provide the City with a cash escrow to have a traffic engineering consultant, prepare a traffic analysis of the turning movements onto Market Boulevard with recommendations for improvements, i.e. turn lanes, medians, driveway location, etc. Staff believes there ultimately will be too many traffic movements occurring on Market Boulevard to safely exit this site onto southbound Market Boulevard. Signalization of the intersection of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard, which is currently under consideration by the HRA and City Council, will help traffic flow on Market Boulevard, although not reduce conflicts at this intersection dramatically. A right-in/right-out only entrance via Market Boulevard has always been the plan for this access. The bank' s request calls for cutting back a median so that southbound traffic exiting the bank site could make a left turn onto Market Boulevard. Market Boulevard was widened south of the railroad tracks to accommodate right and left turn lanes into the site. The center median length and pavement markings have been reduced to below suggested standards to accommodate the left turn lane into the site. Further expansion of the curb cut would require reducing the median further. Both medians and pavement markings have a unique function in the proper control and regulation of traffic into the proper lanes in the roadways. By shortening the median areas further we may be creating confusion or delay in reaction by the driver for smooth and safe lane transition. This access point is further complicated with the relationship of the railroad crossing approximately 80 feet to the north. Although the crossing is equipped with flashing light signals and automatic gate arms, it still creates an additional distraction for motorists. Occasional use of the railroad tracks will create temporary stacking of vehicles back into the site. Layout of the parking lot gives motorists an option to loop back to the east to exit via West 79th Street rather than waiting to turn onto Market Boulevard. Representatives from the bank believe that the Market Boulevard access point is vital to their operation. Final designs for this curb cut have not been developed. Staff recommends that the access point along Market Boulevard be restricted to a right in/out and left turn in from Market Boulevard. If the applicant wishes to maintain the current proposed plan of full access by expanding the access point with a left turn lane from the site onto southbound Market Boulevard, a traffic study should be prepared. Staff is also recommending that the bank provide the city with financial security in the form of a Letter of Credit to guarantee installation of the required improvements on Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The applicant shall also be liable for all costs associated with the Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 7 traffic study and construction of the curb cut. The traffic study would specifically address vehicle stacking needs, turning movements and related safety concerns at both the driveway intersection and railroad track intersection. Landscaping The landscaping plan is acceptable. Trees and hedges are proposed along the north, south, and east portions of the site. Staff is recommending that the applicant comply with any railroad guidelines for maintaining sight lines at the railroad crossing which may limit landscaping along the northerly portion of the west half of the site (See attachment #1) . Although the landscaping plan appears to be generally reasonable, we do have several revisions to request. The first is that the plan does not specify type or size of all materials. Final plans should be developed that incorporate this and the size of all materials must meet or exceed normal city standards. Secondly, the applicant has failed to show any grades on the site. We are requesting that grading details of the site be provided for staff review. Lighting Lighting locations are illustrated on the plans. Two light poles are proposed. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than . 5 ' candles of light at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for approval . Signage The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the westerly edge of the site. The area of the monument sign is 70 square feet. The ordinance permits up to 80 square feet. The applicant is also showing two 3- - foot high wall mounted signs on each building elevation with a street frontage. We find the sign package to be reasonable and consistent with the ordinance. Sign permits are required prior to sign installation. Grading/Drainage Specific grading and drainage plans were not prepared for this submittal. Given current conditions on the site and the proposed site plan, grading activity is expected to be minimal . The site plan proposes parking lot drainage divided with half the site draining to Market Boulevard and the remaining half to West 79th Street. Storm sewers should be extended from Market Boulevard Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 8 and/or West 79th Street to convey runoff generated from the site prior to discharging into the City street. Final grading and drainage plans should be prepared for approval by the city, in addition to submitting storm water calculations for 10 year storm events. All plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City ' s Engineering office for review and approval . The site plan does not propose any erosion control measures at this time. Upon receipt of an acceptable grading and drainage plan, staff will be able to recommend appropriate erosion control measures. Watershed District approval of this plan is required. The applicant shall receive a Watershed District permit and comply with their conditions. Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site from West 79th Street. A previous site plan proposal for this lot extended the water and sewer service into the lot to accommodate a temporary building facility; however, the temporary building facility was never constructed. Therefore, the utility services will have to be disconnected by the applicant at the property line and redirected to the proposed facility. Final plans for utility connection should be prepared for approval by staff. The Fire Marshal is requesting that utilities coming into the building as well as other fire hydrants in the vicinity be shown on the site plan. Park and Trail Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the city accept full park and trail dedication fees as part of this development. Fees are paid at the time the building permits are requested. The applicant shall also construct a concrete sidewalk, 6 feet wide, to be located south of the site and connecting with the sidewalk located to the west of the site. Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 9 COMPLIANCE TABLE WITH HIGHWAY & BUSINESS DISTRICT ORDINANCE Required Proposed Building Front Yard Setback 25 ' 50 ' Building Side Yard Setback 10 ' N 80 '/E 130 ' Lot Area 20, 000 S.F. 70, 000 S . F. Parking Setback from Railroad 0 12 ' Hard Surface Coverage 65% 62% Parking Stalls 30 36 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #92-1 as shown on the site plan dated 1992 , subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Stop signs shall be installed at both exit points located on Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. 2 . Landscaping along the north edge of the site must be modified to meet all requirements of the railroad. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval . 3 . The applicant shall provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee installation of the required public improvements and costs associated with the traffic study. Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 10 4 . Revise architectural plans as follows: • Provide a concept of what the roof line would look like when phase II is added. • Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. • Provide details of building exterior treatment. " 5. A grading and drainage plan including storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval . 6. The applicant shall indicate on the site plan utilities coming into the building and addition fire hydrants in the vicinity. 7 . The applicant shall include construction of the driveway aprons, median improvements, sidewalk and boulevard restoration in the site plan improvements. 8 . The applicant shall be responsible for any damage to the City' s existing sidewalk along Market Boulevard. SUBDIVISION The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to realign the easterly property line of Lot 1, 40 feet to the west. Lot 1, Block 1, is proposed to have an area of 70, 000 square feet and will be occupied by the bank building. Lot 2 , Block 1, is vacant and there is no development proposed on the site at this time. This is a meets and bounds subdivision, therefore no action is required by the Planning Commission. The following easements are illustrated on the plat: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both lots (5 feet to the side, 10 feet to the front) 2 . A utility and drainage easement over the northerly 20 feet of Lot 1 and 2 , Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition. 3 . The final plat must be submitted to staff for approval and recording with Carver County. Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 11 Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision proposal with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 2 . Provide the following easements: a. standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. b. The final plat for Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN "The Planning Commission recommends the withdraw of approval of Site Plan 89-6 for the Crossroads National Bank building, concurrently with the approval of site plan #92-1 . The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County. " VACATION OF A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE UNDERLYING PLAT The Planning Commission does not need to take action on this item but we are including it as an informational item. As part of the plat and site plan approval for Crossroads National Bank, a cross access easement was required to allow the occupants of both Lots 1 and 2 , to share a driveway. With the new proposed site plan for Americana Community Bank, this cross access easement will no longer be needed and will need to be vacated. Also, due to shifting the westerly property line of Lot 2 , the drainage and utility easement along the previous lot line will need to be vacated. Staff is recommending approval of the cross access easement and utility and drainage easement vacation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment showing railroad track sight restrictions. 2 . Memo from Fire Marshall dated February 12 , 1992 . 3 . Memo from Building Official dated February 6, 1992 . 4 . Memo from Senior Engineering Technician dated February 12 , 1992 . 5. Staff report dated August 12 , 1991, Americana Community Bank. 6. Staff report dated October 23 , 1989, Crossroads National Bank. 7 . Plans dated January 31, 1992 . ... :cost ........_:,..., -------c-5/ ,......, .,orc=;) ,.....‘. : . .._ _____. .No,----". ..r. -...qO O 0 C) .... .,.. (�-'t .. .,,..„, ,,,,0) \ ass ' s....._. ,,,...4c .. \ r ..--...-‘ \,,,,- ,...„,....4. ,.(,) ,...: z R, , \\ 1 ._... , . 0,_ . PJ . ,, „ ,a,. .....,„ ..o. .. ,. \\_) . \ \,„,.:,‘, ...., _- ,„,,-„,,-• .,.....„.,..„ , • `Fs 0] 1 1 .`r -• 4,A l,...,,,„ ,t ' Wit' .1, \1 / 1 1110,----- i-r"`i.wi, ,s= , .� Y 4rH`p 1iallA `�S.f' 'rt rR�- �'R �''-.Mnx I t ��`'S-l5t r �` sem” - �q y e' \t\\ i:�1 };,y1 Inc :.��a��+. tr, i 1 \,\ ,\.\,./ ., ,_, h'? .-^•!--- • \\ \ .4. _____I. , .!"!:---r,'0,-;t1tItttilltttr - )\ .. 4-•",... \ct. l 1 101.1," ii iii..,----• ninglovirelvtg • •11�t. V. i►�. ; , ; \, (\ i)t- i \ --410011403 ,:ttt- 2 • • --7 iiistrntof ,____ c . II ! 1 \\) . ,4 III I Asti • AY 0 ;ZIP. w (7; llit A„, ,,___ •19 ;.\\ q •0 , ` • ;,, re ..; : / .// / ;' it /� / fir; / �` r �, , ' �/ �— .. xt J 'rI t 7� , '/, / 0 . r.:::- . ,.• 7 1 ,avz1 I �, ou-gi- / /' / �s / . -a; l Cl- .............--4fr /.1/, / / /' . . 1,1 1 / / -,71 ' .4am - 1 I t i(5 N % lit 'Fir • I ../... i ...... 4 1 -,,,o,„ . -,/ ., , _:., ,i, ,.., o . a . ,///____:1.......j., IA/ /tet t.. jr_ f'.. s. CD a+ 410,..214or gati: IV /"r.// / \r‘ , .. # • • 1 ..r )11k0. 1 , IIP./ ; Orif A ir;'>;/// 'a •I' . _1r 111, 1 4t. '"1==t!,,� // �< , ` 3.- .. 1\. is li 1 .r .. ``i�/ ' l // ot, NI it ♦, I I 1 a %1 - , Zip\ %/��. ; r W� ill• _z .i--- J I 1s's \ t 11 JE.,;---. .i..vk- ......---4.:14-- cc-13--,. -..::<:";;; .....-:-.... . k & :E: iI -. 01 /...0.,......- ,..„.. • 1 (,) '0 i.'. \ 7-r7 1 1if4I Z �" \ �_ ' 1 1 z 1 1 t\ W ••`K• s �, 1 11- \ t. CITYOF - CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I — FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: February 12 , 1992 SUBJ: #89-19 SUB and #92-1 Site Plan Please indicate the following on site plan: 1 . Other additional fire hydrants in vicinity. 2 . Utilities coining into building, i.e, water, gas, electricity %at PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 4 . CITY OF 0cHANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMO DATE (mm/dd/yy) : 02/06/92 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff TITLE/TO: Planner I THROUGH: TITLE/THROUGH: FROM: Steve A. Kirchma: k, TITLE/FROM: Building Official SUBJECT: Planning Case : 89-19 SUB x' 92-1 Site Plan • _: Site play. review : as been completed for the Americana Community Bank . I 1• have the following comments . 1 . Construction of the "16 future stalls" will trigger the requirement for an - additional handicap parking space . Tha applicant may wish to design the parking spaces near the building entrance to accomadate the future handicap stall . 2 . The Americans with Disabilities Act became effective on 1/26/92 . The .. designers are responsible for compliance to the ADA. 3 . L-2 office occupancies of 8500 or more gross feet of floor area are required to be fire sprinklered. Gross feet of floor area includes the basement . • 01 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF )11111r CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician DATE : February 12 , 1992 SUBJ : Site Plan Review - Americana Bank, Northwest Corner of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard Lot 1 , Block 1 , Crossroads Plaza LUR 91-11 Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site from West 79th Street . A previous site plan proposal for this lot extended the water and sewer service into the lot to accommodate a temporary building facility; however, the temporary building facility was never constructed . Therefore , the utility services will have to be disconnected by the applicant at the property line and redirected to the proposed facility. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control No actual grading and drainage plan was submitted with this proposal . The site plan proposes parking lot drainage divided with half the site draining to Market Boulevard and the remaining half to West 79th Street . Storm sewers should be extended from Market Boulevard and/or West 79th Street to convey runoff generated from the site prior to discharging into the City street . A grading and drainage plan including storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event should be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City' s Engineering office for review and approval . The site plan does not propose any erosion control measures at this time . Upon receipt of an acceptable grading and drainage plan , staff will be able to recommend appropriate erosion control measures . Sharmin Al-Jaff February 12 , 1992 Page 2 Site Access Three driveway access points (curb cuts ) along Market Boulevard and West 79th Street have been designed and constructed in accordance with a previous bank facility in mind (Crossroads National Bank) . That site plan proposed an entrance only along Market Boulevard with an exit only at the southwesterly portion of West 79th Street to accommodate a drive-through teller. Another full access was provided at the southeast corner of the site to be shared with the adjacent property to the east (Lot 2 ) in the future. The new plans propose to expand the existing curb cut on Market Boulevard and replace the two curb cuts along West 79th Street with one new one . Staff is comfortable with the full access being proposed along West 79th Street but has safety concerns with the expansion and proposed usage of the Market Boulevard curb cut . Market Boulevard was widened south of the railroad tracks to accommodate right and left turn lanes into the site . The center median length and pavement markings have been reduced below suggested standards to accommodate the left turn lane into the site . Further expansion of the curb cut will require reducing the median further. Both medians and pavement markings have a unique function in the proper control and regulation of traffic into the proper lanes in the roadways . By shortening the median areas further we may be creating confusion or delay in reaction by the driver for smooth and safe lane transition . According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Market Boulevard is classified as a Class I Collector. Market Boulevard is predicted by the year 2010 to accommodate 7 ,400 ADT. It is the City' s intent to limit the amount of curb cuts/turning movements on Market Boulevard due to the anticipated high volume of traffic . Staff feels the expansion of the access point on Market Boulevard to be unduly hazardous and not totally necessary for this site to effectively function . This access point is further complicated with the relationship of the railroad crossing approximately 80 feet to the north. Although the crossing is equipped with flashing light signals and automatic gate arms, it still creates an additional distraction for motorists . Occasional use of the railroad tracks will create temporary stacking of vehicles back into the site . Layout of the parking lot gives motorists an option to loop back to the east to exit via West 79th Street rather than waiting to turn onto Market Boulevard. Staff recommends that the access point along Market Boulevard be restricted to a right in/out and left turn in from Market Boulevard. If the applicaRt wishes to maintain the current proposed plan of full access by expanding the access point with a Sharmin Al-Jaff February 12 , 1992 Page 3 left turn lane from the site onto southbound Market Boulevard, a traffic study should be prepared. The applicant should provide the City with a cash escrow to have a traffic study prepared. The traffic study would specifically address vehicle stacking needs , turning movements and related safety concerns at both the driveway intersection and railroad track intersection. Site access from West 79th Street appears acceptable. The existing curb cuts will have to be eliminated and restored as boulevard. The applicant should include the boulevard restoration, sidewalk, driveway and median construction and access removal into their site plan improvements . Final detailed plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . All boulevard restoration , sidewalks and driveway aprons (public improvements ) shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City' s Standard Specifications . The project specification documents should incorporate the City ' s standard specifications . All work performed within the City' s right-of-way shall be inspected and approved by the City' s Engineering Department prior to releasing any financial security or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1 . A grading and drainage plan including storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval . 2 . The applicant shall include construction of the driveway aprons , median improvements , sidewalk and boulevard restoration in the site plan improvements . 3 . The applicant shall provide the City with a financial security ( letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee construction of the driveway aprons , center median improvements and boulevard restoration and all other proposed public improvements . The applicant shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow or equivalent for $10 , 000 . The security shall be for a term ending December 31 , 1992 . Once the required improvements have been inspected and approved by the City and a two-year maintenance bond received for the public improvements , the letter of credit shall be released. 4 . The applicant shall work with staff to develop an erosion control plan . 5 . The applicant shall be responsible for any damage to the City' s existing sidewalk along Market Boulevard. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 12 , 1992 Page 4 6 . The applicant shall receive a Watershed District permit and comply with conditions stipulated . 7 . If the applicant wishes to expand the existing curb cut along Market Boulevard with a left-turn lane from the site onto southbound Market Boulevard, a traffic study shall be prepared to determine if warranted. The City shall retain a consultant and all costs associated with the study shall be borne by the applicant . jms/ktm c : Charles Folch , City Engineer ITY O F _ _ ,ATE: 8/7/9/,1 ' ,,,,,t....„.4., , . S S CC DATE: 8/12/91 _ CASE # : 91-3 SITE 89-2 PUD, 91-8 SUB STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for an 8, 365 Square Foot Bank Building, 2) Replat a Portion of Outlot A, Market Square into a 40, 000 Square Foot Lot and a 39, 600 Square. Z Foot Lot VQ 3) PUD Amendment to Add a Bank Building to Market Square Shopping Center 1 J LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Market Boulevard 0.. and West 78th Street 1 • 4 APPLICANT: KRJ Associates L P 0 Box 635 Long Lake, MN 55356 1 PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development 1 ACREAGE: 40, 000 square feet l DENSITY: l ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - OI and CBD S - BG, vacant Q E - CBD, Filly' s and Hotel _1. / --- ;/- l_ Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : A level parcel. ife:• .s.2- 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial -- - - - - 1. Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY On October 8, 1990, the City Council approved the final PUD plan for a shopping center subject to conditions described in the attached report. The site included 3 outlots containing a proposed veterinary clinic and a cleaners and one vacant outlot (Outlot A) with an area of 79,946 square feet. The shopping center remains undeveloped due to financing difficulties, however, these are in the process of being resolved and construction is likely to start in September. The current request is for the construction of a 8, 365 square foot bank building on the north half of Outlot A. The site plan is well developed. The architecture of the bank building attempts to reflect the shopping center's use of stucco accent tiles, columns and gabled entries as well as the roof line of the Country Suites Hotel. This type of architecture is consistent with the rest of the shopping center. Staff is proposing that the roof line of the bank be revised to accentuate the gables and to ensure that the shingles are of the type used on of . the Country Suites Hotel which resemble wood shakes from a distance. One highly attractive feature of the site is the inclusion of a pedestrian plaza at the intersection of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. A four lane drive-thru is provided to the south of the building. Car stacking for vehicles waiting to go through the drive-thru will be on the south portion of the site away from West 78th Street. The location for the drive-thru is appropriate as it places car stacking away from West 78th Street. The drive-thru is screened by the bank building from West 78th Street. Upon review of the drive-thru by the Engineering Department, it was found that the proposed turn radius for the drive-thru exit was inadequately sized. Alternatives to address the problem and acquisition of additional land to the south or reversing the turn lane direction of flow should be submitted. The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention that was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant. Additional landscaping is being requested north and west of the site across from the parking area. Site access has been a major concern of staff through the design of this proposal. The applicant originally requested two access points, one via Market Boulevard and the second through West 78th Street. Staff strongly opposed the Market Boulevard curb cut noting traffic safety concerns and the fact that this entrance was specifically prohibited by the PUD agreement. After a number of meetings with the applicant, the Market Boulevard curb cut was eliminated and the curb cut on West 78th Street was refined to allow a right turn lane only for traffic eastbound and a median cut allowing left turns for traffic westbound. A traffic study conducted by Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch, Inc. has been submitted to Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 3 the City in support of this curb cut and new median cut on West 78th Street. The bank representatives believe that the West 78th Street curb cut is critical to their operation. From a design standpoint, we believe this change is not likely to undermine the effectiveness of traffic flow on West 78th Street. However, it is necessary to note that the City Engineering Department continues to have some reservations with the median cut. Staff notes that the West 78th Street curb cut does not specifically serve the bank but rather would connect to the main driveway for the shopping center. We would strongly recommend against any median breaks serving individual sites. Ultimately, the Planning Commission, City Council and HRA will need to make a determination if it is acceptable on aesthetic grounds. Since at least part of the landscaped median would be lost if the median cut is approved. If it is approved, the bank should pay for all associated costs related to studying, designing and constructing this curb cut. In an accompanying subdivision request, the outlot is being divided into two lots, one of which will contain the bank building and the second of which will be reserved for future development. The subdivision request is a relatively straight forward action. The plat should be corrected as required to reflect an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along West 78th Street that has been required by the City under the Development Agreement. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the site plan, subdivision and planned unit development amendment requests for this proposal with appropriate conditions. SITE PLAN REVIEW General Site Plan/Architecture The building is situated at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. Access is gained off of a proposed curb cut on West 78th Street. Staff will discuss in detail the access aspect later in the report. Parking is located to the west of the proposed building. Vehicle stacking is located south of the site and the building so that direct distant views from West 78th Street, to the north of the site will be minimized. Direct views of the stacking lanes will be screened by the building and landscaping from the north of the site. The architecture of the bank building reflects the shopping center's use of stucco accent tiles, columns and gabled entries. Colors and material types need to be specified for staff approval. Low gabled roofs and a strong masonry base complete the bank's image for the prominent corner site. The applicant has failed to show a roof top equipment Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 4 screening plan. Such should be submitted prior to the City Council meeting. The applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by a masonry wall using the same materials as the building and located on the southeast corner of the building. Two electric boxes - _ operated and maintained by NSP, as well as an air conditioning unit, are located to the southeast corner of the site. These units are screened by a berm and landscaping to the north, east and south. While we are generally satisfied with the building architecture and note that the applicant has worked extensively on this project, we do have several main concerns. These include the illustrated building addition on the north side of the building paralleling West 78th Street, the incorporation of what appears to be an extended canopied entrance into the plaza area, and the building roof line. As to the first issue, a building addition has been illustrated on the north side of the structure. This had been incorporated into earlier plans and was intended to represent potential future expansions of the bank facility. Upon review of the plans, staff concluded that there was insufficient parking to support a building addition on this site and believed we had come to an understanding wherein the addition was to be deleted from the plans. We wish to make it clear that this building addition is not supported by staff and we do not believe we will be in a position to recommend approval of it in the future. We are therefore recommending that it be deleted from final plans for the project. The site on which this bank is situated is a highly visible one at what is highly likely to become one of the most important intersection in the Chanhassen CBD. Setting an architectural standard for this bank is difficult in part due to its location. The PUD approval requires architectural consistency with the main shopping center building. However, at the same time, this site is essentially the transition point from the shopping center site into architectural styles found elsewhere in the CBD. Therefore, we believe that the architect's intent to combine the style of the shopping center building, along with other downtown buildings such as the Country Hospitality Suites, is a sound one. We continue to have some concerns over the visual massiveness of this building and its proximity to the street. In part, these concerns will be addressed by ensuring that the building maintains a 25 foot setback from the public right-of-way required elsewhere in the shopping center as well as by the taking of an additional 10 feet along West 78th Street which will be reserved for the inclusion of a second thru-lane when it is needed in the future. However, we continue to be concerned about the massiveness of the roof line and the inclusion of relatively diminutive dormers to break this up. We would propose that the dormers be increased in size to break up the roof line or that some other structural design for the roof be considered. We believe a ,peaked roof is essential on this Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 5 structure but are requesting that the applicant's architect be somewhat more creative in addressing this concern. How this concern is addressed will also have some bearing on our issue concerning the HVAC screening mentioned above as well. The third concern pertains to the .plans for a canopied entrance on the northwest corner of the building. Staff supports the inclusion of a highly accentuated main entrance but wants to ensure a 25 foot setback from the right-of-way is maintained from all structures and we define the canopy as part of the structure. The plans are somewhat misleading on this point since it appears as though the canopy would extend out over a portion of the patio area. Due to the lack of time, we have not had an opportunity to explore this more fully with the project architect but are certain that this matter could be resolved in the final plans. Parking/Interior Circulation The City's parking ordinance requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. The number of parking spaces required is 34 and the applicant is providing 35 parking spaces which satisfies the requirements of the ordinance. Traffic will be directed via West 78th Street running parallel to the westerly edge of the site then headed east into the bank site. Traffic exiting the site would either use an exit located at the southeast corner of the site or utilize the same entrance located to the east of the site. A stop sign is proposed at that location to regulate traffic. In general, the interior circulation and entrances are reasonable in our view. The proposed exit along the south property line is intended to become part of the entrance/exit to whatever develops on the southern portion of Outlot A. The remaining area of Outlot A is unlikely to be able to support any other entrances and exits apart from this one. A cross access easement running in favor of both lots being created from Outlot A, over this driveway and over the northern 30 feet of the lot to be created south of the bank, will be required to ensure that this element can be incorporated. However, during review of the access proposal by the Engineering Department, a problem has surfaced. When turning templates were put on the drive-thru lanes, it became clear that cars exiting the site would be unable to complete the turn required to transition into the exit lane. Again, this problem surfaced too late to be able to discuss it more fully with the project designer. There are several possible ways of addressing this issue. The first would be to incorporate a larger radius turn which would require the taking of additional land off of the southeast corner of the site or the reversal of traffic flow through the facility. There may in fact be other alternatives and we would be open to suggestions from the project designer as to how to resolve this issue. Americana Community Bank ' August 7, 1991 Page 6 Access There are two sets of access points requiring discussion. The first is the internal access onto the shopping center driveway system. The second concerns proposed revisions to the shopping center access from West 78th Street. As to the first question, there are two access points being proposed off the internal driveway system. The northern most access is the major site entrance which will serve the parking lot and the drive-thru facilities as proposed. In discussions with staff, we found some difficulty in providing safe access to this site since we wanted to provide the maximum offset separation between this site entrance and the major shopping center entry point on West 78th Street. We believe the current proposal is acceptable and resolves this concern. The second entrance point is the proposed exit lying adjacent to the south edge of the site. As proposed, this will serve as the exit to the drive-thru lanes. In the future, this exit would be shared with a new entrance to serve whatever is -to be located on the remaining undeveloped area on Outlot A to the south. Staff supports this option noting that, due to the relative limited size of the newly created lot on the south portion of Outlot A and its location adjacent to the main entrance to the shopping center from Market Boulevard, this future common entrance point, shared with the bank, is likely to be the only means of entering and exiting this site that can be allowed. Staff is recommending that cross access easements be established in favor of both the bank parcel and the future lot to the south to guarantee that the shared access arrangement can work in the future. One of the major points of discussion between staff and the applicant on this proposal concerned external entrances into the site. The applicant 's original position was that they wanted entrances to the bank from both West 78th Street and from Market Boulevard. Staff noted that any additional curb cuts into the Market Square site are specifically prohibited by the approved PUD plan, however, at the applicant's request we did have the city's traffic consultant, Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch prepare an analysis of both proposed curb cuts. Their report is attached to the staff report. Essentially, they agreed with the city's original position that a Market Boulevard curb cut into this site is unacceptable from a traffic safety standpoint. There are simply too many traffic movements occurring with southbound cars on Market Boulevard attempting to decelerate and move to the right to turn into the main shopping center entrance and cars from making a left turn to Market from West 78th Street accelerating. A final problem occurs with the proposed signalization of the intersection West 78th Street and Market Boulevard that is currently under consideration by the HRA and City Council. The SRF study concludes Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 7 that the stacking of vehicles waiting for the light to turn green would extend beyond the point at which the curb cut had been proposed. Discussion then focused on the proposed north median cut into the shopping center from West 78th Street. A right-in/right-out only entrance to the main shopping center drive had always been incorporated into plans at this point. The bank's request called for the inclusion of a median cut so that westbound West 78th Street traffic could turn into the shopping center site. Representatives from the bank believe that this entrance is vital to their operation. The SRF study indicated that this could be incorporated from a traffic safety standpoint. It became clear to staff that the only way we could support this was that the shopping center entrance continue to be structured as a right-in/right-out only, thus traffic would be unable to exit the shopping center site at this point crossing 78th Street median to make a left turn onto westbound West 78th Street. Westbound traffic on West 78th Street would, however, be able to turn into the Market Square site. Staff would never want to be in a position of recommending a median cut to serve a specific site. We believe it would be highly inappropriate to do so since this would in essence establish a new turning movement to the benefit of a single property to the detriment of all traffic flowing through the downtown. However, we believe this request is somewhat different. This median cut would not specifically serve the bank but would directly serve the main shopping center driveway system. From the studies that have been done, we believe that it could probably be incorporated in an acceptable manner from a traffic safety standpoint. We must point out though that in spite of the SRF study, the City Engineering Department continues to have some reservations with this request. The ultimate decision as to whether or not this should be included truly rests in the hands of the Commission, City Council and the HRA. Much of this decision will rest on an aesthetic determination as to whether or not the city wishes to see landscaping in the center median island and be compromised to some degree to support the turning movement. Final designs of this curb cut have not been developed and there is some expectation on the part of staff that we would be able to salvage much of the landscaping that occurs in this area. We are currently in the process of asking SRF to look at possible designs for this curb cut in conjunction with their work on signalization of the downtown intersections which is currently in process. Should this curb cut be approved, as called for on this site plan, staff is recommending that the bank be liable for all costs associated with the traffic study and construction of the curb cut. Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 8 Landscaping Staff worked closely with the applicant to design the landscaping plan. Berming is proposed along the northeast and westerly portion of the site. Staff is recommending additional screening along the northerly edge of the site to block the parking lot area from views from West 78th Street. Although the landscaping plan appears to be generally reasonable, we do have several revisions to request. The first is that the plan does not specify type or size of all materials. Final plans should be developed that incorporate this and the size of all materials must meet or exceed normal city, standards. Secondly, a hedge and berm is illustrated along the West 78th Street exposure west of the building. Grading details do not show a berm in this area and staff does not believe a significant berm can be incorporated, given the limited size of this area. We are requesting that details of this area be provided for staff review. In addition, two additional over-story trees should be incorporated in this area. Lighting Lighting locations are illustrated on the plans. Two light poles are proposed. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than .5 ' candles of light at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for approval . Fixtures should match those being used elsewhere in the shopping center. Signage The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the westerly entrance to the site. The area of the monument sign is 70 square feet. The applicant is also showing three 4-foot high wall mounted signs on each building elevation. Staff has some concerns over the signage proposal. Although it is attractive, we believe that the number and size of the signs are excessive relative to other buildings in the shopping center as well as other buildings in the CBD. The normal provisions of the sign ordinance are not applicable within the PUD and all development within it are subject to covenants approved by the city. We note that the 3 wall mounted signs appear appropriate given the multiple exposure this building has but note that the Chanhassen Bank has one major wall mounted sign even though it occupies the entire south end of a city block. Having said that, we are not sure which sign to recommend be deleted since they each appear to be appropriate given the design and location of the Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 9 building. We are, however, going to recommend that the size of these signs be reduced to a maximum height of 3 feet which is consistent with approvals granted for the Medical Arts Building, which was recently considered by the Planning Commission and City Council . Given the number of signs on the building, we cannot support the currently proposed 4 foot height. There is an additional 70 square foot monument sign proposed at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the internal shopping center driveway. We find no justification for this sign since the bank building and all wall mounted signage will be highly visible from this location. We are recommending that this sign be deleted. In its place, there should be directional signage clearly illustrating the appropriate bank entrance and drive-thru exit lanes. Grading/Drainage Specific grading and drainage plans were not prepared for this submittal. Given current conditions on the site and the proposed site plan, grading activity is expected to be minimal. Storm sewer connections into the shopping center system are illustrated in concept, but plans have not been developed. We do not anticipate any significant problems in this regard but final grading and drainage plans should be prepared for approval by the city, in addition to submitting storm water calculations for 10 and 100 year storm events. Watershed District approval of this plan may be required, although they have already reviewed the shopping center plans. Utilities City utilities are available to the site. Final plans for utility connection should be prepared for approval by staff. Park and Trail Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the city accept full park and trail dedication fees as part of this development. Fees are paid at the time of the building permits are requested. Americana Community Bank ' August 7 , 1991 Page 10 COMPLIANCE TABLE WITH PUD ORDINANCE As a PUD, most of the usual ordinance provisions pertaining to dimensional criteria are waived. Required Proposed Building Setback 25 ' 25 ' Hard Surface Coverage N/A 73% Parking Stalls 34 35 SUBDIVISION The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to split the 1. 6 acre outlot into two lots. The northerly lot will have an area of 40, 000 square feet and will be occupied by the bank building. The southerly lot is vacant and there is no development proposed on the site at this time. The final plat needs to be revised to provide the additional 10 feet of right-of- way along West 78th Street that is being required by the City. The following easements are either illustrated on the plat or should be required: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both lots. 2 . A utility easement running in favor of NSP, located to the southeast corner of the building, 10 ' x 30 ' . 3 . The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping center must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. The plat needs to be revised, as does this requested lot division to accommodate the additional 10 feet of right- of-way along West 78th Street that is being required by the city. 4 . Cross access easements need to be provided over the south driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel located south of the bank on Outlot A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT This application is consistent with the overall planned unit development concept for Market Square. The only change is the curb cut and median cut access point off of West 78th Street. As stated Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 11 before, a study was conducted by Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch supporting this amendment. While we believe that this proposal is consistent with the PUD guidelines established, we note that at the time of writing the PUD agreement, development contract and final plat for Market Square, they have not yet been finalized or recorded. A condition should be added that no construction is to occur on the bank property until this documentation has been completed to the satisfaction of the city and a construction time table has been established for interior streets and utilities on the Market Square site that will be necessary to support the bank. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #91-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 29, 1991, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Sign plans should be revised to eliminate the monument sign, reduce the wall sign height to 3 feet and incorporate requested directional signage. 2 . Additional landscaping shall be provided along the north edge of the site as proposed in the staff report. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval. 3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. If the West 78th Street curb cut is approved, the applicant shall be required to compensate the City for all costs related to its design and construction. 4 . Revise architectural plans as follows: • Incorporate dormers of increased size or other acceptable measures to enhance the design of the roof line. • Provide details of HVAC screening. Americana Community Bank ' August 7, 1991 Page 12 • Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. • Provide details of building exterior treatment indicating consistency with shopping center construction. • Eliminate the proposed building addition from the plans since adequate parking cannot be provided on site. • Revise plans as necessary to ensure that a 25 foot setback is provided to all portions of the building, including the entrance canopy. 5. Revise the plans as required to ensure that room is provided for safe turning movements for cars exiting the drive-thru lanes. " Subdivision "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #91-8 as shown on the plat dated July 29, 1991, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 2 . Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. b. A 10 ' x 30' utility easement located to the southeast corner of the bank building running in favor of NSP. c. The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping center must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. The plat needs to be revised, as does this requested lot division to accommodate the additional 10 feet of right-of-way along West 78th Street that is being required by the city. d. Cross access easements need to be provided over the south driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel located south of the bank on Outlot A. " Planned Unit Development Amendment "The Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to PUD #89-2 as shown on plans dated July 29, 1991. " Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission reviewed this item on their August 7, 1991 agenda. The applicants indicated that they were comfortable with the recommendations in the staff report. Most of the Planning Commission comments focused on two issues, including building architecture and the inclusion of a median break in West 78th Street. On the first issue, the Planning Commission addressed architectural concerns in detail . Staff had worked with the applicant extensively to revise architectural plans and a number of changes had been incorporated; however, we continued to be of the opinion that the roof line as presented gave a somewhat massive appearance. We noted to the Planning Commission that as an outlot on the Market Square site, a PUD condition for the Market Square development comes into play. This condition requires that buildings constructed on outlots be architecturally consistent with Market Square. The bank attempted to achieve this goal while at the same time recognizing that it is across the street from other buildings such as the Hospitality Suites. The Commission's comments on the building were rather severe. They believed that the appearance was not generally one of "an inviting" type of structure and that there was a massive feel to it. Some suggestions included modifying roof lines, enlarging windows and altering color schemes. On the matter of the median break that is called for in the plans, staff indicated that in all honesty that there was some difference of opinion at a staff level as to whether or not this was reasonable. The City Engineer continues to have reservations with this proposal that are fully understood by Planning staff; however, at the same time we believe it is not unreasonable to think that there should be a northern entrance into the shopping center including a median break. As we indicated in the staff report, there is also a design issue in that median breaks such as this should be limited only to major site entrances for uses such as the shopping center and not individual buildings. The Planning Commission strongly agreed with us on this point. The current proposal complies with this standard since the median break serves the main shopping center driveway and not the bank site. The other design issue is that a median of this type is likely to compromise the landscaping theme on West 78th Street, and this is something that the City Council and HRA may want to evaluate this. However, the Planning Commission discussion regarding the median break was extremely favorable. Each of the members of the Commission voted to support it. Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 14 The Commission ultimately recommended that the plans be approved and sent to the City Council. The applicant was strongly encouraged to rework architectural plans to accommodate the concerns and issues that have been raised. This matter would normally have come before the City Council on August 26, 1991. However, staff is attempting to work with the time demands of the bank, who are under regulatory requirement to open before the end of the year. We spoke with them on the morning after the Planning Commission meeting and indicated a reluctance to take a plan containing unresolved architectural issues to the City Council . The bank's representative indicated a strong desire to work with the city to resolve these architectural issues. They believe that a plan could be presented to the City Council that would accommodate most of these concerns and if approved, final details could be worked out with staff after the fact. We agreed that if an acceptable plan could not be developed prior to the City Council meeting that this item would be deleted at the applicant 's request and held over to August 26th. We regret that this puts us in a somewhat uncomfortable position of bringing to you a set of plans that have yet to be refined. However, we are trying to balance this by attempting to meet the bank's time constraints if this is at all feasible. The Planning Commission revised conditions pertaining to the architectural design of the building. These changes have been reflected below. However, pending submission of final architectural plans by the bank, staff believes that we may recommend further changes in these conditions based upon final plat. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Site Plan The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Site Plan Review #91-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 29, 1991, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Sign plans should be revised to eliminate the monument sign, reduce the wall sign height to 3 feet and incorporate requested directional signage. 2 . Additional landscaping shall be provided along the north edge of the site as proposed in the staff report. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 15 permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval. 3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. If the West 78th Street curb cut is approved, the applicant shall be required to compensate the City for all costs related to its design and construction. 4 . Revise architectural plans as follows: • Incorporate dormers of increased size or other acceptable measures to enhance the design of the roof line. • Provide details of HVAC screening. • Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. • Provide details of building exterior treatment indicating consistency with shopping center construction. • Eliminate the proposed building addition from the plans in part because we would never be necessarily approving the proposed addition. • Revise plans as necessary to ensure that a 25 foot setback is provided to all portions of the building, including the entrance canopy. 5. Revise the plans as required to ensure that room is provided for safe turning movements for cars exiting the drive-thru lanes and submit the same for staff approval. 6. Parking stalls located to the south of the site shall be designated for employees only.11 Subdivision The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision #91-8 as shown on the plat dated July 29, 1991, with ' the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 2 . Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 16 b. A 10 ' x 30 ' utility easement located to the southeast corner of the bank building running in favor of NSP. c. The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping center must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. The plat needs to be revised, as does this requested lot division to accommodate the additional 10 feet of right-of-way along West 78th Street that is being required by the city. d. Cross access easements need to be provided over the south driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel located south of the bank on Outlot A. " Planned Unit Development Amendment The Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to PUD 89-2 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Staff report dated 10/8/90. 2 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated July 29, 1991. 3 . Americana Community Bank Traffic Study dated June 5, 1991. 4 . Project statement. 5 . Plans dated July 29, 1991. 6. Minutes of the August 7, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. J ITY O F DATE: Oct, 4 fl , 1989 C.C. DATE: Oct. 23 , 1, i47 • N HAS AS - CASE NO: .a� 6 Site Plan Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for 14 , 000 Sq. Ft. Bank and Offic Building - Crossroads National Bank r Z LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Market Boulevard and West 79th Q Street - Parts of Lots 5-7, Block 1 , Frontier (.) Development Park ._.� APPLICANT: TCNB Incorporated Tom Mork 10201 Wayzata Blvd. Jim Ruckle Minnetonka, MN 55343 Shea Architects Q Butler Square, Suite 10 100 North 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 5540: PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Bdsiness District and BG, General Business District ACREAGE: 2.4 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- BH; railroad tracks & Chan Bowl QS- BH; vacant QE- BE; vacant W- BG; vacant - ponding area WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is fairly level unimproved property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial `� --�, ViiE ' tut, 'i :' "AA. •. - III WAN_ illS � r � � 1pI �a •• - Rn 9.1 .; Se '. J'6- ttos3."- AV* 424ik lip:V!..... - - ` _.,_ :filli ._ - lobs. ' �, 'w4was A� i oa ` L OT U S � .mss ` ra �r.>a �a IRV--- - ar W t.:16 1x.11 IM •d ,41.1 u 1 ` *� tIte �, II oci° c �.%. ia �l'W "'e m • BV \ is l4Gl �I t vouunr,._.1.1.11r..1 1 7.4fratt . . F MOM I -‘°-' 1"auga4e .. P NV Air (. Imitv..1. "pi RS , ov` 3.. " *4%.41 - 44° 0 4 r . E � _- - 7,1 \ � z �1 J ! AYt� i# ) �� s . - 11. 0 cdirm f N./min ,i1 . sA. , ,, a I 44% k; gii II . - a tw--- -'S ‘- -: � 111p% `d� Iii =r �� .a` �► � ' R4 ma tie* l 01101.V.."11 . _. .t 221 C-eV4s �,.=+WI"... • 1 + N` 1, Mir. •rte_ W,w 4:401-111111116 �01 l t ;*r�11F441 ilt irjrakiii : _ jra10%•it Walla& 111111111 blk '';e1 ----Wilda& 1/6,'ft Attablis .:•. ilp _ ' iicmigir - 1-4--"---10: aid* il . a : .7,..,....;.........m.:13,..„,....7::. Limit. r 7.. . aff..4=-, ,- ,wt.ii.... I 1 • 12in lit - 1.11111.1 MP fryg LIV ENE rm.", ipp,m . - ,. - 'negraa- =if.47,-"F. l'il :7;15figt r 1� �n �;� i,�- 4'14L 11111111111 3G -- ■• I=i�� III Ifi //� r _Illhilbh"' Fin Q I: `�� ---------frirli"1111°0 5 .71- 11111-141.3 ilirillimai ; ...tili ....,..-_iii.,_ , coif lari.l..t . - -_-----___-:co ...=____-_.:= ilabb..---4 .4... r: 00- . _, ... ......-• -it V f \ �//) ! any mv.sk F • ............ .........„ iaii,_ al 11111r dif;i4... Iti. t,:pii.:::4;;;;;;:ii4.-- is gb ■r;1 s'..7*- tg glif ` l' 41 int • by \, -. Q� livar • _ SIN-:::;11047: • ; ..;,� 1 .• .004....:( L Ri e -, t IN�lEN c Al Crossroads Nn_ional Bank October 4 , 1989 i ' _ •: Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Financial institutions are a permitted use in the BE and BG : ." Districts . _Ak}�" Section 20-715 and 20-755 requires in the BE District a minimum� ...'� l :$, -- lot area of 20,000 square feet, lot frontage of 100 feet, lot `'- depth of 150 feet and a maximum lot coverage 65% (70% in BG District) . --- The setbacks for the BE District are 25 feet front, 20 feet for rear yard and 10 feet for the side yard setbacks. The setback for BG District is 25 feet front and rear and 10 feet on the side yards . The maximum height for a structure is two stories for the principle structure and one story for the accessory structure in BE and 3 stories (40 ' ) in BG District. There is no minimum setback for off-street parking areas when it abuts a railroad right-of-way except as provided in Sections 20-1191 and 20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements . Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land between abutting right-of-way and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40 feet and a hedge wall or berm of at least two feet. Section 20-1192 requires interior property lines to be' landscaped with one tree per 40 feet. Section 20-1211 requires interior landscaping for vehicular use areas. Section 20-1125 requires for office three parking spaces for each 1 , 000 square feet of gross floor area and one parking space every 250 square feet of floor space for a financial institute. REFERRAL AGENCIES Building Inspector Attachment #1 Fire Inspector Attachment #2 City Engineer Attachment #3 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to develop a bank and office building with a total square footage of 14,000 square feet ( including a future 4 ,000 sq. ft. addition) . The building is located at the northeast corner of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The proposed site is part of Lots 5-7, Block 1, Frontier Development 410 410 Crossroads National Bank October 4 , 1989 Page 3 Park which is owned by the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment -r Authority. The applicant is currently negotiating with the HRA to purchase the property. As part of the agreement, the City is platting the subject property and adjacent property also under the ownership of the HRA. A condition of site plan approval will be for the preliminary and final plat to be approved and recorded with Carver County. The site is in both the BG and BH District. This is due to the fact that the old district boundaries do not conform to the pre- sent Market Boulevard alignment. The site plan meets conditions of either district but a rezoning of the property should occur during the plat procedure to provide consistency. The City will initiate the request. Site Plan Circulation The bank is oriented towards West 79th Street with a drive-thru area located adjacent to Market Boulevard. The design of the r site plan allows easy flow for the drive-thru tellers and allows Iseparate access for parking and entering the bank and office areas . F Market Boulevard, once connected to Hwy. 5, will become a major roadway entering downtown Chanhassen. The Market Boulevard curb cut will be an entrance only. A left turn lane will be provided into the site from southbound Market BouleZard. Due to the high traffic levels that are expected, staff is recommending that a right turn deceleration lane should be provided to accommodate traffic entering the site from Market Boulevard. In addition, a bituminous sidewalk is located on the east side of Market Boulevard from West 78th Street to "Bowling Alley Lane" and con- ' tinues east on "Bowling Alley Lane" . Staff is recommending-that f a 6 ' concrete sidewalk be located south from "Bowling Alley Lane" to West 79th Street on the east side of Market Boulevard. To accommodate the right turn lane on Market Boulevard and the 6 foot concrete side sidewalk, the 44 ' right-of-way will have to be expanded. At the most, an additional 20 feet of right-of-way would be required. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to design the deceleration lane and sidewalk to deter- mine the exact amount of additional right-of-way which is required. Once the amount of additional right-of-way is deter- mined, the site plan will have to be revised to reflect the new westerly lot line (to maintain proper setbacks) . This revision can be easily accommodated by shifting the entire site plan to the east. .The most easterly curb cut on West 79th Street is approximately 75 feet from the West 79th Street-Market Boulevard intersection. L Crossroads National Bank yrs "=:_' r•: October 4 , 1989 ' s ' Page 4 -., Staff would prefer the exit be further separated from "the,:'inte7 •_ section (100 ' - 150 ' ) . Shifting the site plan to the east:to... accommodate the additional right-of-way on Market Boulevard wi .� provide additional separation between the exit and the inter'sec= ` � tion (approximately 100 ' ) . � �� N The east access on West 79th Street is located on the east 'lotp ..,r.:n line and the adjacent lot. In the future the easterly access on .. West 79th Street will also act as an access to the adjacent lot when it is developed. Since the access is crossing property lines, cross easements must be provided. Parking, Landscaping and Elevation Using the calculation for parking for financial institutions at one parking space per 250 square feet of building area, a total of 56 parking spaces would be required. The applicant is pro- viding 67 parking spaces which includes 2 handicapped parking spaces . The 67 spaces exceeds the requirements for financial institutions and offices . The area for cars using the drive-thru provides adequate stacking distance. Page L-1 of the plans provides proposed landscaping for the site. The applicant is providing the required landscaping except for hedges required on the berm located between the south parking _ area and West 7.8'9th Street. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide the necessary landscaping on the berm between the parking area and West 79th Street. Staff is not requiring internal landscaping along the most easterly lot line since the parking area and access will be expanded into the adjoining lot. The building is one story with a tower at the southwest corner. - The building is brick with bronze metal roof with HVAC enclosed internally. There are 6 covered drive-thru tellers connecting the building with a tower made of similar materials which features a time and date sign. Signage The applicant is proposing one pylon sign, several -Oirectional signs and a time and temperature sign above the drive-thru. The pylon sign is located at the entrance from Market Boulevard and is 45 square feet in size. The BB and BG District permits one pylon sign/lot not to exceed 64 square feet and the height of the pylon sign is limited to 20 feet. A detail on the pylon sign providing the height of the sign shall be provided prior to City Council approval. The time and temperature sign is located on the north and west side of the tower and is 42 square feet (3 ' x 14 ' ) . Sign permits are required for the pylon and directional signs. The time and temperature sign are permitted without a permit. Any additional signage will require a permit. AM f Crossroads National Bank October 4 , 1989 '" Page 5 Grading, Drainage & Utilities IPlease refer to the Senior Engineering Technician 's memorandum. Temporary Facility IPage 1B of the site plan illustrates a modular banking facility and a phasing plan for the construction of a permanent facility. 1 The applicant is proposing to utilize the temporary facility in order to open up the bank prior to the permanent building being completed. The temporary building is a 24 ' x 74 ' modular constructed building. The temporary building is a fully self Zcontained building with all necessary eqiupment including two drive up lanes. Crossroads National Bank will be prepared to open their bank for business in the near future and the permanent I building will not be completed until the end of 1990 or early 1991. The temporary bank facility will be located within the easterly I parking lot. All of the parking areas used for the temporary banking facility will be paved with the curb and gutter and landscaped as proposed on the overall site plan. The building Iwill have footings, will be hooked up to sewer and water and will be handicapped accessible. The temporary facility will utilize the easterly full access on West 79th Street. A condition of I site plan approval will be that the temporary facility will have to be removed within one week of the permanent facility receiving a certificate of occupancy. I- RECOMMENDATION -c. ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #89-6 for Crossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated September 22, 1989 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be platted and recorded with-Carver County. 2. The City shall process a rezoning of the property as part of 1 the platting procedure. 3. The site plan shall be revised to include a right turn dece- leration lane on Market Boulevard and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Market Boulevard. The site plan shall be revised to reflect additional right-of-way necessary for the deceleration lane and sidewalk and to maintain I I required setbacks. , I Crossroads National Bank . . October 4 , 1989 )..t.,:.,,,i,. t Page 6 ! 4 . The applicant shall provide cross easements for the `joint :;_:. access on West 79th Street. •ae�t ;-;`�z... '` 5. The applicant shall provide revised landscaping plan pro-' •tyU n necessarylandscaping on the berm between the parking � :ii vide g area and West 79th Street. ,..c. . ' e5 - 6. The applicant shall provide a detail on the pylon sign pro viding the height of the sign prior to City Council approval. - 7 . The temporary facility will have to be removed within one week of the permanent bank facility receiving a certificate of occupancy. 8 . The applicant shall comply with any and all Watershed District requirements. _ 9 . The city will monitor the site for erosion control problems and if deemed necessary additional erosion control may be required in the future. _ 10. Exact storm sewer connections and design shall be verified in the field and approved by the City' s Engineering Department prior to construction. 11. The exit on West 79th Street shall be moved a minimum of 100 feet from the West 79th Street/Market Boulevard intersection. 12. The applicant shall illustrate how the 4aster1y parking lot will be modified in the future when the adjacent parcel is _ developed." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION _ The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan- with lanwith staff ' s conditions with the following changes : 6. The temporary facility will have to be removed within one week of the permanent bank facility receiving a-.certi•ficate of occupancy, notwithstanding the foregoing, such temporary facility shall be removed within 9 months of the issuance of the building permit for the permanent bank facility. 11. Future addition designated on the plans are not part of the - site plan approval. In addition, the Planning Commission wanted staff to provide the _ City Council with the details for the lighting of the site. The applicant has provided the details showing the type of light fix- tures used on the site and where they are located. _ Crossroads National Bank • October 4 , 1989 r Page 7 STAFF UPDATE • -r • The applicant has provided a revised site plan which provides the additional right-of-way required for the right turn lane on Market Boulevard and sidewalk. The site plan shifts the entire 7. project to the east and provides a connection between the drive- thru and bank parking area. The amended plan was submitted on October 18 , 1989 , and staff has not had time to completely review the site plan. Staff is providing the Council with a copy of the amended site plan for their review. Staff will be performing a complete review of the site plan and believes the changes are minimal and the site plan still meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Unless directed otherwise, staff will admi- nistratively approve the amended site plan. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION #89-6 for Crossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated September 22, 1989 and subject to the following conditions : 1 . The property shall be platted and recorded with Carver County. 2 . The City shall process a rezoning of the property at part of the platting procedure. • 3 . The site plan shall be revised to include a right turn dece- leration lane on Market Boulevard and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Market Bou,levard. The site plan shall be revised to reflect additional right-of-way necessary for the deceleration lane and sidewalk and to. maintain required setbacks. 4 . The applicant shall provide cross easements for the joint access on West 79th Street. -- 5. The applicant shall provide revised landscaping plan pro- viding necessary landscaping on the berm between the parking area and West 79th Street. 6. The temporary facility will have to be removed within one week of the permanent bank facility receiving a certificate of occupancy, notwithstanding the foregoing, such temporary facility shall be removed within 9 months of the issuance of the building permit for the permanent bank facility. 7 . The applicant shall comply with any and all Watershed District requirements. 8. The city will monitor the site for erosion control problems and if deemed necessary additional erosion control may be required in the future. •Crossroads National Bank October 4 , 1989 Page 8 ' 9. Exact storm sewer connections and design shall be verified �t the field and approved by the City's Engineering Departaien � t prior to construction. 10. The exit on West 79th Street shall be moved a minimum of 100 feet from the West 79th Street/Market Boulevard intersection. 11 . Future addition designated on the plans are not part of the site plan approval. 12. Lighting to be consistent with Market/West 79th Street lighting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Ron Julkowski dated September 27, 1989. 2. Memo from Mark Littfin dated September 27, 1989. 3 . Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1989. 4 . Letter from Crossroads National Bank dated September 12, 1989. 5 . Letter from Crossroads National Bank dated September 11, 1989. 6 . Memo from Jo Ann Olsen dated September 20, 1989. 7. Planning Commission minutes dated October 4 , 1989. 8 . Site plan dated September 22, 1989. 9 . Site plan dated October 18, 1989. tv Counncil !Meeting - n-t lr 23, 1989 whole thing and you were suggesting that we go ahead with that company to do the whole thing. That was my misunderstanding. 1 Chry Warren: No, it wood just be for the feasibility study and then after that we would have a handle on the plans and specifications which would take a separate authorization. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Mawr Chniel: I had one other question on that. Can that be done in that one day rather than incorporating another $800.00 charge? Cary Warren: It's a potter of hydraulics. The Pt xray Hill tower being in a high pressure zone doesn't always drain out in one day. It will depend on the system pressures at the tine. We'll do it as fast as we can but it may take 2 ( days at the maximum. T Councilman Workman moved, Cburcilwcran Dimler seconded to authorize inspection - study for rehabilitation of M rray Hill water tower. All voted in favor and the ration carried. J. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A BANK AND OFFICE BUILDING, NORTHEAST CORNER OF . •r BO LEVARD AAD NEST 79TH STREET, CROSSROADS NATIONAL MARKET _ ONAL BANK. FCouncilman Boyt: I will start this by apologizing to the group that brought it in. They asked me to call if I had questions and I just got so busy I didn't have time to get back to theme Reading through, this is the Crossroads National Bank. My problem here is understanding the nature of the temporary building. I think that it's one thing to have a temporary building while they're building the permanent building but as I read through the Minutes of the Planning Cxrvission, the impression I got was a temporary building was going in and then they were going to begin pursuing the permanent structure. I'm uncomfortable with that arrangement. Maybe they can clear same things up about it. Are you open to hearing fram then? Mawr andel: Sure. Tort brk: Good evening Mr. Bout. I'm Tian ?brk and we visited over the phone briefly. In actual fact, as I understand it, we are here tonight to gain a building permit approval for both our permanent building and our -rcdular (� building inasmuch as we are well underway in teams of getting our.bank organized. We have received charter approval from, the office of the comptroller of currency. We are currently awaiting approval of our holding company frau the r Federal Reserve Bank. Cur strategy in beginning in a modular building was to essentially give ourselves sane time to establish ourselves as a business entity. To establish systems. TO get our staff up and running. To narketi get a t rg presence in the ccnrwnity and it is our intent to begin construction on the er permanent building just as soon as we possibly can. Hopefully in 1990 but in reviewing the process and in getting to this point, we spent a lot of time talking to a lot of bankers, both in this metropolitan area and even as far south as St. Louis where there has been a lot of denoteable bank charter activity in the pest 24 months approximately. %b make a determination for I 4 • �+- �.,1 fit,,,., t��. _ City Council Meets 'toter 23, 1989 ourselves that such an undertaking is not marketing suicide top modular building and we have been assured and reassured by evezybodv.. - .. talked to that it is a smart strategy. It gives you a chance to-establish.,< presence and that is one of the principle reasons why we wouldlike -to; - t -;- a modular building. It is not our intent and in actual fact we rani the'risk-�• = � forfeituue of the land through our purchase agreement with the MA if 'we=do. begin construction and complete construction of the building within I believer`s: ': 2 year time frame although we'd certainly to initiate construction ug hope that. Councilman Hoyt: So you're buying the land flan the ISA? • ' - r Tan Mork: Correct. Councilman Bort: And you're pay-.Ing then about how much? Tan Mork: $4.50 a square foot. Councilman Boyt: Okay. And that's up front money? • Zorn Mork: Up front money meaning? That's with all the improvements in. Councilman Boyt: As soon as you sign the deal with the KRA you're giving thea $4.00 and something a foot? Tan Mork: We have already negotiated a purchase agreement that has been signed. It was actually signed back in May and under the terms of the purchase agree'ent there's a one year window to effect closing of the property. Councilman Boyt: Well you're investing a considerably amount of money in this temporary structure. I think it was samething like $200,000.00? Tan Mork: That's correct. That's what our initial eistimate5 are. Councilman Boyt: That includes I imagine the asphalt and that sort of thing? Tam Mork: Correct. All of the grading. 'he asphalt. Sewer and water installation. Lighting and so on. Councilman Bovt: See, %hat I see you doing. gat makes me mcarnfortable is I sort of see this as you just described it. As a test marketing situation. gen I think of temporary bank buildings, they're usually associated Kith existing banks that have an equity situation in which there's no question the building's going in. 'hen I see discussions about potentially 2 years frau now and understanding that it's conceiveable that 2 years from now you could just start construction or 2 years frau row you could cane back in and negotiate with the KRA to get an extension, I think it'd be mach more typical if your modular building went in at the point at which you were begirrdng construction on your permanent building. I don't krow. Does anyone else on the Council have that concern? Tan Mork: I guess I would like to add that in terms of how it has been done in the past, I can point to a number of examples in the metro area in the last 10 • years that have actually spent up to the first 18 months of their existence in a — 5 Council Meeting - Oc+ -'ler 23, 1989 : ".. " 1 ' modular building and I think, I want to be careful that we differentiate between talking about test marketing and establishing a marketing presence. In actual fact we have gone through a number of microscopes to get this far, not the least of which has been approval of an overall marketing plan by both the Comptroller of Currency currently being scrutinized by the Federal Reserve Bank and also more importantly to us, the investing public to which we are selling stock in our bank. So I want to rake certain that it's understood that we are not embarking on a test marketing case. We just hope to establish a marketing presence and turn our attention to issues which we feel at this time are 1 incredibly important such as establishing our operating systems. Developing presence in the market place. Establishing a loan portfolio. Developing a deposit base so that we have a stable enterprise. We will open the bank with no 1 less than 2.5 million dollars in capital so I don't believe we can be classified as an organization that doesn't have the capital as sane other banks that have used a modular building as an expansion vehicle for example so I want to rake certain that it's understood that we are not an undercapitalized bank by any 1 stretch of the imagination. I believe the other bank in Chanhassen has approximately the same level of capital after 70 years in existence so we're opening up with the same level of equity capital or approximately the same as 11 the existing bank in Chanhassen. Councilman Boyt: Are you in partnership with another bank? 1 Tan Mork: Ab we're not. It's an independent group of organizers. There's no legal or ownership affiliation with any existing bank holding company. 1 Councilman Boyt: So now you're starting? Tom ?brk: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: With your modular building and 2.5 million in capital? Tan Mork: That's correct. 1 Councilman Workman: Ttri if I could maybe add to sore of Bill's comments and maybe what he's getting at a little bit. The HRA agreement is basically, you ' term it basically a window or window of opportunity. Basically you're not going to be closing on this property until the permanent facility is ready to go. Tom Mork: No, that's not correct. We will close on the property prior to next May. We will be closing on the property prior to construction of the permanent building. Councilman Workman: Chn you maybe explain to Cbz ncil the amendment that you're proposing? • I lbrk: Certainly. Under the existing purchase agreement we have, well let ane back up a little bit. ie would like to install the physical improvements to the site for a modular building at a minimum no later than this fall inasmuch as we feel that as a result of our capitalization efforts, our hiring efforts, our development of the marketing plan, we should be open for business sometime in early 1990. Frankly we hoped we would be ready for business by the end of 1989 but as I found out Pram talking to other bankers that have done the same thing that I'm doing, there seers to be no end to sane of the delays that you 6 . • City Council ? eti• 70 :tober 23, 1989 encounter. However, to this point we have been unable to close on the property for any number of reasons and what we have requested is an amendment to the purchase agreement that would essentially allow us access to the site, ca'rpletely at our risk, to enable us to go on and make whatever physical - impzoveents we need to make in order to accommodate our modular building. Principally that would involve same grading according to an approved grading plan. The installation of utilities to the modular bank site. The installation _ of lighting in the parking lot. Paving the parking lot and the construction of a foundation for the modular building and ultimately the installation of the modular building when it's delivered, hopefully as of now in the middle of January or early January. Cul sense is that if we're not able to complete the improvements, particularly the paving, within approximately the next 30 days or at least no later than the end of November, then we will be forced to open the bank &'retire after the frost is out in 1990. Creep in mind that we have been - undertaking out capitalization efforts now for approximately 60 days. We have a number of people who have paid in considerably sums. I think the paper quoted about a million and a half dollars and that's what we have paid in so far. That _ potential delay presents same significant difficulties as far as we're concerned in dealing with our potential investor base so that's the reason for the aremdhent is to accomodate those site improvements. Mayor C7miel: Any other questions Tran? Councilman Workman: No, I don't. — Councilman Hoyt: How would this be different than saying to same other business in town you can open up a Quonset hut and run your business out of it until you've got everything in place to build the permanent structure that we've — approved? Is this somehow different than that? Tom ?brk: Well I guess I came at it from a biased viewpoint but I believe it — is. I believe for one thing the opportunity to have a new business in town with the level of capital that we intend to bring, that sae will bring, is in itself somewhat unique. I furthermore believe that the addition of a commercial bank to this marketplace is an enhancement to the consumers in this area. I note with interest that already prior to our even opening the doors, the other bank in Chanhassen has expanded it's hours from 3:00 lobby hours to 4:30 and introduced full service Saturday morning banking. We expect that the addition — of ourselves in the marketplace will just do nothing more but further enhance the banking climate for consumers in the Chanhassen area. Furthermore, this is not a Quonset hut. This is a building that is built by the Sun Corporation which for for the last 18 years has done nothing but construct perrytnent rcdular banking facilities. Oirrently for example Norwest Corporation has installed a building for one of their branch facilities on a permanent basis up in Anoka. While the renderings that you may have seen I don't think do justice to the building, when we're talking about total cost of improvements of an excess of $200,000.00, I don't think that that represents an insignificant level of investment on our part to satisfy our needs on an interim basis. — Oxa,cilman Hoyt: Everything's relative and I didn't mean to imply that your building was going to be a Quonset hut. You're talking about building a permanent structure that's around 2 million dollars so a considerably greater investment than what you're going to have in the temporary sturcture, which I guess is pretty natural. I think the Council, hopefully the other people on the f city Council Meeting - r- er 23, 1989 Council are going to be convinced that we're not sitting in a situation in which this group of investors is trying out Chanhassen to see if a bank will work because we're now, shortly later in this meeting we're going to be looking at a shopping center which is talking about a significantly greater investment than the bank is and I guess without having them here, I'm just curious as to how they feel about having a temporary bank structure just down the block and across - the street. I don't know. I'm rambling so I guess I'm done. !laver Qmiel: There were same concerns I had too gill about that modular building. My main concern was whether or not it was in compliance with the State of Minnesota requirements for a temporary structure and whether it did have the state of approval by the State arra it does so that made me feel a little more comfortable with it. I also feel that same of the concerns that Bill has had has been some of my concerns. One basically is to the construction start and they're saying it's being just a little bit of an open period of time. as we discussed the situation. I feel that the bank, with all intent, plans on starting construction i would just as soon see that construction start as early as possible. I'm sure you'd welcome that as well. Tam Pork: Absolutely. I think all of us involved in the bank are very reasonable people and certainly recognize the impact of competition. It would not be to our favor when our principle competition in the community is the resident of approximately a 2 million dollar facility, for us to remain in this modular facility for any longer than we absolutely need to until we have our permanent home built for us. I guess if I could just comment on the impact of the neighborhood and sane of the concerns that Mr. Hoyt, you voiced. I think one of the things that has to be considered is that it would be incredibly difficult for a supermarket to operate out of a modular building just because their spacial needs are considerably greater. We can as a result of a growing and initially a zero customer base and a growing customer base, begin in a modular building because we don't have those kinds of space needs. gnat hopefully our growth will be a level that all of us expect it to and we'll be forced to start construction as soon as the frost is out,. I guess if I can give you my commitment that it is not in our intent to be in this building any longer than we absolutely need to. Cb ncilman Hoyt: %hat would happen if your customer base didn't build? Then are you still going to go ahead and build the permanent structure? ?trm Mork: dell, I would say that certainly we can't expect to be at home in a temporary building or modular building forever. In actual fact, we have to construct our permanent building within I believe it's a 2 year timeframe with our agreement with the HRA or we forfeit the lard. Someone else can came in and develop a bank on that site so we absolutely will construct the permanent building under the conditions of the purchase agreement. I don't think there's any question about that. C uncilwaman Dimler: Tom, I have a question. It was mf understanding that you Frere going to build around the modular facility? Tam Mork: Correct. Councilwoman Dimler: Could you explain that? It doesn't look like it tore. _ 8 City Council meting =tober 23, 1989 Tom Mork: We're intending to locate the modular building on the eastern portion of the site. The bulk of the construction activity will be in the central and Western portion of the site and what we have attempted to do is locate the modular building in a fashion such that we can accommodate continuing drive lip traffic through our modular building at the same time that we're building. CouncilwrTan Dimler: mile you're constructing but after your construction, what are you going to do with your modular? Ti Mork: It will be down within a week after we receive our certificate of occupancy. I believe the Planning Cornu ssion further put in the condition that it would be no later than 9 months after the issuance of the building permit for the permanent building and that's a time table that we can certainly live with. Councilwoman Dimler: I misunderstood you then because when I asked that question to you the other day, I thought that you were going to incorporate it into your... Tom Mork: No. Absolutely not. That will be green space when it's all done. Mayor Ch'tiel: Any other questions? Councilman Bout: Can anybody think of a way to add anymore assurance to this list of conditions? Are you going to have, if worse goes to worse arra you do in fact not build, how much money do you have in this piece of property 2 years from now? You've got the $200,000.00 for improvements. Do you have anything else in it? Tom MOrk: Well at that point we would have closed on the property and I believe that the aggregate purchase price is $4.50 times whatever the amount of land is. It's approximately 110,000 square feet. Todd Gerhardt: $470,000.00. Councilman Boyt: So your expenses and liability then would be somewhere around $700,000.00 total? Todd Gerhardt: He's incurred architectural fees and rendering, a site plan so. Councilman Boyt: Well that's a ballpark figure Todd? $700,000.00? Todd Gerhardt: Minimum. Councilman Boyt: I guess I can live with that sort of risk. I would approval of iter 1(j) with the conditions noted in the staff report. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwaman Dimler seconded to approve Site Plan #89-6 for Crossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated September 22, 1989 pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 9 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 6 , 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and Brian Batzli MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning ; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planning Intern PUBLIC HEARING: = PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 5-9 , BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMEMNT PARK (16.77 ACRES) INTO TWO LOTS AND FOUR OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MARKET BOULEVARD, NORTH OF HWY. 5 AND SOUTH OF THE SOO LINE RAILROAD, CROSSROADS PLAZA ADDITION, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Krauss : We should add that that last condition is a new one. Emmings: Yeah , would you say it again? Krauss : What we' re proposing is that , there ' s a problem in there that the underlying zoning does not conform to the new location of Market Blvd . . We have the BH and the BG districts which will be split partially by the new alignment . There' s a corner of the BG comrrercia) area that extends over onto the bank propetty. I think this pretty much outlines it right there. What we want to do is make our zoning map look a little more reasonable by extending the BH district , which is over here , up to the street . So what + we ' re asking is that the future purchaser of Lot 1, the bank, not contest , be required to not contest a city sponsored rezoning . Emriings : So what do you want that last condition to say? Krauss : That the owner of Lot 1, Block 1 agree not to contest the City sponsored rezoning of the entire site to the BH district. Emmings : Are we still in a position with that purchase that we can impose a condition on him at this point in time? Krauss : They haven' t closed on the property. - Emmings: Okay. Conrad : Okay. It is a public hearing . Are there any comments? Erhart moved , Ertnings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Planning Covurtission Me:. J.ng December 6 , 1989 - Page 2 Batzli : Why again do you want to make Outlot A into Lot 2, Block 1 at this time? Krauss : The purpose for that is that what we' d like to call Lot 2 is a buildable lot. That the HRA intends at some point to sell to another purchaser . Conveying it with outlot status means it would have to be replatted to remove that status in the future. It would seem to be a lot - cleaner for all concerned if the HRA just had a simple Lot 2 to deal with than to sell . Batzli : What ' s the down side of doing it now and not leaving it an outlot? Krauss: I don ' t think there is any since the City owns it. It's not as though it ' s an independent owner who can come in and just say, I have a site plan. You have to approve it. It is an HRA controlled parcel . Ellson: When I first read this I got really confused reading the map but - can you point out C again? Just that whole. strip. Even though that one kind of crosses it . Krauss : Well it ' s called D on the other side I think'. Ellson: And like this one crosses over . Ertrtings : No , this whole thing is C all the way down to here . Ellson : That ' s what I was thinking that B maybe crossed it. I don' t have _ anything else to add . Ermings : I don ' t have any other questions . Erhart: I wish I had some questions but I just can' t think of any. Conrad : I can ' t think of any either . Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #89-19 as shown on the preliminary plat dated October 27 , 1989 and subject to the following conditions : 1. The following easements shall be provided : a . A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement will be required on Lot 2, Block 1. b. The final plat should include the typical utility and drainage easements over each lot; 5 feet on side lot lines and 10 feet over the front and rear lot lines . c. An additional utility easement should be shown on the plat for the existing gas line across the northerly lot lines of Outlot E and - Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 . Planning Commission Me. ung December 6, 1989 - Page 3 d. Cross access easement over the southern 50 feet of the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2. The easement shall be 20 feet wide on -" each lot . 2. The final plat should show Outlot A as Lot 2, Block 1. 3. The Lot 1 park dedication fee should be paid as outlined in the HRA ' s purchase agreement at the time of sale. The City reserves the right to acquire park dedication fees on Lot 2 at such time as it is proposed for development . 4 . The owner of Lot 1, Block 1 agree not to contest the City sponsored rezoning of the entire site to the BH district. All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, DIVISION 6, SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE, EXPAND ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIRE FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS. Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . - Erhart : I don ' t really have anything right now ,`add . Maybe after some discussion . - Emmings : I ' ve just got a couple things. On page 6 on item C at the top. Where it says, in the second sentence, low profile, self contained mechanical units which blend in with the building , architecture ar-e exempt from the screening requirement. I wonder if we should add onto that, that unless topography makes them visible to other properties or something like that so that we have an out there to require screening in some odd circumstance. I think the general idea is fine. Krauss: Should we say then may be exempt instead of are? Emmings : Yeah . Or may be exempt. That ' s right. That would be fine. I 'd agree with that change rather than the language I had. That's even broader and I like it better because it gives them the idea that we might accept something other than the screening which I think is fine but it doesn' t make it automatic. If they buy a low profile unit because there might be one that' s obnoxious. Alright. The other thing is, I 'm just glad that Howard wasn' t here to hear you say plain concrete block .- Conrad: Yeah, Howard would not go along with that. i 1K — f ` i., ITY O F f +`2. DPTE: Dec. 6 , 1989 G C.C. : 89: : CASE Prepared by: A1-Jaff/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 16 . 77 Acres into Two Lots and Four Outlots I. 1 Z Q LOCATION: North of Highway 5 , west of Great Plains Boulevard 1 Vand south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. ul _Railroad Dy �y F.i ., rn, '�ta'ar _l Cl. APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen hic:T , Cl. 690 Coulter Drive RE's;=A Chanhassen , MN 55317 E;: 12-13ld _ j • Crete SL "'E' is -/t- } 2 PRESENT ZONING : BG , General Business Dista -B-H--, t Highway and Business Services District ACREAGE: 16 . 7 acres, 730 , 327 square feet i ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - CBD; Central Business District and BG, General Business District S - Highway 5 E - BH; Highway and Business Services District QW - Highway 5 QWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has been extensively altered by the LW recent completion of Market Blvd. and 79th 1--" Street. With exception of two retention L mponds , the larger of which is located west of Market Blvd. , the site is flat and 1 devoid of tree cover . 2000 LAND USE PLAN: General Business and Highway Business !---. i , bj ViffigFt71."\A \ 40 0"t ' tip �� iI .\ ) Rib'e;Wi I 1 inif ...1 , ., IllItr:SL-2 R 4 y,, • - :., .A' Vali. • ' .... 1;: ,:: . ..` LAKE . , RSF _ - - • .•--It.. 11 t 4 . i MIME IBIBIOU ---- - 1 •> ir - ' : .. -'13 d . \ .r alp 4024 1P--7*. . -, R4 • 4- ,,•, 7, _--, ,,,1)..zwr 1,1;.N • \-- ,(44-17 . 1i- ' • '' A ' t, ri- A p.- I , A .. -, • . ,.., . . N A ,, :rat riviirin .., il ,. 1....1.2_4_. . J . 11CMIt11 'MUM am! 4 ..6's.0-iInKai E MN' !• U D �-� R12- OI : r �: . e"�� i rA .,-. R 12 i• IA va ;m es is num !...:;1::111 P� Exim- soma �l�`' threnn! ,- �I i nginaliit� ill"' np��. 4 p irD. i 7 t M a L..' _ - ..,.- -. -,7--.0 I . t 11M13 • 11% ..' illiTii PO, ikty; ‘k‘j UP% t �I/ 1 1 = Llt 5 PI'',"0' = a •� '.1$......l. lir a• II • ,/. 1 01 liZi IF r- ale! amP.oar L `tek ... • r, . a,,, 9: 43qa t 7c, Location f �`''• • proposed Tite , l;�� :im 1 110"10 IliIFRSF •.6.- u6 44 r- - - INNEN L -_r.,ic_>..o'J. 1-' - 7 LAKE SUSAN _.- :- RD , 11 - rlRicE ,�� NE PUD— R 1 , t �� f _ .. , e61. r • . [ Crossroads Plaza Subdivision December 6 , 1989 — Page 2 BACKGROUND In October , 1989 , plans were submitted for the Crossroads National Bank and development started on the site. Plans were approved on October 23 , 1989. The subdivision is being requested primarily so that the City can convey the bank site to the developers, create a second lot for future development and create necessary easements and roads. On December 6 , 1989 , the Planning Commission reviewed and recom- mended approval of the subdivision. Just prior to the meeting with the Planning Commission, staff added Condition #4 which states that the applicant agrees to support a rezoning request of the westerly portion of the site from BG, General Business to BH, Highway and Business District . Staff anticipates the City requesting the rezoning to eliminate the current situation where the bank property is split between the BG and BH districts . Rezoning it to BH will provide continuity with parcels located to the east. ANALYSIS The City, which currently owns the site, is proposing to, sub- divide 16 .77 acres into two lots and four outlots as follows : Lot 1 , Block 1 contains 2 . 47 acres and will be the site of the future Crossroads National Bank. — Lot 2 , Block 1 contains 3 . 02 acres and will 4e reserved for future development. Lot 2 is labeled as Outlot A on the current survey. Staff is recommending that the final plat be revised to plat it as Lot 2 , Block 1 since it will eventually be sold for future development. Outlot B , 1 . 74 acres , contains a drainage pond and may ultimately contain streetscape improvements as it is an entrance into the CBD. Outlot C, 0 . 33 acres, and Outlot D, 0. 55 acres have been established for the future expansion of Highway 5 for ultimate _ right-of-way negotiations with MnDOT. Outlot E, 6 . 14 acres, contains a drainage pond and will be pre- served as such. STREETS In the attached memo, the Senior Engineering Technician addresses the utilization of the existing West 79th Street for access . He is requesting that Lot 2 share a common access driveway with Lot 1 to eliminate traffic congestion on West 79th Street. Provision Crossroads Plaza Subdivision December 6 , 1989 Page 3 of a shared curb cut between Lots 1 and 2 was a condition of approval for the bank. A 20-foot wide cross access easement should be provided over each side of the south 50 feet of the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 ( see attached copy of bank staff report and City Council minutes ) . Market Boulevard is located on the extreme westerly edge of Outlot E connecting West 78th Street with Highway 5 . Acceptable right-of-way for the final design of both streets has been pro- s vided. UTILITY EASEMENTS In the attached memo, the Senior Engineering Technician addresses the utility easements . He is requesting the typical utility and drainage easements over each lot; five feet on side lot lines and 10 feet over the front and rear lot lines . A 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement on the southern border of Lot 2 , Block 1 is required as storm sewer was extended through Lot 2, Block 1 into Lot 1 , BLock 1. An additional utility easement for existing gas lines is requested across the northerly lot lines of Outlot E and Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 . PARK DEDICATION A park dedication fee for the bank site has been negotiated under the purchase agreement from the City' s Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The City reserves the right to open park dedication fees on Lot 2 at such time as it is proposed for development. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission recommended approval of Subdivision Request #89-19 as shown on the preliminary plat dated October 27 , 1989 and subject to the following conditions : 1 . The following easements shall be provided: - A 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement will be required on Lot 2 , Block 1. - The final plat should include the typical utility and drainage easements over each lot; 5 feet on side lot lines and 10 feet over the front and rear lot lines. - An additional utility easement should be shown on the plat - for the existing gas line across the northerly lot lines of Outlot E and Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1. - - Cross access easement over the southern 50 feet of the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 . The easement shall be 20-feet wide on each lot. Crossroads Plaza Subdivision December 6 , 1989 Page 4 2 . The final plat should show Outlot A as Lot 2 , Block 1 . 3 . The Lot 1 park dedication fee should be paid as outlined in the HRA' s purchase agreement at the time of sale. The City reserves the right to acquire park dedication fees on Lot 2 at such time as it is proposed for development. 4 . The applicant and purchaser of Lot 1, Block 1 agrees to sup- port a rezoning request of the westerly portion of the site from BG, General Business and BH, Highway and Business District. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Subdivision Request #89-19 as shown on the preliminary plat dated October 27, 1989 and subject to the following conditions : 1 . The following easements shall be provided: - A 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement will be,required on Lot 2 , Block 1 . - The final plat should include the typical utility and drainage easements over each lot; 5 feet on side lot lines and 10 feet over the front and rear lot lines . - An additional utility easement should be shown on the plat for the existing gas line across the northerly lot lines of Outlot E and Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 . - Cross access easement over the southern 50 feet of the common _ lot line between Lots 1 and 2 . The easement shall be 20-feet wide on each lot. 2. The final plat should show Outlot A as Lot 2 , Block 1. 3 . The Lot 1 park dedication fee should be paid as outlined in the HRA' s purchase agreement at the time of sale. The City reserves the right to acquire park dedication fees on Lot 2 at such time as it is proposed for development. 4 . The applicant and purchaser of Lot 1, Block 1, agrees to sup- port a rezoning request of the westerly portion of the site from BG, General Business and BH, Highway and Business — District. " 1 _ . Crossroads Plaza Subdivision December 6 , 1989 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1 . Senior Engineering Technician report dated November 29 , 1989 . 2 . Preliminary plat of Crossroads Plaza Addition dated October 27, 1989 . 3 . Existing features map. 4 . Staff report and minutes for the Crossroads Bank dated October 23 , 1989 . 5 . Planning Commission minutes date December 6 , 1989. CITYbOF • CHANHASSEN 1:!1111h1r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937.1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN D UM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planning Intern FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician tik-- DATE: November 29 , 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Crossroads Plaza File No. 89-18 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat of Crossroads Plaza dated October 27 , 1989 , prepared by BRW, Inc. , I find the overall plan is generally acceptable with the following conditions: 1 . The final plat should include the typical utility and drainage easements over each lot, i . . 5 feet on side lot lines and 10 feet over the front and" rear lot lines . 2. With recent development on Lot 1 , Block 1, storm sewer was extended through Lot 2 , Block 1. Therefore, a 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement will be required on Lot 2, Block 1 ( see attached) . • 3 . Across the northerly lot lines of Outlot E and Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 , an additional utility easement should be shown on the plat for the existing gas line. -= Attachment: Easement map. - - c: Gary Warren , City Engineer �' ' l 1 t 1 1 p....... .( . .; si A t ) i .._ :. %• ,- . 4%. t 419 , ;1 ..,.. I t4 i � � ' ... 2 J . 44 \ riii)/. / / . , ."--- • , ,,_,., •,. ,,\\ . ,p, . _ ..., , _ ,Ae , N , it __ ,5, . ..„. a ,-----71/ / al 411),1 44hd • • \ # f it 14;, ,,I _ _._ •ii -. i_ I3 ;Li/10J / ,. 40,1 7• t 1 i.i. ` E _ _ • . • . .__. ..(:: a ei . - _ - _ I 1 nn • zO 1 In _ > 7) Zo J.� 4 -10 � 7 • D — NI a a #. � 411- - 4 (r- ... fes,, , . ,. ii, • At yy. ® b •l i, .1,.a' , _ I' r ��_ ❑❑II T1 - 1 63- • •• _ I il li iiiiiimil. 1 : L. .. %gall s',' %:q.', I i 11111111 s i. i � i — r I : ..ttf ' I t 1 !.,, — 1 1 \ I `- �0j— 1 4011>� •),. \ �' !fir' *ea / ;Ma�:. �� 1 ` \, r sr rid ' _ �i 1 4.- ��, r 7.� -----, ,gig, Ong t n i I* ._ __>•-,-.' ' ryjit k,11 e ,..Yh r t pi � ' . WOODBRIDGE `� o.,�a Sr,edArchitects Inc ...,, ' l; 10201 Wayzata Boulevard SITE PLAN • ••• ..W w�".�„'O"'..., e�m°s'u'ia ' Minnetonka Mn. 55343 Go.. 3 , CITYOF -- r`` 1111! CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: January 9, 1992 SUBJ: Organizational Items a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair The Planning Commission should make nominations and select a Chair and Vice Chair for 1992 . y b. Adoption of Planning Commission By-laws The By-laws should be reviewed and adopted every year by the Planning Commission. The Commission should discuss any comments or changes they feel necessary at this time. c. Liaison Attendance at City Council Meetings In the past, a schedule has been formulated where all the Planning Commissioners would rotate attending the City Council meetings. However, in 1991, Steve Emmings elected to attend all City Council meetings. The Commission should discuss whether or not to elect one person to attend or to schedule all commissioners on a rotating basis during the year. Liaison Attendance at Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meetings The Planning Commission has not had a person attending the HRA meetings since the resignation of Jim Wildermuth. The Commission should discuss whether they wish to have a person attend these meetings. �4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER BYLAWS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN The following bylaws are adopted by the City Planning Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a commission established by the City Council pursuant to the provision of Subdivision 1 , Section 462 . 354 Minnesota State Statutes anotated. SECTION 1 - Duties and Responsibilities - Planning Commission: 1 . 1 The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the City Council through carrying out reviews of planning matters . All final decisions are to be made by the City Council . 1 . 2 The Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the City and recommend on amendments to the plan as they arise. 1 . 3 The Planning Commission shall initiate, direct, and review the provisions and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations and report its recommendations to the City Council . 1 . 4 The Planning Commission shall review applications and proposals for zoning ordinance amendments , subdivisions , street vacations , conditional use permits and site plan reviews and make their recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. 1 . 5 The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on development proposals as prescribed by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances . 1 . 6 - Establishment of Subcommittees The Planning Commission may, as they deem appropriate, establish special subcommittees comprised solely of their own members . SECTION 2 - Meetings: 2 . 1 - Time Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the first and third weeks of each month at 7 : 30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers , 690 Coulter Drive, unless otherwise directed by the Chairman , in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members . Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 11 : 00 p.m. which may be waived at the discretion of the Chairman . All unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular Planning Commission meeting . When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there shall be no Planning Commission meeting. 2 . 2 - Special Meetings Special meetings shall be held upon call by the Chairman , or in his absence, by the Vice-Chairman or any other member with the concurrence of four other members of the commission, and with at least 48 hours of notice to all members . Notice of all special meetings shall also be posted on the official City Bulletin Board . 2 . 3 - Attendance Planning Commission members shall attend not less than seventy- - five ( 75% ) percent of all regular and special meetings held during a given ( calendar) year, and shall not be absent from three ( 3 ) consecutive meetings without prior approval of the Chairman. Failure to meet this minimum attendance requirement shall be cause for removal from the Commission by action of the City Council . SECTION 3 - Commission Composition, Terms and Vacancies: 3 . 1 - Composition The Commission shall consist of 7 voting members . Seven members shall be appointed by the Council and may be removed by the Council . 3 . 2 - Terms and Vacancies The Council shall appoint seven members to the Commission for terms of three years . Vacancies during the term shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall before entering upon the charge of his duties take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. All members shall serve without compensation . 3 . 3 - Quorum Four Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business . Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting. -2- SECTION 4 - Organization: 4 . 1 - Election of Officers At the first meeting in January of each year , the Planning Commission shall hold an organization meeting. At this meeting, the Comission shall elect from its membership a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. This shall be done by secret ballot. Each member shall cast its ballot for the member he wishes to be chosed for Chairman . If no one receives a majority, balloting shall con- tinue until one member receives the majority support. Vice-Chairman shall be elected from the remaining numbers of the same proceeding. If the Chairman retires from the Planning Commission before the next regular organizational meeting, the Vice-Chairman shall be Chairman . If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman retire , new offi- cers shall be elected at the next regular meeting. If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman are absent from a meeting , the Commission shall elect a temporary Chairman by voice vote . 4 . 2 - Duties of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman The Chairman or in his absence, the Vice-Chairman, shall preside - at meetings , appoint committees from its own membership, and per- form other such duties as ordered by the Commission . The Chairman shall conduct the meeting so as to keep it moving rapidly and efficiently as possible and shall remind members , witnesses and petitioners to preserve order and decorum and to keep comments to the subject at hand. The Chairman shall not move for action but may second motions . SECTION 5 - Procedure: 5 . 1 - Parlimentary Procedure Parlimentary Procedure governed by Roberts Rules of Order Revised shall be followed at all regular meetings . At special work session meetings , and when appropriate, the Commission may hold group discussions not following any set parlimentary procedures except when motions are before the Commission . SECTION 6 - Public Hearings: 6 . 1 - Purpose of Hearings The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for the Commission to develop a rational planning recommen- dation for the City Council . 6 . 2 - Hearing Procedure At hearings the following procedure shall be followed in each case: -3- a . The Chairman shall state the case to be heard . b . The Chairman shall call upon the staff to present the staff report. Required reports from each City Department shall be submitted to the Planning Commission before each case is heard. c . The Chairman shall ask the applicant to present his case. d . Interested persons may address the Commission, giving infor- mation regarding the particular proposal . e . Petitioners and the public are to address the Chairman only, not staff or other commissioners . f . There shall be no dialogue among the Commissioners , giving information regarding the particular proposal . ( The Planning Commission members may ask questions of persons addressing the Commission in order to clarify a fact, but any statement by a member for any other purpose than to question may be ruled out of order. ) g . After all new facts and information have been brought forth , the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not be heard again . Upon completion of the hearing on each case, the Planning Commission shall discuss the item at hand and render a decision . The Planning Commission if it so desires , may leave the public record open for written comments for a specified period of time. h . The Chairman shall have the responsibility to inform all the parties of their rights of appeal on any decision or recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. 6 . 3 - Schedule At meetings where more than one hearing is scheduled, every effort shall be made to begin each case at the time set in the agenda, but in no case may an item be called for hearing prior to the advertised time listed on the agenda. SECTION 7 - Miscellaneous: 7 .1 - Planning Commission Discussion Matters for discussion which do not appear on the agenda may be considered and discussed by the Commission only when initiated and presented by the staff and shall be placed at the end of the agenda. 7 . 2 - Suspension of Rules The Commission may suspend any of these rules by a unanimous vote of the members present . -4- 7 . 3 - Amendments Amendment of these bylaws may be made at any regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission but only if scheduled on the meeting agenda in advance of the meeting. 7 . 4 - Review At the first meeting in January of each year , these bylaws shall be read and adopted by the Planning Commission. Adopted: Date: Chairman -5- CITY OF CHANHASSEN !110P. 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: December 31, 1991 SUBJ: Draft Ordinance Changes/Residential Components of the PUD Ordinance UPDATE At the January 15, 1992 , meeting, the question of drafting the section of the PUD ordinance relating to single family developments was again reviewed. As has been the case in meetings since last summer, the most important question being asked is, "Will Chanhassen allow lots containing less than 15, 000 square feet under any circumstances, and if so, how small should they be allowed to be, and what standards should be applied?" In the materials outlined below, staff indicates a belief that this can be done effectively and further believes that the proposal has merit, even has some merit if a minimum 15, 000 square foot average lot size must be maintained. However, we do not want to beat a dead horse and while we think this proposal has merit, if it does not have support by the Planning Commission and City Council, we prefer to find that out once and for all and be able to put this question to rest. At the last meeting, there continued to be a feeling that small lots have caused us problems in the past and there was some indication that there was not sufficient support by the Planning Commission to push this idea further. I related to you conversations I have had with the Mayor and Councilman Wing indicating that they were concerned with the proposal to lower lot area standards and probably would not be able to support it if this came to the City Council . Due to the absence of two Planning Commission members who have been some of the primary people involved in previous discussions of this ordinance, action on this item was delayed to February 5th. The premise under which this was done was that each Planning Commissioner would be allowed no more than five minutes each to lay out their position and a vote will be taken. I would encourage you to keep to this self imposed guideline for two reasons. Other items on the agenda are important and will take a substantial t�� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Draft Residential PUD Ordinance December 31, 1991 Page 2 amount of time and I am not at all certain that further discussions would prove to be fruitful . In the attached memorandum, I have repeated materials that were presented to the Planning Commission at the last meeting, as well as minutes from the two previous meetings for your review. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY At a series of meetings over the past year, staff has brought proposed changes to the PUD ordinance before the Planning Commission. As you will probably recall, the bulk of the PUD ordinance which pertains to non-residential development in the community was adopted last fall and is now in use. The ordinance is in use as evidenced by Ryan's Chanhassen Business Center PUD. In fact, we even used the ordinance in a residential context for Lundgren' s Lake Lucy Road project. However, this did not involve any lots smaller than the 15, 000 square foot RSF standard. At that time, however, because a consensus could not be reached on standards pertaining to residential PUDs, this section of the ordinance was not adopted. Staff has been attempting to resolve outstanding issues for the Planning Commission since that time. The Planning Commission' s primary concerns stem from the use of the PUD ordinance to allow lots smaller than 15, 000 square feet. We have attempted to present evidence that we believe allows one to conclude that lots smaller than 15, 000 square feet are: 1. Highly buildable. 2 . Represent the potential for high quality residential neighborhoods. Local evidence is Lundgren's Near Mountain project. 3 . Are cost effective. Economic result from lower land cost and reduced costs for roads and utilities. 4 . Can be used to require higher quality, more sensitive development. In exchange for PUD flexibility and cost savings, the city can expect more from the developer. 5. Can be handled in such a manner as to avoid the problems that have occurred in the past with some small lot developments in the city. Past problems include lots poorly designed to accommodate homes, expansions and decks within setback areas. Staff believes this can be addressed by establishing comprehensive development standards. Last summer, we believed that we had reached agreement on allowing lots down to 9, 000 square feet under certain circumstances, as long as there was a mix of lot sizes in the balance of the development. When this last came before you in September, it was clear that our belief that a consensus had been reached for 9 , 000 square foot lots was in error. This memo and the materials attached herein represent our most recent attempts to clarify this matter so that Draft Residential PUD Ordinance December 31, 1991 Page 3 we may move on to other issues. We firmly believe that the PUD ordinance offers significant advantages to the city as well as the developer and should be used more often in the future. We are presenting two variations of the ordinance for your review and comment. The first is the ordinance that you reviewed at the September meeting. It is unchanged except that the minimum lot size has been increased from 9, 000 square feet to 10, 000 square feet. We made this charge for two reasons. It seemed more consistent with the Planning Commission's intent. Secondly, we recently reviewed a preliminary development concept that used the same sized lot quite effectively. Staff supported this ordinance in the past and we continue to do so believing that this sort of development can be handled in an effective and sensitive manner. The second alternative is to allow lots down to the same 10, 000 square foot minimum but require that average lot size meet or exceed the 15, 000 square foot minimum provided in the RSF District. We believe that this approach adds some flexibility, although not as much as the first option. However, it does result in average project densities that are consistent with development elsewhere in the community. Staff has recently spoken to a potential developer on land located near the intersection of Galpin and Lyman Boulevard. On this project, the potential developer, Hans Hagen Homes, would like to utilize reduced sized lots in the open field area closest to the public boulevards. They would like to balance this by using larger sized lots in a forested area located to the north and west. In these areas, the larger sized lots could receive a better price on the market and allow for a lot more sensitivity in tree preservation and to minimize grading. We think this concept has a tremendous amount of merit even though the average lot size is still being maintained at better than 15, 000 square feet. Staff is at a loss as to how to pursue this matter further if a consensus is not reached on one or the other alternatives at the next meeting. If further analysis is desired, your direction is requested so that we may further clarify the issue. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission select one of the alternatives for adoption by the City Council. * Denotes second alternati4re * CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1 . Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows: Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Detached Residential PUD' s. a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The - applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. * Average lot sizes for the project must meet or exceed 15,000 square feet. * The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60 ' x 40 ' building pad and 12 ' x 12 ' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard of 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet. Front Yard - 20 feet. Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet. Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These 1 areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site ' s natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval . The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at 2 some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Section 20-507 . Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Attached or Cluster-Home PUD' s. a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5, 000 square feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. c) Setback Standards/Structures and Parking: PUD Exterior - 50 feet Interior Public Right-of-way - 20 feet Other setbacks - Established by PUD Agreement d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted 3 lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation and Yard Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. f) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Section 2 . Amend Section 20-505, Required General Standards, by adding the following: (m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. 4 The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, • landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to 50% . The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. 5 - Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 25 supposed to be 6 slips , now because they had 14 that 's okay . Is that what you 're saying? Because these are your neighbors . If you go back to 6 boats to what they 're supposed to have , wouldn 't that create a problem? Emmings: You mean they ' ll burn my house down? David Tester : You live right next to them . Emmings : No , I know . Yeah I 'm putting all that out of my mind . I 'm not going to sit here , I 'm sure my neighbors would hate me if I said I 'm not in that neighborhood technically but I live right next door to a lot of them , I know a lot of them and they 're going to hate me for saying well back to 1982 level . I have no doubt about that but that 's not going to influence - me . But maybe they hate me already for other reasons . Now they have another one . Is there any other public comment here on this? Okay . . .and I seconded it and just so we 're all on the same page because I forgot , we 're doing the version of the ordinance that uses an 1982 baseline . Is there any discussion on this in light of the public comment? Then I 'll call a question . = Conrad moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission approval adopting the ordinance using the baseline document of the size and extent of the recreational beachlot in the summer of 1982 . All voted in favor and - the motion carried . EmmingE : When will this go to the City Council? Aanenson : The 10th . Emmings : So if you 're interested in this , follow it on up . Conrad : I think just as a footnote . When these start coming in and if they come before us , we should know , and I think there 's some common sense that has to guide what we do but we should have a feeling for how the current ordinance would deal with a particular situation and I don 't know , which means if under the current ordinance if they have x number of boats or picnic tables or whatever . I 'd like to know that . And probably the other thing is we should be looking at the site when it comes in . The idea of the beachlot ordinance is for a lot of things . It 's called safety and protecting the neighbors and some real common sense type stuff . And — sometimes you can have real unsafe situations on big lots and safe situations on small lots . I think we have to take a look at them and again apply some common sense stuff and I think we all hear what you 're concerned with . The people that are part of the association or the beachlot . I would be fighting for my rights too just like you but I think on our side we can apply some common sense guidelines that make it work . In some cases it 's not going to turn out totally the way you want but I think we should - be able to reach some pretty good decisions . — ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS . Emmings : I 'm very disinclined to do this with the absence of Tim and Brian because they both had a lot of good things to say about this but I don 't Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 26 know if they 'd have additional things to say . Maybe we 're all kind of — talked out on this issue . I don 't know . Ahrens: The PUD , I think so . — Emmings: But Brian and Tim have been particularly interested in this item and I don 't know what to do . What do you want to do? Conrad: I wouldn 't mind talking a little bit about it and then tabling it . Emmings: Okay . — Ahrens: I 'd rather talk about it now or table it and talk about it later . I mean we 've talked about this a lot . Emmings: And have we gotten anywhere? I go round and round . Ahrens : I mean I can talk about this forever tonight and then talk about — it again another night because there are a lot of issues involved . . . Conrad: I just have a real quick question basically and it will last longer . Jeff , you go ahead . I 've talked more. Farmakes: What basis are we using from the 9 ,000 to the 10 ,000? What is the basis that you picked that figure? — Krauss: It 's highly scientific . Farmakes: This isn 't like 3 trees is it? Because it 's more than 2? Emmings : Because he feels resistence at 9 ,000 . — Farmakes: Is there a financial or glass ceiling or whatever with the developer? I need a 60 x 40 base pad and I need this much square footage . Krauss: To be perfectly honest , Kate and I saw a concept that had been prepared by somebody who 's thinking of proposing what is it a 160 lot subdivision over off of Galpin near Lyman and the premise behind that was , _ it 's in the Volk . Yeah , the Volk Farm where the Cellular telephone tower is . And in the open areas he wanted to build a parkway with a number of cul-de-sacs and in those areas where it 's just open field he figured that he would put in the lowered priced home on the smaller lots and those he — proposed at 10 ,000 square feet and when he got up into the forested hills near Timberwood he came up with 15 ,000 to 25,000 . Well 25 ,000 to 30 ,000 square foot lots which fit in quite well with the terrain and the desire to— protect those trees . Because if you plowed in your normal 15 ,000 square foot lots on a suburban type pattern , you 're going to plow down most of those trees . I thought the trade off made some sense . It seemed to be — from a topological tree preservation standpoint it seemed to be an ideal candidate to do and that one used 10 ,000 square foot minimum lots . And the average lot size was in excess of 15 ,000 . It seemed to be a reasonable plan and I said well , I 've tried this 3 times before the Planning — Commission . I 'll try another time . Now your comments about Commissioner Batzli and Erhart are accurate . They have been somewhat the leading Planning Commission Meeting . January 15 , 1992 - Page 27 proponents or opponents of this . I 've had some conversations since with the Mayor and Councilman Wing . I think that they 're somewhat , well they can speak for themselves but they 've indicated to me that they 're not -in favor of the decreasing lot sizes . We 're getting to the point where some guidance would be nice . We 're getting asked the questions a whole lot . If it 's 15 ,000 , it 's 15 ,000 . If you have flexibility , we do . Farmakes: I still have just one question with the basis of understanding this . If you don 't give up some lot size , what is the advantage to the developer doing this? Krauss: Well there isn 't much. If you don't give up lot sizes you have what I think is a highly unusual situation which was the Lake Lucy Road/ Lundgren proposal where it made sense to do it as a PUD because conventionally configured lots didn 't fit because of all the wetlands . That conventionally configured streets didn 't fit because of the wetlands - and the PUD gave us the flexibility to do that . But that average lot size , granted between useable and non-useable , I think it was 30 ,000 square feet was the lot size and 18 ,000 to 20 ,000 square feet was the useable site . Those are pretty unusual cases . . Is that ever likely to happen again , I don 't know . Maybe . Farmakes: Well I , in that particular development , I guess I thought it was - a nice development except for a couple of lots and those were the smaller ones . I still , if you were looking at 10 ,000 or 12 ,000 square feet , I mean again it seems an arbitrary number . I haven 't seen the development that you 're talking about and I 'm having trouble understanding if you had an attached garage with a pad that size , you 'd be looking at about a 40 x 40 house and attached garage wouldn't you? Krauss : We tried to define that a little bit more here . Farmakes: A 60 x 40 building pad is , if you put an attached garage to it , that doesn 't leave you much left for the house . Krauss: Well yeah , if you have a 60 x 40 pad . Each house in Chanhassen is required , well most houses in Chanhassen are required to have a 2 car garage . Farmakes: 20 feet for that and subtract that from . Aanenson: What we 'd suggest is that you come in with some specific models but a lot of homes have the punch out garage with the floor space behind . Krauss: What we tried to come up with was a reasonably sized home pad plus a reasonably sized deck plus a reasonably sized unencumbered back yard. You can 't play baseball in it but . Ahrens: I think we know that they can do it . I mean they did in Near Mountain and then we know that they can have decks on houses and we know that they can have the right sized garage . I don 't think that 's really an issue . I think the issue is just.what we want . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 28 Farmakes: What I was getting to after that would have been what percentage difference do you see with a house like that next to a house on a 35 ,000 square foot lot? Percentage wise and pricing . Krauss : See I don 't think pricing is , well I wouldn 't sell this to you , in— the past the City 's gotten burned and you got burned in the Pheasant Hills and Foxpath and a couple of others where these things were sold on the premise . The builder came to you and he said , let me put these things on 9 ,000 or 10 ,000 square foot lots and I 'll give you cheaper homes . I don't — know if they intentially lied but they weren 't cheaper homes . The homes got bigger as the market allowed it to get bigger and the City had no protections in there to make sure that the homes could fit and that decks — could fit and that people had reasonable back yards . It 's a pretty tough situation . I think some of you have gotten calls from Willard on the Board of Adjustments and it 's because he 's seen almost monthly he sees the — results of those PUD 's . I think you can do it without it . Now what are the reasons people buy a somewhat smaller sized lot . There 's lots of them . Yeah , maybe they are a little less expensive . Maybe the lot price is $25 ,000 .00 or $30 ,000 .00 instead of $40 ,000 .00 or $50 ,000 .00 . I can't guarantee it but it 's reasonable to think it might be . I know in the case of the developer we talked to , he clearly intends to make his big ticket purchases on the nicer lots up on the hill , which makes sense . It lays out-- well . You also have people that don 't want lots that are that big . Most people move out to this area because they have an imagine of what they want but not everybody wants to mow a third or a half an acre or whatever every _ Saturday . They want something a little smaller . Not everybody has 3 kids . I mean there 's a lot of reasons people do a lot of things and we 've heard some people coming to us at Board meetings like you should have protected me from myself . You should never have let me buy this lot . Well , I have a • little bit of a tough time with that . You buy what you buy because that 's what you think you want . But having said all that , I mean I think the flexibility from the design standpoint , the ability to save trees . The — ability to work around water features . The ability to lay in streets nicely . The ability to have some variety is a real big benefit . Can we develop without that? Sure . You have in the past . You will in th.e future . And we 're not here to you know , I think there 's a valid case to — be made for using PUD 's but if there 's not a comfort level with it , then let 's move on and work with it the way we have it . Emmings: And that 's the problem . The way I feel like , I 'd like to look at everything as a PUD and none of them as a straight subdivision really because you feel like you have some flexibility . I don 't know if you — really do wind up with any but you feel like you might and at least the potential is there . That 's why in a way I 'd just like to say we 've got net density , or densities we want to see depending on the zoning of the property . Design whatever you want . Just give them a density and say — here , you design whatever you want . Conrad : That was my question . Why didn 't we go with a gross density — versus? Emmings: If you want to maximize creativity and give them incentive to do _ things , the trouble is Ladd I think , and maybe I 'm wrong . You can probably answer this better than I but I 'm afraid if that developer does get Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 29 creative and has some 9 ,000 foot lots , he 's going to wind up bringing that in and it 's not going to get approved because there are some people who just plain don 't like small lots . Even though it preserves a lot of open space . I don 't know that but I think I 've had some people call me this week who said just that . I think Brian has argued that , whether he meant it or not . Whether he was being a Devil 's advocate or really meant it . Conrad: Well Brian is the advocate of protect me from myself . Emmings: Well a little bit but he doesn 't want a little lot , and I think there are a lot of people who feel that way . And I wouldn 't want to dangle that out in front of a developer . But if we want PUD 's , we 've got to offer them something . We 've got to make it attractive to them and I think the way we do that is by saying you 've got a density figure to work against . We 're going to be watching you to see that you preserve things we like and that you don 't destroy the natural topography and everything else . Do your best and bring it back and take a look . Krauss : You could work it that way . I 'd still stick in the provisions though where we mandate that the developer has to demonstrate to your satisfaction or the Council 's satisfaction that every lot that 's created , bar none , can accommodate a reasonably sized home , deck and a back yard . When you 're talking about some creative developers, I don 't know that that 's the right adjective for . . . Emmings: Well wait . What if a guy wants to do zero lot line stuff? Krauss : Oh well , I think that 's a different . This is an animal of a different color . We cover that in here . Zero lot line homes are certainly a valid housing concept . They 're in demand in a lot of areas . Emmings : Or what if you want to do a retirement thing where you have maybe 3 or 4 units that are hooked together on a cul-de-sac with a whole bunch of open space around it . How do we encourage people to do some things like that? Krauss: Well , you can encourage that and the ordinance does provide for those to go in areas guided for medium density housing . Most communities have trouble chewing on that kind of a concept . Being allowed to go anywhere in a single family neighborhood . Even though I fully agree with you that the density cap is the same , that number of units isn't going to increase over the normal style . It looks like a different style of development and a lot of people object to having that next to their single family home . So most of the time you find that those zero lot line developments are segregated somehow. Oftentimes they 're in a higher density area . That 's the way it 's done in most the communities I know . Ahrens: I think we should look at creative development . I like PUD 's and I think there 's all sorts of advantages for cities to look at that but the only , you know I look at the Lundgren development over in Near Mountain and if you drive behind it in Pleasant View , it looks okay . The houses that sit on the little lots . But if you drive inside of it to the front of those houses , it 's crowded in there . You just get a feeling of being crowded in there because the houses aren 't small . The houses are nice Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 30 sized and you get on this little curved street and all of a sudden it 's crowded . And there 's barely room for cars to park between . If you have , — I mean in suburbia everybody 's has lots of cars• right? Especially when you have teenagers . There 's no room to park even between the houses let alone on the street . It 's really small . It 's really tight in there and I think — we have to think about not only will a house fit on a lot . Well sure . You can get a house to fit on a lot and some people don't want to have to mow the lawns and stuff but how does it look and how is it going to look 20 years from now when we have a lot of big houses on little lots? I don 't — know . I don 't know if aesthetically that 's going to be too great and if it 's going to be useable for people who have more than two cars and they can fit them nicely into their driveway . I mean it is crowded in there . I— don 't know if you 've ever driven in there but it is . And the houses look nice now because they 're brand new houses . I mean it looks okay now . I don 't know . I don 't know how it 's going to be . I think I 've changed my position on the small lot size . I didn 't think it was a bad idea at first but the more I look at those lots in Lundgren , I 'm not sure that it 's the best kind of setup for Chanhassen . I don 't think it 's so great if you have a bunch of houses developed in just a little area and then you have a nice — park 3 blocks away . Is that a better development than having all 15 ,000 square foot lots? Emmings: What are you saying? That you think there should be a minimum lot size then? Ahrens: I do . Emmings : And what is your figure? Ahrens : I think it should be 15 ,000 . Emmings : Okay . Now if we did that , if we said we want a minimum 15 ,000 — square foot lot size , would there be any incentive except for the odd piece of property like Lundgren ran into over here . Would there be any incentive for a developer to us a PUD? Basically he 's working in the subdivision ordinance . Krauss: A PUD is a rezoning . Cities have a lot of leeway as to what kind of conditions they apply on a rezoning action . Developers are business — people . They 're not going to plat . If the developer brings you a plat without any variances , you 're obligated to approve it . No if 's , and 's or but 's . You can add some reasonable conditions but you can 't be arbitrary — or be creative or whatever words you want to use . The PUD opens the door to the city saying I want more parkland and I want you not to build where these hills are . I 'd like you not to build where these trees are . Whatever . — Ahrens: You can 't say that if a developer comes in and you say , you 're required at 15 ,000 square foot lots we can 't say you can 't build on that crest of that hill and you can't , you have to have so much parkland . We do that now . Krauss: Yeah , but the suburban development pattern is an improvement over — the grid system that you see in Minneapolis. Not much . I mean it 's 1920 's Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 31 technology versus 1940 's technology . You know curvalinear streets help and . you like to think that when you have a 15 ,000 square foot lot or better you 're able to save a few trees that you don 't have to tear down when the house gets built but basically it 's a very land intensive and often abusive way to develop . Emmings: This underlines , Brian said facetiously I think . Maybe not . Raise your minimum lot size in the subdivision ordinance to a half acre and then we 'll have all PUD 's that we can do what we want to . That 's not a bad idea maybe . This is like quitting smoking . You do like 100 times . Conrad: There 's a good article in the planning, whatever the planning magazine is that we get on this same thing . I don 't know if anybody read it . I guess the forecast is going to , people wanting big lots in the past and the forecast going to smaller lots and how creative PUD 's can be handled. Emmings: How small is small? Conrad: I don't know if they really said a number . Yeah , I don 't know . But it was really appropriate in light of this thing . I 've vacilated because I 've always been a large lot proponent but on the other hand , over the years I 've seen less and less advantages to the large lots . If you can preserve some of the other stuff you get around but we 've never been able to figure out how to preserve this other stuff . You open up some land , what are you going to do with it? Farmakes : Demographics are changing and the market . We 're all getting older . Emmings : Not all of us . Farmakes: Well I 'm not but you guys are . Ahrens : But is 15 ,000 square feet really that big of a lot? I mean we 're not talking about . Krauss: It 's a highly personal choice . I mean you know what you bought and you know why you moved here and it was a personal decision for you and your family to decide . I can tell you that from the metro area standpoint , we 've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area . Now Minnetonka , one of our neighbors , has the largest one but there 's not a home built in Minnetonka today for under $350 ,000 .00 . Emmings: But the reason 15 ,000 is significant only because that 's in the subdivision ordinance . I mean that 's why you can move the numbers around but they are arbitrary and 15 ,000 has significance only because that 's the number in the subdivision ordinance . Ahrens: Right but everyone talks about 15 ,000 as a large lot . Emmings: No , it 's only significant because it 's in the subdivision ordinance . I think that 's the only significance of it . Big and small , that 's all relative . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 32 — Farmakes: What about 12? I mean I 'm still getting back to my original question when you picked 10 because you saw a development you 'd like . — Would 15? 12? Is there a commercial level where it no longer makes sense for a developer? Krauss: I don 't know . Maybe in fact there is . If they do their proformas and they find out . Any decrease in lot size theoretically allows them to save on linear street frontage . To save on linear utilities and to — theoretically , if you allow them to and we didn 't plan on it but if you wanted to get more lots in , then they make more money . That 's the way the developers all see it and we 've had people come in the door saying you 're not Going to let me cram 10 ,000 square foot lots on this cornfield with no — amenities . Chaska would let me do it . We 've told them to leave because we weren't interested in that kind of development . The only context we saw was getting the higher quality . I don 't know what the break point is — though . The presumption that we 've had is that the developer may in fact get some additional lots out of it , especially when you 're at the lower end but everytime we 've considered the lower lot sizes it 's been with added conditions like more open space and we 're going to protect more of the -` trees and we 're going to do this -and that . So it 's always been a trade off . Developers also don 't like to have all their eggs in one basket . You don 't like to have only 15 ,000 square foot lots to sell . You like to have — a variety of home sites . Emmings: The market may change during. That makes sense . I don't see how_ we can , it seems to me we 've got to offer them something and if it isn 't lot size , I don 't know what it is . Otherwise I think we 're wasting our time . On the other hand , I don't like 10 ,000 square foot lots . Farmakes: You don 't have to accept it in the development proposal though right? If you don 't like the way it works out in the percentage , then this is a guide correct? — Krauss : Well , under the PUD you have a great deal of latitude . It just occurred to me too when you 're talking 12 ,000 square foot , the ordinance up until the time we start tinkering with it allowed PUD 's on 12 ,000 average — lot size? Emmings: No , wasn 't it minimum? — Olsen : 13 ,500 . Emmings: Wasn 't that a minimum and they still had to maintain over 15 or over average? Olsen: I think it was like 13 ,500 . Krauss : And did anybody , did we determine that nobody used that? Or does that predate Lake Susan Hills? The PUD 's that you had in town predated the_ imposition of that 13 ,500 average . I think they did in the later phases but they predated . . . Emmings: Lake Susan Hills was never a PUD . You 'll never convince anybody who was up here at the time that that was a PUD , Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 33 Olsen : And you didn 't pass it . Emmings: Planning Commission didn 't . City Council did . Conrad : Well it 's sure sounding that there 's lots of folks that say we don 't like the small lots . We 've got two people missing that we know that 's their posture . Joan for sure . Jeff you 're sort of bordering . Farmakes : I think it 's a dilemma for me because I think it 's a very smart idea to do this . However , the problem is that if you don 't offer them something to do it , why would they do it? It makes no sense . - Conrad: That was the point of looking at the PUD ordinance . Nobody was doing it under the past ordinance . It was motivating nobody . Farmakes : It could be very mutually beneficial though with certain types of properties . And if you don 't give them that smaller lot size , again they 're not going to do it . Conrad: See I persuaded myself to go along with the 15 ,000 foot on average and the 10 ,000 minimum because the 15 protected what we 've been running with and we 've been going a pretty good job no matter what . Sometimes there hasn 't been a terrific amount of creativity but overall I think it 's really not bad what 's been going up . So the 15 in my mind was to maintain what we had . And the 10 , I think you can still do things in the future at 10 ,000 . It 's cramped . It doesn 't meet my style . I wouldn 't like it but I think some people would and if that 's what they would like and if I preserve what I 'm trying to and that is the openness of Chanhassen , then I 'm not going to get in their way of a small lot . What I was concerned - with before , the way the ordinance is written , is we simply downsized the lots and I felt that sooner or later becomes a standard . But now that we have a 15 ,000 square foot average , that still may not be motivational enough to the developer . I don 't know but it may appease me . That was when my question came in , why don 't we play with overall density versus a specific because the overall density has been quite nice? And I don 't care how somebody bundles it together . Farmakes : Have you gotten a response from any of these developers talking about the 10 ,000 square feet? Krauss : We haven 't really waved it around . Ahrens: Having an average lot size , that means that you could have like 6 huge lots and a whole bunch of little tiny ones right and still meet the? Krauss: If by little tiny you mean 10 ,000 , yes . Conrad : But you could solve that problem Joan in the intent statement . The intent statement could say that Chanhassen is looking to maintain such - and such a character but would compromise to smaller lots . So what you 're doing is telling a developer you 're not looking to have 3/4 of the development and 10 ,000 square foot lot sizes balanced by 380 ,000 square foot lots . You could communicate what you 're looking for upfront in an Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 34 — attempt but signal the fact that we could go down in lot sizes to — accommodate . Farmakes : Aren 't you telling them that though with the average lot size . You 've got to be able to figure out how many units to put on that thing . Doesn 't that determine a percentage like this? Conrad: I 'm not sure . It probably does , yeah . — ( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . ) Emmings : . . .all these 10 ,000 square foot lots in one area leaving . Conrad: But you wouldn't have a problem dealing with that if it came to you because if the intent statement is there , we know what we 're looking — for and we all have this grandiose , cluster this over here . Open up this space over here . We just don 't know how to get there so what I want to make sure is that we 're communicating to the developer so he or she has a — concept of where we 're going and we 're not leading them in the wrong direction . They come in and say oh , that 's not what we 're looking for at all . Ahrens: But then we have some people saying , well I kind of like that and I kind of like this but that 's not really my idea of what it should look like . I mean you know it 's so subjective that way because a developer 's — standing there saying well , we still have a 15 ,000 square foot average lot size . Emmings: But I think Joan , if you 'd want to take the subjective element • out , you put it on a grid and you squash the creativity . If you want to maximize creativity but you want to encourage some clustering and leaving larger tracts of open space , I think you 're always going to have the — subjective element to deal with . And I think good developers are going to do it right and you 're going to know it when you see it . Ahrens: True but we 're not always going to get good developers . We 're going to get anybody who has the money to come in and develop the land . Emmings: But on a PUD . Krauss: You have a lot of latitude to object . Also two other things . First of all the intent statement , the way it 's worded right now and this — is language I think we got from you Ladd last time it came up. The intent statement says that the applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions , preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will concurrently be approved with the PUD . Jo Ann also points out that you can put a ceiling on what willbe counted . The size of the lot that will be counted towards the average . You can say — nothing over 20 ,000 or 25 ,000 square feet will be counted towards your average lot size . There 's no basis in making a one acre lot . Farmakes : Is that buildable square footage? Planning Commission Meeting - January 15 , 1992 - Page 35 Krauss: Well we 've got stuff in here about that . Now maybe the way , you know . Farmakes : But we got into a little bit of the argument with Lundgren on the issues of the one up on Lake Lucy Road . He had the plot marks going out to the middle of the wetland . Krauss : Yeah . Your buildable square footage concern 's a valid one but it 's not just valid in PUD 's . I think we should address that for every lot in the city . Subdivisions , PUD 's or otherwise . Farmakes : I agree . I agree because it 's really deceptive . I mean it may or may not be the intent but when they 're coming up and when they did those graphs and so on , as I said you were looking at lot lines that go down to - the middle of something that no matter if they build it on a PUD or normal development , that they could not build on . And it seemed to me like they were trying to sell that in figuring out what the lot sizes really were . Which they weren 't . Emmings : Well they were using that two ways . On the one hand they 're saying we 're preserving all this open space and on the other hand they 're saying this lot has this many square feet and they 're counting some of that open space and it just seems real contradictory to me . — Krauss: We made Lundgren though break out , the table got quite exacting . I mean it said this is a 30 ,000 square foot lot . 20 ,000 of it 's outside the wetland . We figured the average both ways in fact . Emmings : Yeah . I know you did on that one . And maybe it 's okay as long as that puts everything right up front so there 's no deception there . - Farmakes : On the one table I figured out , besides the wetland there 's the setback back from the wetland plus . Krauss : But that 's useable back yard area . Farmakes: Right . That 's what I 'm saying . But it 's useable , how much useable square footage that lot was really. going to be and I figured , just guesstimating that the one was under 10 ,000 feet . Krauss : But that 's for the building footprint . But for your kids running - around playing frisbee or whatever . Bar-be-que pit or whatever you want to do , that 's all high dry ground . Farmakes : Still , anything outside of that you 're going to need a variance for it right? Krayss : To build a structure . Farmakes : Yeah , air conditioning unit , whatever . - Conrad: That 's too bad Brian and Tim weren 't here because we 'll probably repeat this same conversation . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 36 Emmings : We 've done it 12 or 15 times haven 't we? Conrad: I know . Ahrens : Are we finished on this? Conrad: This is going to be close . We do have to wait for them to come back . Farmakes: This is still , the latitude that you 're saying to reject this or reject these plans , do you feel from a practicality standpoint that we can basically reject just about anything? Krauss: Unfortunately Roger was going to be here tonight . He 's stuck in his driveway . He could answer that question more directly than I , but yes . You 've got a great deal of latitude . - Emmings : We 're supposed to listen to a guy who gets stuck in his driveway? Krauss : With a Volvo . Farmakes: If you do get a developer with a lot of integrity and really does meet the intent of what that 's going to be , he can do something really - 'nice with that and it could be very beneficial to the community . But the thing that makes everybody nervous is how small these lots come in . If small lots and a developer with little or no integrity is , like you said , _ you 're going to build one 35 ,000 square foot lot and the rest are all going to be 10 ,000 . Krauss: You 've got a great deal of latitude on rezoning actions that you - don 't have on a subdivision approval . Emmings: Okay . That 's important insurance . That makes me comfortable . Does anybody else want to beat this dead horse? Conrad : We should do it . Emmings: We should do what? Conrad : Table it . Emmings: I like that . What a decisive person . Alright . Do we need a motion to table it? Krauss : No . I 'm used to it . Ahrens : Should we save these so you don 't have to reprint all of these — again? Krauss : No , I 'll have to reprint anyway . - Mayor Chmiel : . . .Robert 's Rules of Order . Emmings: We don 't follow Robert 's Rules of Order here . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 37 Conrad: It 's Emmings ' Rules of Order . Emmings: We permanently suspended our rules when I became Chairman . Krauss : It 's probably going to be a month before we bring it back on . That 's because our next meeting we have one action item . 90% of the meeting 's going to be devoted to the TH 5 corridor . I 've got Bill Moresch who Steve knows from the University coming over with his folks to give you a presentation on what that task force . . .that we 're looking at in terms of broad concepts for TH 5 . I think this is going to become basically the Planning Commission 's baby from here on out . We need to make some decisions on how to structure the program . Set some goals for it and get going on it so that will be our next meeting . The meeting after that looks like a very heavy agenda . We 've got Rosemount is coming in for a large expansion . We have potentially a PUD , an industrial one . The one in front of Timberwood . The office park . It 's looking like that 's coming in . That 's going to be a very complex proposal . Well , that will be next week so we 've got a few things cooking so we ' ll get this back on as soon as we can . Farmakes : I was just wondering if you had heard how Grand Met was being - met by McGlynn is basically the operation in Chanhassen here . How that was going to affect their operation . Krauss : I 'm not sure . We really need to contact them because they 're most curious about it . They 're not going to vacate the facilities . I understood the article is they bought the facility because it 's the most efficient baking operation in the country . But McGlynn 's also has 35 acres - that 's been on the market and I 'm not sure if that stayed within the McGlynn family or if Grand Met owns it and if they 're going to be more disposed to sell it now . It 's a very important corner visually from TH 5 - standpoint . Emmings: As far as this goes , we could maybe approach it this way . That _ folks should just come in . Next time this is on the agenda , just let people state what their positions are on it in 2 minutes or less and then have a motion and pass or don 't pass something . But we 've talked about it enough . So put it on and then we 'll just make sure , we 'll sit here with an - alarm clock . Farmakes : Egg timer . Emmings : An egg timer . That 's in Robert 's Rules of Order isn 't it , an egg timer? Alright . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4 , 1991 were noted by the Chairman as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE . Emmings : We 've got a report from the director that says there 's nothing to report . Except he wants to talk about goals . Then there 's this , what 's the map Paul? I mean I recognize it as Chanhassen but what are you showing us? Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 20 — Emmings : Ladd . Conrad: No . Emmings: Annette . Ellson: No way . Emmings : Brian . Batzli : It should go somewhere way down the list . Emmings: Okay , Jeff . Farmakes: Somewhere down the list . — Emmings : Okay , and I 'd say no . Why don 't you run that straw vote by the City Council and see if they want us to spend time or if they want you to — spend time on it . Then we 'll go from there . Willard Johnson: Some gentleman mentioned 2 1/2 acres . Erhart : That was no gentleman . That was me . Willard Johnson: . . .when we were granting variances to the southern part — of the city there for building . . .we pushed them to one side of the lot . Erhart : Not anymore . It used to be that way . Willard Johnson: We encouraged them to push to one side of the lot becaus some day you 're going to develop and can't afford to keep the property . Well this guy can decide to put another place behind him and then he sells— off the other and it could perpetuate a number of homes . Just a small development on 2 1/2 acres . . .so I just thought I 'd throw that at you people . I 've seen so much . Thank you . — Emmings: Yeah , thank you . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Ellson: I have a question . What 's an over story tree? Krauss: It 's a deciduous tree with a crown on it . Ellson: Oh! I thought it was big enough to reach the top story of the house or something . Krauss: Hopefully it will be . Erhart : Just throw these terms in once in a while to keep us jumping . Emmings: Yeah . What did we call those trees in our landscape ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 21 Krauss : Trees . Batzli : Trees from Catagory A? Erhart : Canopy trees . It used to be canopy trees . Emmings: I wondered about that . Krauss: You can call them deciduous . I think we did call them deciduous . Although there are deciduous trees that are , I mean a birch tree is a deciduous tree . Ellson: Those little poplars that are narrow and tall and skinny and stuff wouldn 't be considered an over story one . Emmings : Alright . I 'd like to ask you , in your Section 1 in A and also again in another place . On page 3 at the bottom there and then in paragraph D . It says in no instance shall project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines . I know the answer to this but I just want to see if you do . What does that incorporate here? It incorporates obviously the comprehensive plan guidelines for density but what are we saying when we say that here? • Krauss: For example the comprehensive plan designates the low density designation as 0 to 4 units per acre . Maximum 4 units an acre . If you used 9 ,000 square foot lots , and let me see if my math is 18 , you can theoretically get more homes on a site than , you could have more than 4 MED units per acre . Emmings: Right , but you 're not going to let them do that it what it 's • saying here . Krauss: Right . Ellson: Is that the answer you wanted to hear? Emmings : Yeah . Ellson: You passed . Conrad: I don 't know . So the plan says 0 to 4 units . Emmings: Is low density . Conrad: I guess my problem with A , as soon as you say 9 ,000 square feet , that 's your standard . Emmings: No . Down to a minimum of . Conrad: I know . Ellson: You say we 're just going to get a bunch of 9 ,000 's . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 22 — i Conrad: Well and they can 't do it but it says to a developer that 's the — potential . That 's our standard . Whereas there 's a difference . Really ou standard is bigger than that . So my problem , our standard is typically lo. sizes in a subdivision or whatever are coming in at 17 ,000-18 ,000 square feet . That 's really what we 're comfortable with in Chanhassen based on — history . Batzli : You mean in a regular subdivision? — Conrad: Yeah . Emmings: In our subdivision ordinance . Conrad : Yeah . But even a PUD . You 're coming in at , and I don 't know that for sure but most of them are above the 15 ,000 on an average . My problem — is the way this is worded . It says our standard is 9 ,000 . It says a minimum and I understand that but I see no reason , you know I feel real comfortable allowing . I feel not real comfortable . I feel comfortable — allowing us to go down to 9 ,000 .square foot lot sizes but that is not our standard . Batzli : Whereas I would agree with everything you said except I 'm not comfortable with 9 ,000 . Conrad: Yeah , you don 't like the 9 because that seems pretty small . See — and again it becomes a mix and I want to give developers the opportunity t build down to that 9 ,000 and have some open space but still the way , you know you leave in with PUD and maybe you say minimum lot size 9 ,000 and — that becomes what they 'll come in at 10 or 11 , although Paul is saying comprehensive plan guidelines says 0 to 4 . I guess I 'm still a little uncomfortable with that one . Ellscn: I think that thing is what 's going to make sure we don 't get too many of those . Conrad: But 0 to 4 , we 're getting what , 1 .8 units per acre? Krauss : 1 .7 gross . Emmings: That 's gross? Conrad: That 's kind of what we like and I don 't see changing that . — Ellson: Unless you know you could leave that huge area of wooded and push a little more over here . Conrad: Right . So that 's where I 'm still comfortable with in that mix an.. if somebody wants to free up open space with that gross density , then I 'm comfortable going down to that 9 ,000 . "- Emmings: Well is that part of what 's being incorporated by the saying comprehensive plan guidelines? — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 23 Krauss: Well it is but I don 't think it 's achieving what Ladd wants it to achieve . The comprehensiveplan theoretically allows up to 4 units an acre . What Ladd is saying is right . Our average single family project is 1 .7 . We 're giving them additional latitude here to increase density . That 's true . It could . On the other hand , the penalty or what you need to - do to achieve it increases with the increase in density in terms of the amount of open space you have to reserve and our expectations of what kind of a project we 're going to get out of it . PUD 's also incorporate slightly greater setbacks around the perimeter of the PUD to help buffer it from adjoining properties . Conrad: Well I don 't understand that Paul . I guess I don 't mind where we 're going but I don 't know how we 're going to get there with this . So the penalty for being in a PUD , and you come in with the 15 ,000 square foot lot size , you 've got to dedicate 1 ,500 feet to open space . So in other words , if this is the same as having a 16 ,500 square foot lot , which we already have bigger lot sizes in our PUD 's and subdivisions already . So there 's not much of a , what we 're doing , instead of having a 16 ,500 square foot lot coming in , we 're going to say no . 15 ,000 over here and then let 's start a little kitty over here of 1 ,500 . Emmings : Where 'd you get the 1 ,500? Conrad: 10% of 15 ,000 square feet . Emmings : That 's 15 ,000 though . That 's not the 9 ,000 . Erhart : Right . But that 's my question too . Conrad: 1 ,500 . 10% of 15 ,000 is 1 ,500 . Erhart : But ask the same question of the bottom one . Why isn 't it , if it 's 9 ,000 square feet average , why isn 't for every lot , why isn 't there 6 ,000 feet set aside for open space? Conrad : Yeah , that 's where . Erhart : I mean that 's the big discrepancy . Why isn 't it 40% which would be 6 ,000? Actually it 's not the 15 ,000 . It 's the bottom one . 25% . Why isn 't it 40%? So if you take , you 've got a 15 ,000 square foot . Krauss: You want to carry the same ratio throughout . Erhart : No , no , no . I 'm just saying what are we trying to accomplish? If it 's 9 ,000 square foot average . Isn 't there a goal if we have 15 ,000 square foot lots . The guy wants to make a 9 ,000 square foot lot . Then doesn 't 6 ,000 go to some kind of open space? Conrad: See that rationale works for me . Emmings: Everybody here kind of likes the idea of clustering but every time something comes in that will allow to do it , everybody gets scared . Conrad: Because we 're trying to make sure we know . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 24 — Emmings : Because it 's scarey . Conrad: Well yeah but you 've got to know how this looks . Ellson: But don 't forget , we always get to approve these things . You 're — thinking once it 's written . Conrad: Well you can change it but boy . But you kind of have a sense for— what this is going to feel like or look like once it comes in . And on the other hand , do you want to encourage developers to do this? That 's what our last PUD ordinance didn 't do . It was not encouraging . You 've got to give them something to get something that we want , yet most people here in town really aren 't crazy about smaller lot sizes . If you went out and polled , you 're going to find very few that want to go down smaller . Very few . You 're talking . Batzli : Then raise our minimum lot size to a half acre . Keep the PUD 15 ,000 and you 're set . You want them to use PUD , everybody will use PUD . Erhart : Average net lot size , is that net of the open space? Krauss : Excluding designated wetland . Erhart : And open space? Krauss: No . Erhart : It includes the open space? — Krauss : Yes . Keep in mind what qualifies as open space here is listed in E I think . • The idea with the PUD , I mean I went through what was it , the Saddlebrook subdivision today . We had people from Moody 's Investors — Service here today . Erhart: The guy 's got to have 25% open space . How can he possibly get to- 9 ,000 square feet? Krauss: It 's not the lot that has it . It 's the project . trhart: I know but if you 've got 100% and 25% of it 's open space , you 've got 75% less . If your minimum lot size is 9 ,000 and you 've got to add another 25% , you can't possibly get to an average net lot size of 9 ,000 . — Krauss: Yeah you could . You 're assuming that everything 's going to be split up as it is in Saddlebrook in individual lots and there is no public_ or private open space in outlot designations or some other non-residential lot . Erhart : No , I 'm saying you can 't get down to 9 ,000 . — Krauss: Sure you could . If you have 100 acres , you can have 49 ,000 square foot lots and the rest of it open space . — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 25 Erhart : But I thought you said that open space was included in the acreage , included in the net . That 's net of the open space? Krauss: No . The open space percentage , maybe we could clarify that . The average net lot size is , after we exclude wetlands , what is the average lot size they 're giving us . Erhart : Oh okay . That 's average lot size . Okay . Alright . I was thinking that was the density figure . Okay . Krauss: And the open space percentage applies on the entire project area . Erhart: So then you have 9 ,000 . Why aren 't we just taking 6 ,000 and putting that in open space which would be 40%? Krauss: Well , I approached it differently I guess . Erhart : You 're saying to go to a PUD there 's going to be an inefficiency . That inefficiency is that 15% . So in fact what we 're getting is 9 ,000 times 1 .3 so we 're really getting 12 ,000 . If you took then all 9 ,000 square foot lots , you add the 33% which yeilds 25% open space , then your average lot size , including the open space , is 12 ,000 square feet . That 's what you 've got . Krauss: That 's if you , so you 're going back and you 're aggregating the entire" area? Erhart : Yeah , I 'm just trying to see what our average lot size is . Krauss : I think another way to get at this same issue and I think the one that maybe Ladd was leading to , was when you go back into A where we say the cap on this thing is the comp plan . What I 'm hearing you say is that the comp plan cap which , you know the comp plan just talks about density . I mean if you have a 100 acre tract , you can build Cedar Riverside on there and still have the same density . Density that 's consistent with that . Maybe you want to look at lowering the allowable densities in single family residential PUD 's . Erhart : No , but do you understand what I came up with? Brian? Batzli : No . Erhart : I 'm just trying to rationalize the 25% . If you take 9 ,000 square feet and have a whole development and your average lot size was 9 ,000 square feet , you 'd be required to set aside 25% of the good space . Now that 's 25% of the whole development though isn 't it? Conrad: No . Erhart : It 's 25% of the net . Conrad: Of the average lot size . Emmings: No . 25% of the whole development . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 26 .r Erhart : Of the whole or net? Net of wetlands? Krauss: Of the whole . Erhart : That 25% can mean a lot from one parcel to the next because one — parcel might be 50% wetland yet he has to provide , he gets a few lots and still has to provide 25% of the whole parcel where the next guy may have 100% developable land and he has to provide 25% . _ Emmings: Well wait . It says wetlands and other water bodies protected by city ordinance and permanent easement . It can also be used to satisfy up to 250 of the standard . 25% of the 25% if we 're looking at the 9 ,000 line Erhart : It gets very complicated . Krauss: The idea is to crank out additional open space out of this thing . Emmings : So we should be winding up with more than the 25% . — Krauss : Well I think you did in the Lundgren/Lake Lucy when you went with 410 . Erhart : Yeah but some of that , anyway . Conrad: But how do you administer that Paul? You know the PUD comes in — and it 's got some 9 ,000 . Some 11 ,000 . Some 12 ,000 . Some 15 ,000 and how do you end up with an overall project open space amount? You 've got to apply a percentage times each parcel . Ellson : No , the average . Krauss: You come in with 100 acres . You 've• got 33 lots . The average lot— size is 10 ,000 square feet . You owe us 22 .5 acres of open space . Batzli : So if he doesn 't have that built into his lot already when he — comes in . He may have to reduce lots and then that number changes again . Erhart: I think maybe I can explain what I was trying to get to . Take the ideal situation where 100% of the land is developable . Emmings: No wetlands . Erhart : No wetlands . The guy just comes in with a bunch of 9 ,000 square foot lots . Emmings: Only 9 ,000 square foot lots? Erhart : Only 9 ,000 . Krauss: The ordinance says you can 't . Erhart : We can 't . Then how can• you get to the average? How can you get — the average net lot size to 9 ,000? Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 27 Krauss: I supposed it could be thereotically . Ellson: It could be one . You never know . Emmings : It can 't because on an acre we can only have , what is the comp plan going to limit it to? Krauss: Well the comp plan limits you to 4 so on an acre , that 's 36 . Emmings : Thousand out of 45 ,000 square feet . Erhart: You could be a medium density area which allows what , 6 per acre? Emmings : Let 's talk about . Erhart : Now you bring up a good point . Can 't you get to the average of '- 9 ,000? Krauss: I don 't know . I don 't know that you theoretically can. Erhart : Then why even have this in the table? Ellson: We had that thing with the church over here and they wanted to put something in there and it was just one . It 's a possibility . Erhart : Where does it say you can 't get to 9 ,000 . What 's the role I 'm missing here? Krauss: A requires that you give us a mix of lot sizes so even if you come . in with 9 ,000 , they 're going to have to come in with something else . Emmings: They can 't just come in with 9 ,000 . Ellson: It says right there . There are a mix of lot sizes . Erhart : Which line? Ellson: A . The third line down . Erhart : Okay , but we don 't really define mix so if they came in with one 9 ,500 then . Krauss: But you can throw it out . You can do whatever you want to in a PUD . Erhart : Okay , let 's assume they are all 9 ,000 100% developable . Then what you get is on an average over that 100% developable -area a 12 ,000 square foot average lot size when you add backin the 25% open space . Then the question is , does that seem right? That goes back to our old ordinance . I _ guess maybe the number where we got that number was the old ordinance allowed us to go to 12 ,000 square foot minimum lot size right? Krauss: I could lie and say that . . . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 28 Erhart : That you figured that all out right? Krauss: That 's a lucky one there . Erhart : Well that 's a . . .does that seem right to us? I don 't know . Emmings: That doesn 't talk about roads or anything else . That doesn 't seem like you 're accomplishing any one thing to me . But I don 't think that 's what 's going on here either . — Erhart : Well what 's going on here is you 're not going to have 9 ,000 and maybe you 're going to have 11 ,000 average but then you 're only going to _ yeild 20% . So when you take 11 ,000 times 1 .25 and your average lot size now is 13 ,750 when you add that back in . Krauss: But I think one point we keep overlooking is the one that you touched on about the advantages of clustering . In a straight subdivision that 's all roped off and fenced off into people 's backyards . There 's no public good . There was no ability to preserve stands of trees . There 's na. ability to preserve promontory . . This gives you flexibilty to rope off 22% of the site or whatever ratio it is and do good things with it . And still keep the densities relatively low . Conrad: But higher overall than what we 've been used to . Elison: And that 's the carrot that you get them to use . We talked about — i t before . Conrad: So you don 't mind Annette , instead of coming in at .2 units per — acre , which has been our standard . You don 't mind coming in at 2 1/2 unit or 3 units per acre? Ellson : Well - number one I 'll be able to see it . Although probably not me but the idea behind a PUD is they don 't tell you I 've met everything . You have to take it no matter what we choose which is the problem with . Conrad: They 're going to come in and say I met your standards . Elison: But at the PUD , we 're the ones who decide if we like it or not . We don 't have that choice in some other things . — Batzli : But then they 'll say fine . We 'll do it under your regular ordinance and tough luck . — Emmings: Then we say fine . Elison : Then we 'll say fine . Then we 'll get what we wanted possibly instead but we have a chance to deny it if we think they 're trying to rape the system or use it in a way we don 't like it . We get that shot . Conrad: I tell you Annette . I ' ll play the record . They ' ll look at the ordinance and say the ordinance allows it and you 're within the guidelines of the ordinance and we 'll say go ahead . — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 29 Ellson: But Paul will be looking at it and he 'll say , this isn 't what we want out PUD 's . We wanted that nice wetland and that nice view . Why don 't you clear up that space and do whatever . He 'll see it first and make that �^ recommendation . • Batzli : Let me make a general point here as a person who lives in a PUD . We 're talking about very lofty , fine goals here . Conrad: It doesn 't give you any more credibility . —' Batzli : It doesn 't but just let me express : Conrad: You 're an outcast in that group anyway . I 've talked to your neighbors . Emmings : I don 'teven want to sit next to him . Batzli : Let me just express , we have very lofty goals here and we think we 're: doing public good but I think if you wandered into a PUD and asked the people in the PUD what do you want . They 'd look at you and say , I want bigger lots so I can do the regular stuff that everybody else in the whole , pardon my french , damn city can do on their lot . Erhart : What don 't you buy a different lot then? Batzli : Well but they don 't know . Ellson: Whet about the people who say I want a 5 minute front lawn? Batzli : They don 't know . People moving in to these lots are typically , and I 'll gross over generalization and simplification . These lots are typically cheaper . Maybe Lundgren Bros . builds high priced lots but the other people can come in here and they build starter homes on some of these Sow things . In a lot of cases . They don 't know any better . Even somebody such ac myself who probably should have known better didn 't know any better . I didn 't realize what the difference between a PUD and a -regular lot size was . They don 't recognize the fact . You know you 're looking at a 9 ,000 square foot lot and if that 's a corner lot , you 've got about 2 ,000 square feet to do something on and that includes putting your house and driveway and everything else on there which leaves barely any room on it at all . And before you start talking about global good and wonderful open spaces and everything else , consider that the people that move in don 't give a rip if there 's a park there because they expect a park there whether they 've got a regular lot size or a small lot size . They don 't care . They don 't want to hear that well we 've got a park for you . They 're going to say yeah , and you gave me this dinky lot that I can 't do anything on and you should have given me a park anyway . If we keep on saying Chanhassen is supposed to be good and wonderful , make them put in normal sized lots and get the park in addition . That 's my final and only comment on this . I can 't believe we 're thinking of going down to any 9 ,000 square foot lots . Erhart : Do you have 9 ,000 square foot lots in your PUD Brian? Batzli : I don 't know how big they are . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 30 Emmings : Just his . Batzli : Just mine . I got the corner lot . I got the corner lot and I 'm stuck with it . No but seriously . I do think that if we do this , and you know something 's going to happen and I can see it coming down the tracks _ like a train just about to run me over here . But I would like to propose that at least we require the developers that are putting these in to tell people what they 're getting . They have to tell them what the square _ footage of the lot is and what the setbacks are on the sides of the homes . Give them a sheet . I don 't care . Informed consent . I think we should do that much for some of these people . Erhart : Let me ask you . Let me clarify what you said . Are you saying we should never allow 9 ,000 square foot lots or an average of 9 ,000 square foot lots? Batzli : I wouldn 't allow any . Erhart : Any at all . — Conrad: What 's your minimum? What lot size would you go down to? Ellson : He just said the half acre . Batzli : Whatever the smallest lot size is in the city now , there 's a reason for that . Emmings: Yeah , there 's a reason . Batzli : Whatever the reason is that we 've chosen that . Erhart : Throw a dart at a board . — Batzli : Okay , then we should throw the same dart at the board for the PUD . My recommendation is , if you want control over developments , you increase the minimum lot size and you put the minimum on that you would otherwise — have expected as the minimum in the PUD. Don 't be compromising your standards to get a little bit of clustering and a park that you should have gotten anyway . That irritates me . — Emmings: If we did what Brian is proposing and raised this to our subdivision standards of 15 ,000 square feet , would we ever see a PUD? Krauss : You just did . Emmings: Right . That 's right . Lundgren Bros . Well maybe Brian 's . I wa kind of liking this until Brian . Erhart : We were sold on the 9 ,000 square foot lots because we got a few of- them £them up there in Near Mountain and I .don 't know . I guess I haven 't personally gone and looked at them. You 've got a few slides and you can 't tell much from that but staff seemed to think they were okay . Ellson: And I really believe that the market is going to . . . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 31 Erhart : There 's a big difference between having a few 9 ,000 square foot lots and having a development where the average lot size is 11 ,000 square foot in my mind . Emmings: But if you say I 've got 100 acres and I 'm going to put 10 lots , ten 9 ,000 square foot lots and leave the rest empty , I take if you have no objection to that . Erhart : No , but that 's not what you 're saying . Emmings: No , I know it 's not but it isn 't the lot size . It 's the ratio to open space per lot size . I can see , we all like clustering . At least we all talk about it . We don 't really know what it is but . Erhart : I 'm not sure if you get 100 9 ,000 square foot lots all together and then you 've got another 25 acres sitting or 50 acres sitting someplace off to the side . Emmings: We 'd never approve that though . Now you 're painting a picture . Ellson: A worst case scenario . Emmings: No , not even a worst case scenario . It can 't happen because it would run afoul of our comprehensive plan and it would run afoul of the intent that we have in having a PUD ordinance . Batzli : Okay , so make them all 11 ,000 square feet . Erhart : I just wonder if we shouldn't delete some of those lines down there like 9 and 10 and maybe even 11 and give us another , raise our basement line a little .bit here . In other words , yeah you can have some 9 ,000 square foot lots but don 't even think about coming in here with a 9 ,000 avercage . Maybe we set a 12 ,000 average . See what I 'm saying? We 're kind of inviting a lot of 9 ,000 square foot lots the way we have this table here . _ Conrad: I 'd sure try to do . Emmings: You 'd never have an average 9 ,000 though. We keep coming back around to that . It can 't happen . Only if they came in with only 9 ,000 - square footlots could you ever have that . Conrad: So let 's take that worst case scenario because we will see it . Emmings: It isn 't possible . Conrad: Why not? Okay , let 's take it . Let 's take the 10 ,000 . Emmings: Do you agree? Krauss: I agree that it 's not possible . Conrad: Then we shouldn 't have it there . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 32 _ Krauss: But you know I keep going back to the fact that we had an ordinance on the books for years that said there 's an average lot size of — 12 ,500 square feet . Nobody used it because . Conrad: That was a minimum . That was a minimum lot size . Krauss: No it was an average wasn 't it? Conrad: No , minimum . Emmings: That was a minimum . Conrad: We 're talking here now . I get real concerned when we talk averag versus minimum . I am real comfortable allowing some smaller lot sizes but boy that 's not the average . That 's the average , I really don 't want to _ compromise the average . Emmings : But again , maybe we 're getting too specific here . Shouldn 't we be saying to people look . Here 's our subdivision ordinance . Here 's what — you can do . An option you 've got is the PUD ordinance . Under the PUD ordinance you 've can do a whole bunch of things . One of the things you can do is have lots that are smaller than what is required under the — subdivision ordinance but if you come in under that , expect to have open space requirements that are going to go up as fast as your lot sizes go down and don 't really expect to have a smaller or a greater gross density . Batzli : Well you wouldn 't be able to have a larger gross density because of the comp plan right? Emmings: Right . Well tell them right up front . Don 't expect to get a larger gross density . And if you 're going to come in below what our subdivision ordinance allows for lot sizes , then as that goes down , the _ open space requirement 's going to go up . And don 't put the numbers in there . Then let them figure out how they 're going to cluster and bring us a plan to look at . Krauss : So now put in new criteria? Emmings: Yeah . Then if they want to go with zero lot line or if they wanes to go with a small lots with detached houses or whatever they want to do , let them figure that out . Batzli : We 're going to be arbitrary and capricious . Emmings : Yeah but within the PUD I think you can. Erhart : It sure helps the process to have some guidelines . Elison : Yeah , I like Paul 's thing . Plus people come and go reading this ._. Emmings: You don 't really like it because you want to erase a lot of things . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 33 Erhart : I just don 't think we should think about less than 12 . I don 't know why I 'm picking 12 . I guess because it 's the old number . I would never think about having average lot size of less than 12 ,000 . Emmings : But this really stiffles . These charts to me kind of stiffle the creativity that you might allow somebody to have . Why not let them figure it out? Conrad: Let 's just remember . I 'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth but that 12 ,500 minimum didn 't encourage anything in our old PUD ordinance . It did not motivate anybody so I think Paul 's putting out a carrot here to say hey , let 's motivate them to do this . I 'm just wanting to make sure that we motivate them but we 're not giving away the integrity of the community . And I can 't understand what we are getting . I guess what I 'd like to see is some sketches of what this does . I 'd like to see somebody lay out how this would be applied and that doesn 't mean we hire a designer but I need to see what this might look like if somebody came in . And we haven 't , you know Tim 's point is still on the table . It 's still valid . He 's saying to go down to 9 ,000 square feet , we 're giving up 6 ,000 square feet below a standard that we 've set for a subdivision but we 're only getting 2 ,250 feet out of it inopen space . Is that the lure? Is that 3 ,500 foot , the developer has a net gain on that one of 3 ,500 square feet . Is that what it takes to get a PUD? And then the question is have we gained anything with that PUD? What have we really gotten . I 'm throwing those things out but I guess I still have a tough time visualizing what this formula does for us . I don 't want to kick it out yet . I 'd rather have it in there because it might be a good guideline but on the other hand I want to know what it does before I approve it . I want to know how it , I 've got to see it and feel it and I can 't right here . Krauss: Well we can sure take a crack at doing that . I guess a couple — things have happened too . I think we 're talking about a couple different goals for the use of the PUD . I think in the Lundgren proposal we saw that there was a rationale and a benefit to coming to using the PUD ordinance for a subdivision whose lots averaged 31 ,000 square feet . • Erhart : Hold it there . 31 ,000 square feet included a lot of water . "' Krauss: Yeah . Well and that 's why I threw in the language here excluding designated wetlands because there was an issue with that in the average lot size . Erhart: Average real lot size is dinky . _, Krauss: But that 's normal . You look at subdivisions around Chanhassen , they 're all like that . Batlli : Yeah, I know. That 's what I was saying earlier . I don 't like it . Krauss: I think one of the things I 've been tossing over is maybe we need a minimum net buildable standard for all lots in the city . I mean you could have a 100 ,000 square foot lot if you can 't accommodate a 5 ,000 foot square foot building area , it 's no good . We might want to consider that as an ordinance amendment in the bigger picture . I think it 's certainly Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 34 ti warranted . That 's why we started giving you tables and we can 't do anything about it except give it to you but giving you tables now where we_ say here , it 's a 18 ,000 square foot lot . 5 ,000 square foot of it is wetlands . In fact it was one of the things you requested in Lundgren but we 're starting to do that in everything . Farmakes: If you did that though , wouldn 't you eliminate about 3 of those lots that they were proposing there? Krauss : Well again , against what standards Jeff because the lots that are in there are bigger than we normally get and everywhere you go in Chanhassen we have wetlands . That 's a very common situation . Farmakes: But what Tim said though , a majority of those lots , at least some of those lots were wetland . Standing water and he made a point when he was here arguing that you had to look at the lot all the way out to the lot point in the middle of the skunk pond which I didn 't understand . Why? Krauss: Because you 've done it in every other subdivision in the city . — Batzli : So Paul says develop a new one that says you need at least a certain minimum area where you can put some building on it or something . Krauss: And not come back , doesn 't say it needs variances because you can 't put a house on it . Now we 've tried to do that . We 've gone through in the last couple years and we 've tried to figure out what we think a — buildable size is and tell the builder that that 's not legitimate but we have no guidelines to do it . If it doesn 't look right , we try to make them fix it . But I think it 's appropriate to , I mean we can do some research if you like and come back to you but I think an ordinance amendment and it would apply to any lots created in the RSF , RR or A-2 and PUD have to contain a minimum buildable area regardless of how big they are . Farmakes: I think you would avoid what a person is designing that out . There would always be 2 or 3 lots and that many homes that you 're going to have to force just as a matter of economics that you 're going to try to ge± in there on whatever 's left over . When I look at that Lundgren , you can almost pick them out with looking at it for 10 minutes as to which ones were , what they had left over and what they were going to try to make a lot out of . Krauss: Yeah I know what you 're speaking to but every lot in there has a legitimate building site to the extent that we know what legitimate — building sites are and we don 't have a criteria . I know that the building sites that are on those lots , even though some of them have quite extensive wetlands , are bigger than we find on a lot of other lots in regular RSF — subdivisions . Farmakes: Most of them did . There were a few that seemed to me as far as useable space were on the bottom end. of this list here . Krauss : They were tighter and will probably require designed home to fit . So as far as this , I mean I have now become a believer that there 's some — Planning Commissior Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 35 use for PUD 's , residential PUD 's that don't lower our average lot size at all . • Erhart : That was the question I had . Why , if• a guy has a 15 ,000 square foot average , why are we making him set aside any open space? The only reason would be if , yeah I mean why? Conrad : That 's true . A subdivision we 're penalizing so anything 15 ,000 and under however I think we should be getting something in return . That 's where we 're bending our standards . Erhart : Yeah , I always thought that we were taking 15 ,000 square foot let 's say , this idealized lot and if a guy wanted to make it 9 , the city gets 6 for open space and there 's no inefficiency . Right now we 've got a lot of inefficiency . Batzli : What 's the developer 's advantage to doing that rather than they might have shorter stubs? Conrad: Clustering utilities . Erhart : Clustering . Make them more creative . You might want to get rid of , like up here we let them use less than the standard setbacks . That was a major thing for that . I remember that presentation . That was a big deal that he wanted those houses 20 feet from the street . And so he got that . Emmings : Another flexibility . Krauss: Well and we 're working with Lundgren now on that Johnson-Delache piece between TH 41 and Galpin . There you 're talking 90 or 100 acres . I don 't know what it is and if we look to that . Emmings : Would you do it as a PUD? Krauss: Yeah . Now maybe as a PUD in there , it 's big enough that Lundgren will probably try to market to different prices of homes . Maybe they will have a bunch of 11 ,000 square foot lots . Further on where the land gets a little nicer and more rolling , they may have a bunch of 30 ,000 square foot lots . And your average lot size will probably still come out to be better than 15 ,000 . At that point you don 't look at varying your standard at all . You maintain your average lot size . Emmings : So then you don 't get any . Erhart : So that 's why you 're saying at 15 we should still take 10 because there 's going to be bigger lots that 's going to offset smaller . Okay , now I understand that . Batzli : Would all the open space may be on the larger sized lot end of the development too and then you 've clustered , for the sake of clustering the _ smaller homes. Emmings: Yeah , do we want to do that? Should they have to have open . If they 're going to have 11 ,000 square foot lots , even though they 've got a Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 36 bunch of 30 ,000 to offset it , bring the average to 16 or 17 . If they 're going to have those 11 's , do you want to have to create open space that — isn 't owned by another lot . Krauss: Well we said they were willing to accept . Keep in mind when we 're saying open space , the way this ordinance is structured , that 's not soccer fields . I mean if the city wants a park , a percentage of that area can be used to qualify . Emmings : What are we talking about when we say open space? Krauss: You may be talking about . — Emmings: Places where there aren 't houses . Krauss : Yeah but it could be portions of somebody 's lot . On the Lundgren deal that 's going to Council in 2 weeks , the tree preservation areas where we 've said there 's no cutting and we 're going to take a conservation easement , that 's all on what will be private property but it 's protected by a permanent easement . We said that qualifies . Emmings: Yeah , and you 're going to have that same opportunity on the new _ one because that all butts up against a wetland too on the south side . Batzli : I just think it 's small comfort for a person on an 11 ,000 square foot lot to know that a quarter of a mile away they preserved a stand of — trees on somebody elses private property . Now that person may walk into that knowing full well what they 're purchasing . Maybe they do , maybe they don 't . Maybe as a city we don 't care . I 'd like to take a little bit more_ paternalistic attitude . Krauss: I don 't know where you want to draw the line . I mean somebody walks into a Chevy dealer , they don 't expect to walk out with an Oldsmobil you know . Someplace people have to understand what the limitations are . Clearly in the past . Batzli : We 're looking at the ordinance and we don 't understand it . Do yo expect somebody to come into the city buying a lot and say well , I 'm purchasing a PUD . Explain to me all the rules and regs . Would you have _ the time and effort to explain it . Emmings: No , but I think Paul is saying if you 're buying a lot you ought to know the size of it . Batzli : I understand that but . Krauss: Also in the past I think there 's been almost total , I mean these things haven 't been done . Nobody 's done a residential PUD here in 5 years . We still have one building built out but you have a very comprehensive PUD ordinance now where a lot of things have to be demonstrated and filed — with property and made clearand we 're going the extra step like in the Lundgren thing where we 're requiring monumentation of the wetland setback areas and things like that . We can do a lot that puts the owner on notice— Now if the owner chooses not to read anything or not to call , then we have Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 37 a concern . Now I know the issue Brian that you gave us the letter on the deck . Under the ordinance now as this is written , that wouldn 't have happened . Batzli : Yeah , I understand that . I still have a problem with corner lots , their ability to be 9 ,000 square feet and then you 're looking at , like I said , you 're looking at 2 ,000 square feet potentially of space on the lot other than the setback . I guess I understand buyer beware but after having lived in the community now of 100 homes in my little PUD and talking to most of them and it 's their fault . They don 't read the local paper . They -- don 't care . They don 't know . They don 't want to know but the minute they want to do something with their property , then suddenly they get into it and the question is , do you want to protect these people or not . Is the City getting something and is what the City 's getting worth raising the eyre of a lot of people moving into the community . Maybe they should have known better but I guarantee you less than 1% will find out that they 're living on a substandard lot that the City things they got a tree preserved a quarter of a mile away in exchange for their substandard lot . That 's my point . Conrad: Those people are happy to move into a 10 ,000 square foot lot . Ellson: Who are we to tell them? Erhart : I think if they don 't like it they can always sell it and move to a bigger lot . Ellson: They 've got the choice going in . Erhart : It 's not like they don 't have options and I realize it 's inefficient . Ellson: If something has to be marked off for them or some sort of notification that a lot of people don 't realize they 're within the setback of the wetland and all these other kinds of things and too many come forth and say oh , I didn 't know . That 's why I filled it all in . That kind of thing . They 'll ignore that anyway even though they 'll still say they never heard about it . If they want to do it , they 're going to do it . And you having easements on those protected things is mightly strong now versus a convenant in the past which were worthless in protecting . Krauss: That happens on 2 acre lots too . I think you 're going to have to answer the fundamental question , because I 'm not sure . Do you want , I mean I think we 've demonstrated that the PUD has some validity beyond allowing undersized lots . Now you may well want to allow some freedome for undersized lots instead of minimum but require that the average is consistent with other city neighborhoods . Is there a desire to grant flexibility below the 15 ,000 square foot average or should we structure this so that doesn 't happen? Conrad: When you say average , the 15 ,000 square foot average . That 's the minimum so I 'm not sure what you 're saying Paul . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 38 _ Krauss: What I 'm saying is you could 'change this around so that you might_ have a 9 ,000 or a 10 ,000 or 11 ,000 . Whatever you want to set as the minimum lot area that you allow in a PUD . That will give a developer. flexibility to put in some smaller lots where those are appropriate . But require that the average lot size meet or exceed 15 ,000 square feet . — Erhart : That 's our old ordinance . Krauss: Yeah and before we had the Lundgren thing come down , I wasn 't too sure that anybody , nobody had used the old ordinance . Now the old ordinance was a bad deal for everybody . It was a bad deal for the buyers . It was a bad deal for the city and the city never got what the developers promised which was more affordable housing . There were no guidelines and no standards . But in an area like this Johnson-Delache piece the flexibility that the PUD may give a developer to take like the open — cornfield area and do the smaller lots and preserve the larger wooded hilltops for the larger lots and average it out , maybe that 's a worthwhile exchange . I don 't know . Conrad: Let me interrupt you . - I know you 've got a thought maybe . Batzli : Which is new . — Conrad: But it 's real easy to agree with Tim 's comment . I can understand what Tim is saying because it makes real good mathematical sense . If we — have a 15 ,000 square foot subdivision minimum , now we 're going to break that rule for a PUD . You can go underneath that down to a minimum lot siz of what we ever agree . Whatever Brian feels comfortable with but then you take the difference between the 15 ,000 minimum and what they just went dow to and you plop that into open space . Emmings : Not on somebody else 's lot . — Conrad: No . See all of a sudden, now I 've solved my density . My concern about increased density for the overall deal because I 've allocated that — same 15 ,000 . It 's either going to be there in a subdivision or a PUD but I 've allowed the developer to go down and cluster some utilities and .save some money but the difference is I 've taken what he 's saved landwise and I 've put it in our little bank over to the side called open space . Now — that one I can visualize and feel comfortable with . But I can 't , I still have a tough time with our formula that we 've got because I can 't tell what 's going to happen . I don 't know if it 's , I just don't know. Now — Paul 's comment could be , hey that 's not going to motivate the developer to do it and that 's a valid . That would be a real valid . Erhart : Yeah , because I think the incentive is still there because he get to put some 9 ,000 square foot lots . Conrad: See I would too but I don 't know that . Erhart : I think it 's very hard to get the average down below 14 ,000 or 13 ,000 . I think it 's more likely you 're going to see the averages above — 15 ,000 , even despite the fact that you may have some 9 's and 12 's in there Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 39 Conrad: See the word average bothers me . Again I 'm talking about minimum and going below a minimum . We 're not talking about , well . Emmings: That is a problem because if your average gets over 15 ,000 , now there 's no requirement to set aside any open space . Erhart: Well that 's the question I 've got . Now hang on . That 's not the way I read this . I read this as any time you go in a PUD you 've got to put 10% open space period . Is that what I 'm reading? Krauss: Well , we just changed that to 15 ,000 square feet or above . Erhart : So then anytime you have a PUD you have to put aside 10% open space . Is that what you 're saying? Is that what we want? Ellson: No . I want a lot more than that . Erhart : I mean if a guy comes in at 16 ,000 or 17 ,000 square foot , should we require them to set aside 10%? Krauss: What are you requiring of the individual who does a straight subdivision? Ellcon: You 're getting at least . Krauss: No , unless the city wants a park there which is the 10% , they give nothing . Erhart : You don 't have to have park fees or parks with the PUD? Krauss : Yes you do . Erhart : Maybe I misunderstand your question . If a guy comes in with a PUD because he wants to have some setbacks , special setbacks for something . Who knows what but yet his average lot size is 20 ,000 square feet , we 're still going to make him provide 10% open space? Is that what we want? Krauss: I think that 's the theory that we 're getting to here but you 've got to ask yourselves , what if Orrin Thompson wants to do a 1950 subdivision here and the city doesn't want a park on the property? He 's not giving you a square inch . Batzli : Giving you pretty good fees but you 're right , no square inch of open space . Erhart : Do a 1950 's what? Ellson: Cracker box , cracker box . Krauss: Yeah , your usual suburban subdivision . Straight subdivision . Straight platting . Unless the park board says they need park space there , you don 't have a single foot of open space . Erhart: No , but they 've got to pay a fee . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 40 Krauss: Right . Well so these people are paying fees too . They 're paying identical fees . — Batzli : You know how these problems are solved? We just move the minimum lot size in RSF to 20 ,000 square feet . Done deal . Everybody just smirks when I say that . I don 't understand why it 's such a sacred cow . Emmings: Well , it isn 't . Conrad: It costs a lot of money . Batzli : People will come in and do PUD 's then . If you want PUD 's , that 's_ the way to get them to do PUD 's . But we can 't even decide what we want th PUD to bc . Conrad: This is not easy . Ellson: Where do we go from here? Erhart : I 'm still trying to understand why , if a guy comes in with an 18 ,000 foot average . The big question is , why might he want a PUD? Krauss: For the reason we found on the Lundgren proposal is that if you throw 30 foot front yards and 75 foot rear yards and. 50 foot or 60 foot rights-of-way at them , you have a very difficult time making a legitimate development out of that thing . He got the flexibility . — Erhart : The price you pay then for that is a 10% of it goes to open space . Krauss: And in his case it 's 40% of open space . Batzli : Not under the new formula . Krauss : No , I haven 't applied the formula . Of the 12 . something acres of open space , 8 of it 's wetland . So you would give them 2 acres of that . Batzli : Get 2 acres , yeah . Emmings: I tell you , well . You guys are always arguing for specifics in — ordinances and I 'm always arguing to keep them vague but all the problems are created by trying to come up with a formula and I don 't know why we can 't just avoid it . I don 't know why you would want to . Ellson: You 're saying spell the intent out clear enough . Batzli : But if we can 't decide on what 's fair now , how are we ever going — to decide the minute a developer walks in unless you have at least an "acceptable range" . You will be expected to provide within this range for open space . 10% to 20% . _ Emmings: I could go along with that . Batzli : Yeah , I could go along with that . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 41 Emmings: A statement in a range I could live with very easily . Batzli : The developer will be expected to provide between 10% and 200 open space . End of it . Emmings: Another statement . If you go below 15,000 feet , expect to have a greater requirement . To the extent you have lots below 15 ,000 square feet , expect to have greater requirements for open space . Krauss: For individual lots or average density below that? Emmings: See I tend to go to the individual lots . Conrad : Individual lots . Emmings: Because otherwise I don 't want to see , you know he 's got prime land over here and he 's got 1 acre lots and he 's got a whole bunch of little houses down here where Brian lives . Those are 10 ,000 square feet . Those people are getting screwed . To me . I agree with Brian . It 's no comfort . There may be a certain market for people who want to live in those houses . Krau!:E : Well but face it . These people probably paid $30 ,000 .00 for the lot when the guy up on the hill paid $80 ,000 .00 . I mean you 're getting something different for a difference in price . Emmings : Yeah , I don 't know . I guess I don 't find comfort in that but I guess I could be persuaded if there 's a market . Maybe there are empty nesters who want a small place and don 't want to spend their time taking care of a yard . We have people starting out who want to get into a house like that . Batzli : See but most people , and I 'll say this and you don 't have to give me sympathy but this is the reason . Most people move in and they expect the community to have minimum standards . Most people don 't understand what PUD is . They don 't understand that what they 're getting is below ,the minimum community standards in other parts of the city . They don 't understand that . Conrad: But they know what they 're getting . Emmings: They know what they 're getting . Batzli : No they don 't . Okay they know they 're getting a 12 ,000 square foot lot . They don 't know that the minimum throughout the rest of the entire city is 15 ,000 . Emmings: Why do they care? Batzli : Well the question is , why should the city relax the standard? Emmings : To provide that person with something that he wants and can afford . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 42 Batzli : I don 't buy that that house is any cheaper than the 15 ,000 square foot lot . I don 't buy that the PUD is necessarily providing that but that 's just me . — Emmings: I think that 's the reason the person bought it . I mean they 're dissatisfied with their house because they moved into a 12 ,000 square foot_ lot and find out most other people in regular subdivisions have 15 ,000 square foot lots? Batzli : No , they are . Well , I don 't know how to say this but they move — in . It 's a substandard size lot . It 's not necessarily , and under this ne subdivision things are changed a little bit but they still have setbacks and things applied against them and they do:i 't understand the nuances of — the PUD . That 's my only point that they 're getting a smaller sized lot an they 're not necessarily gaining any benefits from it and I 'm not convinced necessarily that the city got anything so I 'm looking at it from a lose — lose perspective . The people that are moving in . They don 't understand that they 're going to have a strike against them the minute they try to do something on the lot . The City 's really not gaining anything . My question is , who 's getting something other than the developer who had relaxed the — standards to do the development . Now if you can convince me that we 're providing a different housing market and people are getting cheaper houses and that 's why we 're doing that , then that 's a good .enough rationale but I._ don 't know that that 's why we 're doing it here tonight . Emmings : Now presumably a builder won 't build a house unless he can sell — it . There 's got to be a market or he 's not going to sell the house . Batzli : Right , but the question is , who 's winning with this ordinance? Is the City winning? Are the people moving into the city winning , which is , — you know when we 're looking at it I think we have to look at it from two points of view . Is the City getting something like open space or a park or helping to preserve additional wetlands other than what our ordinance — already does . It does comfort me at all that Lundgren preserved wetlands that were already preserved . I mean that just really irritated me . That yeah , we get to count the whole wetlands here as open space . Well you had to do that anyway . I don 't give a rip . You know , so the City doesn 't — really win under that scenario . The people if it 's a , and again don 't fee sympathy but people moving in I don 't think feel they win . So you 've got the people moving in . They 're unhappy usually with the city because they — go to the city . The city says you can 't do anything with your lot so they 're unhappy . The city didn 't get anything . Who won? The developer . My question is , let 's build an ordinance . Make sure we have an ordinance — where the people moving in win. The City wins and the developer gets a fair shake and I don 't think that 's happening under this one . Emmings: You know one way maybe to avoid this problem of a developer — putting up , having a bunch of big lots in one area and a bunch of little ones in another area which scares me about this . Would be to put something in here that they 're going to have to mix their lots to some extent . And — what are you going to do , set up a formula for that? I don 't even know ho you do it . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 43 Conrad: I go back to the overall . Just real simply , I don 't have a problem . Let 's take a 100 acre parcel . Based on today 's development pattern , on a 100 acres . Somebody could probably put in 200 units on 100 acres . I don 't have any problem taking those 200 units and putting on half of the property and leaving the other half open . Taking the minimum lot size down to 4 units , you know putting it up to 4 units per acre . That 's fine because what I 've done there is we 've got open space and we 've kept the standard that we 've been kind of floating along with . 2 units per acre , even though comprehensive plan says 0 to 4 , practicality has dictated we 're coming in around 2 . Emmings: Or 1 .7 . Conrad: Or 1 .7 so that 's why I want to be able to get . Emmings : I think everybody here would agree with that . Conrad: But I 'm not sure I know how to get there . Emmin z : Paul won 't . He flexed his eyebrows . Krauss : No , I see . . .45 minutes ago . Conrad: Well we 're missing things . Emmingz : But what 's the difference between what Ladd 's saying and what we 're doing here? Krauss: Because what we 're doing here would allow densities in excess of what we normally experience . Emmings: Does anybody want that? • Ellson: I think I could be won over if I looked at it . Erhart : In excess of what? Emmings : In excess of the 1 .7 . What we 've historically done with subdivisions . That 's why I asked right off the bat , it says in no instance shall the project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines . I wonder if we were incorporating that 1 .7 right there . • Krauss : No . Emmings: Well I wonder if we want to . Krauss : Well you might . Conrad: That would make me feel comfortable . That one , and Paul mentioned it before , average consistent with other subdivisions . That one -statement gives me the leverage to talk to a developer and then I can throw everything else out . But that one statement gives me something to say , hey I don 't like it because it 's not meeting what we 've seen in 'the past in the overall design of the subdivision . • Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 44 Emmings: And then could you throw out this open space table? Couldn 't yc get rid of all that? Krauss: You could , well . Conrad: I 'd like to give them a way to . — Emmings: To what? Conrad : I 'd like to force the open space . Emmings: But if you 've got your gross density set . If he wants to cluster , you 're going to wind up with open space . You 've set the gross — density for the whole project . Conrad: Yeah . It could still end up looking like a PUD . Or like a — subdivision . End up looking like a subdivision though . Emmings : But then if it is a subdivision , he goes under the subdivision ordinance . We don 't care if he does because we think we have one that 's — okay . Erhart : You can cluster . You can still cluster and use the 9 ,000 square — foot lots . Overall density is . Emmings : Is 1 .7 . — Erhart : For the low density is one number . Medium density is another number and high density is another number . Emmincs: Right . Here 's the framework . You 're stuck with . Erhart : That would really serve the same purpose as this . _ Emmings: Do what you want . Bring it in and we 'll take a look at it . Batzli : But they wouldn 't have to necessarily provide open space . They — could just make bigger lots . Emmings : But if they want that approach Brian , why wouldn 't they do a — subdivision? Batzli : No , if they could put a couple 9 ,000 square foot lots in there and just put 37 ,000 and end up with the right density . They wouldn 't have provided any open space that isn't privately owned . Emmings : Okay , would that bother anybody? — Erhart : That 's what you 've got here too. I mean this open space is based on average . Batzli : That 's right . • Erhart : So you can do the same thing with this . — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 45 Batzli : Right . I understand that . Well I don 't like that aspect of this either . I mean that 's why I 'm viewing this as the developer wins . The city loses . The people that move in lose except for the people on the 37 ,000 square foot lots and they didn 't have to move into a PUD anyway if they didn 't want to . Conrad : I don 't perceive it that way . Ellson: I don 't either . Batzli : I know but I 'm just , somebody 's got to argue against it because otherwise this whole commission . . . Ellson: Were you here the night they gave that presentation of all the different ones? There were a lot of win situations there . Batzli : I gave you Tootsie Pops to soften you up but it didn 't work . Emmings : Order in the court . Jeff , you haven 't said anything . Farmakes : I think it should be. 1 .7 and I think that that point was made quite a while ago . Conrad: The rest of us missed it . Farmakes : It 's still going to become quite cloudy whether or not it 's in , it seems to me that the advantage of a PUD is financial anyway . One way or the other for the developer . Why would a developer develop a piece of property if it wasn 't in their financial interest? Emmings : They wouldn 't unless they 're stupid . Farmakes : Going on that basis , I think if 1 .7 is the average size , if that 's what it works out to , I think that still gives them the leverage . That still gives them the leverage to utilize pieces of property . Because of the terrain , will develop otherwise . Emmings: What would be the gross density on the Lundgren one that we just went through here? Krauss : 1 .4 units an acre . Erhart : Why don 't we just ask them to go back and look at that . We 've spent a lot of time discussing this . We 're obviously not going to pass anything tonight . Look at that approach versus this approach . Krauss : Would you like me to get , you only heard from one developer . There 's a lot of them out there who have worked in this community . Should we get a panel of them together? I mean we can get real assenteric and dig this thing real deep and come up with an ordinance that makes absolutely no sense to somebody working out in the field . If they 're not going to do it , we ought to know about it and just drop it . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 46 • Emmings: But wouldn 't they want , you know if I 'm a developer and I come to you and I say , how can I develop and you show me a subdivision ordinance . — I say okay , I don 't like it . What alternatives do I have? You say okay well you can develop it the same density but we can give you lots -of flexibility in your road construction and your setbacks and your ability to cluster , you can develop your property any way you want to as long as you don 't exceed this number and as long as we like your plan . It makes sense for the property and we can protect some trees and things like that . Wouldn 't a developer be interested in that? — Ellson : How 's that different than our own? Emmings: If it was that vague? Krauss: A developer like Lundgren that 's fairly perceptive and understands that and is design oriented , yeah they will . But you 've got to realize when you 're going through a PUD you 're asking a guy to go through a rezoning which they really wouldn 't have to do . It exposes them to any 3/5ths . They need a super majority to approve the rezoning . They only — need a simple majority to approve a plat . It 's a lot more work for them t come up with all this stuff . I don 't know if it 's worth it for them . I honestly don 't . Emmings : Why don 'tyou ask? Rather than getting a panel of them together , why don 't you just run the ideas past them some and tell us what they say . I think . I don 't know , what do you think? You 're talking about another — presentation here otherwise? • Krauss: No . You 've had the presentation . I think come up with a version— of this ordinance or leave it the way it is and tell them what other thing you 're thinking about and say the Planning Commission would like to hear from you . Your reaction to this . I mean clearly if the idea is just to motivate , is the motivation that we had with the earlier PUD 's which was crank out more lots . People get less building space . The City gets absolutely nothing out of it and with a vague promise that it 's going to lower the price of housing when obviously it didn 't , who cares . We don't — need to do anything . But I found going through that one with the Lake Luc Road one , a rather unique experience because it really proved where the PUD was completely valid when it didn 't in any way encourage undersized lots . _ Emmings: Okay . We 're going to table this . Erhart : There 's some other things here though . I 've got a question here ,— moving right along here . Your computer printed out some double sentences . Did you notice that? Bottom of the page . ( e ) , bottom of page 1 . You 've got some repeats of sentences and lines . Okay , then on ( f ) . We go to 1 , — boulevard plantings . Is this on top of our new ordinance for landscaping? I mean all of a sudden I 'm reading this and all of a sudden we 're required . Krauss: No , it 's not on top of it . - Your new ordinance for landscaping applies in subdivisions . It doesn 't apply in PUD 's . Erhart : It doesn 't apply in PUD 's . So we 're requiring . — Planning Commission t;eeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 47 Krause :: Well I guess maybe it is redundant because you have to come throuGh with a plat with the PUD . Emmings: Well shouldn 't it apply? Krauss: Well definitely it should . I put it in here to make sure , I wasn 't double hitting . It was to make sure it applied . Erhart : You 've got a lot of requirements here . Your rear yard shall contain at least 2 over story trees. That 's not even in our landscaping . Emmings: Foundation plantings . I don 't remember there being requirements for foundation plantings . Erhart : Where 's this landscaping? Kraus. : That 's new . Batz] i : We talked about this . ElIEon: We talked about this though . I remember . Batzli : Us PUD dwellers talked about it at , well it was meetings and meetings ago now but it seems like yesterday . Ellson : I remember too a budget or something was going to come out but yeah , we wanted it to apply to that sort of thing . Batzli : These were some of the things that we were going to get from having a PUD in there . It wasn 't going to be a one to one transference of open sp. to 15 ,000 square feet . The kind of a deal like you were saying . We were talking about amenities in the PUD . Emmings: Maybe this section Paul , the overall landscaping plan . Maybe you ought to incorporate our other landscaping plan and then add anything we 're going to add like foundation plantings . Krauss: Yeah , keep in mind too that this was originally drafted in the spring and we 've since gone on and the landscaping stuff has jumped ahead of this and we 've finally got that figured out so there 's a lack of consistency for that . Erhart : I guess the whole thing hits me here is that the whole idea of the PUD was to allow creativity and now all of a sudden , bam . We 're going to have 2 over story trees in the rear yard and we 're going to have boom . We 're going to have foundation plantings . We 're going to have boulevard plantings . All of a sudden we 're getting real specific . Batzli : But we didn 't get any creativity . We haven 't got. any . Erhart : Well we haven 't done any . I don 't know . Batzli ' Yeah but nobody wants to do them . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 48 Erhart : I 'm just surprised . I was surprised when I read this . Batzli : I agree . I think it should be creative . I mean I think this — should be win for people who move in . Win for the city . The developer . I. should be attractive to them and I don 't see that we 're doing that yet . Erhart : And then beyond that . Batzli : The only people that ever do them are Lundgren . I mean you know and they do it for a different reason . Erhart : Maybe I missed the meeting on this . I was just really surprised . Gee we get the architectural standards . I don 't remember talking about . — must have missed that meeting . Is that what we said at a meeting we want architectural standards , and again we don 't even , we 're talking about lots here . We 're not talking about site plans . — Ellson: These are the things that . . .remember this exactly . For this reEson they could have the street signs could be a tad different and all — these . . .They were going to get bushes when they moved in . Just a bare mi nirrur! . Erhart : Let me go on here for a minute . Again , if -this goes as a PUD — we 're going to put guidelines on placement of air conditioners? Do you se the contrast of how it jumps from what concept of creativity to all of a sudden man we 're dictating specifics . The whole thing just hit me like — what are we doing? Kraus_.: Yeah , :ut are we talking about 9 ,000 square foot lots or are we talking about 30 ,000 square foot lots? Emmings: Right . And we 're also talking about maybe some zero lot lines or some , cr even 'some 5 ,000 square foot lots . — Erhart : But that 's in another section which that also confused me . Now all of a sudden we go to Section 20-507 . Now we 're back to the minimum 25: gross area . Am I reading this right? Plus those two pages don 't , page 3 doesn 't go to page , let 's see . Bottom of page 2 does not fit with the top of page 3 . There 's something . There 's at least 6 inches at 4 feet in ' height can of the PUD , the plan should be developed . There 's something — wrong here . A typo . Am I the only guy who saw this? Conrad : Yeah , you 're the only one . I read it and it sounded right . Erhart : Well anyway , it 's confusing to me . Ellson: Brian 's usually the one that finds those . Batzli : I didn 'tget past A . • Erhart : In Section 20-507 relates to these zero lot line things? Is that it? Krauss: Yes . Planning Commission Meeting • October 2 , 1991 - Page 49 Erhart : Okay . And those you 're suggesting that we maintain just this 25e gross area of the PUD to be set aside .in these protected areas . Am I reading that? - Krauss: Yes . We 're talking about fairly intensive . . . Erhart : Oh , I understand . Well because the pages didn 't meet , maybe I thought there was an extra page in there . I 'm just checking . Okay , I 'll stop . Emmings : Are we kind of worn out on this for tonight? Conrad: Yeah . Emmings: What can we do? • Ellson : I like his idea . Ask some of the developers . Emmings : Do you think you can make anything out of the pages and pages of comments you 're going to have in the Minutes? - Krauss: I can make a lot out of it . The question is , will that bring it to resolution the next time . I still don 't understand if there 's a desire to allow individually or collectively lots below 15 ,000 square feet . Emmings : Yeah . Conrad: Yes . Emmings : I have no problem with that . Krauss : Brian you still do? Batzli : I don 't if that 's average . Erhart : If 15 's average? Batzli : Yeah . Emmings: Alright , if I have 100 acres and I 'm putting on four 9 ,000 square . foot lots , you 're against that? Batzli : That 's it? That 's all you 're doing on 100 acres? What else , the rest an outlot? Emming: My average lot size is 9 ,000 square feet so I don 't think you mean what you say is what I 'm saying . Batzli : Well that 'd be wonderful I suppose if they did that . Emmings : It 's silly obviously but I don 't think you mean that you 're against an average of 9 ,000 . Under certain circumstances it could be alright . It 's not what we want . It 's not what 's going to happen but it 's Planning Con ission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 50 not , we shouldn 't just throw it out I •don 't think . I think we should leave it up to the developer . I really do . • Ellson: Yep , I do too . Let us see it . We know what we like when we see it . Batzli : But under this current one . Conrad : But that 's unfair to the developer . Emmings: No it 's not . Conrad : Yeah it is . If we say we like an average 9 ,000 square foot lot size . Batzli • He ' ll bring it in . Conrad : Nobody here would really like to see that . Emmings : Don 't say it . Batzli : If for example they did a single road in . ,They had a little _ cul-de-sac in the middle , which would probably be against our rules becaus, it 'd be over 1 ,500 feet or something , but they have a little cul-de-sac . They 've got four 9 ,000 square foot lots and the rest of it is an outlot all the way around it , would any of us really be that against it? Emmings: No . Ellson : Nice secluded little thing . • Emmings : That 's clustering . _ Batzli : That 'd be great . But who in the world is going to do that? Well Lundgren could because each one of those 9 ,000 square foot lots would be worth about 41OQK and they 'd just say , well it 's all fair . Ellson: The deer farm that 's behind here . Farmakes : Centex did that in Eden Prairie. They call them Village Homes . Emmings : How did it -work out? Farmakes : Just what you described . They offered a variation in price of about 25% from the smaller lot single family homes . Basically they 're a retirement house . You wouldn 't have to mow more than about 5 feet around -- the house . Ellson: Yeah , and I think that 's a viable option . . .Brian that there are _ people that don 't want the bigger lot . Emmings : Sounds great to me . Alright , now you asked a question . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 51 • KrauEs: I think you 're saying that you are willing to consider lots below 15 ,000 . Emmings : We 'll consider anything . We 'll consider zero lot lines . We 'll consider 5 ,000 . 9 ,000 . - Krauss: But do you still want to put a ceiling in what you could see? Emmings: Yeah . • Erhart : In terms of density? Krauss : Yeah . Emmings: That 's what I want to do . Conrad: Yeah . Patzli : I would say , if you put density limitations on there , I would also like to see open space that isn't privately owned . I would like to see that which I don 't think is part of your density scenario . • Emmings : Who owns it? If it 's not privately owned , who owns it? Batzli : Outlot . Krauss : But who 's going to take care of . . .? Emmings : Who 's going to take care of it? Who 's responsible for it? • Batzli : Well that 's never bothered us before . Why are you going to start now? Do you really think these people in the Lundgren lots are going to be out there fixing their monuments? Get real . Grow up . Come on . Emmings: Brian , I want you to put both feet back on the floor . You jumped from outlot to monuments somehow and that was quite a leap . Batzli : That 's what they used to do . I mean basically my development has an outlot with a monument on it that 's owned by some guy that lives in Cuba or something . It 's not going to be taken care of . So Lundgren comes in. and says we 'll fix that . We 'll make it part of this guy 's lot and he 's got a covenant to fix the monument . Come on . We 've done it in the past . Why are we worried about it all of a sudden right now? Emmings: Let 's please not talk about monuments . That 's a different problem . • Batzli : It 's part of their open space . _ Krauss : But if there 's a need for public open space , shouldn 't that have been . . . Emmings: That 's park . That 's got nothing to do with what we 're talking about here . That 's separate . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 52 Batzli : Okay , then make all the open space park . Then I 'd be happy with that . Emmings : And now it 's the citizens responsibility to take care of it . The.. we 're not going to like that . Batzli : Why? Ellson: What about that same . . .that was behind the people? — Batzli : Well all they do is , then don 't grow any grass . Put some trees off it and let it grow . Krauss: That 's not the way it works . Batzli : Why? — Krauss: You get demands for totlots . You get demands to cut the weeds . You get demands to pick up the garbage . — Emmings: Right . No , I don 't think we want . If it 's not parkland and it '.. not privately owned in part of the lots , what then? — Conrad: I think it 's the Emmings Foundation . Batzli : Then make it a requirement that there 's a neighborhood associatio. and it 's owned to all the units in the lots . Commonly owned . Let them take care of it . But give them a vehicle to take care of it by requiring the association . Erhart : I think the problem is when you 've got this privately owned woode_. area that you 're preserving , if it 's privately owned the guy can post things and nobody can walk in it . — Batzli : That 's right . I mean what 's the good of , well open space is good visually . Preserve it but it would be better I think if it was useable — because they 're basically and again you guys don 't like this but they 're giving up lot size to get it . Emmings: They 're not . Batzli : Well I view it differently because I live in one . You view it as a detached commissioner not living in one of them . I 'm saying this is whams the people in them view it as , and you can accept it or reject it . You guys all clearly reject it but that 's how they view it . Emmings: It sounds like a detached retina . Conrad: I like the detached chairman . Ellson: I think another night with the Planning . Batzli : I 'd simmer down by then . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 53 Emmings: Yeah , can we talk about this another night when Brian 's not here? Ellson: Yeah , special meeting . Don 't let him know . Emmings: Well . I don 't know . Conrad: They 're really good comments . Emmings: No , I think we 're talking about a lot of important stuff but I think we 've worn ourselves out for tonight . Batzli : Thanks for making me feel good . Emmings : Brian , you 're responsible for bringing up all of the most - important things that we talked about . Not let 's see . Minutes . Oh , we 're going to table this and you 're going to figure out . Krauss: Exactly what you said . Emmings : Do it . Just do it . Erhart : This is your commission . Krauss: Well Steve , isn 't this one of the places where you jump in and volunteer? Emmings : I 'll rewrite the ordinance tomorrow afternoon. Conrad: You could make it pretty vague I have a feeling . But I think this would be a case where the Planning Director and the Chairman of the Planning Commission might just get together . Emmings : You , never did . _. Conrad: I know . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 4 , 1991 were so noted as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Emmings: Let 's see now . Lundgren they put off deciding it . Surface Water Management . Is there any of these anybody wants to talk about? I 'm glad they 're going on the grandfathered recreational beachlots . And you see , Comrade Farmakes has been appointed to the sign ordinance task force . That actually exists at this point in time? Krauss: It will , yes . It does . Emmings: They will be starting to meet . That 's going to be tough . Farmakes : New signs are going up I noticed . Krauss : Oh , on the building? Yeah , they are . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 9 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Emmings: This is old business . I don 't know if anybody has come because they 're interested in this item tonight . Is there anybody here that is interested in addressing themselves to this issue? Alright . Why don 't you go ahead . Conrad: What 'd you say? Emmings: Tim . Erhart : Okay . Page 2 here . Boy , I read your Minutes . I was really glad I_ wasn 't here last time . I 'm still wondering how it was that Brian and I were so important in this particular thing . Batzli : I actually came at the start of the meeting and asked them to — postpone it . Erhart: Oh , you did? Okay . Page 2 . Is this Paul or Jo Ann? Paul . Page_ 2 there on item number 4 . It says the rear yard shall contain at least two over story trees . Is that consistent with our new landscape ordinance? Krauss: No , it 's not . This has been going on for a good long time and — things have changed in the interim but I think initially there was a decision that even though we retrenched from that position in the standard subdivisions , that it would be left this way in a PUD because the — expectation was a PUD gave you higher standards of development anyway.. Erhart : But to me it 's , in the first place in the landscaping includes 2 — front yard trees and 1 rear yard . Is that what we ended up with? Krauss: We left it at . Olsen: 3 trees . Erhart : 3 trees . Well you know when the object here is to provide flexibility and then we come in here and detail what they 've got to do , it seems to be contradictory to what we 're trying to do . I just wouldn't go along with that . I also think some of the other , well . There 's a few things like that where we get into a lot of detail where we 're trying to spell out exactly what 's to be done and I 'm not sure we 're in line with what our overall goal is . Do we have a definition statement that defines what a single family detached and a clustered home is someplace in our — ordinance book? Krauss: I don 't recall off hand . Erhart: You don't have to look it up now but it 's just a question. If we 're going to put that in there , that ought to perhaps be defined . Again when we get down on page 3 , I know we 've talked about this one before but , — that 's right I 've got 5 minutes . There 's a few things going on here bothering me about it . Okay , let me give you what I feel about the whole thing . I still think the residential PUD is a good idea but after reading — all the Minutes and talking to some of the Council people and everything , I Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 10 think we ought to step back for a minute and decide what our standard city lot size here in Chanhassen . And I see in your Minutes , your discussion of the Minutes Paul you make a statement that you feel that you state , that I can tell you from the metro area standpoint we 've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area . Did you mean our current ordinance of 15 ,000 square feet? - Krauss : Correct , yes . Erhart : Do you really , you 'll stand by what you said there? And Minnetonka is what , 20? Krauss: Minnetonka is 22 . Erhart : Okay , what 's Eden Prairie? Krauss : I 'd have to go in and look . We gave you a table on this about a - year ago . I don 't recall what it was . . . Erhart : Okay , given that you 'vegot two things . One , it doesn 't appear to me that you 're going to get this through Council this way . And secondly is with the 5 years I 've been on here I 've heard us talk about is 15 ,000 the right size and I 've heard a lot of people come in and say it 's too small and quite frankly I 've always kind of gone along with 15 ,000 because from a - socioeconomic standpoint small seems good . But you know maybe we ought to , instead of trying to pounding on this thing , maybe we ought to go back and look at what our city lot size ought to be because I think it 's time to have that discussion . Secondly , if you 're going to have a PUD that anybody 's going to apply for , they 're going to have to be incentivised and you 're not going to get , I don 't think you 'r•e going to get 10,000 square feet through the City Council . So I think if you 're going to have a PUD , you 're going to have to increase the average size of your lots to something like 18 ,000 or 20 ,000 square feet and then incentivise them with something like 12 ,000 to 15 ,000 square feet minimum . Otherwise it 's not going to - work . . . Emmings : I guess what you 're doing now is sort of , this is the problem we 've had all along . Both with the subdivision ordinance and with the PUD ordinance is almost every time we sit down , someone comes up with a new idea and almost everybody changes their idea almost every time we sit down . Just like it 's a thing that keeps slipping around on the table and we can 't put a nail in it . And I don 't disagree with you , it 's just hard to know where to go . - Erhart : Except political reality is , it appears that the City doesn 't want 10 ,000 square foot lots and the Planning Commission wants a PUD ordinance . The compromise is you increase the city lot size so you can still incentivise the developers . Emmings : We always get back to Brian 's point . He made it kind of facetiously . In the subdivision ordinance make minimum lot size half an - acre and then everybody will do a PUD . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 11 Erhart: Now half acre is 22 ,000 so maybe it 's 20 ,000 or 18 ,000 or something but . Emmings: Maybe you said an acre , I don 't know . Batzli : I said 20 ,000 . — Erhart : Oh , because this isn't going to fly I don 't think . And yet I think it 's a good idea . To make it work we 're going to have to increase the subdivision . Pardon? Ahrens: What did you think was a good idea? Erhart : A PUD . A residential PUD . I don 't think we should be this specific but I think the concept 's good and worthwhile . Krauss: Okay . So as far as what you think we should do as far as taking action on this so we don 't just keep beating a dead horse here , what do you think needs to be done? — Erhart: I think we should go back and review our subdivision ordinance and decide what the city wants . Only in terms of what our subdivision ordinance says our minimum lot size is . Without that° you 're open . — Emmings : It 's not unreasonable , just scarey . Ladd . You don 't want to go back to the subdivision ordinance do you? — Conrad: Well I 've been through this and maybe that 's not fair to say I should even reflect an opinion . Yeah , I don 't want to do that and I 've _ been to so many public hearings and maybe that 's the problem but I 've been to so many . We 've hit lot sizes which I was always a proponent of larger lot sizes but it never flew . And at this point in time I 'm real comfortable with how Chanhassen is developing. I don't mind the 15 ,000 . — Industry says lot sizes are getting smaller . I just couldn 't conceive of us going out and increasing lot sizes right now when I 'm real comfortable with the 15 ,000 . I 'm real comfortable with most of the land that 's being — developed and I see an industry that says geez , and the public that says hey I don 't know that I want larger lot sizes . And again I say that , you should know that I started on the Planning Commission one , because I wanted to maintain some of the character that Chanhassen had and that was larger — lot sizes . I like that . But I am convinced that lot sizes don 't matter that much . It 's zoning for the other things that you like . It 's zoning for the trees and it 's zoning for the wetlands and it 's zoning for other — things and it 's not lot size . So I don 't want to talk lot size at all in terms of going up . I think it is a dead horse and I don't want to be there . In terms of this ordinance , we 're looking for flexibility in terms of a carrot . We 're looking for a carrot to persuade some developer to put in a PUD and obviously the past carrots haven 't worked . Therefore the best thing we can do is reduce our lot sizes . I 'm not real comfortable with the way the current ordinance or the proposed ordinance is worded because it — still could appear to a developer that they could come in and, well I 'm still not sure I 'm comfortable with the wording . I don 't mind the 15 ,000 square foot standard . I don 't mind going down to 10 ,000 feet for a certain — portion of the units but I don 't know what that portion is . What I don 't Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 12 want to do is give a developer the idea that really our standard could be 10 when it 's really 15 . I 'm still looking for a larger lot but I don 't mind shifting in a subdivision . I don 't mind shifting density to preserve something and so far I haven 't seen the words yet to make me feel comfortable with that . I don 't mind 10 ,000 but I don 't want to see a development that has one large lot that has 500 ,000 square feet of space and then the other 99e of 10 ,000 square foot , that 's not the character that — we 're building in Chanhassen . But I don 't mind having 10 ,000 square foot lots in a development . I ' ll go back to Lundgren and I 've heard some negative things said about that . It still was a classy way that they put onto some small lots in a big development . It 's a good , they did a good job . There were some reasons it looked good . It 's still small . There 's some people who will buy that and you can make lots look good and houses look good on small lots . End of sentence . End of thought I guess . I still like the concept . I don 't like the wording . I 'm still real concerned about the overall appearance of this PUD and I think what Paul could say is , hey . You still have control over it when it comes in and my only comment to that was yeah , but I want to paint a picture to the developer before they come in of what is acceptable to me . I don 't want to send a picture off that acceptable is a whole bunch of 10 ,000 and just a few of the large lots . Erhart : I have a quick question for Paul . Did we ever have , or anybody , did we ever have a minimum lot size for a subdivision of anything other than 15 ,000 in the city 's history? Krauss : I couldn 't verify it but I 've heard that , in fact I think I 've heard from the Mayor that at one time it used to be something on the order of 20 . I 'm not sure when that was . Emmings: I don 't remember that . Conrad : We tried a 40 ,000 square foot lot size . A zoning district and it just didn 't fly . Emmings: Matt , I don 't know if you 're familiar . Ledvina : I ' ll pass . Emmings : This has been raging through here for literally years . Okay . Batzli : My response to Ladd is that it 's not our job to incentivise our ordinance so developers give us smaller lots to protect natural features that our ordinance should protect anyway . You can 't fill in the wetlands - anyway and if they can use the PUD to give us really inky dinky lots , then it 's not being used correctly . If what we 're going to do is have an ordinance to preserve natural features like trees and wetlands , then we should draft it that way and make sure we understand what we 're getting into . That we 're going to get small lots and they 're going to be able to count the wetlands in the footage of their lots . And if we want 5 ,000 square foot lots with 6 ,000 feet of wetlands , that 's fine but then we - should change our ordinance to show that that 's what we expect and that 's what we 're going to get and when you develop around a wetland , this is the ordinance you use . I 'm not convinced , you know my original thought on PUD , Planning Commission Meetir , February 5 , 1992 - Page 13 when I first came here and it still is that we 're trying to get people to be creative and we don 't get people who are creative . We 're getting things _ that they should have had to give us anyway . So we 're allowing a reduced footage and I don 't believe that the people moving into the community are benefitting at all and I don 't believe the people who are in the community are benefitting at all because they have to preserve the wetlands and they - should have to preserve the trees anyway . So I don 't get it . I just don 't get it . And like I said , if that 's what we 're going to get , then I think we should go back and revisit what the objectives are for this ordinance because what we heard from Lundgren and the other people were , this is how we 're going to cluster homes and do this and keep open space . Well we 're not getting any of that . We 're getting wetlands . Well we 've got a wetlands ordinance that already protects it . What have we gotten? So I don 't buy it . You know I live in a PUD . The lot sizes are small and I think that the kinds of development that we 're getting in the PUD 's are not , you know Lundgren 's come in and they 've done some very nice ones . We 've got some other PUD 's in the community that aren 't as nice as the Lundgren 's ones . And the people who are purchasing those on the smaller square foot lots are first time homeowners . They 're not necessarily the people that are going to check with the City to see what they 're getting into and I don 't want to be too paternalistic but they 're going in . They 're buying a lot that the city has said can be undersized but we 're going to keep the same setbacks and everything else and the question is , I - can use my lot less than everybody else in the city and what have I gotten? What has the city done for me? Well they protected a wetland that they had to protect anyway . Well that 's great . It 's caused problems for the city . The people moving in are unhappy in a lot of instances . I don 't think it 's promoted either developments which are unique or clustered or anything . They 're just smaller lots and if that 's what we 're going to do , then let 's open our eyes and do it but let 's not put in here an incentive for people , for the developers to come in and put stuff on smaller lots and we get nothing in return . And .that 's kind of how I feel about this , and you already knew that . Really I 'd like to see us look again and I know we 've - already done it but we at least need to decide as a group why we 're doing this . If we 're going to do it to protect natural features and allow the developers to do it that way , that 's fine but let 's all acknowledge- that that 's why we 're doing it . We 're not going to get a cluster of 10 homes in the middle and open fields around . That 's not going to happen apparently . I don 't know why but we 're not putting the right incentives in it to do that . If that 's what we want , then we have to revisit why the Statute won 't accomplish what our goal is . And so I see us as not having a focused goal of what we want . We 've got real good language of intent at the start but maybe it 's too broad . Maybe we want this ordinance to do everything and it can do one or two things . And then let 's concentrate on those things that we really want it to do . Emmings : It will be kind of interesting when it comes to making a motion isn 't it . Jeff . Farmakes: What more is there to say? I guess I 'm a little surprised by this . As I read this and as it was explained to me because it is complicated . I didn 't see this as a major development tool . I saw this as a development tool for a unique piece of property . A piece of property that would be difficult to develop otherwise . There seems to be some Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 14 confusion , and maybe it 's from past history that I 'm not familiar with . That if you do have a developer that treats this unethically , I can see where you would deal with some of the problems that you have or some of the problems that you had in the past with undersized lots . It would seem to me however that if we are going to do this , that there has to be a reason for the developer to do it and we 're just wasting our time here . If you 're going to make it 15 ,000 square feet and it 's already 15 ,000 square foot - minimum , what 's the reason for the developer to do it? There isn 't any . If we don 't want smaller lots and we don 't want to compromise on the 10 , make it 12 or 13 , again the comments I made before is where are these figures coming from? It 's how much less than the minimum is now will they bite and if we can 't live with 120 x 100 foot lot , well that 's , we shouldn 't be wasting our time with this . I feel it 's unfortunate because I have seen in other parts of the country and I have seen publications and - so on what I feel are interesting developments that take advantage of PUD . But as you said , there 's no sense in doing it unless we 're getting something for it and the same holds true for the developer . And so what we have tc figure out as you said , what are our goals here and I can 't help but feel that there are going to be certain lots out there that we 're going to lose out on . In particular the odd lot that 's up there that we were talking about . But the undersized lots proportionately there were , I think were 3 or 4 out of the total so I don 't really feel in that instance that the developer was being , trying to put something by us . I think that those were leftover lots that in developing they basically couldn 't do anything - else with and they had to try and put them in there to make their bottom line . But I still am uncomfortable with us wasting our time with this thing until we have a consensus of what it is we 're going to do with it . It seems the more time goes on it seems the more we are in disagreement on this thing . And getting the feedback from the Council and so on , there 's going to have to be some discussion on this minimum lot size or otherwise I don 't see any reason to continue with it . Ahrens : I don 't have a lot more to say . I talked myself out at our last meeting on this but after listening now to my fellow commissioners , I think the water is muddier now than it ever has been . I still don 't understand really what everybody wants , and I 'm sure you don 't at this point . It 's getting worst than getting better . I have a problem , and I think my position is getting muddier too . . .but I have a problem developing a PUD ordinance with a smaller lot size than our subdivision ordinance requires just to get people to , just to get developers to develop a PUD if what we get is not what we wanted . Not what we really wanted anyway and I agree - with Brian when we developed the land in the northern part of Chanhassen , we got some nice big ponds but that 's not to the benefit of the development . That 's to the benefit of the landowners who are lucky enough to own the larger lots around the pond . It wasn 't for the benefit of the smaller lots and people who live on smaller lots . I 'm not sure what that gave the city and what that gave the whole development except for the people who happen to live around the pond . I don 't particularly want to go - back and change the minimum lot size on your subdivision ordinance . I agree that there is a problem having a 15 ,000 square foot minimum in a PUD ordinance when that is the minimum lot size of our subdivision ordinance . - And I realize that the trend is toward smaller lots also and I think in some instances that 's good Planning also . But unless I can see that we really are going to get value in a PUD by having smaller lot sizes , I can 't Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 15 go along with reducing . I 'd have to go along with the alternative . You have stated here that the minimum lot size in PUD should be 15 ,000 square feet which I don 't think is a large lot to begin with . I don 't think we 're talking about huge lots here . Batzli : I think he just said the average has to be 15 ,000 . I don 't think — your alternative was that it was 15 ,000 . Krauss: Yeah . We gave you two alternatives but the third one is a 10 ,000 minimum . The other is a 10 ,000 with a 15 ,000 average . The third alternative , which is not spoken here is just don 't do it . Don 't have any residential PUD 's . Except to the extent that we had one like Lundgren where the average lot size in that was 25 ,000 square feet and it was a rather unique circumstance . Ahrens: The Lake Lucy Road project? Emmings : Do you have any more? I think Joan 's right . It 's getting muddier the longer we work on it . I agree with Ladd , I 've become more and more convinced too that lot size is not , that 's not so terribly sacred to me as it once was the longer I 'm here because if the project is done right , it isn 't the size of the lot . It 's how the whole thing is conceived and executed and that 's why I don 't like this ordinance . ' I don 't like writing down . If you 're trying to maximize the potential for a developer to come in and be creative in the sense that he looks at a piece of property and says , the best way to do this piece of property is to preserve the natural topography . It 's to preserve the trees . It 's to preserve the wetlands and all that stuff , which they have to do anyway it 's true and then the houses should fit in this way . I mean. that 's sort of , we 've sort of got , at least I do, sort of got an idea that we 'd like developers to do that . Sort of take the land as a given and figure out how it could be developed instead of just coming in and making it flat and starting over . And I don 't know if that will ever happen but Brian might have a point there that he made - tonight that if . Batzli : Might . Emmings: Well yeah . It 's unlikely but it 's possible . That if our other ordinances were strong enough , and maybe some ordinances we don 't even have yet were put into place to regulate all the things we care about , maybe we don 't need a PUD ordinance . Maybe that makes every subdivision a PUD . I don 't know . That might be a whole other way of attacking the problem that I don 't think we 've ever talked about . Erhart : Excuse me but I heard you and Brian both say that there 's an ordinance that protects trees and I don 't think that 's quite exactly accurate . • Emmings: Yeah we 've been talking about it . I don 't know what 's in place . Erhart : We have an ordinance that disallows clear cutting . We don 't have an ordinance that says you have a stand of mature trees and I can save a whole lot more by having large lots in those mature trees as compared to Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 16 just having a bunch of 15 ,000 square foot lots in those mature trees . In fact I think Brian that 's not entirely true that . Batzli : Our mature tree overlay map which will probably be out in the near future would help . Erhart : It would help but you can 't project , you will never arbitrarily write an ordinance that says you can 't cut down a tree where you 're going to put a house and a street . Batzli : True . Erhart : You 're not going to see that so when you have 15 ,000 square foot lots and streets to service them , you 're going to lose x amount of trees - where if you could raise the lot size in that area , you could save a significant amount of those trees . I still don 't understand why if we are properly incentivized , why you can 't take and maintain gross density and allow , incentivize the developer to give the public or the people in that subdivision , that public essentially a public ground and take the ground that he is going to use and make the average lot size smaller . I just don 't understand why that won 't work and essentially Brian you keep saying it won 't work and I don 't understand that . • Emmings : alright . We 're going to get into a discussion that 's going to go - on for 7 hours again here tonight and that 's not going to happen because this is my last act as Chairman . I 'm not going to let it happen . But I think , I don 't care if the lots are small but I care if there 's a whole bunch of small lots or if they don 't fit . Somehow it doesn 't fit , whatever that means but I think the way you do that , instead of talking about lot size is you talk about what you 're looking for and you tell them they 're not going to be able to go under our traditional gross density . Whatever - area you 're in , so you set the density and then tell them , this is the upper limit you 've got . Show us what you want to do and I think that we 've got enough power , because they have to replat the property , or because they have to rezone the property to PUD , I 'm convinced in my own mind that we 've , you know we 're not in a situation where if they come in and meet our plan , we have to approve it . Because we have to rezone , we can say no and feel like we 're in pretty solid ground and that way I think we get to help the developer in a way . Tailor the property and if you set the maximum density at what we 've traditionally done at 1 .8 or whatever number we pick , or whatever number 's in our comprehensive plan , if they want to bring in - small lots , big lots , clustered lots , whatever , but make sure that maybe we spend more time in the ordinance talking about the kinds of things we 're interested in seeing them do in a general sense and not talk about lot sizes at all . Lot sizes has gotten to be kind of a sacred cow and I don 't know why it is . That 's my view , and we 're not going to get any motion of here tonight . There 's no way . We 're all over the map . - Batzli : I 'd support you if you put a guideline minimum lot size in there . Ahrens : I think the reason it 's become a sacred cow is people feel that 's - the way to preserve the things they want to see in a development . That 's why lot sizes , trees and open space . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 19.2 - Page 17 Emmings : But if you don 't exceed the density that we 've traditionally had , how can you? If the project doesn 't exceed that maximum density , how can you get in trouble? I think that 's protects us . - Erhart : Really you could take this whole PUD thing and make it one paragraph by saying , the City is open to consider anything you 've got . We ' ll look at it but keep in mind we don 't have to give you a thing . Emmings: Huh? Erhart : The whole PUD could be put in one simple sentence . We 'll look at anything and we don 't have to approve it . We encourage you to bring in and let us look at it really . Emmings: No . I think you can say a lot more than that Tim . I think you could say we 're interested in preserving the topography . We 're interested in roads that don 't go straight and that follow the natural contour of the land . We 're interested in wetlands and ponds and trees . There 's a whole lot of things that I think you could say that would give them some direction . Erhart : But we certainly don 't have to get into all these details that we 've now got in there . Emmings: I think the fewer details you 've got the better chance you have of somebody actually using it . Because this thing sounds just like our subdivision ordinance . Just another version of the subdivision ordinance to me . Well , I don 't even know . I think this should be turned over to the new Chairman . I have no idea where we should go with this but we clearly are all over . Krauss : You know , I 'm not opposed . It gets a little frustrating trying to come up with ideas when you 're not sure which way to go . I think there 's enough merit in this that we can do something with it that I 'm willing to keep working at it . One thing , in the interest of saving time tonight so we can get onto the other item , you may want to do . You may find it interesting . We 've got one developer right now who 's already prepared a couple different site plans for a piece of land that you 're familiar with . One is based on his ability to put some 10 ,000 square foot lots in an open soybean field but go with 20 ,000 and 25 ,000 square foot lots on a wooded hillside and I think it pretty clearly demonstrates some of the merits of being able to cluster . He 's offered to come down here and show you the stuff or I can show you the stuff if that will help put it into a context . Alternatively , or concurrently , if there 's a couple three that want to sit down one afternoon or whatever . One morning and knock something out , we 'd be happy to do that too . Emmings: The trouble with , a small group isn 't a bad idea . The trouble with a small group is , there 's a lot of people up here with , everybody seems to have kind of a strong opinion about where they want to see this go_ and I don 't see where the compromise is . Usually you can kind of see a path through the middle of the mess but I don 't know if I can see it here . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 18 Batzli : Have we been given guidance by the City Council that they want a minimum square footage in there and we can use that? Krauss : Well and maybe you do want to send this up and get their opinion . I know that the Mayor and Councilman Wing have clearly spoken to me in my office indicating that they 're both opposed to lowering lot sizes . - Emmings : Well I wonder if the Minutes , with the statements that we all made tonight , at least everybody 's kind of said what their position is , if maybe the City Council should take a look at that and give us some direction . Conrad: We don 't have any good rationale to send it up to them . Erhart : But they can give us some direction . Whether we should even pursue it . Maybe there 's no interest in it . — Ahrens : . . . I think they should give us direction . Emmings: See one approach is minimum lot size it seems like . One approach is average lot size and one approach would be overall density . Farmakes: Doesn 't it come down to whether the merits- of the PUD are valid . Whether or not they believe that they 're valid . If they don 't , where they 're going to shift off the minimum square footage . Emmings : Well yeah . If you don 't believe in PUD 's , then you just stick - with your subdivision ordinance . Farmakes : That seems to be the difference between the 15 ,000 and the — 10 ,000 . Somewhere within there lies the argument . Batzli : But as Tim said , if we can in fact save more trees and do some things that aren 't in our subdivision , is it worth going to the smaller square footage to incentivize the developers to do it that way? That 's the issue . At what point . I mean it seems like we started this whole thing with lowering lot size to give a further incentive to the developer to do it this way . Apparently we crossed the threshhold of too much incentive and too small lots . Somewhere I suppose there 's a compromise of somebody would actually look at it and want to do it but we don 't think the lot size is too small . Conrad: Well our current ordinance allows the developer to go down to what , 12? Krauss: Well , you eliminated that ordinance last summer . Conrad : Is that gone? Emmings : Yeah , the 12 is gone . - Conrad: Did we ever look at other , you here we are looking at a PUD ordinance as if we 're the first community that 's thought of it . Did we look at others Paul? Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 19 Krauss : I can 't recall if we brought it to you . We have a bunch . I could certainly do that . Batzli : We looked at somebody 's . We looked at at least one . Conrad : I guess I keep going back . We 're struggling to find some standard , some direction and we don 't have any . What Steve has said about gross density , I brought up several times but we 've never gone down that road . For some reason we haven 't gone down that road and I don 't know why _ it is because that seems logical to me . We haven 't explored it . We 're sticking with hard numbers on lot sizes but maybe there 's a couple things that we can do and I ' ll just suggest them . I still am interested in good PUD ordinances if somebody says they 're good . The other thing is I think , - we probably should sit down and say , like somebody brought up and maybe it 's Brian , of what are our standards? What are we looking for . What are we trying to get out of this? Going back to Tim , we 're trying to preserve - open spaces but when we get the open spaces , who 's taking care of the open spaces? Yeah . Who gets them and so philosophically we have some good ideas but we 're not taking it anyplace . Maybe that 's the case where we sit _ down . I 'm still uncomfortable sending it up to the City Council because we don 't have any direction . Emmings : The only thing there Ladd is , at least 2 people here mentioned that they 've been talking to City Council members and Paul did too and they obviously have some feelings about it already and maybe we ought to know what they are . I don 't know if , you know it may or may not affect what we _ send up to them but maybe if there is a consensus of opinion there already , maybe we ought to at least take it into account . Ahrens : But maybe . . . Conrad : See , that 's my biggest fear . If you don 't know what a good PUD looks like , you sure can kill it real easily . Ahrens: I don 't think we can write an ordinance until we know what we 're expecting . . . Conrad : Paul just wants the flexibility to negotiate . Emmings : No , I think that 's what we owe him isn 't it? Isn 't it really . Conrad : Then you can take in particular situations . You can give the long vistas . You know , how do you quantify long vistas and things like that . - Batzli : If that is our goal , and I would subscribe to that goal , then your idea of net density is perfect . To do it that way . If all you want is flexibility . Ahrens : The project . . . Batzli : That 's right . And then it 's all up to these guys . Ahrens : Right . Planning Commission Meeting = February 5 , 1992 - Page 20 Conrad : Chairman , what do you want to do? Emmings: I don 't know where it should go . I really don 't . Maybe the thing to do is at our next meeting just take it back downto ground zero and talk about whether we want a PUD ordinance and what the goals of it ought to be . And then talk about , once we get a list , if we can at least agree on that much , maybe between now and then think about the alternatives . Whether we want to go with that minimum lot size , average lot size or just density . And also talk a lot about the idea of just having sort of Brian 's notion of having all of our other ordinances , be happy enough with all of our other ordinances so we don't really care . However they develop the property , they 're going to have to preserve those things which we 're trying to encourage them to protect in this PUD ordinance because that seems to me to be the other approach and then just forget about a PUD . Or have it there as an alternative . Conrad : Then you get into standards . You get into stuff that , 2 trees , 3 trees , 80 feet tall . Emmings : No . I think we 've got to ask if we want to do that at all . I sure don 't . I never like writing ordinances that way but I don 't mind in the subdivision but I don 't like it here . So why don 't we throw this one away and start over . Krauss: Fine with me . Batzli : Paul , in the meantime if somebody comes in with a RSF kind of a PUD , what do we do with it? Emmings : We approved one without having an ordinance already . - Krauss : But that didn 't involve minimum lot sizes which that is the issue . I 've been telling developers that they 're welcome to come bring a concept before you but I didn 't see a lot of hope in it . Emmings : Let them read the Minutes of this meeting and they 'll just go away . - Erhart : Have you would discarded the concept of forming a small subcommittee to work with staff on the new basis or do you just want to have them work on it? Emmings: Well what do people want? I think we ought to try and develop a list of what we want here . Conrad : I 'd like to see that and I 'd also like to see Paul or Jo Ann talk to the American Planning Association or whatever and get what they perceive to be model PUD ordinances . Krauss : We 've got this in-house . Emmings : Or the University of Minnesota might have something to offer , now that they 've heard the discussion . CITYOF 10°t/irCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager • DATE: February 13, 1992 SUBJ: Modification of Program for Development District No. 2; Modification of the Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1; and adopting a new Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-2 Attached for your consideration is a modification to the city's plan for Development District No. 2; and TIF District No. 2-1; and the creation of a new district which will be called TIF District No. 2-2. The area under consideration can be seen on Attachment #1. District No. 2-1 On the attached, you will notice two areas described as No. 2-1 and No. 2-2. In District No. 2-1, the plan is being modified at this time to allow the expenditures for public improvements, including streets, storm sewer, water, sanitary sewer, and street lighting that have occurred along Audubon Road and the future development of the Chanhassen Business Center. The plan is also being modified to allow the City Council to expend tax increment dollars for acquisition of land for a new middle school site. District No. 2-2 The second area highlighted on Attachment #1 is District No. 2-2. You may remember at your December 4, 1991, meeting you discussed and approved the final stage of the Chanhassen Business Center. In continuing to encourage growth of our industrial development and enhancement both the city's employment and tax base,staff recommending in creating a new TIF District for the Chanhassen Business Center. Consistent with what the city has done for the McGlynn District, Chanhassen Business Park, and downtown. Is t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Based on this information, the Planning Commission must find that the modifications being proposed are consistent with the city's overall development plans. In staff's review of the — proposed projects,the uses being considered and their locations are consistent with the city's land use policies. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. 92-2 finding that Modification of the program for Development District No. 2, Modification of Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1; and the creation of a new plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-2. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map. _ 2. Plan for District No. 2-1. 3. Plan for District No. 2-2. 4. Resolution No. 92-2. _ ARB•-3i1iY. OULEVARDl U I l .iU. _ .- t l AkGLYNJ I :ERw000 •., No. 2-1 Ilk 11 c • f. Q . ill wIiiik, riA � 1 It ' -.• 0 ftatc4 "Y: 4( .- co IN air t al RENAISSANCE / 1 NW .� �� I , �P`��/ I - _- z a`�// 1 a Pc,O / 1 No. 2-2 /:s / 1� 'd 1111 -- - - // �..--------a— I'I - / 111 c\. �_,,_,. � No. 2 2 ll , 9 g . y 70 9 FIGURE 1 lb vr DEVELOPMENT _ DISTRICT NO. 2 — Development District No. 2 "im° T.I.F. District No. 2-1 =mom... T.I.F. District No. 2-2 0 1000' 2000' 3000' i /41,-1,-(4itkeiyi *IL- 1 1 [Third Draft] [1-20-92] MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 and MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA March 9, 1992 Prepared By: HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 - and - HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. 7401 Metro Blvd, #340 Edina, MN 55439 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 1 A. Definitions. 1 B. Statutory Authority. 2 C. Statement of Objectives. 2 D. Environmental Controls. 3 E. Open Space to be Created. 3 F. Public Facilities to be Constructed. 3 G. Proposed Reuse of Property 3 H. Development District Financing. 3 I. Relocation 4 J. Administration of Development District 4 K. Description of Development District. 4 II. MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 5 A. Statutory Authority. 5 B. Statement of Objectives. 5 C. Statement of Public Purpose 5 D. Development District Program 6 E. Description of TIF District. 6 F. Development District Contracts. 6 G. Classification of TIF District. 6 H. Modification of TIF Plan. 6 I. Use of Tax Increment. 7 J. Excess Tax Increment. 7 K. Limitation of Increment. 7 L. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. 8 M. Limitation on Boundary Changes. 8 N. Relocation • 8 O. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. 8 P. TIF Account. 8 Q. Estimate of Project Costs. 9 R. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. 9 S. Original Tax Capacity. 9 T. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. 10 U. Duration of the TIF District 10 V. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. 10 W. Annual Financial Report. 10 X. Assessment Agreements. 12 I. MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 A. Definitions. For the purposes of the modified Development District Program and modified Tax Increment Financing Plan, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context otherwise requires. "Administrative Expenses" means all expenditures of the City other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, — directly connected with the physical development of real property in the District, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or — sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178 of the TIF Act. Adminis- trative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants and planning or economic development consultants. "City" means the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota; "Comprehensive Plan" means the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City; "City Council" or "Council" means the Chanhassen City Council; — "City Development District Act" or "Act" means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.124 through 469.134, as amended; "County" means Carver County, Minnesota; "Development District" means Development District No. 2 which was established on October 10, 1988, pursuant to and in accordance with the Act, expanded on May 22, 1989, and which is hereby again being expanded; "Development Program" or "Program" means the Development Program for Development District No. 2, which adopted by the Council on October 10, 1988, modified on May 22, 1989, and which is hereby again being modified; "Project Area" or "Project" means the property within modified Development District No. 2, as described in the modified Development Program; "State" means the State of Minnesota; — "Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with Development -' District No. 2 as stated in the Program and in the Plans for all Tax Increment Financing Districts within Development District No. 2 or any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds; — RH826639 CH130-11 1 "Tax Increment Financing District" means Tax Increment Financing District — No. 2-1 , established on October 10, 1988, pursuant to and in accordance with the TIF Act and which was expanded on May 22,. 1989; "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended; and "Tax Increment Financing Plan" or "Plan" means the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 2 which was adopted by the Council on October 10, 1988, and which was modified on May 22, 1989, and October 22, 1990, and which is hereby being modified again. B. Statutory Authority. The City has determined that it is necessary, desirable and in the public interest to establish, designate, develop and administer a Development Program for Development District No. 2 in the City, pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The City has also determined that the funding of the necessary activities and improvements in Development District No. 2 shall be accomplished in part or in whole through tax increment financing in accordance with the TIF Act. C. Statement of Objectives. The City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the Development Program: 1 . promote and secure the prompt development of property in Development District No. 2 in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with minimal adverse impact on the environment, which property is currently less productive because of the lack of proper utilization and lack of investment, thus promoting and securing the development of other land in the City; 2. promote and secure additional employment opportunities within Development District No. 2 and the City for residents of the City and the surrounding area, thereby improving living standards and preventing unemployment and the loss of skilled labor and other human resources in the City; 3. secure the increase of property subject to taxation by the City, county, school district, and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entities to pay for public improvements and governmental services and programs required to be provided by them; 4. secure the construction and provide moneys for the payment of the cost of public activities or improvements in Development District No. 2, including the construction of public recreational facilities, which are necessary for the orderly and beneficial development of the Development District; and 5. promote the concentration of appropriate development within Development District No. 2 in order to maintain the area in a manner consistent with its significance to the City. RHB26639 CH130-11 2 D. Environmental Controls. It is anticipated that no development within the Development District will present major environmental concerns. All City actions, public improvements and private development will be carried out in a manner which will comply with applicable environmental standards. E. Open Space to be Created. The open space expected to be created within the Development District will be in accordance with the development controls of the City. F. Public Facilities to be Constructed. All public facilities constructed within the Development District will be financially feasible and compatible with the City's long range development plans. Public improvements proposed within Development District No. 2 include upgrading of Audubon Road from State Highway No. 5 to Lyman Boulevard and the construction of Audubon Court westerly from Audubon Road. The City also proposes to construct streets, storm sewer, water, sanitary sewer, and street lighting within the Chanhassen Business Center area which is being added to the Development District through this modification. The City intends to develop a recreational facility for use by city residents in conjunction with a new school proposed to be constructed by Independent School District No. 112. The City also proposes to purchase land for a future park and construction of a sanitary sewer lift station. These will occur in the area being added to Development District No. 2 as a result of this modification. G. Proposed Reuse of Property. Property will be acquired for construction of the public improvements and park discussed in Section F above. In addition, the City is likely to purchase up to 60 acres for a new school to be constructed by Independent School District No. 112. In return for some or all of that land, the City anticipates reaching an agreement with Independent School District No. 112 regarding construction of expanded recreational facilities which will be available for residents of Chanhassen. Future proposals for the use of property to be acquired by the City must be consistent with Development Program objectives and financially feasible. Prior to acquisition of any property for reuse by a private developer, the City Council may require a development contract and other guarantees to ensure that sufficient tax increment or other funds will be available to repay the cost associated with the property acquisition. Appropriate restrictions regarding the reuse and redevelopment of property shall be incorporated into any development contract to which the City is a party. H. Development District Financing. Within Development District No. 2, the City previously created one TIF District and is now considering creation of a second TIF district 'to finance development activities. Public improvement costs incurred in Development District No. 2 will be paid through the pledge of tax increment from TIF District No. 2-1 and the new TIF District No. 2-2. 88826639 cH13o-11 3 I. Relocation. The City anticipates that no relocation will be necessary but accepts its responsibility for providing for relocation pursuant to Section 469.133 of the Act. If relocation is necessary, provisions will be made in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 117.50 through 117.56, inclusive. J. Administration of Development District. Maintenance and operation of the public improvements will be the responsibility of the Administrator of Development District No. 2. Each year the = Administrator will submit to the City Council the maintenance and operation budget for the following year. The Administrator will administer the Development District pursuant to the provisions of Section 469.131 of the Act; provided, however, that such powers may only be exercised at the direction of the City Council. No action taken by the Administrator shall be effective without authorization by the City Council. The City does not anticipate the need to create an advisory board to advise the City Council on the planning, construction and implementation of the activities and improvements outlined in the Development District Program. K. Description of Development District. Attached to this modification as Exhibit A is a map of the new boundaries of the Development District as they will appear after adoption of this modification. RHB26639 CH130-11 4 II. MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT — FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 A. Statutory Authority. — Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 4 of the TIF Act, the City has adopted the Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 and has established TIF District No. 2-1 within -- Development District No. 2. The City is hereby modifying the Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 to provide authorization for additional public improvements and costs. No additional land is being included in TIF District NO. 2-1 as a result of this — modification. B. Statement of Objectives. In addition to the objectives outlines in Section I, subdivision C of the modified Development Program, the City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the modified Plan for TIF District No. 2-1: — 1. provide employment opportunities within the City; 2. improve the tax base of the City and the general economy of the City and state; 3. encourage development in an area of the City which has not been — utilized to its full potential; 4. provide for additional street, storm sewer, water, sanitary sewer — and street lighting improvements; 5. provide for recreational facilities for residents of the community in coordination with other public entities in order to prevent — unnecessary duplication of facilities; and 6. implement relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan. C. Statement of Public Purpose. In adopting the modified Plan, the City Council intends to make the following findings: 1. Anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to — occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of TIF is deemed necessary; — 2. The modified TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consis- tent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for development of the District by private enterprise; and — 3. The modified TIF Plan conforms to general plans for development of the City as a whole. The conclusion summarized in paragraph 1 of this subdivision will be adopted by the City upon approval of this modification and is one which has been reached by _ RHB26639 CH130-11 5 the City Council following consultation with the planning commission and city staff. The conclusion has also been reached based upon the personal knowledge of members of the City Council regarding the property and development trends within the City. D. Development District Program. The City created Development District No. 2 at the same time as creation of TIF District No. 2-1 . The first modification to the Program was adopted on May 22, 1989. This modification of the Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 includes a modified Development District Program as well. E. Description of TIF District. A description and a map of the boundaries of TIF District No. 2-1 were included with the modified Plan adopted on May 22, 1989. No additional property is being added to TIF District No. 2-1 by this modification. F. Development District Contracts. The City has not entered into any development contracts for properties within TIF District No. 2-1 . If necessary, contracts regarding property within the TIF District will be entered into in accordance with Section 469.176, Subd. 5 of the TIF Act and no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the land within TIF District No. 2-1 will be acquired by the City with bond proceeds without having concluded an agreement for development or redevelopment of the property. G. Classification of TIF District. TIF District No. 2-1 is an economic development TIF district, pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 12 of the TIF Act, for which certification was requested prior to May 1, 1990. H. Modification of TIF Plan. The Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 is being modified again at this time to authorize expenditures for public improvements, including streets, storm sewer, water, sanitary sewer and street lighting in the Chanhassen Business Center area. In addition, this modification will authorize expenditure for certain recreational facilities. The Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 may be modified again in the future by the City, provided that any reduction or enlargement of geographic area of the TIF District, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on the debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the City shall be approved upon the notice and after such discussion, public hearing and findings as required for approval of the original Plan. RHH26639 CH13C-11 6 I. Use of Tax Increment. Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 4 of the TIF Act, all revenues derived from TIF District No. 2-1 shall be used in accordance with this modified TIF Plan. - The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative costs of development activities within the Development District as identified in the modified Development Program and TIF Plan. J. Excess Tax Increment. Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 2 of the TIF Act, in any year in which tax - increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the modified TIF Plan, the City shall use the excess amount to do any of the following, in the order determined by the City: 1. prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of bonds; or 4. return the excess amount to the Carver county auditor who shall distribute the excess amount to the City, the county, and the school district in direct proportion to their respective tax capacity rates. In addition, the City may choose to modify the TIF Plan again in order to provide for other public improvements within the Development District. K. Limitation of Increment. 1 . No increment shall be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-1 after three years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the taxable real property in the TIF District by the county auditor unless within the three year period (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 469.178 of the TIF Act, or (b) the City has acquired property within TIF District No. 2-1, or (c) the City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within TIF District No. 2-1. 2. If, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1, no demolition, rehabilitation, or renovation of property or other site preparation, including improvement of a street or right-of-way adjacent to a parcel but not installation of underground utility service, including sewer or water systems, have been commenced on a parcel located within TIF District No. 2-1 by the City, or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the TIF Plan, no additional increment may be taken from that parcel, and. the original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the TIF District. If these activities subsequently commence, the City shall so certify to the county auditor, and the tax capacity of the property as most recently RHE26639 CH130-11 7 certified by the commissioner of revenue may be added to the TIF District. The City shall submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in TIF District No. 2-1 . The evidence shall be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcels were certified as included within TIF District No. 2-1 . 3. No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-1 after eight years from the date of receipt by the City of the first increment or 10 years from the date of approval of the original TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. L. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 3 of the TIF Act, Administrative Expenses are limited to 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures. Each time the City increases the budget of TIF District No. 2-1 , the amount of tax increment money allocated to Administrative Expenses may be increased as long as the total of Administrative Expenses does not exceed 10 percent of the total budget of the TIF District. M. Limitation on Boundary Changes. The geographic area of TIF District No. 2-1 may be reduced, but cannot be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of original tax capacity by the Carver county auditor. This modification does not include an expansion of the boundaries of TIF District No. 2-1 . N. Relocation. Although no relocation is anticipated, the City accepts as binding its obligations under state law for relocation and will administer relocation services for families, individuals and businesses displaced by public action. 0. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. It is not anticipated that any property within TIF District No. 2-1 will be acquired in connection with the development proposals outlined in this modified TIF Plan. Funds will be used to acquire property in connection with the public improvements to be constructed in the Chanhassen Business Center area. In addition, a parcel of as much as 60 acres will be acquired for a new school to be constructed by Independent School District No. 112. The City will also acquire a site for a future park and for a sanitary sewer lift station. These properties are located in the proposed TIF District No. 2-2. P. TIF Account. The tax increment received with respect to TIF District No. 2-1 shall be segregated by the City in a special account on its official books and records and held by a trustee for the benefit of holders of bonds issued to finance development activities. • RHH26639 CH130-11 8 Q Q. Estimate of Project Costs. The estimated budgeted amounts for the original TIF District were included in the Plan adopted on October 10, 1988. Additional expenditures were authorized by the TIF Plan modification approved on May 22, 1989, and October 22, 1990. The following are estimates of additional costs to be incurred as a result of this third modification: Land acquisition (site for school/recreational $2,160,000 facility and park/lift station) Public Improvements (streets, storm sewer, 1,500,000 water, sanitary sewer, street lighting in Chanhassen Business Park) Engineering/contingency for public improvements 300,000 Administration 198,000 TOTAL $4,158,000 The City has also initiated a special assessment reduction program for properties throughout the TIF District. Under the program, benefitted properties are eligible for reductions in assessments if there has been an increase in the assessed value of the properties due to new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of less than $30,000 per acre qualify for a reduction equal to seven percent of the value added to the property through new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of $30,000 per acre or more qualify for a reduction equal to 12 percent of the added value. The amount of the reduction for which a property owner is eligible is equal to the tax increment from the parcel (as determined by the auditor and adjusted for fiscal disparities contributions) for a three year period following construction and commencing with the year in which the City receives the first full year's increment, or such other three year period as may be agreed upon by the City and owner. However, the maximum reduction may not exceed the total special assessments levied and outstanding against the parcel for qualifying public improvement projects. Owners wishing to participate must enter into a special assessment reduction agreement with the City. R. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. The City has previously sold bonds to pay for the improvements to Audubon Road. The City does not currently intend to sell additional tax increment bonds to pay for the construction of the improvements authorized by this modification. S. Original Tax Capacity. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subd. 1 of the TIF Act, each year the Carver county auditor will measure the increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of the property. Any year in which there is an increase in total tax capacity of property within the TIF District, an increment will be payable to the City. Any year in which REE26639 CP..130-i1 9 the total tax capacity is below the original tax capacity of all property within TIF District No. 2-1, no increment will be payable to the City. Each year after the certification of the original tax capacity, the county auditor will increase or decrease the original tax capacity of property within TIF District No. 2-1 as a result of: 1 . change in the tax exempt status of the property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the TIF District; 3. reduction of valuation by means of a court-ordered abatement, stipulation agreement, voluntary abatement made by the assessor or auditor or by order of the Minnesota commissioner of revenue; or 4. any change in tax classification under Minnesota Statutes Section 273.13 of property after it has been added to the TIF District. In addition, each year the auditor shall add to the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1 an amount equal to the original tax capacity for the preceding year multiplied by the average percentage increase in tax capacity of all property within the TIF District during the preceding five years. T. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. The City's estimate of captured tax capacity within TIF District No. 2-1 was contained in the modified Plan adopted on May 22, 1989. Since this third modification does not involve the addition of property to the TIF District, the City has not revised its estimate of captured tax capacity. U. Duration of the TIF District. In accordance with Section 469.176, Subd. 1 of the TIF Act, the City may continue to receive TIF payments until eight years from the date of the receipt of the first increment or 10 years from the date of the approval of the original TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. V. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. The City included its estimate of the impact of TIF District No. 2-1 in the original Plan adopted on October 10, 1988, and the modified Plan adopted on May 22, 1989. Since this third modification does not involve adding any property to TIF District No. 2-1, the City has not changed its estimate of the fiscal impact of the TIF District No. 2-1 on other taxing jurisdictions. W. Annual Financial Report. Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 6 of the TIF Act, the City must file an annual financial report regarding TIF District No. 2-1. The report shall be filed by July 1 of each year with the school board, the county board and the state auditor. The report to be filed by the City shall include the following information: RHH26639 CH130-11 10 1 . the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1; 2. the captured tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1 , including the amount of any captured tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 3. the outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans incurred to finance project costs in TIF District No. 2-1; 4. for the reporting period and for the duration of TIF District No. 2-1, the amount budgeted under the TIF Plan and the actual amount expended for the following categories: a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; b. site improvement or preparation costs; c. installation of public utilities or other public improvements; d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the City; 5. for properties sold to developers, the total'cost of the property to the City and the price paid by the developer; and 6. the amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported under clause (3) , which were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in TIF District No. 2-1. In addition, the City must report annually by March 1 to the Minnesota commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the entire City: 1 . the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payment that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. The City must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for TIF District No. 2-1 : 1. the type of district, whether economic development, redevelopment, housing, soils condition, mined underground space, or hazardous substance site; 2. the date on which the district is required to be decertified; RHH26639 CH130-11 11 3. the captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 5. whether the Plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment district; and 6. any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. X. Assessment Agreements. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subdivision 8 of the TIF Act, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Section 469.176, Subdivision 5 of the TIF Act, execute an agreement in recordable form with the developer which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of TIF District No. 2-1. The agreement shall be presented to the Carver county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. RRB26639 CH130-11 12 [Second Draft] [1-22-92] TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA March 9, 1992 Prepared By: HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 - and - HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. 7401 Metro Blvd, #340 • Edina, MN 55439 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-2 A. Definitions. 1 B. Statutory Authority. 2 C. Statement of Objectives. 2 D. Statement of Public Purpose 2 E. Development District Program 3 F. Description of TIF District. 3 G. Development District Contracts. 3 H. Classification of TIF District. 3 I. Modification of TIF Plan. 3 J. Use of Tax Increment. 3 K. Excess Tax Increment. 4 L. Limitation of Increment. 4 M. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. 5 N. Limitation on Boundary Changes. 5 O. Relocation 5 P. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. 5 Q. TIF Account. 5 R. Estimate of Project Costs. 5 S. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. 6 T. Original Tax Capacity. 6 U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. 7 V. Duration of the TIF District. 7 W. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. 7 X. Annual Financial Report. 8 Y. Assessment Agreements. 9 • (i) I. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-2 A. Definitions. For the purposes of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context otherwise requires. "Administrative Expenses" means all expenditures of the City other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of real property in the District, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178 of the TIF Act. Adminis- trative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants and planning or economic development consultants. "City" means the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota; "Comprehensive Plan" means the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City; "City Council" or "Council" means the Chanhassen City Council; "City Development District Act" or "Act" means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.124 through 469. 134, as amended; "County" means Carver County, Minnesota; "Development District" means Development District No. 2 which was - established on October 10, 1988, pursuant to and in accordance with the Act, expanded on May 22, 1989, and which is hereby again being expanded; "Development Program" or "Program" means the Development Program for Development District No. 2, which adopted by the Council on October 10, 1988, modified on May 22, 1989, and which is hereby again being modified; "Project Area" or "Project" means the property within modified Development District No. 2, as described in the modified Development Program; "State" means the State of Minnesota; "Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with Development District No. 2 as stated in the Program and in the Plans for all Tax Increment Financing Districts within Development District No. 2 or any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds; RHB28376 CH130-11 1 "Tax Increment Financing District" means Tax Increment Financing District — No. 2-2, which is hereby establishing pursuant to and in accordance with the TIF Act; "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended; and "Tax Increment Financing Plan" or "Plan" means the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 2-2 which is hereby adopted. B . Statutory Authority. Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 4 of the TIF Act, the City is hereby adopting the Plan for TSF District No. 2-2 and establishing TIF District No. 2-2 within Development District No. 2. C. Statement of Objectives. The City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the Plan for TIF District No. 2-2: 1. provide employment opportunities within the City; 2. improve the tax base of the City and the general economy of the City and state; 3. encourage development in an area of the City which has not been utilized to its full potential; 4. provide for additional street, storm sewer, water, sanitary sewer and street lighting improvements; 5. provide for recreational facilities for residents of the community in coordination with other public entities in order to prevent unnecessary duplication of facilities; and 6. implement relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan. D. Statement of Public Purpose. In adopting the TIF Plan, the City Council intends to make the following findings: 1. Anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of TIF is deemed necessary; 2. The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for development of the District by private enterprise; and 3. The TIF Plan conforms to general plans for development of the City as a whole. RH82B376 CH130-11 2 The conclusion summarized in paragraph 1 of this subdivision will be adopted by the City upon approval of this TIF Plan and is one which has been reached by the City Council following consultation with the planning commission and city staff. The conclusion has also been reached based upon the personal knowledge of members of the City Council regarding the property and development trends within the City. E. Development District Program. The City created Development District No. 2 on October 10, 1988, at the same time as creation of TIF District No. 2-1 . The first modification to the Program was adopted on May 22, 1989, and the Program is being modified again at this time. The Plan for TIF District No. 2-2 is consistent with the modified Program for Development District No. 2. F. Description of TIF District. A map of the boundaries of TIF District is included on Figure 1. G. Development District Contracts. The City has not entered into any development contracts for properties within TIF District No. 2-2. If necessary, contracts regarding property within the TIF District will be entered into in accordance with Section 469.176, Subd. 5 of the TIF Act and no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the land within TIF District No. 2-2 will be acquired by the City with bond proceeds without having concluded an agreement for development or redevelopment of the property. H. Classification of TIF District. TIF District No. 2-2 is an economic development TIF district, pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 12 of the TIF Act. I. Modification of TIF Plan. The Plan for TIF District No. 2-2 may be modified in the future by the City, provided that any reduction or enlargement of geographic area of the TIF District, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on the debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the City shall be approved upon the notice and after such discussion, public hearing and findings as required for approval of the original Plan. J. Use of Tax Increment. Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 4 of the TIF Act, all revenues derived from TIF District No. 2-2 shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative costs of development activities within the Development District as identified in the modified Development Program and TIF Plan. R1H328376 CH130-11 3 K. Excess Tax Increment. Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 2 of the TIF Act, in any year in which tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the TIF Plan, the City shall use the excess amount to do any of the following, in the order determined by the City: 1 . prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of bonds; or 4. return the excess amount to the Carver county auditor who shall distribute the excess amount to the City, the county, and the school district in direct proportion to their respective tax capacity rates. In addition, the City may choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to provide for other public improvements within the Development District. L. Limitation of Increment. 1 . No increment shall be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-2 after three years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the taxable real property in the TIF District by the county auditor unless within the three year period (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 469.178 of the TIF Act, or (b) the City has acquired property within TIF District No. 2-2, or (c) the City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within TIF District No. 2-2. 2. If, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-2, no demolition, rehabilitation, or renovation of property or other site preparation, including improvement of a street or right-of-way adjacent to a parcel but not installation of underground utility service, including sewer or water systems, have been commenced on a parcel located within TIF District No. 2-2 by the City, or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the TIF Plan, no additional increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the TIF District. If these activities subsequently commence, the City shall so certify to the county auditor, and the tax capacity of the property as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue may be added to the TIF District. The City shall submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in TIF District No. 2-2. The evidence shall be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcels were certified as included within TIF District No. 2-2. RR828376 C5130-11 4 3. No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-2 after eight years from the date of receipt by the City of the first increment or 10 years from the date of approval of the TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. M. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 3 of the TIF Act, Administrative Expenses are limited to 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures. Each time the City increases the budget of TIF District No. 2-2, the amount of tax increment money allocated to Administrative Expenses may be increased as long as the total of Administrative Expenses does not exceed 10 percent of the total budget of the TIF District. N. Limitation on Boundary Changes. The geographic area of TIF District No. 2-2 may be reduced, but cannot be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of original tax capacity by the Carver county auditor. 0. Relocation. Although no relocation is anticipated, the City accepts as binding its obligations under state law for relocation and will administer relocation services for families, individuals and businesses displaced by public action. P. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. The City will acquire property in connection with the public improvements to be constructed in the Chanhassen Business Center area. In addition, a parcel of as much as 60 acres will be acquired for a new school to be constructed by Independent School District No. 112 in which recreational facilities will be built which will be available to residents of the City. The City will also acquire a site for a future park and for a sanitary sewer lift station. These properties are identified on Figure 2. Q Q. TIF Account. The tax increment received with respect to TIF District No. 2-2 shall be segregated by the City in a special account on its official books and records and held by a trustee for the benefit of holders of bonds issued to finance development activities. R. Estimate of Project Costs. The following are estimates of costs to be incurred in connection with TIF District No. 2-2: RHb28376 CH130-11 5 _ Land acquisition (site for school/recreational $2,160,000 facility and park/lift station) Public Improvements (streets, storm sewer, 1,500,000 water, sanitary sewer, street lighting in Chanhassen Business Park) Engineering/contingency for public improvements 300,000 Administration 198,000 TOTAL $4,158,000 The City has also initiated a special assessment reduction program for properties throughout the TIF District. Under the program, benefitted properties are eligible for reductions in assessments if there has been an increase in the assessed value of the properties due to new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of less than $30,000 per acre qualify for a reduction equal to seven percent of the value added to the property through new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of $30,000 per acre or more qualify for a reduction equal to 12 percent of the added value. The amount of the reduction for which a property owner is eligible is equal to the tax increment from the parcel (as determined by the auditor and adjusted for fiscal disparities contributions) for a three year period following construction and commencing with the year in which the City receives the first full year's increment, or such other three year period as may be agreed upon by the City and owner. However, the maximum reduction may not exceed the total special assessments levied and outstanding against the parcel for qualifying public improvement projects. Owners wishing to participate must enter into a special assessment reduction agreement with the City. S. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. The City does not currently intend to sell tax increment bonds to pay for the construction of the improvements authorized by this TIF Plan. T. Original Tax Capacity. The original tax capacity of the land to be included within TIF District No. 2-2 is $3,676. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subd. 1 of the TIF Act, each year the Carver county auditor will measure the increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of the property. Any year in which there is an increase in total tax capacity of property within the TIF District above $3,676, an increment will be payable to the City. Any year in which the total tax capacity is below the original tax capacity of all property within TIF District No. 2-2, no increment will be payable to the City. Each year after the certification of the original tax capacity, the county auditor will increase or decrease the original tax capacity of property within TIF District No. 2- as a result of: 1 . change in the tax exempt status of the property; RHH26639 CH130-11 6 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the TIF District; 3. reduction of valuation by means of a court-ordered abatement, stipulation agreement, voluntary abatement made by the assessor or auditor or by order of the Minnesota commissioner of revenue; or 4. any change in tax classification under Minnesota Statutes Section 273.13 of property after it has been added to the TIF District. In addition, each year the auditor shall add to the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-2 an amount equal to the original tax capacity for the preceding year multiplied by the average percentage increase in tax capacity of all property within the TIF District during the preceding five years. U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. Pursuant to Sections 469.175, Subd. 1 and 469.177, Subd. 2 of the TIF Act, the estimated captured tax capacity of the property within TIF District No. 2-2 will be $1,400,000 upon completion of all proposed construction within the next six to eight years. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subd. 2 of the TIF Act, it is found and declared that all of the captured tax capacity generated by TIF District No. 2-2 is necessary to finance or otherwise make permissible expenditures authorized by Section 469.176, Subd. 4 of the TIF Act. V. Duration of the TIF District. In accordance with Section 469.176, Subd. 1 of the TIF Act, the City may continue to receive TIF payments until eight years from the date of the receipt of the first increment or 10 years from the date of the approval of the TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. W. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. It is anticipated that about $1,400,000 in increment will be captured annually from within TIF District No. 2-2. This represents the ultimate increment amount and is based on completion of the proposed projects over the next six to eight years. A cumulative tax capacity rate of 114.349 has been utilized throughout the cash flow analysis employed in the TIF Plan. Applying the percentage of the total tax capacity rate for taxes payable in 1993 by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected annual increment of $1,400,000 reveals the annual "loss" of tax dollars by each jurisdiction upon completion of all projects if the development would have occurred without TIF. The City believes the actual impact on other taxing jurisdictions is zero because development would not have occurred within the reasonably foreseeable future without public intervention. However, for the purposes of Section 469.175, subd. 1(6) , the assumed amount of tax dollars foregone by each jurisdiction is listed in below: RES26639 CH130-11 7 Percent of Tax Increment Attributable to Various Taxing Jurisdictions Tax Capacity Percent of Total Estimated Tax Taxing Jurisdictions Rate Tax Capacity Rate Loss ($) City of Chanhassen 24.1 21.1 $ 295,400 Carver County 35.23 30.8 431,200 Independent School District No. 112 51.604 45.1 631,400 Other 3.415 3 42,000 TOTAL 114.349 100.096 $ 1,400,000 X. Annual Financial Report. Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 6 of the TIF Act, the City must file an annual financial report regarding TIF District No. 2-2. The report shall be filed by July 1 of each year with the school board, the county board and the state auditor. The report to be filed by the City shall include the following information: 1. the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-2; 2. the captured tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-2, including the amount of any captured tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 3. the outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans — incurred to finance project costs in TIF District No. 2-2; 4. for the reporting period and for the duration of TIF District No. 2-2, the amount budgeted under the TIF Plan and the actual amount expended for the following categories: a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; b. site improvement or preparation costs; c. installation of public utilities or other public improvements; d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the City; 5. for properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the City and the price paid by the developer; and - RRB26639 CR130-11 8 6. the amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported under clause (3) , which were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in TIF District No. 2-. In addition, the City must report annually by March 1 to the Minnesota commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the entire City: 1 . the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payment that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. The City must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for TIF District No. 2-1: 1 . the type of district, whether economic development, redevelopment, housing, soils condition, mined underground space, or hazardous substance site; 2. the date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. the captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 5. whether the Plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment district; and 6. any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. Y. Assessment Agreements. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subdivision 8 of the TIF Act, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Section 469.176, Subdivision 5 of the TIF Act, execute an agreement in recordable form with the developer which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of TIF District No. 2-2. The agreement shall be presented to the Carver county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor mey certify the minimum market value agreement. • RHH26639 CH130-11 9 City of Chanhassen Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota Planning Commission DATE: RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION FINDING MODIFIED PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2, MODIFIED PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 AND PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-2 CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen (City) has authorized preparation of a modified Program (Program) for Development District No. 2 and a modified plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 and a Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 202 (collectively, the Plans); and WHEREAS, the Plans have been submitted to the planning commission to review regarding their consistency with the plans for development of the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a thorough review of the Plans and has compared them with the plans for development of the City as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota as follows: 1. That Modified Program for Development District No. 2 and the Plans for TIF District Nos. 2-1 and 2-2 are found to be consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen as a whole. RHB29498 CH130-11 ttl " ' 2. It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen hold the public hearing required by law and approve and adopt the Planss. Passed this 19th day of February, 1992, by the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen. Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary RH829498 _ CH130-11 CITY TF CHANHASSEN 1010. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Managerca DATE: February 3, 1992 SUBJ: Modification No. 11 of the Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Plan — Attached for your consideration is Modification No. 11 to the City's Redevelopment and TIF Plan for the redevelopment area which includes the downtown and Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. The HRA is amending this plan to consider the following proposed projects: 1. Construction of Central Park. 2. Construction of a Senior Housing. 3. Construction of a Public Library. 4. Expansion of Heritage Square Park. 5. Acquisition of Hanus Building. 6. Construction of a Senior Center. 7. Construction of West 78th Street Detachment. 8. Highway 5 Improvement/Entry Features. 9. Depot Relocation/Restoration. Based on these projects, under state law the Planning Commission must find that the Modification being proposed are consistent with the city's plan for development of the City of Chanhassen as a whole. In staff's review of the proposed projects being consider and their locations represents the best use for these areas. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 'The Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 92-1 finding Modification No. 11 of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan consistent with the city's plan for development of the City of Chanhassen. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Modification 2. Resolution No. 92-1 t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER [FOURTH DRAFT] 1-24-92 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN REDEVELOPMENT AREA CITY OF CHANHASSEN MODIFICATION NO. 11 March 9, 1992 Prepared By: HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 AND HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. 7300 Metro Boulevard Edina, Minnesota 55435 RIbc TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Redevelopment Plan 1 A. Definitions 1 B . Project Area. 2 C. Project Area Redevelopment Objectives. 2 D. Proposed Project Area Redevelopment Activities. 3 E. Project Area Plan 4 F. Project Area Financing 5 II. Tax Increment Financing Plan 6 A. Statutory Authority 6 B. Statement of Objectives 6 — C. Statement of Public Purpose 6 D. Relation to Redevelopment Plan 7 E. Boundaries of TIF District 7 F. Description of Downtown Redevelopment Area 7 G. Development and Other Agreements 7 H. History and Classification of TIF District 9 I. Modification of TIF Plan 9 J. Use of Tax Increment 9 K. Excess Tax Increment 9 L. Duration and Modification of the TIF District 9 M. Relocation 10 N. Properties to be Acquired Within the TIF District 10 O. Public Improvements Plans 10 P. Estimate of Project Costs 10 Q. Original Tax Capacity. 11 R. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment 11 S. Estimate of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 11 T. Annual Report Regarding TIF 12 (i) I. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN A. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context otherwise requires: "City" means the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota; "Comprehensive Plan" means the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City; "City Council" or "Council" means the Chanhassen City Council; "County" means Carver County, Minnesota; "HRA Act" means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 through 469.047, as amended; "Housing and Redevelopment Authority" or "HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, created pursuant to the HRA Act; "Redevelopment Plan" means the plan for redevelopment of the Project, originally adopted by the City on December 19, 1977, and as subsequently modified; "Redevelopment Project" or "Project" means the redevelopment project established by the City on December 19, 1977, in downtown Chanhassen and expanded on December 18, 1978, to include the Chanhassen Lakes business park south of T.H. 5, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 through 469.047; "State" means the State of Minnesota; "Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with the Project as stated in the Redevelopment Plan and in the TIF Plan, or any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds; "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469. 174 through 469.179, as amended; and "Tax Increment Financing District" means the tax increment financing district established within the downtown redevelopment area and the Chanhassen Lakes business park area; "Tax Increment Financing Plan" or "TIF Plan" means the plan by which the HRA intends to assist development within the Project, which Plan was originally adopted on December 19, 1977, and as subsequently modified. This marks the eleventh formal modification of the TIF Plan. RR826558 C9130-5 1 B . PROJECT AREA. The Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project Area contains approximately 630 acres of land. One hundred seventy-five acres are located north of STH 5 and comprise what is generally recognized as downtown Chanhassen. The remainder of the Project Area is south of STH 5 in the Chanhassen Lakes business park. Together these areas comprise the Project Area. The Project Area is generally described as being bounded by Audubon Road on the west; STH 101 on the east; the north shore of Lake Susan as extended westward to Audubon Road on the south and STH 5 and West 78th Street on the north, but also includes lands north of West 78th Street that are presently zoned for business and multi-family housing uses. The Project Area officially includes all lands shown in Figure 1 and described in Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 77-72, dated December 19, 1977, Exhibit B of City Council Resolution No. 78-73, dated December 18, 1978, and in Subsection A Project Area of Modification No. 9, adopted in November, 1989. The following areas not previously described are being added to the Project Area as a result of this modification: A parcel of land generally bound by Kerber Boulevard and Laredo Drive on the west and east, respectively, and lying immediately north of the Chanhassen city hall; and An area lying north of Highway 5, west of Co. Rd. 17 and South of the proposed frontage road. C. PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES. The HRA through this Redevelopment Plan seeks to achieve the following objectives: 1 . Diversify the tax base of the City by encouraging commercial and industrial development which in turn will enhance employment opportunities, create stability in the tax base and increase and protect property values; 2. Encourage redevelopment of commercial and service-oriented businesses to better serve the consumer needs of the community; 3. Remove structurally substandard buildings which cannot be rehabilitated; 4. Acquire and remove buildings that are economically or functionally obsolete or underutilized and acquire land that is vacant or underutilized to facilitate redevelopment; 5. Eliminate blighting influences which impede potential development in the area; RHB26558 CH130-5 2 6. Provide redevelopment sites of the size and character necessary to assure development of the area and strengthen the overall economy and improve the sources of public revenue; 7. Promote industrial development, provide increased employment opportunities and supplement the financial base of the community; 8. Provide land for publicly assisted housing; 9. Provide land for needed expansion of existing businesses in the area; 10. Provide adequate street, utility and other public improvements and facilities to enhance the area for both new and existing development; 11 . Achieve rehabilitation of buildings when economically feasible; 12. Accomplish the applicable goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan; 13. Provide maximum opportunity, consistent with sound needs of the City as a whole, for redevelopment by private enterprise; 14. Provide general design guidance in conjunction with suitable development controls in order to enhance the physical environment of the area; 15. Encourage and facilitate involvement of the community in resolving neighborhood problems related to business, physical structures and land use; and 16. Provide financial incentives as appropriate to stimulate growth and private sector redevelopment efforts within the Project Area. D. PROPOSED PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. The stated objectives of the Redevelopment Plan are intended to be accomplished through the following actions of the HRA: 1. Clearance and redevelopment; 2. Relocation of buildings and the inhabitants of buildings; 3. The provision of building sites for new and expanding businesses; 4. Vacation of rights-of-way; 5. Dedication of new rights-of-way; 6. Land acquisition an'd leasing; RHB26558 - CH130-5 3 7. Soils corrections and land preparation; 8. A Special Assessment Reduction Program designed to stimulate development within the Project Area; 9. New construction, or improvement of public streets and parking lots; 10. Installation or replacement of public facilities and utilities; 11. Financial subsidies to induce businesses to locate within the Project Area; and 12. Landscaping and streetscape improvements. E. PROJECT AREA PLAN. Figure 2 portrays the overall plans for the Project Area. Plan highlights include the following: 1. The Chanhassen Lakes business park comprising 450 acres, fully served by sewer, water and landscaped streets; 2. The Downtown redevelopment area which is intended to be redeveloped for a multiplicity of uses including convenience and specialty retail, services, entertainment, recreational, cultural, office, institutional and multi-family residential and including public parking to adequately serve new developments; 3. A linear open space system within the business park and including parks on Lake Susan and in downtown Chanhassen; 4. The relocation of STH 101 to intersect with STH 5 at Dakota Avenue and remove traffic from the downtown area by routing it directly to STH 5 and new Market Boulevard; 5. The extension of Lake Drive from County Road 17 to STH 101 to accommodate local traffic demands; 6. The realignment of West 78th Street at County Road 17 to provide = adequate stacking distance between West 78th Street and STH 5; 7. The widening of County Road 17 from Lake Drive to the northerly line of the Tax Increment District and the creation of an urban section in this Project Area; 8. The construction or reconstruction of public utilities within the Downtown redevelopment area to accommodate new development including the acquisition and construction of a major ponding area with over a million cubic feet of storage to serve all of the downtown area; 9. The construction of Market Boulevard from West 78th Street to the southerly line of the Tax Increment District; RE826558 CH130-5 4 10. The construction of Lake Drive from Audubon to existing TH 101 and the upgrading of Audubon within the Tax Increment District; and 11 . Redevelopment of the area north of STH 5 extending from Great Plains Boulevard easterly to realigned TH 101; 12. The development of a new park and the expansion of an existing park; 13. Heritage preservation enhancements; 14. The meeting of public facility needs; and 15. Aesthetic improvements to Highway 5 to enhance the downtown area's image and identity. F. PROJECT AREA FINANCING. The HRA has undertaken and intends to continue to develop plans for public improvements and to make land available for redevelopment by private parties within the Project Area. Previous Redevelopment Plans have contained descriptions of new projects. New proposals proposed by the HRA at this time are detailed in Subsection G of the accompanying modified Tax Increment Financing Plan. The HRA intends to finance both public improvements and redevelopment activities through a combination of special assessments and tax increment financing. Special assessments levied within the Project Area may be eligible for reimbursement through the HRA's Special Assessment Reduction Program which is described in more detail in Subsection P of the accompanying Tax Increment Plan. RHH26558 CH130-5 5 II. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY Pursuant to the HRA Act, the City on December 19, 1977 created the Project in the downtown portion of Chanhassen north of Highway 5 and established the area as a tax increment financing district. On December 18, 1978, the Project was expanded to include an additional 416 acres south of Highway 5 and that area was also included as part of the TIF District. At the time of the creation of the Project, the Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the HRA and the City. The Redevelopment Plan contained details of the Project, and included a brief discussion regarding the use of TIF. This constituted the "statement of the method proposed for financing" the Project required at that time by the HRA Act. Due to changed circumstances and new development opportunities, the HRA and City have chosen from time to time to amend the TIF Plan. The HRA and the City now wish to adopt another modified TIF Plan which accurately reflects the current financial plan for the Project, with particular emphasis on downtown Chanhassen. This constitutes the eleventh modified TIF Plan. However, adoption of a modified TIF Plan does not constitute an election on the part of the City or HRA to proceed with the Project under the TIF Act, except to the extent required by Section 469.179. The HRA and City intend to continue to administer the Project as a TIF District created and certified prior to August 1, 1979, to the extent permitted by law. B. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The HRA and City seek to achieve the following objectives through the modified TIF Plan: 1. Provide employment opportunities within the City; 2. Improve the tax base of the City and the general economy of the City and State; 3. Encourage redevelopment of the Project Area which is an area of Chanhassen which has not been utilized to its full potential; 4. Implement relevant portions of the City's Comprehensive Plan; 5. Assist in the acquisition of certain properties for the purpose of constructing needed public improvements and promoting redevelopment; and 6. Implement a program of special assessment reductions for properties within the Project Area whose market values have increased due to new construction since the creation of the TIF District. C. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PURPOSE In adopting the modified TIF Plan and administering the Project, the HRA and City have made the following findings: RHB26558 CR130-5 6 1 . Redevelopment of the Project would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of TIF is deemed necessary; 2. The Redevelopment and TIF Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for development of the Project by private enterprise; and 3. The Redevelopment and TIF Plans conform to general plans for the development of the City as a whole. D. RELATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The City authorized the Project on December 19, 1977, and modified its boundaries on December 18, 1978. Additional land was included within the Project Area in connection with the adoption of modification No. 7 to the TIF Plan in 1987. Additional land is being added in connection with modification No. 11 of the TIF Plan. This modification No. 11 will describe development activities planned or authorized within the Project since the adoption of modification No. 10 in April, 1990. A map of the new boundaries of the Project area is included as Figure 1 in the Redevelopment Plan. E. BOUNDARIES OF TIF DISTRICT Boundaries of the TIF District area shown on Figure 1 in the Redevelopment Plan. The TIF District includes property in both the downtown area and Chanhassen Lakes business park. Legal descriptions of the boundaries of the TIF District were included as exhibits to Resolution Nos. 77-72 and 78-73, adopted by City Council on December 19, 1977 and December 18, 1978, respectively. The boundary of the TIF District will not be changed as a result of this modification No. 11. F. DESCRIPTION OF DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AREA The downtown redevelopment area is the portion of the Project originally created by the City in 1977. It consists of approximately 175 of the Project's total of 630 acres. The downtown redevelopment area is located north of Highway 5 and a majority of it is west of Highway 101 (Great Plains Boulevard) . The area contains the retail and commercial core of the City, including the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. Although the infrastructure and public facilities have been improved significantly in recent years, the downtown redevelopment area is still characterized by the underutilization of land. G. DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS The HRA has negotiated numerous agreements with developers in the past seeking to develop land within the downtown redevelopment area. The projects which are the subject of current or upcoming negotiation or which are proposed for the near future include the following: 1 . Central Park. This project will entail the construction of a passive park facility as an element of the current city hall RHB26558 CH130-5 7 complex which will serve as a center for community and civic events. The park will include ornamental areas, informal play areas, walkways, a gazebo and landscaping. 2. Seniors Housing. The HRA intends to construct approximately 40 to 50 units of apartment housing for senior citizens. Located immediately adjacent to downtown, the project will include mostly small efficiency units within a single structure having a high degree to security and convenience. 3. Public Library. The HRA intends to construct a branch library facility on land that is already owned by the HRA in downtown Chanhassen. It will have 12,000 square feet of floor area and will be operated by the Carver County Library Board. 4. Heritage Square Park Expansion/Development. This small historical urban park facility is intended to be expanded on land = that is already owned by the HRA. It is surrounded on two sides by St. Huberts Church, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, and the historic Village Hall. It will also anchor the new public library. 5. Hanus Building Acquisition. The HRA intends to acquire the present owner's interests in this 18,500 square foot building and = assume his outstanding debt. Current leases are sufficient to cover mortgage payments. It is also the HRA's intent to heavily landscape the parking lot to screen it from view from Highway 5. 6. Senior Center. This project will entail the finishing of approximately 2,000 square feet of vacant city hall space as a senior citizen's activity center. This will be a very small one- - room gathering space with a warming kitchen. Improvements include a drop ceiling, heating, floor and wall coverings and restroom and kitchen improvements. 7. West 78th Street Detachment at County Road 17. This is a street relocation and traffic improvement project that is to be constructed in conjunction with adjacent commercial development to obtain an acceptable queuing separation from Highway 5. The costs of this project will be assessed to benefitting property owners who will have the option to recover all or part of the special assessment levy via the HRA's special assessment reduction program. 8. Highway 5 Improvements/Entry Features. The HRA has entered into a joint powers agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to provide for additional improvements to Highway 5 in the vicinity of downtown Chanhassen. MnDOT is providing all of the basic improvements. The HRA has agreed to augment the MnDOT project to include raised traffic islands, entry features at Great Plains Boulevard and Market Boulevard, materials upgrades, defined crosswalks and landscaping. RHH26558 CH130-5 8 9. Depot Relocation/Restoration. The HRA intends to relocate a railroad depot to approximately its original location near downtown Chanhassen and restore it to its original condition and character. This restored structure will become part of the City's heritage center. H. HISTORY AND CLASSIFICATION OF TIF DISTRICT The TIF District was established by the HRA and City in late 1977 and contained approximately 175 acres centered on what is now known as the downtown redevelopment area. The TIF District was expanded the following year with the inclusion of approximately 455 acres in the area south of Highway 5 known as the Chanhassen Lakes business park. For purposes of classification, the TIF District is a pre-1979 TIF District and the HRA and City intend to retain that designation except as required by Section 469.179 of the TIF Act. I. MODIFICATION OF TIF PLAN This modification marks the eleventh formal modification of the TIF Plan. The TIF Plan may be modified again in the future by the HRA and City as changing conditions warrant. J. USE OF TAX INCREMENT All revenues derived from the TIF District shall be used in accordance with the current modified TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative costs of development activities within the Project Area as identified in the TIF Plan. K. EXCESS TAX INCREMENT In any year in which the increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the TIF Plan, the HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the following, in the order determined by the HRA: 1 . Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore; 3. Pay into an escrow account to the county auditor who shall distribute the excess amount to the City, the County and the school district in direct proportion to their respective tax capacity rates. In addition, the HRA and City may choose to modify the TIF Plan again in order to provide for public improvements or other development costs within the Project. L. DURATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE TIF DISTRICT The geographic area of the TIF District may be reduced but it cannot be enlarged after August 1, 19134. As a TIF District established prior to August 1, 1979, the TIF District will expire on August 1, 2009, except as the RHB26558 08130-5 9 provisions of Section 469.176, subdivision 1(e) of the TIF Act may require otherwise. M. RELOCATION The HRA accepts as binding its obligations under Minnesota Statute, Sections 117.50 through 117.56 for relocation and will administer relocation services for families, individuals and businesses displaced by public action. N. PROPERTIES TO BE ACQUIRED WITHIN THE TIF DISTRICT In addition to those properties identified for acquisition in previous modifications, several parcels within the downtown redevelopment area will be acquired for construction of public improvements or for conveyance to developers at a reduced cost. Figure 3 shows all properties which have been or will be acquired within the Project Area as a result of actions described or authorized by this eleventh modification or by previous TIF Plans. O. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PLANS Substantial public improvements have been undertaken during the last several years within the Project Area. Additional improvements are contemplated at the present time or in the near future. P. ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS Since the downtown redevelopment area is within an existing TIF District, increment is currently being generated and administered by the HRA. Increment generated by the TIF District has been collected by the HRA since shortly after the creation and expansion of the TIF District and Project in the late 1970s. Funds generated through tax increment have been used for a variety of purposes, including land acquisition, relocation and public improvements. The HRA commits itself to expend the portion of the increment generated by the TIF District which is necessary to pay the outlined costs. The HRA has also initiated a special assessment reduction program for properties throughout the Project. Under the program, benefitted properties are eligible for reductions in assessments if there has been an increase in the assessed value of the properties due to new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of less than $30,000 per acre qualify for a reduction equal to seven percent of the value added to the property through new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of $30,000 per acre or more qualify for a reduction equal to 12 percent of the added value. The amount of the reduction for which a property owner is eligible is equal to the tax increment from the parcel (as determined by the auditor and adjusted for fiscal disparities contributions) for a three year period following construction and commencing with the year in which the HRA receives the first full year's increment, or such other three year period as may be agreed to by the HRA and owner. However, the maximum reduction may not exceed the total special assessments levied and outstanding against the parcel for qualifying public improvement projects. Owners wishing to participate must enter into a special assessment reduction agreement with the HRA. RHB26558 CH130-5 10 In addition to project costs outlined in previous modifications, the following are costs anticipated for upcoming projects: Land Acquisition $1,266,000 Demolition 50,000 Public Improvements 7,880,000 Subtotal $9,196,000 Engineering and Contingency 1,839,000 Relocation 100,000 Administration 200,000 TOTAL $11,335,000 Q. ORIGINAL TAX CAPACITY. The Tax Increment Financing District has been highly successful in meeting the goals and objectives outlined in this Plan. With the completion of all projects currently anticipated, over three million square feet of commercial and industrial space will have been constructed. The current total tax capacity of the Tax Increment District is $3,579,891 with a base tax capacity of $150,972. R. ESTIMATE OF CAPTURED TAX CAPACITY AND TAX INCREMENT With regard to the senior housing project discussed in Section G of this modification No. 11, the estimated tax capacity will be $50,600 after completion. The original tax capacity for the property involved is $2,000. The estimated captured tax capacity is $48,600. Based upon current tax capacity rates, the above captured tax capacity should produce a yearly increment of approximately $55,575 after completion of the senior housing project. S. ESTIMATE OF IMPACT ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS The composite tax capacity rate for the property is currently 114.349 percent. Applying the percentage of the total tax capacity rate attributable to each taxing jurisdiction to the annual increment of $55,575 reveals the annual "loss" of tax dollars by each jurisdiction if the senior housing project would have occurred without TIF. Although the City and HRA believe the actual impact on other taxing jurisdictions is zero because development would not have occurred within the reasonably foreseeable future without public intervention, the assumed amount of tax dollars foregone by each jurisdiction is listed below: RRB26558 CH130-5 11 PERCENT OF TAX INCREMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO VARIOUS TAXING JURISDICTIONS TAX ESTIMATED TAXING CAPACITY TAX LOSS JURISDICTION RATE ($) — City of Chanhassen 24.1 $ 11,713 Carver County 35.23 17,122 Independent School District No. 112 51.604 25,080 Others 3.415 1,660 TOTAL 114.349 $ 55,575 T. ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING TIF Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 6a of the TIF Act, the HRA must report annually by March 1 to the Minnesota commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the entire municipality: 1 . the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. The HRA must also annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the TIF district. 1. the type of district, whether economic development, redevelopment, housing, soils condition, mined underground space, or hazardous substance site; 2. the date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. the captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 5. whether the tax increment plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from RHB26558 CH130-5 12 which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment district; and — 6. any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. RR826558 CH130-5 13 City of Ch1nhAGsen Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota Planning Commission DATE: RESOLUTION NO: = MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION FINDING MODIFICATION NO. 11 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CHANHASSEN DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council has authorized preparation of Modification No. 11 to the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan for tthe Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project and has submitted Modification No. 11 to the Planning Commission for comment and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a thorough review of Modification No. 11 and has compared it with the plans for development of the City as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota as follows: 1. That Modification No. 11 to the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan is found to be consistent with the plan for development of the City of Chanhassen as a whole. 2. It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen hold a public hearing required by law and adopt Modification No. 11 . Passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen this 19th day of February, 1992. ATTEST: Secretary Chairperson RHB29487 CH130-5 /4.4cle -x _____________\_x_____________________:._____/ i ' 1 m - � Ii' II \\---A Al :7-'• ii \V-_ -1, niEi4II \ . \ - 1 �) -...,-,, ____) : ..... . , 1 i i / \ ,___--1 __ 1 ti '--5 \, � 1 , --� I/ -0 , ) ________-_,- , /---- ,,,r \ . ii v III i . . - HIcn A\ ( i I !I \, 4 \ \ I i 0\\_______----\1, y/ 7 _--�:,-,�,,- m `, ) \ i. / . • ,. , \\ 1 T / I j/ '- I �'�� IRO M --- is.-:?>1 s i iSri 11 0 , I— is ��'I A i _( .'' 1 i J. i ?Sr-31 —1, 771, '' 1.---7- /-j 1 (I ///c --rii;LIII E 1 li _i_ _ r--)r-3 .„_.: ,r_r. . _LT;Em , i$ \ \ ' • . \_i gi --72N7-1-14. , --N . ..., , , , . C li ) . L...,___.,----- \ at - — _____\ L \J1 ivk il I 1 \ --.- : :; : 1—I�f i `. rL \ \_. i l --r-r-I LJiT _ 1 ..::/e4.5. 0,, Aw _J \ - P-'-i \ , : ,.!... .7.:. I f r 0 I pliq 5 - ` 1 111 v \ —a c Z m /I 1 all_ I I . z L__ „.. ill' Am pi II r..A1 .1 ' ' i\\\ .. .. iir 111111113111/ lig I - wit ' - i I-: /,,` ` ' '- CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 1992 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p .m . . _ MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; Kate Aanenson , Planner II ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ; and Charles Folch , City Engineer ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 1992. Emmings: I 'm going to make some nominations myself . Right out of the box I want to nominate Brian Batzli for Chair and I 'm going to nominate Joan Ahrens for Vice-Chair for the next year . Are there any other nominations for either position? How do we handle this? Do we need a second or just go ahead? Conrad: Not on a nomination . Emmings: Okay . Tim , I 'm going to bring you up to speed real quick . Brian 's been nominated for Chair for the coming year and Joan 's been nominated for Vice Chair . The message came to us that you were not interested . Erhart: I 've taken the Chairmanship of the Storm Water Utility . That 's going to keep me real busy for the next year . Emmings: I think that 's kind of a weak excuse . Erhart : That 's what Paul said too . So I would like to concentrate on that . I think it 's great . Emmings: Okay , we 'll close the nominations . If there are any more . Chairman Emmings nominated Brian Batzli as Chairman and Joan Ahrens as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND - THE MITIGATION OF APPROXIMATELY .76 ACRES OF WETLAND, CITY OF CHANHASSEN , ENGELHARDT AND ASSOCIATES. - Public Present: NAME ADDRESS Barney Leach 3830 Red Cedar Point Jim Hoefer 7098 Red Cedar Cove Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . Planning commission Meeting February 3 , 1992 - Page 2 Barney Leach: My name is Barney Leach . I 'm at 3830 Red Cedar Point Drive . Or Road they tell me . I have a question . I had a question from Mr . Connor — that lives on the corner of Red Cedar Point Road and Minnewashta Parkway . He is in Texas right now for -the winter and because of a heart operation he 's in poor health but he 's down there . He 's called me twice . He 's _ concerned about this holding pond that they 're building across the road from his property and he says he 's paying taxes on that land and wondering if they 're going to put a holding pond in there , is that on the access — property or is it on his land? Olsen: Do you know which one it is Charles? It 's not on the access property . Folch: Pond B is going to be awfully close to that original access . . . Barney Leach: If it goes in the northerly direction it 's going to be in his property . His concern was if they 're going to do that , he wants it removed from the tax roll . That was all . Olsen: Yeah , we 're acquiring easements . Folch: . . .any areas which are constructing these facilities outside of our — .existing right-of-way . . . Barney Leach : Yeah , okay . We 're going to be going down to see him and I _ wanted to give a report kind of to calm him down a bit because he 's kind of upset so . Folch: It 'd be good for us to know an address on how to contact him . — Barney Leach: Oh boy . He 's in El Paso , Texas but I don 't know . Emmings: Maybe you could ask him to contact the City for any details and if it is on his property , they may want to negotiate with him to get the easements . Barney Leach: If it 's to the right as you 're facing the lake , if it 's to the right of that access , it 's his land . Emmings: There aren 't any lot lines out there that you can see so saying it 's to the right probably isn 't going to get us too far . Okay . Again this is a public hearing . Does anybody else have any comments on this — proposal? I have a question about Pond C . Emmings: Would you come up and state your name please . Jim Hoefer : My name is Jim Hoefer , 7098 Red Cedar Cove . Where is that in relation to King 's Road? Olsen: Just directly south . Probably about 100 feet south or so . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 3 Jim Hoefer : In that area is a , I 'm not sure what it is . Some sort of electrical box . Phone connection or something . Olsen: A utility . Yeah , there 's like a utility station there . Jim Hoefer : Will that have to be moved? Olsen: No , it will be south of that . Emmings: That 's quite close to King 's Road as I recall . Jim Hoefer : Thank you . Emmings: Any other public comments? Comments from neighbors? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: Comments . Any comments up here? Joan? Ahrens: I hate to go out of order here but I 'd like to hear from our resident environmental guy . . . Emmings: Before you say anything? Ahrens: Right . Emmings: Because you might want to change what you 're going to say? Ahrens: No . Because I 'm interested to hear what he says . . . Ledvina: I did have a few questions for the staff on these wetlands . Wetland alteration . I was wondering first of all , when is the construction proposed? Folch: We hope to let the contract for the project by late April-early May of this year and we 'd like to complete . . . Try and get all of the storm drainage improvements including the pond and the road surface , curb and gutter and the blacktop this year . . . It 's a rather agressive construction schedule but that 's what we 're going to have to do . Ledvina: Will the ponds be constructed before the other areas are disturbed in terms of the road , the existing roadbed and such? How do the ponds fit into the construction schedule? Folch: The ponds will fit in and will be constructed at the same time as _ the storm sewer system is put in . So that once you have a collection point basically functioning . . . There is likely to be additional grading that will go on prior to storm sewer construction and we 'll have to mitigate any potential erosion with erosion control at that point . Ledvina: This seems to be kind of a skeleton of a description of the activities . I was wondering what the specific provisions were for the Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 4 maintenance and the cleaning of the ponds to maintain the removal efficiencies and such . Foich: At current status or current point in time we do not have an established maintenance program or schedule if you will for maintaining the City 's retention ponds . Typically what 's happened in the past is once — we 've seen a pond or take notice that it 's silted up or it 's having some problems functioning properly , then we go in and we take care of that . The maintenance program is something , is one area that is going to be generated_ and derived out of this new surface water management program that we 're currently undertaking . And that will involve not only maintaining the ponds on a regular basis but also frequent street sweeping and such also . Ledvina : So that 's something to be developed in the future? Folch: That 's correct . — Ledvina: And it will be developed . Foich: Within the next 12 months . Ledvina: Okay . And then the drawings that I have didn 't show erosion protection for the outlets . You do state that there 's Type III erosion and— I don 't know specifically what that is . Foich: There should be a detail in the , the standard detail sheets in the front of the project plans which basically shows the Type III erosion control which basically consists of your silt fence , a layer of the snow fence and then the hay bales behind that . Ledvina : Okay . And that will be used for the outlets as well? Foich: Initially until we can get the vegetation established . — Ledvina : And there 's no need for like a rip rap or erosion control based on the flows , etc .? — Folch: Exactly . All of the outlet structures are being designed to release the water for the design storm at half a foot per second which is basically the minimum to try and prevent or mitigate any potential erosion . — Ledvina: Okay , thank you . Emmings: Those are basically the questions you were going to ask . Ahrens: That 's right . . . I did have a couple questions on . . .Minnewashta Parkway storm water management project . Of the wetland alteration . What — is the , that first paragraph . . . Olsen: That 's . . . — Ahrens: You 're going to excavate , okay . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 5 Folch: That 's actually going to be the area for the detention pond and that Pond C will be set up in such a way so that it will upon revegetating will take on wetland characteristics . Ahrens: The cattails will grow back? Folch: Exactly . So basically what we 're trying to show there is that we 're encroaching on a pond about 1 ,400 I guess it is square feet of existing wetland but we 'll be creating via the detention pond about 5 ,000 so there 's actually a plus creation of wetland area . Ahrens: You don 't have easements yet . . .? Folch: No . We are currently in the process of putting the easement documents together and I would expect over the next 2 to 3 weeks we would go through the process of trying to acquire the easements . Ahrens: What if you can 't get them . . . Folch : We hope that the process will go smoothly but if it becomes difficult , we 'll have to take those measures . Ahrens: You talked about doing landscaping around the pond . . . Folch: Basically in working with the planning department on this wetland alteration permit , they had made a rather good suggestion as to providing some sort of landscaping of vegetation plantings around these detention ponds so they don 't look like these rough man made structures out here in a natural environment . And so we 're going to work with them . We don 't officially have a landscape plan but we will work with them in putting in shrubs and other plantings that will help to disguise or camouflage the pond itself but we also will do it in such a way that we can maintain access to get in and clean out the pond . Ahrens: So the structures just mean the ponds? Olsen: The ponds and there are outlets but it 's all going to look pretty much natural . Ahrens: I don't have anything else . Emmings: Okay , thanks Joan . Jeff . Farmakes: We had a gentleman come up here . Are there are any other property owners , the other two property owners or are there more than two that contacted you at all? Mom Olsen: No . I had one other person who lives along the road that was just interested in what was going on but . Farmakes: Were they a property owner? I have no other questions . Batzli : Normally we do this in accordance with a staff report or plans or something . We obviously didn 't get the full detail set of plans but are Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 6 there a set of plans that this will be done in accordance with? Folch: That 's correct . The reason we didn 't pass out a set of plans , — there 's about 45 sheets to the plan set but there is a copy that we have sitting out in the engineering department for anyone , residents or anyone who 's interested in coming in and seeing the plans so feel free to come in — and take a look at them if you would like . Batzli : Are they dated stamped received like a normal set of plans would be? Folch: That 's correct , they are . Batzli : What 's the date on them? Folch: These actually , the copy that I have actually was a working copy . I gave my set out to my street superintendent to take a look at so I don 't actually have an official copy but this plan set here was prepared about 2 weeks after the first of the year . Olsen: We can get that date . Batzli : And when you say that this is going to hopefully aggressively go — through the whole year , obviously we 're encroaching on wetlands and where the part , the wetlands we 're actually altering is fairly small but is there a particular time of year that it would be better to do some of this — construction? Folch: Actually winter construction , this time of year would actually be probably the least disturbance to the wetlands . Unfortunately in the — project process here we 're not ready to let a contract at this point in • time and it just wouldn 't be feasible to start and do one this year . It also wouldn 't be feasible to hold the project off or at least that portion — of the work until next winter either . It 's something that we 'll have to deal with . It 's often done and as long as the work is accomplished , we 're taking great care into maintaining erosion control and protection of these water bodies , it can be done . But winter time is typically the least — disturbance time . Batzli : That 's all I have . — Emmings : Okay . Do you have anything additional Matt? Ledvina: Yeah , I think as far as the conditions that are listed with the recommendations , I would also like to add a condition that the ponds be constructed as early as feasible in the overall scheme for the roadway upgrading . I think if you have the ponds in place , they can function for — sedimentation control as the construction is being carried out so I think that 's important , if that can be phased as such . Emmings: Is that kind of a condition pose any problems? Folch: Well actually I guess I can 't say at this point in time . We are sort of going to leave the issue open to the contractor to determine how he Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 7 • best wants to stage and phase the construction of the project . As I mentioned before , we would construct the ponds in conjunction with the storm sewer . So the storm sewer system would be set up and outletting directly into these water bodies without having the detention ponds in place . Having the ponds in without the storm sewer probably still isn 't going , you 're not going to have much benefit from that standpoint until you are able to get the boulevard and areas draining into the street into the ▪ curb and gutter and then collected by the storm sewer system into the pond . So as soon as the storm sewer improvements are being conducted , the pond will be constructed at the same time . Ledvina: And that 's the normal sequence of construction? Folch: With this type of project where basically there 's no sewer and water improvements being done , the first utility work to be done is the storm sewer . Ledvina: Okay . So that 's the natural course of events anyway? Folch: But the contractor may do the road improvement in phases . He may split the whole entire road segment into two phases or three phases but as he 's doing each phase the storm sewer part will be the first part of the improvement . Ahrens: May I ask one more question? Do you have a time line for getting the easements? Folch: Yeah , actually we 'd like to have the easements in place before we let the contract . Ahrens: When do you think you 'll get those out? Folch : Get the easements out? We should be out over the next 2 weeks acquiring those easements . Emmings: Ladd . Conrad: Charles , does all the water from the new street will drain into this system? Folch: That 's correct . Conrad: Jo Ann , have we upheld all the guidelines and standards on this project that we 'd apply to a private contractor? Olsen: Yeah , we 've tried to do that . I mean we require them to do that . The areas , like Pond A and B don 't have a real large area to get the IMP creative wetland areas that we 'd like to do when we have more room but they are meeting the standards of ponding prior to it entering the wetland and that 's what we were really trying to achieve . Conrad: In wetland C , sometimes we uphold the DNR standards . They have 5 points in terms of . • Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 8 Olsen: The Fish and Wildlife standards? Conrad: Yeah . Olsen: We are doing that with that one and we do have more room to work with it . It has been designed for that . — Conrad: It has been? Olsen : The other two , no . Conrad: Basically a net benefit to the lake . Olsen: Right . Conrad: That 's all . — Erhart : I don 't have anything . Emmings: I don 't have anything further . Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-1 in accordance with the staff report dated January — 29 , 1992 and the plans dated received whenever they were received with the following conditions . 1 , 2 , and 3 as set forth in the staff report and a fourth condition to read the construction of the ponds A thru D shall be _ completed as early in the construction process as is feasible to minimize erosion and shall be constructed to minimize impact on the adjacent wetland . Emmings : Is there a second? Conrad: I 'll second that . — Batzli moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration permit #92-1 in accordance with the staff — report dated January 29, 1992 with the following conditions: 1 . Type III erosion control shall be used around the construction area of Ponds A-D . 2 . The City shall receive all permits required from the DNR and Watershed District . — 3 . Plans be revised to incorporate landscaping around the ponds and structures . 4. The construction of the Ponds A-D shall be completed as early in the construction process as is feasible to minimize erosion and shall be constructed to minimize impact on the adjacent wetland. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Planning Comm'ssion Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 9 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Emmings: This is old business . I don 't know if anybody has come because they 're interested in this item tonight . Is there anybody here that is interested in addressing themselves to this issue? Alright . Why don 't you go ahead . Conrad: What 'd you say? Emmings: Tim . Erhart : Okay . Page 2 here . Boy , I read your Minutes . I was really glad I wasn 't here last time . I 'm still wondering how it was that Brian and I were so important in this particular thing . Batzli : I actually came at the start of the meeting and asked them to postpone it . Erhart : Oh , you did? Okay . Page 2 . Is this Paul or Jo Ann? Paul . Page 2 there on item number 4 . It says the rear yard shall contain at least two over story trees . Is that consistent with our new landscape ordinance? Krauss: No , it 's not . This has been going on for a good long time and things have changed in the interim but I think initially there was a decision that even though we retrenched from that position in the standard subdivisions , that it would be left this way in a PUD because the expectation was a PUD gave you higher standards of development anyway . Erhart : But to me it 's , in the first place in the landscaping includes 2 front yard trees and 1 rear yard . Is that what we ended up with? Krauss: We left it at . Olsen: 3 trees . Erhart : 3 trees . Well you know when the object here is to provide- flexibility and then we come in here and detail what they 've got to do , it seems to be contradictory to what we 're trying to do . I just wouldn 't go along with that . I also think some of the other , well . There 's a few things like that where we get into a lot of detail where we 're trying to spell out exactly what 's to be done and I 'm not sure we 're in line with what our overall goal is . Do we have a definition statement that defines what a single family detached and a clustered home is someplace in our ordinance book? Krauss: I don 't recall off hand . Erhart : You don 't have to look it up now but it 's just a question . If we 're going to put that in there , that ought to perhaps be .defined . Again when we get down on page 3 , I know we 've talked about this one before but , that 's right I 've got 5 minutes . There 's a few things going on here bothering me about it . Okay , let me give you what I feel about the whole thing . I still think the residential PUD is a good idea but after reading all the Minutes and talking to some of the Council people and everything , I Planning Commission Meeting • February 5 , 1992 - Page 10 think we ought to step back for a minute and decide what our standard city lot size here in Chanhassen . And I see in your Minutes , your discussion of _ the Minutes Paul you make a statement that you feel that you state , that I can tell you from the metro area standpoint we 've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area . Did you mean our current ordinance of 15 ,000 square feet? — Krauss: Correct , yes . Erhart : Do you really , you 'll stand by what you said there? And Minnetonka is what , 20? Krauss: Minnetonka is 22 . Erhart : Okay , what 's Eden Prairie? Krauss: I 'd have to go in and look . We gave you a table on this about a year ago . I don 't recall what it was . . . Erhart : Okay , given that you 've got two things . One , it doesn 't appear to me that you 're going to get this through Council this way . And secondly is with the 5 years I 've been on here I 've heard us talk about is 15 ,000 the right size and I 've heard a lot of people come in and say it 's too small and quite frankly I 've always kind of gone along with 15 ,000 because from a socioeconomic standpoint small seems good . But you know maybe we ought to , instead of trying to pounding on this thing , maybe we ought to go back and — look at what our city lot size ought to be because I think it 's time to have that discussion . Secondly , if you 're going to have a PUD that anybody 's going to apply for , they 're going to have to be incentivised and you 're not going to get , I don 't think you 're going to get 10 ,000 square feet through the City Council . So I think if you 're going to have a PUD , you 're going to have todncrease the average size of your lots to something like 18 ,000 or 20 ,000 square feet and then incentivise them with something — like 12 ,000 to 15 ,000 square feet minimum . Otherwise it 's not going to work . . . Emmings: I guess what you 're doing now is sort of , this is the problem we 've had all along . Both with the subdivision ordinance and with the PUD ordinance is almost every time we sit down , someone comes up with a new idea and almost everybody changes their idea almost every time we sit down . — Just like it 's a thing that keeps slipping around on the table and we can 't put a nail in it . And I don 't disagree with you , it 's just hard to know where to go . — Erhart: Except political reality is , it appears that the City doesn 't want 10 ,000 square foot lots and the Planning Commission wants a PUD ordinance . The compromise is you increase the city lot size so you can still incentivise the developers . Emmings: We always get back to Brian 's point . He made it kind of — facetiously . In the subdivision ordinance make minimum lot size half an acre and then everybody will do a PUD . Planning Commission Meeting •- February 5 , 1992 - Page 11 Erhart: Now half acre is 22 ,000 so maybe it 's 20 ,000 or 18 ,000 or something but . Emmings: Maybe you said an acre , I don 't know . - Batzli : I said 20 ,000 . Erhart : Oh , because this isn 't going to fly I don 't think . And yet I think it 's a good idea . To make it work we 're going to have to increase the subdivision . Pardon? Ahrens : What did you think was a good idea? Erhart : A PUD . A residential PUD. I don 't think we should be this '- specific but I think the concept 's good and worthwhile . Krauss : Okay . So as far as what you think we should do as far as taking action on this so we don 't just keep beating a dead horse here , what do you think needs to be done? Erhart : I think we should go back and review our subdivision ordinance and decide what the city wants . Only in terms of what our subdivision ordinance says our minimum lot size is . Without that you 're open . Emmings: It 's not unreasonable , just scarey . Ladd . You don 't want to go back to the subdivision ordinance do you? _, Conrad : Well I 've been through this and maybe that 's not fair to say I should even reflect an opinion . Yeah , I don 't want to do that and I 've been to so many public hearings and maybe that 's the problem but I 've been to so many . We 've hit lot sizes which I was always a proponent of larger - lot sizes but it never flew . And at this point in time I 'm real comfortable with how Chanhassen is developing . I don 't mind the 15 ,000 . Industry says lot sizes are getting smaller . I just couldn 't conceive of ▪ us going out and increasing lot sizes right now when I 'm real comfortable with the 15 ,000 . I 'm real comfortable with most of the land that 's being developed and I see an industry that says geez , and the public that says hey I don 't know that I want larger lot sizes . And again I say that , you should know that I started on the Planning Commission one , because I wanted to maintain some of the character that Chanhassen had and that was larger lot sizes . I like that . But I am convinced that lot sizes don 't matter -- that much . It 's zoning for the other things that you like . It 's zoning for the trees and it 's zoning for the wetlands and it 's zoning for other things and it 's not lot size . So I don 't want to talk lot size at all in terms of going up . I think it is a dead horse and I don 't want to be there . In terms of this ordinance , we 're looking for flexibility in terms of a carrot . We 're looking for a carrot to persuade some developer to put in a PUD and obviously the past carrots haven 't worked . Therefore the best • thing we can do is reduce our lot sizes . I 'm not real comfortable with the way the current ordinance or the proposed ordinance is worded because it still could appear to a developer that they could come in and , well I 'm JEMD still not sure I 'm comfortable with the wording . I don 't mind the 15 ,000 square foot standard . I don 't mind going down to 10 ,000 feet for a certain portion of the units but I don 't know what that portion is . What I don 't Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 12 want to do is give a developer the idea that really our standard could be 10 when it 's really 15 . I 'm still looking for a larger lot but I don 't mind shifting in a. subdivision . I don 't mind shifting density to preserve something and so far I haven 't seen the words yet to make me feel comfortable with that . I don 't mind 10 ,000 but I don 't want to see a development that has one large lot that has 500 ,000 square feet of space and then the other 99% of 10 ,000 square foot , that 's not the character that we 're building in Chanhassen . But I don 't mind having 10 ,000 square foot lots in a development . I 'll go back to Lundgren and I 've heard some — negative things said about that . It still was a classy way that they put onto some small lots in a big development . It 's a good , they did a good job . There were some reasons it looked good . It 's still small . There 's _ some people who will buy that and you can make lots look good and houses look good on small lots . End of sentence . End of thought I guess . I still like the concept . I don 't like the wording . I 'm still real concerned about the overall appearance of this PUD and I think what Paul — could say is , hey . You still have control over it when it comes in and my only comment to that was yeah , but I want to paint a picture to the developer before they come in of what is acceptable to me . I don 't want to_ send a picture off that acceptable is a whole bunch of 10 ,000 and just a few of the large lots . Erhart: I have a quick question for Paul . Did we ever have , or anybody , -" did we ever have a minimum lot size for a subdivision of anything other than 15 ,000 in the city 's history? Krauss: I couldn 't verify it but I 've heard that , in fact I think I 've heard from the Mayor that at one time it used to be something on the order of 20 . I 'm not sure when that was . _ Emmings: I don 't remember that . Conrad: We tried a 40 ,000 square foot lot size . A zoning district and it — just didn 't fly . Emmings: Matt , I don 't know if you 're familiar . Ledvina: I 'll pass . Emmings: This has been raging through here for literally years . Okay . Batzli : My response to Ladd is that it 's not our job to incentivise our ordinance so developers give us smaller lots to protect natural features that our ordinance should protect anyway . You can 't fill in the wetlands anyway and if they can use the PUD to give us really inky dinky lots , then it 's not being used correctly . If what we 're going to do is have an — ordinance to preserve natural features like trees and wetlands , then we should draft it that way and make sure we understand what we 're getting into . That we 're going to get small lots and they 're going to be able to count the wetlands in the footage of their lots . And if we want 5 ,000 — square foot lots with 6 ,000 feet of wetlands , that 's fine but then we should change our ordinance to show that that 's what we expect and that 's what we 're going to get and when you develop around a wetland , this is the _ ordinance you use . I 'm not convinced , you know my original thought on PUD , Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 13 4 when I first came here and it still is that we 're trying to get people to be creative and we don 't get people who are creative . We 're getting things that they should have had to give us anyway . So we 're allowing a reduced footage and I don 't believe that the people moving into the community are benefitting at all and I don 't believe the people who are in the community are benefitting at all because they have to preserve the wetlands and they should have to preserve the trees anyway . So I don 't get it . I just don 't get it . And like I said , if that 's what we 're going to get , then I think we should go back and revisit what the objectives are for this ordinance because what we heard from Lundgren and the other people were , this is how AIM we 're going to cluster homes and do this and keep open space . Well we 're not getting any of that . We 're getting wetlands . Well we 've got a wetlands ordinance that already protects it . What have we gotten? So I don 't buy it . You know I live in a PUD . The lot sizes are small and I think that the kinds of development that we 're getting in the PUD 's are not , you know Lundgren 's come in and they 've done some very nice ones . We 've got some other PUD 's in the community that aren 't as nice as the Lundgren 's ones . And the people who are purchasing those on the smaller square foot lots are first time homeowners . They 're not necessarily the people that are going to check with the City to see what they 're getting into and I don 't want to be too paternalistic but they 're going in . They 're buying a lot that the city has said can be undersized but we 're going to keep the same setbacks and everything else and the question is , I can use my lot less than everybody else in the city and what have I gotten? What has the city done for me? Well they protected a wetland that they had to protect anyway . Well that 's great . It 's caused problems for the city . The people moving in are unhappy in a lot of instances . I don 't think it 's IBM promoted either developments which are unique or clustered or anything . They 're just smaller lots and if that 's what we 're going to do , then let 's open our eyes and do it but let 's not put in here an incentive for people , .. for the developers to come in and put stuff on smaller lots and we get nothing in return . And that 's kind of how I feel about this , and you already knew that . Really I 'd like to see us look again and I know we 've already done it but we at least need to decide as a group why we 're doing this . If we 're going to do it to protect natural features and allow the developers to do it that way , that 's fine but let 's all acknowledge that that 's why we 're doing it . We 're not going to get a cluster of 10 homes in the middle and open fields around . That 's not going to happen apparently . I don 't know why but we 're not putting the right incentives in it to do that . If that 's what we want , then we have to revisit why the Statute won 't accomplish what our goal is . And so I see us as not having a focused goal of what we want . We 've got real good language of intent at the start but maybe it 's too broad . Maybe we want this ordinance to do everything and it can do one or two things . And then let 's concentrate on those -- things that we really want it to do . Emmings: It will be kind of interesting when it comes to making a motion isn 't it . Jeff . Farmakes: What more is there to say? I guess I 'm a little surprised by this . As I read this and as it was explained to me because it is complicated . I didn 't see this as a major development tool . I saw this as a development tool for a unique piece of property . A piece of property that would be difficult to develop otherwise . There seems to be some Planning C( imission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 14 confusion , and maybe it 's from past history that I 'm not familiar with . That if you do have a developer that treats this unethically , I can see _ where you would deal with some of the problems that you have or some of the problems that you had in the past with undersized lots . It would seem to me however that if we are going to do this , that there has to be a reason for the developer to do it and we 're just wasting our time here . If you 're — going to make it 15 ,000 square feet and it 's already 15 ,000 square foot minimum , what 's the reason for the developer to do it? There isn 't any . If we don 't want smaller lots and we don 't want to compromise on the 10 , — make it 12 or 13 , again the comments I made before is where are these figures coming from? It 's how much less than the minimum is now will they bite and if we can 't live with 120 x 100 foot lot , well that 's , we shouldn 't be wasting our time with this.. I feel it 's unfort'inate because — I have seen in other parts of the country and I have seen publications and so on what I feel are interesting developments that take advantage of PUD . But as you said , there 's no sense in doing it unless we 're getting — something for it and the same holds true for the developer . And so what we have to figure out as you said , what are our goals here and I can 't help but feel that there are going to be certain lots out there that we 're going _ to lose out on . In particular the odd lot that 's up there that we were talking about . But the undersized lots proportionately there were , I think were 3 or 4 out of the total so I don 't really feel in that instance that the developer was being , trying to put something by us . I think that those were leftover lots that in developing they basically couldn 't do anything else with and they had to try and put them in there to make their bottom line . But I still am uncomfortable with us wasting our time with this — thing until we have a consensus of what it is we 're going to do with it . It seems the more time goes on it seems the more we are in disagreement on this thing . And getting the feedback from the Council and so on , there 's going to have to be some discussion on this minimum lot size or otherwise I don 't see any reason to continue with it . Ahrens : I don 't have a lot more to say . I talked myself out at our last — meeting on this but after listening now to my fellow commissioners , I think the water is muddier now than it ever has been . I still don 't understand really what everybody wants , and I 'm sure you don 't at this point . It 's getting worst than getting better . I have a problem , and I think my position is getting muddier too . . .but I have a problem developing a PUD ordinance with a smaller lot size than our subdivision ordinance requires just to get people to , just to get developers to develop a PUD if what we get is not what we wanted . Not what we really wanted anyway and I agree with Brian when we developed the land in the northern part of Chanhassen , we got some nice big ponds but that 's not to the benefit of the — development . That 's to the benefit of the landowners who are lucky enough to own the larger lots around the pond . It wasn 't for the benefit of the smaller lots and people who live on smaller lots . I 'm not sure what that _ gave the city and what that gave the whole development except for the people who happen to live around the pond . I don 't particularly want to go back and change the minimum lot size on your subdivision ordinance . I agree that there is a problem having a 15 ,000- square foot minimum in a PUD — ordinance when that is the minimum lot size of our subdivision ordinance . And I realize that the trend is toward smaller lots also and I think in some instances that 's good planning also . But unless I can see that we really are going to get value in a PUD by having smaller lot sizes , I can 't Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 15 go along with reducing . I 'd have to go along with the alternative . You have stated here that the minimum lot size in PUD should be 15 ,000 square feet which I don 't think is a large lot to begin with . I don 't think we 're - talking about huge lots here . Batzli : I think he just said the average has to be 15 ,000 . I don 't think your alternative was that it was 15 ,000 . Krauss: Yeah . We gave you two alternatives but the third one is a 10 ,000 minimum . The other is a 10 ,000 with a 15 ,000 average . The third alternative , which is not spoken here is just don 't do it . Don 't have any residential PUD 's . Except to the extent that we had one like Lundgren where the average lot size in that was 25 ,000 square feet and it was a rather unique circumstance . Ahrens: The Lake Lucy Road project? Emmings: Do you have any more? I think Joan 's right . It 's getting muddier the longer we work on it . I agree with Ladd , I 've become more and more convinced too that lot size is not , that 's not so terribly sacred to me as it once was the longer I 'm here because if the project is done right , it isn 't the size of the lot . It 's how the whole thing is conceived and executed and that 's why I don 't like this ordinance . - I don 't like writing down . If you 're trying to maximize the potential for a developer to come in and be creative in the sense that he looks at a piece of property and says , the best way to do this piece of property is to preserve the natural topography . It 's to preserve the trees . It 's to preserve the wetlands and all that stuff , which they have to do anyway it 's true and then the houses should fit in this way . I mean that 's sort of , we 've sort of got , at least I do , sort of got an idea that we 'd like developers to do that . Sort of take the land as a given and figure out how it could be developed instead of just coming in and making it flat and starting over . And I don 't know if that will ever happen but Brian might have a point there that he made tonight that if . Batzli : Might . • Emmings: Well yeah . It 's unlikely but it 's possible . That if our other ordinances were strong enough , and maybe some ordinances we don 't even have yet were put into place to regulate all the things we care about , maybe we don 't need a PUD ordinance . Maybe that makes every subdivision a PUD . I don 't know . That might be a whole other way of attacking the problem that I don 't think we 've ever talked about . Erhart : Excuse me but I heard you and Brian both say that there 's an ordinance that protects trees and I don 't think that 's quite exactly accurate . Emmings: Yeah we 've been talking about it . I don 't know what 's in place . Erhart : We have an ordinance that disallows clear cutting . We don 't have an ordinance that says you have a stand of mature trees and I can save a whole lot more by having large lots in those mature trees as compared to Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 16 just having a bunch of 15 ,000 square foot lots in those mature trees . In fact I think Brian that 's not entirely true that . Batzli : Our mature tree overlay map which will probably be out in the near future would help . Erhart : It would help but you can't project , you will never arbitrarily write an ordinance that says you can 't cut down a tree where you 're going to put a house and a street . Batzli : True . Erhart : You 're not going to see that so when you have 15 ,000 square foot — lots and streets to service them , you 're going to lose x amount of trees where if you could raise the lot size in that area , you could save a significant amount of those trees . I still don 't understand why if we are _ properly incentivized , why you can 't take and maintain gross density and allow , incentivize the developer to give the public or the people in that subdivision , that public essentially a public ground and take the ground that he is going to use and make the average lot size smaller . I just — don 't understand why that won 't work and essentially Brian you keep saying it won 't work and I don 't understand that . • Emmings: Alright . We 're going to get into a discussion that 's going to go on for 7 hours again here tonight and that 's not going to happen because this is my last act as Chairman . I 'm not going to let it happen . But I think , I don 't care if the lots are small but I care if there 's a whole bunch of small lots or if they don 't fit . Somehow it doesn 't fit , whatever that means but I think the way you do that , instead of talking about lot size is you talk about what you 're looking for and you tell them they 're — not going to be able to go under our traditional gross density . Whatever area you 're in , so you set the density and then tell them , this is the upper limit you 've got . Show us what you want to do and I think that we 've _ got enough power , because they have to replat the property , or because they have to rezone the property to PUD , I 'm convinced in my own mind that we 've , you know we 're not in a situation where if they come in and meet our plan , we have to approve it . Because we have to rezone , we can say no and — feel like we 're in pretty solid ground and that way I think we get to help the developer in a way . Tailor the property and if you set the maximum density at what we 've traditionally done at 1 .8 or whatever number we pick , — or whatever number 's in our comprehensive plan , if they want to bring in small lots , big lots , clustered lots , whatever , but make sure that maybe we spend more time in the ordinance talking about the kinds of things we 're _ interested in seeing them do in a general sense and not talk about lot sizes at all . Lot sizes has gotten to be kind of a sacred cow and I don 't know why it is . That 's my view , and we 're not going to get any motion of here tonight . There 's no way . We 're all over the map . — Batzli : I 'd support you if you put a guideline minimum lot size in there . Ahrens : I think the reason it 's become a sacred cow is people feel that 's the way to preserve the things they want to see in a development . That 's why lot sizes , trees and open space . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 17 Emmings: But if you don 't exceed the density that we 've traditionally had , how can you? If the project doesn 't exceed that maximum density , how can you get in trouble? I think that 's protects us . Erhart : Really you could take this whole PUD thing and make it one paragraph by saying , the City is open to consider anything you 've got . We ' ll look at it but keep in mind we don 't have to give you a thing . Emmings: Huh? Erhart : The whole PUD could be put in one simple sentence . We 'll look at anything and we don 't have to approve it . We encourage you to bring in and let us look at it really . Mmor Emmings: No . I think you can say a lot more than that Tim . I think you could say we 're interested in preserving the topography . We 're interested in roads that don 't go straight and that follow the natural contour of the land . We 're interested in wetlands and ponds and trees . There 's a whole lot of things that I think you could say that would give them some direction . Erhart : But we certainly don't have to get into all these details that we 've now got in there . Emmings: I think the fewer details you 've got the better chance you have of somebody actually using it . Because this thing sounds just like our subdivision ordinance . Just another version of the subdivision ordinance to me . Well , I don 't even know . I think this should be turned over to the new Chairman . I have no idea where we should go with this but we clearly are all over . Krauss: You know , I 'm not opposed . It gets a little frustrating trying to come up with ideas when you 're not sure which way to go . I think there 's enough merit in this that we can do something with it that I 'm willing to tom keep working at it . One thing , in the interest of saving time tonight so we can get onto the other item , you may want to do. You may find it interesting . We 've got one developer right now who 's already prepared a couple different site plans for a piece of land that you 're familiar with . One is based on his ability to put some 10 ,000 square foot lots in an open soybean field but go with 20 ,000 and 25 ,000 square foot lots on a wooded hillside and I think it pretty clearly demonstrates some of the merits of ' being able to cluster . He 's offered to come down here and show you the stuff or I can show you the stuff if that will help put it into a context . Alternatively , or concurrently , if there 's a couple three that want to sit down one afternoon or whatever . One morning and knock something out , we 'd be happy to do that too . Emmings: The trouble with , a small group isn 't a bad idea . The trouble with a small group is , there 's a lot of people up here with , everybody seems to have kind of a strong opinion about where they want to see this go and I don 't see where the compromise is . Usually you can kind of see a path through the middle of the mess but I don 't know if I can see it here . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 18 Batzli : Have we been given guidance by the City Council that they want a minimum square footage in there and we can use that? Krauss: Well and maybe you do want to send this up and get their opinion . I know that the Mayor and Councilman Wing have clearly spoken to me in my office indicating that they 're both opposed to lowering lot sizes . Emmings : Well I wonder if the Minutes , with the statements that we all made tonight , at least everybody 's kind of said what their position is , if maybe the City Council should take a look at that and give us some direction . Conrad: We don 't have any good rationale to send it up to them . Erhart: But they can give us some direction . Whether we should even pursue it . Maybe there 's no interest in it . Ahrens: . . .I think they should give us direction . Emmings: See one approach is minimum lot size it seems like . One approach-- is pproach'is average lot size and one approach would be overall density . Farmakes: Doesn 't it come down to whether the merits- of the PUD are valid . _ Whether or not they believe that they 're valid . If they don 't , where they 're going to shift off the minimum square footage . Emmings : Well yeah . If you don 't believe in PUD 's , then you just stick with your subdivision ordinance . Farmakes : That seems to be the difference between the 15 ,000 and the — 10 ,000 . Somewhere within there lies the argument . Batzli : But as Tim said , if we can in fact save more trees and do some — things that aren 't in our subdivision , is it worth going to the smaller square footage to incentivize the developers to do it that way? That 's the issue . At what point . I mean it seems like we started this whole thing with lowering lot size to give a further incentive to the developer to do — it this way . Apparently we crossed the threshhold of too much incentive and too small lots . Somewhere I suppose there 's a compromise of somebody would actually look at it and want to do it but we don 't think the lot size— is too small . Conrad: Well our current ordinance allows the developer to go down to what , 12? Krauss: Well , you eliminated that ordinance last summer . Conrad : Is that gone? • Emmings: Yeah , the 12 is gone . — Conrad: Did we ever look at other , you here we are looking at a PUD ordinance as if we 're the first community that 's thought of it . Did we look at others Paul? Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 19 Krauss: I can 't recall if we brought it to you . We have a bunch . I could certainly do that . Batzli : We looked at somebody 's . We looked at at least one . Conrad: I guess I keep going back . We 're struggling to find some standard , some direction and we don 't have any. What Steve has said about gross density , I brought up several times but we 've never gone down that road . For some reason we haven 't gone down that road and I don 't know why it is because that seems logical to me . We haven 't explored it . We 're sticking with hard numbers on lot sizes but maybe there 's a couple things that we can do and I 'll just suggest them . I still am interested in good PUD ordinances if somebody says they 're good . The other thing is I think , we probably should sit down and say , like somebody brought up and maybe it 's Brian , of what are our standards? What are we looking for . What are we trying to get out of this? Going back to Tim , we 're trying to preserve open spaces but when we get the open spaces , who 's taking care of the open • spaces? Yeah . Who gets them and so philosophically we have some good ideas but we 're not taking it anyplace . Maybe that 's the case where we sit down . I 'm still uncomfortable sending it up to the City Council because we don 't have any direction . Emmings: The only thing there Ladd is , at least 2 people here mentioned that they 've been talking to City Council members and Paul did too and they obviously have some feelings about it already and maybe we ought to know what they are . I don 't know if , you know it may or may not affect what we send up to them but maybe if there is a consensus of opinion there already , maybe we ought to at least take it into account . Ahrens: But maybe . . . ▪ Conrad: See , that 's my biggest fear . If you don 't know what a good PUD looks like , you sure can kill it real easily . • Ahrens: I don 't think we can write an ordinance until we know what we 're expecting . . . Conrad: Paul just wants the flexibility to negotiate . Emmings: No , I think that 's what we owe him isn 't it? Isn 't it really . • Conrad : Then you can take in particular situations . You can give the long vistas . You know , how do you quantify long vistas and things like that . Batzli : If that is our goal , and I would subscribe to that goal , then your idea of net density is perfect . To do it that way . If all you want is flexibility . -' Ahrens : The project . . . Batzli : That 's right . And then it 's all up to these guys . Ahrens : Right . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 20 Conrad: Chairman , what do you want to do? Emmings: I don 't know where it should go . I really don 't . Maybe the — thing to do is at our next meeting just take it back down to ground zero and talk about whether we want a PUD ordinance and what the goals of it ought to be . And then talk about , once we get a list , if we can at least agree on that much , maybe between now and then think about the alternatives . Whether we want to go with that minimum lot size , average lot size or just density . And also talk a lot about the idea of just having sort of Brian 's notion of having all of our other ordinances , be happy enough with all of our other ordinances so we don't really care . However they develop the property , they 're going to have to preserve those things which we 're trying to encourage them to protect in this PUD ordinance because that seems to me to be the other approach and then just forget about a PUD . Or have it there as an alternative . Conrad: Then you get into standards . You get into stuff that , 2 trees , 3 trees , 80 feet tall . Emmings: No . I think we 've got to ask if we want to do that at all . I — sure don 't . I never like writing ordinances that way but I don 't mind in the subdivision but I don 't like it here . So why don 't we throw this one away and start over . Krauss: Fine with me . Batzli : Paul , in the meantime if somebody comes in with a RSF kind of a — PUD , what do we do with it? Emmings: We approved one without having an ordinance already . — Krauss : But that didn 't involve minimum lot sizes which that is the issue . I 've been telling developers that they 're welcome to come bring a concept before you but I didn 't see a lot of hope in it . Emmings: Let them read the Minutes of this meeting and they 'll just go away . — Erhart: Have you would discarded the concept of forming a small subcommittee to work with staff on the new basis or do you just want to have them work on it? Emmings: Well what do people want? I think we ought to try and develop a list of what we want here . Conrad: I 'd like to see that and I 'd also like to see Paul or Jo Ann talk to the American Planning Association or whatever and get what they perceive -- to be model PUD ordinances . Krauss : We 've got this in-house . _ Emmings: Or the University of Minnesota might have something to offer , now that they 've heard the discussion . Planning Commision Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 21 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 15 , 1992 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Emmings: We 've got the report from the Director and let 's hold onto that . Paul , is there anything in there that you want to talk to us about? • Otherwise we 'll just assume everybody 's read it . Unless anybody has any questions . • Krauss: No . I think it 's all self explanatory . Ahrens: Is there a judgment yet on Moon Valley? Krauss: No . Emmings: What are you waiting for? Krauss: We spoke to Roger today and we understand the Judge ceases to get a salary if he goes longer than 3 months on giving us a ruling . Emmings: There was a Judge down . . .who used to turn himself in because he frequently took more than 3 months to get it . He turned himself in and have his salary cut off until he got it right . Quite a guy . HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY UPDATE - DISCUSSION AND NEW DIRECTION_ ▪ Krauss: Mr . Chairman , just to give a little bit of background and then I 'll turn the meeting over to Bill Morrish . I think it 's useful to go over how we got into this very briefly . This thing grew out of the Comprehensive Plan study and issues along TH 5 and TH 5 study area , specifically led to an agreement between yourselves and City Council that you 'd do some sort of a study on that study area to define those land uses . We have representatives here tonight from the Mills Fleet Farm that 's in • that study area and I think most of you are familiar with that . As the summer progressed , largely at the instigation of a concerned Councilmember , we began to look at some of the bigger issues with TH 5 itself beyond that • immediate study area . And wound up establishing a relationship with the University of Minnesota , Bill Morrish , Lance Neckar and their staff to bring a little bit of creativity to looking at what could be done . The scope of their work changed pretty dramatically from when we first brought them on but the Council established a , I don 't know what you 'd call it . Sort of working group . It 's an unofficial working group that included a couple members of the Planning Commission , City Council and HRA to work and • take a look at this thing . Now all this work is a conceptual study . There 's never been any public hearings and there never was an intent to be at this point . This was sort of get our act together . Get our minds working . See the possibility of the thing and it 's basically been brought to fruition to the point where you now need to decide if your desire to proceed with something more formalized or if you 've got enough out of it or whatever you want to do . In my memo I point out a lot of things that we 've done over the last few years . I think you 've got a track record to be proud of . All of the things that have changed . All the programs that have been initiated . All the ordinances that have been changed . . .and the HRA 's Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 22 been active too working on TH 5 improvements . So there 's a lot that 's been happening . I think that there 's a lot of merit to doing a formal corridor study . There 's a lot to be gained out of it . One of the most important — things is that you get a common vision of what you 'd like to see out there . We 've got a tremendous amount of development pressure out there . Last meeting I stuck a map in your packet indicating the properties that have either petitioned for utilities , have come in for development applications or have talked to us and I haven 't added it up but it 's about 600 or 700 acres , mostly on the corridor . At this point I can tell people , developers that our expectations for what happens in the corridor are higher than they were 6 months or a year ago but I can 't really tell them exactly what they are . I have some idea but it 's kind of tough to know exactly . So hopefully when you listen to Bill tonight you 'll get some feel for what 's — been done to date and through Bill 's comments and from some of the stuff in my memo , you 'll get some feel for what could be accomplished . You know , it 's really going to be a judgment call on your part , on the City Council 's part as to whether or not there 's a desire to devote the time and the resources to do it . And it 's a considerable effort . Most of you have just come off doing a comprehensive plan . It 's that sort of an effort . I mean it involves properties . It involves public hearings . It involves all the — rest . We stand ready to do that if there 's guidance to do that . But again , I 'd like you to review what Bill has and make your own judgments . And with that I 'd like to pass the meeting over to Biil Morrish . -- Bill Morrish: Mr . Chairman and members of the Planning Commission . It 's an honor to be here this evening in Chanhassen to present to you what we 've _ been playing around with for the last couple months with members of the Commission , members of the Council and Paul 's staff . As Paul said , this has been a collaborative effort between the City of Chanhassen and the Urban Design Center at the University of Minnesota . In our interest to try to really get at the heart of principles for making a community and the discussions we 've had about planning and development in reference also to this . What are the features that you hold important in your community that _ you want to carry through from one generation to the next and by that continuity as things have changed , as cycled up and down . . . What are those things , the continuity that somehow people can count on . Our interest in the Urban Design Center is of course the physical environment . How can the — physical environment work with the economic development issues and the social agenda in a collaborative and equal way to make a framework for development . What we did , and it 's very quickly up here in this overlay , — is we didn 't produce a project or master plan to be voted on but we held a class . A classroom course but it was hard to know who was the teacher and who was the student . The whole idea was to do a demonstration drive of the _ corridor before you figure out whether you 'd like to even buy the car and it 's much cheaper to do it on paper than do it in concrete . So we started out with certain suppositions to investigate this corridor area with some known facts . One , the comprehensive plan which we feel is fine . It 's good structure to begin with . It. organizes the basic land use but we need to begin to start looking at the physical structure itself and that is what you 're now doing in your GIS . Your Graphic Information System where you 're — beginning to identify those areas of wetlands and topography and we 're very interested in that because a lot of what 's to be defined in there to help you define what you think will make good spaces . Not only define where wetlands are but those sensitive things or the scientific part of the Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 23 community . But also the spacial organization as part of the community . GIS can be very helpful in providing that framework for providing which wetlands you want as part of your civic space and which wetlands do you want as part of your private space . The other factors of. course is this discussion about we have this rural character out here and we want to maintain it , which is always difficult as you grow . And what is that? How do you maintain that as you actually become more urbanized? You become -- less of an agricultural landscape and more of an urbanized rural character . We 've heard that word a lot . We 're a rural community . We 're a country town . Those words are nice and hopefully they mean more than just a sign as you enter into the city . The other one has to do of course with the upgrading of TH 5 . Traveling in and out . . .sections you can see the sort of three versions of it . Way out of a rural road into a medium size rural road and then back here an urban finger extending out from the metropolitan area and making this way much more urbanized . What is the character of the road and what can , maybe that 's a wrong analogy but it might be appropriate . . . and how can you react to what is being constructed constructively . How can you mitigate the negatives in TH 5 and enhance the positive aspects of that road? So what we did was , oh? And also development pressures . Not pressures but actually the issues of how to develop the land itself and what kind of uses , what kind of principles can we derive in looking at some of those parcels . How can we make better parcels out of these sites . How do you make better sites , excuse me , out of these parcels . By organizing specific landscape in order to make much better private sector development . And the 1995 study area represents one of those opportunities and plus all the other open parcels along the way . What we did in the process was to begin to look at the physical landscape and technology is at it 's best tonight so we sent a student up in a helicopter to take photographs at about 800 feet which is about the angle of some of these photographs in here . To begin to see it 's a really great height to see not only the geography of the open plain of the community but some sense of the spaces that define the structure of your community . Those areas between the hedgerows , the large vegetational stands , the wetlands and so forth . You can really begin to see what you 're doing and • what you 're . . .and there 's a great slide in there which shows downtown Chanhassen looking westward and there are things that you 're doing . There 's the older part of town and the greater . . . and mature stand of trees . Everybody says this is great . We want more of this . You 've had your downtown area and your main street which you 've been working on the planting and it just sort of says you know , if you just take that street and make main street going , you keep making much more of the civic ▪ structure and community structure and there 's a whole set of questions of how do you continue on what you 've been doing correctly farther out into this landscape . Other aerials show that you really do change in almost _. geographic , . . .from one around the old part of town to sort of middle area and all the way out to Minnewashta . There are sort of 2 or 3 climatic zones if you want to begin to look at that . And what we did was to begin to characterize those things . One is to locate you in the metropolitan area as between two dynamic landscapes . The lake and Minnesota River . From the north to the south . The metropolitan area on the east side and the rural country lies out to the west and you 're exactly right there and • you can see why developers are really interested in land in this way . You have TH 41 which is great for a backbone between the lake and Minnesota River and you have the Bluff Creek and other creeks . You 're the headlands Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 24 for several streams . Three or four watersheds which extend and radiate from that area up in and around where the red line which is TH 5 . Very active , geomorphic area . The topography , water , roads , people . They 're very sort of important center out in the southwest , western sector of an interchange between urbanism and natural systems . And of course it 's the backbone for your community . A reason to live here . The corridor , we also — said the corridor is more than just the right-of-way of the road as MnDot might see it . We brought to the task force other images of exaggerating the topography . That you really go from a highland here to a much more — rolling landscape out into here with different forms of vegetational stands . The lake itself , Lake Ann . We also talked about on the bus ride that we took last June that some of these almost operated as landmarks . The Mayor pointed out the oak tree on the hill over here as kind of an orienting landmark and we talked about that some of these vegetational lines that you see in the distance are like skylines . They orient you and you say oh , I 'm in the middle of Chanhassen because I 'm enclosed by this — stand of trees . As those things disappear , that sense of enclosure , that sense of community becomes a problem . So we went through a whole series of different physical elements from the natural to the built such as the road — systems and how important those things are and a whole discussion begins to talk about are these roads going to unify or are they going to cut you up . Are they going to divide you? Or are you going to upgrade all the roads to such a point where you become segmented into corridors or can you define the unifying element that 's how you get the unification . It 's the statement that came out of that first work session , how do you connect community across a road? Very important topic whether you 're in the city — or you 're in the suburbs . Natural systems of course , Bluff Creek is a major player . The wetlands along it and a composite with the park system is very important backbone structure . You know where it is . You know what _ it is . Defining how you 're going to use it as a community space and how . much access you 're going to give it to . Private . It 's a very important piece when you start looking at your whole city and maybe have in it some of the answers offered in your PUD discussions that everybody seems to be — involved in tonight . That 's one way you may begin to look at the principle . Urban design principle for the community that . . .system as a primary system as paying very special attention to that and we get very concerned if you don 't pay special attention to it . _ Another major accent of course is the Arboretum which is at one time a very distant and remote piece of the community . Of the metropolitan area . Now becoming part of a much more urbanized area . An almost central focus point to Chaska , — Victoria , Chanhassen , Excelsior and how does the concept of what 's embodied in the Arboretum , kind of a collection and manifestation of the character of Minnesota and this side of the state . How some of the notions here mayb -- be carried out in a way in which Chanhassen would be common known for it 's certain kind of landscape or certain kind of environment that comes with urbanization . That urbanization brings certain benefits which is an — extension of this notion of living in the landscape . Not a loss of that character but in addition to that character . And cities across the United States have to solve this problem have turned very locally to what they have . A great example to this of course are the chain of lakes in Minneapolis and the 1880 's when they 're trying to figure out what to do with their subdivisions on the outer edge of town . Imagine that . That was the third tier somewhere around Lake Calhoun . They began to talk about — what they had here . They had a bog , a wetland . They had mosquitoes and a Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 25 drainage problem . And they began to work with that and say well gee , maybe we can get the water out of here . Get the mosquitoes out and also maybe make a backbone for development and you can see how successful that has y been . And cities at that time , Boston , Kansas City , those kinds of cities made that decision at that point . And you are at that point with pieces like Bluff Creek . You 're also at that point with TH 5 . And though a lot of it , although not all of it , has been engineered and for one time we begin to even look and question at that and should we be looking at other alignments and so forth and we evaluated pretty much that this right-of- way 's in place and this right-of-way really isn 't too far off where it Ina should be actually . Experimenting sort of wildly with bending and so forth , it actually is in the right place . . . But as the result of that first workshop which we had where we talked a lot about this and talked about these photographs which the members of the committee took with box cameras . You can see everybody 's view of the world here . But beginning to look at this environment that hasn 't in some respects been in the main view of the community . Main view of the community has been sort of in this area and now the focus of the community is starting to move westward . What is it going to see? Whatis it going to be? It 's somewhat like this area but it is a little bit different . Different kinds of growth . Meeting OWN different markets as we go into the future . So out of that came the notion that out of the discussion that there seemed to be in Chanhassen and the environment issue moved westward . These rooms left over from the agricultural working of the landscape and those remnents of the vegetational zones , that there 's some idea of oh , you drive through a room . There 's the room of Lake Ann . There 's a room at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41 . You can almost feel that you 've arrived somewhere coming from • the west . And that there 's also this connectivity question that we see in Bluff Creek as a drainageway kind of comes through up . Touches the road and then just goes off . You can pass through it and you can kind of see why past Bluff Creek and now I 'm going to go past Lake Ann . So the connection is made to the vegetation and occasionally you ' ll see a hardy citizen trying to make it across TH 5 . So there 's community on one side and community on the other and in your land use plan you 're also proposing • to put schools on one side and new neighborhoods on one side . So as you begin to look further into your land uses by the comprehensive plan , you 're starting to realize that there 's a community that should be integrated around TH 5 and through TH 5 and not separating . You also have the issue of the highland and the lowland. The fact that there 's hills up here and ability to see across the highway on the north side and on the south side , you have the land .falling away and vistas looking out towards the Minnesota River . But very simply we 've called it the Fridley effect but I 've been working with Fridley to overcome the Fridley effect and that is a pretty typical drawing of what happens when you put a right-of-way in . An expanded road and everything follows suit . You get a frontage road . You get front parking . The position of the building and then you mitigate , mitigate , mitigate until you get to the neighborhood . Usually a fence . And you may perceptually , the appearance of that road right-of-way much wider than it actually is . So if you go through Fridley and say boy , that road is really , really wide . We took everybody out with these box cameras and said take pictures of the right-of-way . They took it out of the front of their cars and I said , now measure the width, the actual road right-of- way and it 's only this big . But the perceptual width of the right-of-way , the annoyance which comes with the confusion , the sense of what happens Planning Com ission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 26 when it 's urbanized over a long period of time becomes ever , ever wider . More communities now are coming back and responding to this , especially as they move out of the lower price and first step development . Beginning to push back into this . Now one of the things that 's unique about the western area is the fact of these rooms and I sort of hinted at the fact that there 's already in the structure , you don 't have to go out and row it . A — community of open parcels and wetlands and trees which are part of your land use plan so it 's not like I have to go out and make these things up . They exist . The possibility of keeping that , you can 't change the road and— you 're not really changing the development as much but one important thing that you 're doing , which we 'll talk to you in this first drawing , is you don 't make frontage roads . You make city streets . And that these road which carry traffic and service this area can be defined not as a frontage road which is usually a very sort of non-descript kind of road . You actually plant it like you 've been doing in your main street for several reasons . One to move water along off that road sideways into your water — system . Move it away and begin to organize your detention ponding along the TH 5 which you 're going to have some because you have all this upland water that has to get through the road somewhere . But also begin to work on your development . We just looked at a development parcel the other day . What was the property? Krauss : It 's the Ryan property . Bill Morrish: And the whole organization of development so that a person who builds a corporate headquarters has a premiere opening facade and you — go by and you go ah ha , IBM . Ah ha , General Mills . It 's framed by the landscape . Positioned . Parking to the rear but actually to the front because this is a major street in the middle of the city and you begin to create an aesthetic and a presence of the building and the developers within the landscape rather than just to confuse you no signs and parking lots and frontage roads that look like this . Well that 's a very utopian dream . That is kind of principle to achieve and the question is how close — can you get to entering paradise . So what we did was to play the game and see if we could do that and what we did was to take the frontage road on the north side first and to take actually a very severe and tight alignment _ to TH 5 and begin to start figuring out how to construct a road which is really extending main street which became known in the group as Chanhassen Boulevard . So as you came down from a new neighborhood in here , you got on this road , you would know that you 're really part of downtown . Which is an — important thing for downtown as the city begins to urbanize . A lot of cities as they urbanize sort of forget to connect the roads back to downtown and they keep wanting to know why people never go to downtown . — We 're working with the city of Rosemount , Minnesota . We found out all the subdivisions roads don't lead to downtown . They all led to Apple Valley . So no one was keeping track of the subdivision roads because they were going to the county roads . Well , they were heading to that K-Mart . And it 's difficult to keep track of all of these so one of the ways to do it is to actually sort of make this drawing to sort of remind you and we were talking about again the Ryan property again the other day and just the principle of looking at this site and it 's simpleness was able to come up with a discussion about how to look at that property . I think actually as we began to work it , it became a better developable property because the — building 's have more of a presence to the street themselves and not being Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 27 cut off by TH 5 by a frontage road . Actually the frontage road serves the property better back in here then around in front . So we moved ourselves along this way and looked at one alternative for the 1995 study area . We even played with the Fleet Farm , which we ' ll come back to in a minute but with the notion of the road being something . Here it is . It loops into the wetland . He-re it comes along and connects into Lake Ann . We also looked at the other frontage road and began to look at how it becomes in '- talking with Peter Olin and the Arboretum , the possibility of even moving the entrance from here down to here and this frontage road now becomes Arboretum Blvd . , which is actually the old name of State Highway 5 . So what you have here is a great round for people in the community to circulate in the community and not to be caught up into the State Highway . You actually , on Arboretum Blvd . you go somewhere . On Chanhassen Blvd . you go somewhere and if someone has a project here , you know 1555 Arboretum Blvd . and you know 1227 Chanhassen Blvd . puts you in the context of the community . You can sell it . You can market it . It gives you a presence . It also gives you a great race track if you want to have a bicycle race out here . And it can also form a backbone for pedestrian network where people can begin to move laterally across your community this way picking up wetlands . We also looked at a couple other roads which might be developed as kind of parkways as a development along your wetlands and your drainage areas in here . There 's a couple of other kinds of roads we begin to look at but that forms the backbone . It also can form the' backbone for a park ride system that you have , proposed park ride system here but also the possibility down in this area next to the school . The other park ride system which is sort of picking up this market area here and bringing it , it might be even a loop for people working here and living there . They can just take it down and come to the Rosemount Company . And it's very interesting the way you have organized your industry down here and the way people could actually not have to drive to work . Live here because they can work here , and I understand you do have a high population that do do that and here is a structure of a system that actually sets that system up . We then talked about the notion of making roads which by using placement of buildings , site plan concepts , the preservation of stands of vegetation which most of them exist in wetland right-of-ways and actual planting and landscape architecture of those detention ponds , the shaping and sculpting is what their pond see , sort of shaping them to make it give an aesthetic . Taking those pieces and instruments , you can begin to start making spaces so as you 're traveling along TH 5 , development is sitting in sort of a room . Space that you feel or district that you 're passing through . Then you go through a narrowing where Bluff Creek goes through or underneath . And then you come into another place and you don 't feel like you 're just going through sort of one relentless flow of development . And actually you 've done a lot of them downtown . This just sort of shows you extending downtown and extending it out here . These buildings are already positioned and the whole idea of keeping this building back you 're going to need a detention pond there anyway . And giving this as kind of a premiere corner , — you can make a kind of gateway intersection here where coming out underneath the underpass here of the railroad , one could see the stand of trees . This big detention pond which is also to be shared by housing . Once _ it begins to kind of make a giant environmental intersection. You already have the components down here with the Rosemount Industry . This pond . Their pond over here and I think with experimentation with horticulturists and other landscape architects and even artists now have become very Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 28 • interested in the artistic merits of plant materials you can create in this detention pond structure . A very significant landmark that might come up every spring and fall that people would like to pass through . And we went — all the way through to extending Lake Ann and then all the way up down to the intersection there of Highway 5 and 41 . So that gives you a notion that once you 're passing through this space , just using in our sort of — first pass over , the structure that you have already . What becomes very interesting is what the developer can add to that structure in the way they landscape . The way they do development . The way they position the building to actually build upon that and make them much a stronger presence in the landscape than actually having a large sign . And in looking at the evolution of development in California , which I have over some 20 years , the sophistication of thinking about using the borrowing of the landscaping — as they say because that you can 't buy it all . It 's so expensive . How can you sort of leverage all this landscape that 's behind you to be yours . Positioning of the building in contrast to a background landscape is something to become very , very interesting and the building and the landscaping becomes the signature and it 's less reliant upon the signs . Also people like to pay more sitting in the landscape having coffee than sitting under signs . You 've got to figure out someway to sell expensive coffee . The other backbone which we 've been talking about is this wetlands culture which again is one of the major , is probably the major building block of your community and how do you manage that . How do you develop that becomes a very major issue and not only in the existing structure but even how it 's done by development . How this water moved across the development . How can it be seen in the structure of the development as it _ feeds into the fingers of Bluff Creek and actually one could sort of feel the structure of water moving across the landscape in all development as a way that unifies a city . And that one important connection in crossing of course is Bluff Creek . It 's one of the deepest ravines . It is one of the — most mature ones . It is also perfectly located against the school . Next to the school with the residential area and the whole development of probably if you 're going to make one underpass here that people might go under , this might be it because there 's enough depth and height to not see all the way through and have the vegetation go through . We 're not talking about height here . We 're talking about something that is more like this bridge down here which is on River Parkway . We are looking at a series of bridges . These are also some pedestrian bridges because one of the issues is , and I know you 've talked about it here , is this pedestrian bridge possibility up here so this neighborhood can get up to this open space and — schools and so forth . But these kinds of things and earmarking those now and identifying those now and developing these things tend , in the right place , you may only have to do one but done in the right place such as Bluff Creek can make that community connection and the whole community can get underneath . Probably the best example in Minneapolis that I can think of right now is Minnehaha , the way it goes underneath 35W . It 's really the only major pedestrian break in the whole length of 35W and you slip underneath it without really worrying about crossing 35W . I 'm not pushing public art . That 's just a very successful pedestrian bridge . But. the water system , the vegetation system , working with the roads and the rooms — begins to sort of create this structure of this hypothetical land that is here before you in various different compounds . I 've just gone very quickly over this and I thought what we could do is through questions begin to come back to more details because of the lateness of the evening . That 's Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 29 what we 've done . We will be packaging this up into a little small report in about 2 weeks and we will get you some copies of it so you can see a lot of the more thought that we have in it . Several of the recommendations we Mommade and begin to already talk to Don and Dave Hartley is- this question of what kind of information and how you 're going to deliver the information in your GIS to help you make decisions about site plans . That 's one thing that I think would be very , very interesting . On what kind of data you collect on that . The other one is the discussion of the bridges at Bluff Creek . Who pays for it . I 've just received actually this weekend the new Highway Surface Transportation Bill and I 've had someone do some research • back in Washington in Moyahan 's office and I have some work on that but actually compounded of it is that 10% off the top now in the new Federal Highway Bill is for highway enhancement . No longer a mitigation question anymore and right at the top is pedestrianization . Right next to it is wetlands , environment and it 's not just one of , you know we 'll kind of stay away from environment . They 're actually talking about something more like this and what 's very interesting is that I think that communities , a very ▪ important piece of the legislation is that it's up to the language of the MPO , the Metropolitan Planning Organization to set the criteria for how this money is to be spent and I think what 's important is that the • communities in the metropolitan area I think can play a very active role in establishing how that money 's to be spent and there are many , many other components in the Bill but one of them is how to define enhancement . It could be a pedestrian bridge here . That could be a requirement . The pedestrian bridge underneath . How wetlands are taken care of and detention ponds are taken care of . The whole nature of the right-of-way has been radically changed by this Bill and the intention of Moyahan in writing this , as this person told me , was to expand the nature and the notion that roads are part of the community . They 're not something just sort of to pass through so I can give you all some excerpts from that Bill that might help you also to see that there are some ways to fund some of these projects . That 's a new bit of information . Emmings: Thank you very much . Your input into this process has been I think just outstanding . In every way . I 've heard you deliver this 2 or 3 times and I get different things out of it every time . I don 't think , in my work , I don 't think like you think and this helps , is very stimulating . I really like it . But I don 't know , there are other people here who haven 't heard it before and I don 't know if there are any questions from anybody . Let 's just throw it open to anybody that wants to talk about anything should just feel free to do so . Conrad: It 's hard to response . There are so many things . I guess what I 'd like you to do is just work from one end to the other . Not in any '- detail but other than the frontage roads , tell me what other major , and I see on the east end we start with where there was a bridge . A pedestrian bridge but tell me other major things that occurred as you went west . Bill Morrish: I ' ll take you on another bus ride . I think the development of this park ride and of course I know there 's been a major argument and somehow would help reminding Eden Prairie the importance of this stand of —' trees here . Is an important landmark and gateway to your community . Not only from a visual sense but also a nice environment that was one to get outhere on many days in Minnesota and leave here and the important station Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 30 to your community for many commuters . How that 's designed and one notion had about this was that some of the possible upgrading and further — enhancementof the some part of the Arboretum with more formal plantings , flowering fruit trees and so forth might repeat . So whatever 's at that end would be at this end and it also might repeat in other places along the way . That there 's this kind of civilized orchard theme that repeats through and oh that 's a gateway . The formal tree represents gateway come seasons . Welcome to Chanhassen it 's spring . The cherry blossoms . And then this whole intersection here which is interesting and that the fact , I _ love — love seeing up this because you can see the church steeple and that wonderful thing you see in the midwest , that sort of street that goes up there and you expect to find the County Seat . But at the top of the hill there 's a church . That counts too . And keeping that and the possibility — of developing another formal monument at the bottom and to sort of remind you that that 's a point of orientation point of beginning of downtown. We even played in here the possibility if light rail ever began the future and — this happens to be corridor , because of the grade change and the separation and the high bluff and low , it 's a great transit point . A person could come right in on a light rail and then the pedestrian bridge can take you straight out in the upper areas . Give them the high points of the land . You don 't have to deal with the problems of a ramping of pedestrians which is always problematic and even Armegente and the Walker had a difficult time figuring out to get people gracefully up . Handicapped and so forth so— that was a kind of transit . . .and a linear room with the possibility of shaping that earth so . What 's nice is the way the land squeezes in . You kind of leave Eden Prairie . You go through this bend in the road . It — squeezes and then it comes to Chanhassen and really come into your major service area and entrance into Chanhassen Dinner Theatre . The next move is this sort of composite wetland . The outlet is in progress out there at the_ base- of your new development which sits up here on the hill . Market Street . and the possibility of developing the first kind of wetland you see more of out here as you head out into that more crowded landscape . The other notion is to then continue downtown keeping buildings moved forward so you — can keep a pedestrian zone in here . Very important component I believe to marketing and retailing in the future suburban area and I 've seen it in many , many communities . The people on Saturday and what do you have to do — on Saturday which is everything and enjoy yourself , is to have these areas where you can do a lot of those things and pick up a little bit of enjoyment . Downtown Wayzata . 50th in Edina . 50th and France . Those kinds of things . You 've got most of it . You can really finish it . . . — possible City Hall Park and making this a very wonderful structure and then coming out into this area and beginning to work with this wetland coming down and the drainage . The next big room is Lake Ann and again this type — of vegetation might then pick up what 's here and there . A formal entrance . A new entrance to Lake Ann . Maybe picking up what we talked about in the Arboretum . Moving westward is actually playing with the catching of water — off the roads and tree plantings . Instead of planting trees in the middle of the road and we 're trying to come up with the vocabulary of principles for laying out a road . You can put trees in the middle . You can put trees to the side . You can also put double rows to one side and pick up that old — kind of farm wind row which exists in my home city in California and here . It 's a kind of universally known agricultural symbol but also creates what I always remember as there 's this county road and then the old county road — and it 's always between the , this old hedge row . They 've actually , you Planning Commission Meeting '— February 5 , 1992 - Page 31 might plant across this space . This hedge row which is the entrance to the residential development and then the residential development could have it 's own thematic landscape . But this long space would be held together . Development of a parkway which services these communities with a slight drainage swale in there but as this becomes more developed, the possibility of moving water from this development and this development across here parallel to the road might save a lot of people some time , money and energy and also into the future create a new parkway out of something which is just a drainage swale now . Then there 's Bluff creek . With actually organizing the development in such a way that it could become a small pedestrian node in the park and ride . Here 's the park and ride parking area that you walk past the pond , pick up the bus and move out . Pick up a cup of coffee . Some kind of small cleaners restaurant kind of thing . This piece down here and then the school . The school I think is a really good access at that point . Moving forward up into the intersection . Staying away from the lowlands so you can put your playfields out there . Keeping the road down roughly , I understand it 's better here in this area and so looking at the site in more detail . But creating a zone where somebody could actually walk across the intersection because it 's concentrating the pedestrian activity in that area . People are more aware of drivers when there 's people around them and the expectation is I 'm driving through a people area . So if you want people to be in the area and don 't design the road that way , then drivers are going to sort of drive quickly the way the road goes . So by moving this development forward is more of a sense of it 's concentrated around that pedestrian . You see people walking around the building . So there 's a kind of important commercial note serving this area and as it kind of satellites to this . Then this office park here , the possibility of a corporate park focusing itself around this wetland . One of the really truly dynamic pieces of property here is this hill and the focus towards it and maybe sharing the entrance to the Arboretum . Looking at residential , the organization of roads in and around here and we had this discussion of wetlands . How much private access . How much public access and here 's one way of having private ownership along it and then also public access and houses and things organized around here so that people living around here would have access to this wetland so this is sort of like a leg of the IOP but yet it doesn 't have to go around . And then down here , we thought we 'd even take the hard problem of trying to figure out how Fleet Farm would go in there rather than avoid it and say oh what we need to put there is houses . We thought we 'd just sort of take it on and see the interesting opportunities . One mature stand of trees gives you a landmark . It is a wetland area . Important wetland area . It 's also a Nob gateway symbol . We have another stand on the other side as a possibility of making a kind of hedge row to go through . The development of TH 41 , very important issue . Right now it 's a very beautiful road as it goes — through the landscape but we know once it 's re-engineered it 's going to be wider and a lot of that vegetation is going to disappear . So if some of it is going to disappear and be upgraded , what do we replace back into it . So is it possible to develop a vegetational corridor working with the parking lot of the Fleet Farm . Placing buildings in such a way that the back side of it with it 's storage areas and it 's truck loading behind the hedge row . The head of the building is to the front . Using the wetlands as formal planting and the parking lot to give it a thematic connection to this area and begin to start talking about the possibility of integrating this use in such a way that maybe apartments over here and here and smaller houses over Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 32 here . So we just took a quick look at that . And then down to this intersection and the rebuilding of the Arboretum 's entrance through some very powerful landscaping . Rather than small signs you kind of have to hit — real quick with your brakes to slide in there right . That 's your favorite corner . And then actually here is this wonderful display of flora and fauna which could be done and presented to the community and again the — major gateway from the west into Chanhassen and the middle point between the lake and the river . And I think those memorable pieces are the things that people are going to use to oriente themselves around in this sprawled suburban area . Erhart: Where in the metropolitan area has this been applied so you can see the final outcome of something? Bill Morrish: I guess I would have to make you a composite . It hasn 't bee done completely as a corridor here . I know other places around the country _ it 's ountry — it 's been done . And what they 've done has , they 've done everything . I 'll give you the sort of types of legislation that they 've done . One could take Camino Real , well I know actually , Palm Springs . They took a major boulevard and they zoned the thing from top to bottom with very stringent design guidelines . Setbacks . Placement of buildings . Materials . That whole thing . In fact the city of Santa Barbara did it extensively fighting off California Transportation Department on a State Highway and it 's even — thematically Spanish which is , it 's Spanish highway bridges which is rather odd but they held to it . At the other end , a lot of communities have described a basic physical features and then established performance — standards to meet those so they can have some flexibility to adapt to new markets that come along and they 're not interested in being totally Spanish the whole length of it . And those have been somewhat more succesful in one end in the ability to adapt to market but they 've had to be very stringent — about those landmark elements like the wetlands or how you build right at those edges and site plan becomes very important and site plan review becomes very important . How the parking lot is built right next to the — buffer filter strip to the wetland . Tim Keane: Tim Keane , Larkin Hoffman . I think the closest two examples I _ can think of readily are 80th Street in Bloomington which runs parallel to 494 and how to a growing extent 76 extension through Edina into Richfield paralleling 494 . Those are sort of parallel collector corridors which take on different personalities . Themes through different land use patterns . — Bill Morrish: 80 as it goes past Normandale and the Trammel Crow site and a lot of the things they 're now talking about in redoing the land use along _ that area . I 'd say , my memory 's coming back now . Some of what they 're trying to do in France Avenue , since Southdale 's not complete yet . It 's a very heavily traveled road but they 're trying to do it there . The most closer example is what you do in resort areas along scenic highways through communities . Like what Stillwater 's trying to do with it 's entrance to the north . Coming in through downtown along with it 's parks and down through downtown and out the other end . So there 's segments here and there . — Emmings: Anything else? Anybody? Om. Planning Commissiln Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 33 -- Councilman Wing: Bill , while you 're speaking , that Highway 41 and 5 intersection is obviously going to be commercial . We can make that assumption and living out in that area . I guess I 'm willing to accept traffic and accept people and accept the commercial development but there 's two factors . Number one . You 've got this commercial development . How is it going to affect downtown development and is it going to in fact anniliate downtown commercial business? That 'd be the first part of my question . Secondly , is real heavy retail commercial appropriate land use butting up against the Arboretum and Lake Minnewashta and parks . All our natural environmental amenities are sitting right there and suddenly we bring in a very intense commercial/retail area . And then as I sit over on Lake Minnewashta , basically we still have our night sky . If you build a strong retail commercial on that intersection with all it 's inherent lighting , is that the end of our night sky in that area? Are we now in an urban area and will we lose that particular amenity for the campers in the park and the Arboretum? Bill Morrish: If all those factors are important and the city feels that light quality is important , that the predominant value to the community is the dominant presence of the Arboretum . All those factors , then one those need to be stated very clearly and described and then within that context one begins to first make a decision . I think the business one is one that requires a market study and a clear sense about what it is that you want to do with downtown . I mean I have seen something like this kill downtown and I 've seen it work . It depends on what it is and how it 's done . And the relationship between those merchants . Is there a solid relationship or are they out to sort of cut each other 's throats . A lot of this stuff fails because the merchants fail to come to some common agreement . Within the problem of how you do it , I 've seen some very interesting answers . Squaw Pink Parkway which is a very large project in Phoenix going to Scottsdale had a problem with lighting . It was the neighborhood and a problem with the astronomers on the mountains worried about all that light coming off the road , they wouldn 't be able to see the planets anymore . So believe or not the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal government came up with a different lighting scheme that throws the light down and it 's fabulous lighting and they 're so excited they 're going to do it all over the state . By taking those parameters they came up with actaully better lighting for the highway . It 's a hooded cobra head that drapes the light right across it and you don 't have this sort of big burst of light as you go down it . And so it solved both the problems but it took a while . And I think within that context one looks creatively at each one of those questions and begins to work back . But I think for you and probably why there haven 't been many of these roads in this area is you 're just approaching the question that has to look at this problem . You 've been pretty much an area that hasn 't had these large things come in and now you are looking at them . I think what you need to do is describe those factors which means you need to have general principles for the community but then you need to start looking at districts . Geographic districts and say , as I call this district out here , the Arboretum district . It has certain performance criteria that we feel is important to the investment the community has made in here and continues to rely upon in their investment that they have made in committing to build here and live here and pay taxes here . And then you go across to the various different kinds of districts . And so that adds an overlays upon the zoning and they work together and Planning Commission Meeting • February 5 , 1992 - Page 34 those become your performance criteria to then look at specific design problems . Does that answer? Okay . Ahrens: I have a similar question for the intersection of CR 117 and TH 5 where you envision the coffee shop . . .area . Is that the northwest corner? Bill Morrish: Well this whole area here? Ahrens: The whole area . Right . That 's where the driving range is? Bill Morrish: Yeah . That great little stone wall and everything . Ahrens: Right . Is that considered a commercial area? Is that considered — a better land use or is that just kind of a clever way of using the corner or what 's wrong , is there something wrong with leaving it the way it is? Bill Morrish: All these things have different time lines . One of the problems that you ' ll have is when the road is engineered up to it 's new standards , the position in which the frontage roads will take will be — anywhere from 150 to 200 feet back I believe from the intersection so some of the geometry is going to push itself in . If and when the road , Chanhassen Blvd . or aka the frontage road comes through , you 'll be going through that piece of property . Someway up or down . So what we decided to — do is at some , you know we all love this . All the students love this place because anyplace that 's strange architects love . Landscape architects love and we 'd probably all fight for that stone wall . It 's just a great stone wall . A lot of stone . Very busy person . I think if you put him to work on your roads he might just them all for you . Maybe it 's just a lot of energy in the wrong place . There are a lot of towns built by mad stone masons who just sort of started making things . All of Europe in fact . — They became known as free masons . They organized into political organizations . Well it 's where the pyramid comes in on your dollar bill . Jefferson was a free mason and the theme carries on . So I 'm not going to — make this person Jefferson and the dollar bill but I think what we began to in looking at many scenarios at that intersection . One we found it 's a very difficult intersection . It 's a big decision to decide where to put — that road coming from the east going to the west as it impacts the bluff . Bluff Creek piece because it 's a very mature stand of trees . It 's a dynamic piece and there 's a lot of debate . Gee , do we put it low , do we put it high? In this case we pulled it high in that we found that by — taking that piece up high , that Bluff Creek defined a kind of space and a room appeared . Gee if we take Bluff Creek and kind of say , the vegetation of this site and bring up the vegetation on the other side and work it , it became this very interesting site . Now there are all kinds of things that can go into it . We began to look at that area in thinking about basic convenience level service to that area as your town almost doubles in size probably by the time you get out to here . Where would those things " — normally occur? So we decided to take the hardest problem and put it in this space here . Also the school drove it a little bit . This whole problem of how schools are not only educating but there 's latch key — programs . There 's all these other social services that schools are going to provide so what happens to the structure into the evening? Somebody 's coming home from work on the shuttle or the tram or transit . Their kid can _ be picked up . Can they do that convenient pick-up the cleaners and then go Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 35 back . So is there a possibility . So we lumped all of that in there to see what we could do even with the park ride and went say who knows , it 's probably 15 years away but one of the interesting things right now that you have to decide and think about is where does that road go . That frontage road go because where it goes will affect what you can do with that parcel . If it goes low through Bluff Creek and comes into the intersection , that site 's a gas station . Very easily a gas station . Ahrens: Another question . It seems like a lot of this planning is aimed at hiding a lot of the development along TH 5 . Bill Morrish: Some of it . Not all of it . Most of the stuff that 's hidden is residential which is buffered on the up side . The lower side tends to look into , a variety of things actually . Some hide . Years ago the room notion . Here actually it 's open . The notion of this commercial industrial area actually being part of the park open space . These here . This is open here though this is more of a screened kind of vegetation . The residential is screened through that . That 's one way to look at it . The development of that road . What you really have is a full vocabulary of the different kinds of rooms and you can change the pieces to create different effects . I think if you went back and had more information about the kind of development a developer would do here , then you could begin to start orchestrating how to create screening where you need it to create some sense of connection across these large open parcels where the highway goes by and some opening . And actually I just thought of a very interesting case study . I 've been working with the Mayor of Rochester and we got into , he made a presentation about his city and how great downtown was and he said , we don 't have any problems in our city . And everybody raises their hands , but Mayor we can 't find downtown from the freeway . So he organized a public/private sector organization of landowners and they 've actually organized to get together to make a corridor plan and it 's all the businesses along the way . They realized that everybody that goes through Rochester thinks they 're trash because it 's so disorganized and there 's this big beautiful sort of Oz of the Mayo Clinic down there all organized so everybody things they 're trash and don 't stop . So actually the business community and it would be very interesting to actually work the land owners on this to start talking about the multiplicity of types of developments they may be thinking about in organizing the best place for that frontage road . Ahrens: Should that be going on now? Bill Morrish : I think so . I think discussions could begin . I mean there 's many examples of public/private partnerships where you 're not sitting down to hammer out a plan but you 're talking about what 's possible because there 's certain things that you as a city have to do as part of your infrastructure that if you lay in now will be cheaper to them and cheaper to you . And if you put it in the right sort of way , I mean developments come in certain parcels and if you do housing , there are certain kinds of parcels that you 'll be looking for . If you do gas stations , you 're looking for something surrounded by frontage roads and lots of access . Those kinds of things . Any other questions? Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 36 Peter Olin: In speaking for the Arboretum , we 're very excited about the planning Bill 's been doing and I 'd like to know what sort of things you are envisioning . Not let this just drop into the waste basket after the great — presentation but to carry forward with the plan . We 're very interested in being part of that . Emmings: Thank you . I don 't have an answer to your question . I think that 's the issue here tonight . Are there other questions for Bill? Okay . Address yourself to that Paul . Where are we and what are we going to do next? Krauss: Well I think you 've got to realize that what Bill 's done to date is a series of concepts that are thought provoking and involve some techniques but this is not a document which he or I would ask you to adopt as a part of the comprehensive plan . I think if you want to move forward with this , the clear answer is , undertake a formal corridor study . Set a relatively short time ideally because things are happening quickly but it means devoting the time and the resources to do it . Emmings: And to do a corridor study would mean doing what? What are the — steps? Krauss: Well I tried to lay out in my memo about 10 things , about 10 items that I think need to be touched on in a corridor study . Some of the stuff Bill has scratched the surface on with a formalized inventory of natural features but coordination with land use plans , development patterns ; zoning_ patterns , that sort of thing . We 've never officially defined the corridor . You need to do that . Traffic is a real major element that would have to be looked at . Regulatory controls . I mean you get this , how do you bring it about? I mean it 's something to have a plan . It 's another to make sure — it 's enacted . You need to develop a land use component for the study area because we 've never gotten one . Whether or not you bring it into the MUSA in 1995 , year 2000 or tomorrow , we were committed to filling in that _ blank and that 's one of our tasks . The process of working with TH 5 design with MnDot is a very potent element here . I think you 're going to see some really nifty stuff happening this summer with the construction of TH 5 through downtown and that 's because there 's been a partnership between the — city and MnDot to do something different . Tomorrow afternoon Charles Folch , Don and myself are going to meet with MnDot to kick off some discussions about doing something comparable on the rest of TH 5 . But the — HRA spent quite a bit of time and effort and dollars for getting Barton- Aschmann to develop plans of how to work those intersections in downtown so I mean there 's a clear city role in that . The image analysis is real — important . One of the most important implementation tools is the capital improvement plan . The city is very heavily involved in what 's happening on TH 5 through downtown . It 's also tremendously expensive . You need to know that there 's an element that the city can participate in beyond that we 're — able to . Beyond that you really want to develop public/private partnerships . Ways of working with developers so hopefully they get what they need out of the project and we get what we need . The long and the — short of it is , if there 's a desire to proceed with this , I think a recommendation has to go up to City Council accordingly . As for what this will cost and exactly how much time is involved , I honestly don't know . — You know other communities have done corridor studies . Minnetonka did one Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 37 completed after I left the city . Burnsville has done them . There 's a number of them out here so there 's a number of expertise to draw on . But again I 'm not sure what it costs . But it clearly would involve some cost on the part of the city because we frankly don 't have the time , availability or the expertise to do it all in house . There are elements that we need to get expertise on and we 'd like to keep Bill 's folks involved in some of the design elements as well . So I guess if you 're interested in proceeding , the best way of doing that at this point is asking the City Council to evaluate undertaking the program . •- Emmings: Alright , so what do we need? I don 't know how other people feel about this thing but it 's such an opportunity . I think what Bill said about the fact that we 're , I think we 're kind of fortunate here in being able to plan this whole strip before there 's much in place that we have to work around . And I keep thinking too about Dick Wing 's comments . We don 't want to wind up with the west side of the city looking like the east side in some ways . But I think I can 't imagine that we wouldn 't want to go • forward with this but is there anybody , is there any opposition to this thing going forward? Conrad: Well we haven 't really , it 's my understanding that there 's going to be some detail plans that we can look at . Are we going to receive that or are we just sort of saying it kind of looks nice? Krauss: Well no . This is not a document you 're being asked to say yea or nay on . It just wasn 't developed with that goal in mind . I think when the City Council first established this , it was designated as a pre-task task ▪ force kind of a thing . To get a handle on what 's the possibilities . What are the major issues . Get some guidance as to where you go from there . Emmings: The way I look at this Ladd , and I don 't know if I 'm off on this but this shows us what we can do . It gives us just a rough , well it 's not even that rough to me . I 'd vote for this tonight but it feels like you 're making such a big step in the right direction where we haven 't done a damn thing before . And so it feels real good to me but still , it 's just a starting point and obviously we have a lot of work to do and I think what people are doing is asking the City Council if they want to , if the City ▪ wants to get behind taking this kind of an approach to the whole corridor or not . Whether we 're willing to devote the time and resources to it that it 's going to take to do it , whatever that might be . Conrad: Makes sense to me . Farmakes : The working packet basically covers what he did today . Emmings: What? Farmakes: The working packet that we worked with on the subcommittee basically covers what he talked about tonight and details each individual room and also some of the subject matter that he touched on . The wetlands and transportation corridors . Things of that nature . Emmings: I remember the first tine he mentioned driving through the rooms , I remember thinking what the hell is he talking about you know and it 's Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 15 ,2 - Page 38 taken me some time to get the idea . But when you start thinking about it that way and then you drive up and down that road and when you drive through Bluff Creek , you feel the vegetation come in on you and then you go— out into other spaces , they 're real powerful images once you catch onto them . Or once you start thinking about them I should say . Farmakes : And it 's a good way to assimulate the information . When you look at it in it 's entirety , it becomes very vague and this way it becomes very assimable . Somebody without really being good at looking at those plans can understand what they 're trying to do with the overall plan . Batzli : I think it would be an opportunity lost if we don 't pursue it . I think this is an excellent start in order to control development of that _ area in a way that we like . So I think we should continue on this route . Erhart: Who determines to what depth you 're going to do this study? — . . .all the various things that we could do . I mean formalize inventory of natural features . You can get , I mean you can get real detailed or you could get by as much as almost essentially generalize this is what we 're looking for and this is the kinds of things we 're going to require . — Frontage roads removed from TH 5 and then just a general guideline . Or you can get very specific obviously and the question is going to be how much money you want to spend on this? Who 's going to determine how detailed you _ want to get? Do you have a range of dollars ranging from just broad guide lines to detailed? Every quarter mile by quarter mile plan . Krauss: I 'd really be shooting from the hip to give you numbers . I mean — what we 've done recently on contracts is to lay out what the goals are . Get those to qualified firms and say okay , here 's the palate of what we 're looking for . Give us your best shot of how you 're going to respond to it — and then in a competitive bid let us know what it 's going to cost . Erhart : But it depends on so much what your goals are . What are you , do _ you envision actually going through here and actually laying out all the details that you 've listed here in the study? Or what do you think is the best investment for this study to actually get some kind of a corridor plan . — Krauss: That 's a hard one for me to answer Tim . I would prefer to have the knowledge of pretty much exactly what you folks and the City Council — believe is an optimal development package out there . That you 've been able to go through a process that you can intellectually and intelligently make some decisions in greater detail than we did with the Comp Plan which was — the city in it 's entirety . That when we show a road on the map , that the road is reasonably placed and does the job and that traffic is being routed the right way . I mean some of this stuff we 're developing . When Bill talks about the water features , you know from your work with the swamp — committee that we 're going to have very detailed information on most of that stuff there . Now you can take it a little bit further and do some design work on it . As far as TH 5 itself goes , I see a need if you really _ want to work it , we need to do what we 've already been doing on TH 5 which is have a professional design staff working with us . Working with MnDot to make that highway look like something different . Planning Commission Meeting ..- February 5 , 1992 - Page 39 • Erhart : Okay , in the first place , I think we 're all saying yeah we 'd really like to do a unified plan all the way out . The question is , how far do you have to go with that to get what appears to be a real sensible idea and the question is if you start detailing out roads on the north side of Bluff Creek over there at the intersection of CR 117 and TH 5 and then the developer comes in and says , well no this is my plan and it 's all different . Are you going to say you have to follow that plan or are we getting too far ahead if we detail it? Krauss: I don't know . I can only give you my own reaction to that sort of - a thing and a road is a major city system and we have every opportunity and ability to decide exactly where it 's going to go and the developer has to take it . Now if they can come up with a better idea , I think we 've always been willing to listen to a better idea . Erhart: Yeah I think we would but what 's the likely outcome? We 're going to follow our own design or is it likely when we get all done 20 years from now it will actually turn out different than what we invested all the planning money . Onm Emmings: But right here is where , at least the major features like the frontage roads , especially if you 've got an opportunity to connect one of them into the Arboretum or something like that . It seems to me you 've got to grab that stuff and say that 's what we 're going to do because that 's part of the big vision . I think you can tinker with the details later on but if you don 't nail down that big vision now , the analogy is the lakes in Minneapolis . If they haven 't done that , it never would have . You know if • they hadn 't done that in the 1880 's , it never would have happened and this is , I don 't know if this is really analogous . That 's so dramatic and I don 't know if this is that dramatic but still there are features there that I 'm sure we 'd all agree on would be , ought to be saved and protected and used in certain ways and those major features you know have got to be nailed down now.. Not later on . - Peter Olin: I know it 's not my place to make a suggestion but to tell you what you might do . On the other hand , Bill 's giving you a whole set of concepts and some idea of what it might look like if you sort of develop in - a certain way but the important things are the concepts of the rooms and creating the city streets and so on . Perhaps the Planning Commission may want to take a strong stand and say we support those concepts and send it _ right back to . . .right onto City Council to move ahead with this . Now again I 'think Paul 's right . It 's going to be awfully hard to say how far you can go on some of these things until you essentially get some of those concepts and say we want to try and work with those concepts . That 's the ideal and - how far can you go with you need to do some work on it so I think it may be limited in terms of you 're setting a budget of x dollars . But you could conceptually move the whole thing forward by taking a strong stand on that - in the conceptual term . . . Emmings : Thanks . Krauss: Maybe if I could touch on one thing . Jo Ann raised a point and I think it 's a valid one . We had , I mean this task force serves a good purpose in terms of bringing the HRA , the Council and the Planning Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 40 Commissioners together to get to this point . But this was not a process that was designed for public consumption that was going to result in a document that is going to have a significant bearing on people that own property and want to buy in the future. If this is proceeded with , it would be my recommendation that it be handled in a manner that the Comp Plan was which is that the Planning Commission become the active body in this and you 've got the expertise and the ability to interact with the public to accept input and make recommendations . You did that very well with the Comp Plan and ultimately make a recommendation to the City Council . So I think it would be my recommendation that that be how that 's formatted . Emmings: So I think what we ' ve got to do or what we should do here is , there are a lot of members of the City Council on the task force and there are some here now . I guess endorsing the concepts and then , or not , and setting up some kind of program to get it moving or keep it moving . — Yeah , I agree with you . I think it should be held by the Planning Commission . . . Erhart: If you 're proposing that we endorse the concept and suggest we get moving , I don 't think anybody 's against it . Let 's just proceed . Emmings: No , it 's hard to imagine . Do you want a motion? — Brad Johnson: Can I say one thing? Emmings: Yeah Brad . Brad Johnson: To piggy back on what , oh Brad Johnson . I think there are a number of design concepts or elements in this particular plan that all of — us wrap into and then if some of us want to see it detailed all the way out , it would appear to me that you could take another meeting and go through these and kind of say , hey these things are and you could explain — it right Bill . I like the north/south pedestrian . To me that 's a big deal because I know that 's what could divide this town and the bridge . . .ride my bike down or my kid could walk and the entrance to the Arboretum . Whatever they are . There are even some elements that I 'm a little concerned about and . . .how you 'd handle the CR 17 and TH 5 corner , that 's all green . That 's a major decision . You 'd have to say that 's not only a concept . We would like to support and we 'd better get to work on so we have to get control of — that . . .another gas station in there . I 'm just saying there are some elements that are going to be developed very quickly okay and there are some that are just concepts . And so there are •things on this end of town , — I think all of us developers , that 's a nice piece of land . The whole idea is just great . It 's going to affect everybody on the corner . Who owns the corner . I don 't happen to own it . . .and I think you can take an element like pedestrian crossing is here . Those things , we endorse that . We endorse this road system outhere and you can pass that onto the Council and then you 've got to figure out how you get that under control in your Comp Plan . Because someplace you get control of that , someplace down the — line . My concern because I 'm in the downtown , I think we have a primary retail opportunity here . I think all those roads do lead downtown . They don 't actually lead to TH 41 and TH 7 . . .that our primary road concerns in addition to what . . . 101 , Powers Blvd . , 101 South and how they all fit into Planning Commission Meeting - February 5 , 1992 - Page 41 -- our community because our population 's on the eastside and our community runs another 2 or 3 miles that direction as far as the viability . If you see we 're going to have sort of a downtown . We 're not going to have 50th and France because 50th and France today would never be built . It 'd be one big Target . I 'm not kidding . People aren 't building small buildings anymore because there aren 't any small retailers to build them but there are Targets and there are Gateways and people are coming with big '- buildings . We have to figure out how that all fits in because I hear on one side the image is small buildings . The chances over the next 5 years of building a lot of small buildings in Chanhassen is not very good . . . But • I 'm just saying there are some things that are going to happen to the downtown area that will protect that you should probably act on and say these are important . . . I 'm okay with it because I don 't have to own it and I think that might be a nice idea . All the gas stations will be over here . But those are elements you should probably get at . Emmings: I think your comments point up the fact that we need to get input ▪ from people like you and that 's part of the whole process that we went through in the Comp Plan and everything else . _, Brad Johnson: What you see there is good . And then you 've got Fleet Farm worrying about certain things and me worrying about certain things . But as a community person , I live there , that 's great . What you 're trying to do but I think there are elements you guys are grabbing onto that you can say , - hey . Of these things we believe the following and you could leave a statement . Do these things . Pass them onto the Council and Paul can figure out how to get them into a real thing . Emmings: But I think the first step here is getting it up to the Council to see if this is where they want us to spend time . Do they want us to be the primary body that 's going to do it? Do they want to devote city resources and time to this in other ways? You know that isn 't a decision for us to make . I guess the staff is asking us to tell the council that that 's what we think should be done . That 's our recommendation but we 've • got to get them to tell us . Brad Johnson: I was trying to . . . Emmings: Well , of course . We sure can 't do that tonight until everybody 's had more time to digest this and I think getting your report is going to be _ a big step in that direction . Bill Morrish: Yeah in about 2 weeks . It 's somewhere in the computer right now . . . Emmings: Okay . Do we need a formal motion on this or anything? Krauss: I don 't know . If you 've got , there seems to be a consensus of the Planning Commission . That 's probably sufficient . Emmings: Does anybody have anything to say that sounds different than what ▪ we 've already said several times? Okay . Uh , I have to go . If you want to continue I 'll turn it over to either the next Chairman or the present Vice Chairman . Okay , is there anything else? Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 42 Krauss: No . Batzli : Do we want to approve the By-laws and that stuff? Conrad: Let 's do that next session . Emmings: We 've got to do ( b ) , ( c ) , and ( d ) on this . Informational things . Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. _ Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: February 12, 1992 SUBJ: Report from Director At the City Council meeting of February 10th, the following action was taken: 1. Zoning ordinance amendment concerning nonconforming structures, uses and lots, was approved on final reading. The ordinance amendment will be published and become effective thereafter. 2. After nearly a year of engineering studies, the Council was presented with two alternatives designed to offer sewer and water service to the Lake Riley Hills plat for John Klingelhutz, that received preliminary approval last year. The selected alternative will provide water service only since Lake Riley Hills is already able to access an existing sewer line that has marginal additional capacity. The other alternative would have run both sewer and water services down Hwy. 101 to Lyman Boulevard and then to Lake Riley. Ultimately, this project will need to be undertaken to serve this area but there was not sufficient support amongst those property owners to undertake the required assessments. 3. Progress Valley Mini-Storage, 1900 Stoughton Avenue, Gary Brown. The Council reviewed and briefly commented on the three requests for Brown's operation. The conditional use permit to allow rental of trucks was approved. The zoning ordinance amendment to allow outdoor screened storage was given first reading. Upon second — and final reading, the interim use permit to allow outdoor screened storage will be approved. 4. Reconsideration of zoning ordinance amendment concerning mooring of watercraft. This ordinance had been approved and published but not signed by the Mayor. is t(: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission February 12, 1992 Page 2 Several council members, including the Mayor, were receiving comments regarding a section of the ordinance that mandated that only those persons who owned lake shore property would be entitled to dock their boats at the sites. This was not a change in the new ordinance, since this has been in place for years. However, upon further discussion, all concerned agreed that whether or not all of the boats at a given lot are owned by the property owner is irrelevant as long as those who use it have the owner's permission. This change was incorporated into the ordinance and it will be republished and made effective thereafter. - 5. Zoning ordinance amendment establishing a requirement that nonconforming recreational beachlots obtain a nonconforming use permit. This item received extensive discussion. There were numerous people in the audience representing both sides of the issue. Those desiring to protect the lake seemed to favor the ordinance using the 1982 basis for computing allowed boats. Those representing beachlots having problems with this standard opted for the 1991 basis. The four council members present debated the item at length. Ultimately, the first reading of the ordinance was approved utilizing the 1982 basis. The prevailing side indicated that they believed the utilization of the 1982 basis was the only equitable way of undertaking enforcement since it would not have the effect of rewarding those who have flaunted the ordinance. Councilwoman Dimler objected, basing her concerns on the ease of enforcing the status quo. Second reading of the ordinance will be scheduled for February 24th and we are proposing to begin bringing nonconforming - recreational beachlot requests before you during March. 6. The Council reviewed several utility feasibility requests of interest to the Planning - Commission. The first was that the Council received a draft of the comprehensive sewer and water study outlining how utilities would be brought to the newly included MUSA area between Audubon Road and Hwy. 41. In a related action, the Council wanted a public hearing on a feasibility study of a project that was designed to service a large portion of this area, including the Ryan Chanhassen Business Center. Additionally, the Council received a request to update the feasibility study for Teton Lane and Lilac Lane improvements. As in the case of previous studies, we received inquiries from a developer requesting this project be undertaken. The developer in this case is looking at the former Donovan property. REVISED FEBRUARY 12, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1. 1995 Study Area (North) Several meetings held with task and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study force. U of M Program to wrap up by January 1. Working to structure more in depth corridor study to begin in February. Presentation to PC on February 5. 2 . 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as _ time commitments allow. OTHER ITEMS 1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated information for Planning Commission direction. 2 . * Sign Ordinance First meeting on 2/5/92 and will be meeting again on 2/19 . 3 . Tree Protection Ordinance MnDNR completed mapping program Mapping of significant and will work with city to vegetative areas develop. New ordinance to be developed in 1992 . 4 . Wetland Ordinance/Surface First meeting held October 7 . Water Management Program Video surveys of lake bottoms Task Force established. underway. Application submitted to MnPCA for Clean Water Action Grant for Lotus Lake. 5. Shoreland Ordinance In January we received notification from the MnDNR that we are a priority community with a 2 year deadline. 6 . * Group home ordinance PC review on 2/29/92 . 7 . * Rural Area Policies PC review in March, 1992 . 8 . PUD Ordinance Residential PUD standards to PC on January 15, 1992 . Future meetings required. 9 . PC input in Downtown 1991/ongoing Planning and Traffic Study 10. Review of Architectural 1992 Standards to Promote High Quality Design 11. Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line Greenway Preservation ordinance, CC referred item to Park and Recreation Commission. Staff - working with Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District to develop joint Bluff Creek corridor program. 12 . Modifications to beachlot Ordinance passed by PC on ordinance - Re: Non- January 15, 1992 . Send to CC conforming beachlots on 2/10. Scheduled for 12/4/91 agenda. 13 . Ordinance amendment to PC approved. City Attorney to Non-conforming use section redraft. to clarify ordinance. 14 . Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance revisions to follow. 15. Truck and trailer rental Request by PC. - standards. 16. * Sexually oriented PC review on 2/19/92 . businesses * Change in status since last report CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Feb 13 , 92 16 :03 No . 006 P .02 — CQ • CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT (Sz. FUCHS, PA. Attorneys at 1.auw Thoma,). C iutncell (612)452.5000 Roger N.Knutson Fax(612)452.5550 Thon,a.Ni.Scott Gan-G.Fuchs bales R.%Walston Elim+tt B. Kncrxch February 13 , 1992 NI what!A.BrolricL Renac[).Steiner BY FAX AND MAIL Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 — Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Regulation of Group Living Dear Jo Ann: You asked for an overview on the City's authority to regulate: (1) state licensed residential programs ; (2) state licensed day care facilities; (3) unlicensed group homes and day care; and (4) what constitutes a family. 1. State Licensed Residential Programs. Minn. Stat. § 245A. 02 , Subd. 14 , defines a residential program as: A program that provides 24-hour-a-day care, supervision, food, lodging, rehabilitation, training, education, habilitation, or treatment outside a person' s own home, including a nursing home or hospital that receives public funds, administered by the commissioner, to provide services for five (S) or more persons whose primary diagnosis is mental retardation or a related condition or mental illness and who do not have a significant physical or medical problem that necessitates nursing home care; a program in an intermediate care facility for four (4) or more persons with mental retardation or a related condition; a nursing home or hospital that was licensed by the commissioner on July 1, 1987, to provide a program for persons with a physical handicap that is not the result of the normal aging process and considered to be a chronic condition; and chemical dependency or chemical abuse programs that are located in a hospital or nursing home and receive public funds for providing chemical abuse or chemical dependency treatment services under Chapter 254B. Residential programs include home and community-based services and semi- independent living services for persons with mental Suite 317 • Eacandalc Office Center • 1380 C.ornorarc Center Curve • EnPan. MN 55171 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Feb 13 ,92 16 : 03 No . 006 P .03 _ Ms. Jo Ann Olsen February 13 , 1992 Page 2 retardation or a related condition that are provides in or outside of a person ' s own home. In plain language, a residential facility is a home for retarded, mentally ill , physically handicapped, or chemically dependent persons. Minn. Stat. § 245A. 11 preempts the City's right to regulate certain state licensed residential programs: Subd. 1 . Policy Statement. It is the policy of the state that persons shall not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings . Subd. 2 . Permitted Single-family Residential Use. Residential programs with a licensed capacity of six or fewer persons shall be considered a permitted single-family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning and other land use regulations. Subd. 3 . Permitted Multifamily Residential Use. Unless otherwise provided in any town, municipal, or county zoning regulation, a licensed residential program with a licensed capacity of seven to sixteen adults or children shall be - considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for the purposes of zoning and other land use regulations. A town, municipal, or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit to assure proper maintenance and operation of a residential program. Conditions imposed on the residential program must not be more restric- tive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the adults or children being served by the program. Nothing in sections 245A. 01 to 245A. 16 shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential programs from single-family zones if otherwise permitted by local zoning regulations. This same preemption is also set forth in Minn. Stat. § 462 . 357 quoted below. The licensing statute does require the disbursement of these programs. Location of Residential Programs. In determining whether to grant a license, the commissioner shall specifically consider the population, size, land use plan, availability of community services, and the number and size of existing licensed residential programs in the town, municipality, or county in CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Feb 13 , 92 16 : 04 No . 006 P . 04 Ms . Jo Ann Olsen _ February 13 , 1992 Page 3 which the applicant seeks to operate a residential program. The commissioner shall not grant an initial license to any residential program if the residential program will be within 1, 350 feet of an existing residential program unless the town, municipality, or county zoning authority grants the residen- tial program a conditional use or special use permit. In cities of the first class, this subdivision applies even if a residential program is considered a permitted single-family residential use of property under Subd. 2 . Foster care homes are exempt from this subdivision. Minn. Stat. § 245A. 11, Subd. 4 . In addition to state regulation, the federal government in 1988 adopted a Fair Housing Act, Public Law 100-430 . The Act prohibits discrimination against housing for the handicapped. The 1 , 320 foot separation requirement in the state licensing law was challenged on the basis that it violates the 1988 Federal Fair Housing Act. The United States District Court in St. Paul recently ruled that the special requirement was not prohibited by the Federal Fair Housing Act. Familystyle v. St. Paul1_ Inc. , No. 3-89 , Civ. 459, January 18, 1990. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the breadth of the federal law. The City is not completely stripped of its ability to regulate residential programs. The City can, for example, (1) keep programs with more than six persons out of single family zoning property, (2) require a CUP for programs with seven to sixteen persons in multifamily zoned areas and have specific standards for the issuance of such permits, (3) keep programs with more than sixteen persons out of multifamily zoned areas . The City ' s zoning ordinance does address these issues. See, City Code §§ 20-253 , 20-612 (4) , 20-632 (4) , 20-654 (2) , 20-674 (4) , 20-683 (3) . 2 . State Licensed Day Care Facilities. The City' s authority to regulate by zoning the location of state licensed day care facilities and group family day care facilities is also limited. Minn. Stat. § 462 . 357 provides; Subd. 7 . Permitted Single-family Use. A state licensed residential facility serving six or fewer persons, a licensed day care facility serving twelve or fewer persons, and a group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502 . 0315 to 9502 . 0445 to serve fourteen or fewer children shall be considered a permitted single-family use of property for the purposes of zoning. Subd. 8 . Permitted Multifamily Use. Except as otherwise provided in Subd. 7 or in any town, municipal , or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state licensed residential facility serving from seven through CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Feb 13 , 92 16 :04 No .006 P .05 Ms . Jo Ann Olsen _ February 13 , 1992 Page 4 sixteen persons or a licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, municipal , or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the residential facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential or day care facilities from single-family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation. Subject to the preemption of the City 's authority set forth above, the City can regulate such uses. 3 . Unlicensed Group domes and Day Care. Group homes and day care facilities not licensed by the state are subject to the City' s police power and zoning authority. One limitation on the City ' s _ authority, however, is the City's limited authority over dictating what a "family" is. The discussion of this issue in paragraph 4 below therefore is fully applicable to the issue of regulating "group homes" . - 4 . Definition of "Family". The definition of "family" is crucial for determining who can reside in a single family or multifamily dwelling unit. Section 20-1 of the City Code defines family as "an individual living alone, or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage or law, or a group -of not more than five (5) persons (excluding servants) who need not be so related, living together in a dwelling unit" . Defining "family" by restricting the number of unrelated people that can live together has generated considerable litigation. The last time the United States Supreme court visited this issue it upheld a zoning ordinance provision restricting a family to no more than two (2) unrelated people. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 94 S. Ct. 1536 (1974) . State Supreme Courts have reached disparate conclusions. In California a definition that allowed only five (5) unrelated people to live together was struck down. Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 27 Cal . 3d 123 (1980) . Wisconsin upheld an ordinance provision restricting unrelated people to five (5) . 208 N.W. 2d 121 (1973) . The Minnesota Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. The way to avoid the issue, thereby creating other obvious problems, is to define a "family" as: CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P . A Feb 13 , 92 16 : 05 No . 006 P . 06 Ms . Jo Ann Olsen February 13 , 1992 Page 5 "One or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single relatively permanent housekeeping unit as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house or a hotel, " There is a possible ambiguity in the City's definition of family that should be resolved. Do five (5) unrelated and three (3) related people constitute a family? The present definition appears to prohibit this arrangement because if any unrelated people live together then there is a five (5) person limitation. If this is not the desired result, the definition should be changed. Ve ► truly yours, C• P: _ ., 4 • • , COTT • FUCHS, P.A. BY: Roger N. Knutson RNK: srn