The URL can be used to link to this page

03-4-92 Agenda and Packet FILE TENTATIVE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE. CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Preliminary Plat to subdivide 9.99 acres into 1 single family lot and two outlots on property zoned RSF and located northeast of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard, Eugene Quinn. 2. Amendment of the Land Use element of the Comprhensive Plan and sections of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the A-1, A-2, and RR Districts by eliminating the 2.5 acre minimum lot size in the rural area. • OLD BUSINESS 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning PUD Residential Standards (Additional materials will be provided at the meeting.) NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 4. Discussion of Group Homes. 5. Discussion of amendment regarding sales of sexually oriented material. ADJOURNMENT 1 _ C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 3/4/92 C11AASE1 CC DATE: 3/23/92 - - CASE #: 92-3 SUB B : Olsen:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Create One Single Family Lot and Two Outlots — Z LOCATION: North of Lyman Boulevard, approximately �h mile east of Great Plains _ Q Boulevard V — a. APPLICANT: Eugene Quinn Scott Harri 532 Lyman Boulevard VanDoren Hazard Stallings Chanhassen, MN 55317 3030 Harbor Lane North Minneapolis, MN 55447 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 10 acres DENSITY: 1 unit/10 acre (gross)-1 unit/9.7 acres (net) _ ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF/agricultural S - A2/agricultural _ E - RSF W - A2/single family (i WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. w IMI=D" PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: There is an existing home and barn located on the site and a (f� manmade pond. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density Oakwood Estates — March 4, 1992 Page 2 — PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Plat The applicant is proposing to subdivide his property into one single family lot and two — outlots. The single family lot, Lot 1, Block 1, has 3.07 acres in area and contains an existing single family residence and barn. Outlot A has 2.1 acres and Outlot B contains 3.71 acres. Both Outlots A and B are undeveloped parcels and will remain undeveloped. Outlot A is — proposed for preservation until sewer and water is available to the site, at which time it will be further subdivided. Outlot B is being created to accommodate right-of-way for Highway 212. The applicant is proposing to subdivide his property to reduce the size of the lot — containing the home and barn to facilitate sale of the property. The proposed subdivision does not change any of the existing conditions of the site. The site will remain as one site containing a single family residence. The property is currently zoned RSF and is within the — MUSA line. As of today, sewer and water is not yet available to the property. Therefore, the site must still maintain a one unit per ten acre density and a minimum lot size of 21 acres. The proposed subdivision maintains these requirements. — Outlots Outlots A and B are not proposed for development. The outlots will have to be replatted prior to any development of the site. The outlots cannot be replatted until sewer and water _ is available to the site since the 1 unit per 10 acre density must be maintained. As the City officially maps its wetlands, it will be determined if the pond on the site is actually a wetland and how it should be treated. This determination will impact how many lots Outlot A can — contain in the future. Streets — The gravel driveway currently services 4 single family residences. The City Code requires any private drives servicing 2 or more residences to be improved to certain standards. Since — the existing conditions of the site are not changing and sewer and water will be provided to this and adjacent sites in the future, staff is recommending that the existing driveway not be required to be improved at this time. Once sewer and water is brought to the site and — future subdivisions are proposed, a public improvement project would be pursued to install sewer and water within the proposed 60 foot right-of-way and the gravel driveway would then be brought to urban street standards. Staff is concerned with a private driveway — located within a public right-of-way. To remove any conflicts with this, the City Attorney shall prepare an easement agreement for liability and maintenance responsibilities of the private drive. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and is not recommending a turn — around until the street is improved. Oakwood Estates March 4, 1992 Page 3 The site has public street frontage from Lyman Boulevard and the single family residence is serviced by an existing gravel drive from Lyman Boulevard. The Eastern Carver County Transportation Study recommends that Lyman Boulevard have a right-of-way of 120 feet wide. Lake Riley Hills, located to the east of this subdivision, provides for the 120 feet of right-of-way. The proposed plat should also provide an additional 27 feet of right-of-way along the north side of Lyman Boulevard. The plat is dedicating a 60 foot wide right-of-way over the existing driveway easement (Quinn Road). The plat also provides a 60 foot wide utility easement continuing north of the 60 foot wide street right-of-way up to the southerly lot line of Outlot B. To accommodate future street improvements to service the property to the east, staff is recommending that the proposed utility easement be designated as right-of-way so that a 60 foot wide right-of-way exists along the whole easterly side of Outlot A and Lot 1. Easements The applicant is providing the recommended easements along the lot lines. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Front Rear Side Area Setback Setback Setback Ordinance 21 acres 30' 30' 10' BLOCK 1 Lot 1 3.1 acres 75' 120' 30' Outlots** N/A ** Setbacks apply when replatted RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 'The Planning Commission recommends approval of Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat#92- 3 to create one single family lot and two outlots as shown on the plans dated February 3, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: Oakwood Estates March 4, 1992 Page 4 • 1. The applicant shall provide an additional 27 feet of right-of-way along Lyman Boulevard and shall dedicate a 60 foot wide right-of-way over the existing driveway _ easement and over the proposed 60 foot wide utility easement to the south lot line of Outlot B. 2. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare a driveway easement agreement releasing _ the city from liability or maintenance responsibilities over the private driveways until the street (Quinn Road) is constructed to city urban standards. 3. Outlots A and B cannot be replatted or built upon until sewer and water are available to the site. 4. The existing gravel drive will have to be upgraded to urban street standards once utilities are available and further lot subdivisions occur which utilize Quinn Road." ATTACHMENTS • 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 26, 1992. 2. Topography of site. 3. Preliminary plat. CITY OF ClIANBASSEN 111111011111! 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO : Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician DATE : February 26 , 1992 SUBJ : Preliminary Plat Review for Oakwood Estates File No. 92-4 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Van Doren-Hazard- Stallings dated February 3 , 1992 , I offer the following comments and recommendations : UTILITIES There are currently no City utilities available to the site , although the City has currently authorized a watermain improvement project along Lyman Boulevard this year . The City' s plans do not propose extending watermain service into this parcel . According to City ordinance , the parcel is not required to hook up to City water unless the well on the property fails . Sanitary sewer service is not currently available to the site . GRADING AND DRAINAGE Since this is basically a simple lot split , no grading is proposed at this time. STREETS The applicant is proposing to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for proposed Quinn Road along the easterly lot line of the parcel . The proposed road right-of-way dedication ends approximately 660 feet into the parcel from Lyman Boulevard. The remaining 265 feet is being proposed as a utility easement . In the future, Quinn Road will be extended through the parcel to the east ( Chadwick ) . Therefore , it is recommended the proposed utility easement be Jo Ann Olsen February 26 , 1992 Page 2 amended to be reflected as a road right-of-way. When Quinn Road is extended easterly, any unused road right-of-way could be vacated. The preliminary plat indicates 33 feet of right-of-way exists along Lyman Boulevard. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Lyman Boulevard is classified as a Class II Collector which recommends 100 to 120 feet of right-of-way be provided . The subdivision east of this parcel (Lake Riley Hills ) , the developer dedicated the northerly half or 60 feet of the required 120 feet of right-of-way along Lyman Boulevard. It is therefore recommended that the applicant also dedicate 27 feet for a total of 60 feet of right-of-way along Lyman Boulevard with the final plat of Oakwood Estates . A private driveway easement currently exists where the proposed Quinn Road is shown . Staff feels it is not necessary to improve the street at this stage since utilities are not being extended into the parcel and no additional lots are being created. However, staff is concerned with the private driveways being located within the proposed public right-of-way. It is recommended that the City Attorney ' s office prepare an easement agreement for liability and maintenance responsibilities of the private driveways . Since at some future date we anticipate Quinn Road being extended easterly through the Chadwick property and no roadway improvements are proposed, it is not necessary to provide a cul-de-sac at this time . The Fire Marshal should be consulted to see if a temporary cul-de- sac should be provided. Miscellaneous According to the subdivision ordinance , the applicant is required to enter into a development contract . However, since no public improvements will be constructed with this development , the requirement for the applicant to enter into a development contract with the City may be deleted. Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall dedicate the easterly 60 feet of Outlot A and Lot 1 , Block 1 of the plat as right-of-way (Quinn Road) . 2 . City Attorney' s office should prepare a driveway easement agreement releasing the City from liability or maintenance responsibilities over the private driveways until the street (Quinn Road) is constructed to City urban standards . Jo Ann Olsen February 26 , 1992 Page 3 3 . The applicant shall dedicate the southerly 27 feet of Outlot A for Lyman Boulevard right-of-way. ktm/jms c : Charles Folch , City Engineer _ .1:7 ,,;•.• •,v.: "__ ••. , •.:. -_____-_,. ._ , _• ,., ..0.7_;,„„„/„.„,,A ,- lej `___,.......,..,••y2_:.• ._,...,1.;;:,-.. ! j • .". o rte.-..., „••••.„ , -_ _ 1 "am - 4L _ _ jf : ; A. -\ .-t _ - _;r i ffs. f-r_• -_t- ---.4,.1.-V.„lgk-')• : . I.r.411 4'7.. . 4114143._,......-;-- ir ;70117/Pi**; . ,, ip .... . ii) ti I ITS 1• i•��/ 6 • j '._ 7 fi n_• •J I 7_...i ,liwa,,,,7* .,-... :. - -' , s r a s. r •- • - / a -:"Vi- ' - � :itiE .. - --.-_,110.4.s Ire. . . • --: t r -- . .-v--.. -, , . . 44 c - , .....ws-,?_ _ . 1 i J ' i- �:,, - • , - . t: . - '.. _ -� � • 44 TQC { • ( .i .� ,1 -- -.1.. • .,•;._ , -.•• • - - '3.- "(if.: ------..y.--*Y-.-L- / : -7 . .. ,..-•- .,„„ ..: , . ' ; . set._-; - ' 4 "4„,.1 46.= ' ,4, lit , - 4.-• -. • . / 11.---7-4R.414. li •••1 i tO \ �� a-"\-- r.r. Y' ". SC• =b..tit. . ....zit.: •- f .. _7./4.1'-_ A. S-_ t ~ '$ • ' -, -41-4 z -. 4.: iiv Om . . . .14 \ ,- ' :f. � ✓; 1:pif L -�� - -S *- �� 4 i --c,d ddfl _i .4_..... ..;-, s , f\ li ,•-• ..„,,. , .i w . ,i ____,_. . aol .41i.4- 1; 1:.:. 41' - V,---* • 'i 1- - tz. • • ,rte'!-,�.-Y - 1'!!:-'� , \ - ' -ry 1 n tt, , •� p ji t$V' . " ' . - •^ It:-.4*. ;'' ' " - , •,..a4 - -, • y ll .'s I . -4...,.. 1.4".•I.'T'D'' '''7.*C..; / . .,-. 1.7-1.,,a* '; : •/L.• - . . ?`--; WI ll , s .�•. •+' y v • / iii.y: . IC •♦a II �'� -s - • R3i► �1 •. t +fit • T_ ^c' 1 .. CITY T F104: 11' -- CHANHASSEN ,. 690 COULTER DRIVE 40 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II SUBJ: Minimum Lot Size in the Rural Service Area LUP 92-1, ZOA 92-1 DATE: February 27, 1992 Background The Metropolitan Council had previously mandated that all development in the rural service area have a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. In the case of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement, Chanhassen was required to comply with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The rural service area is that portion of the city that has on-site sewer. During a review of the Metropolitan Rural Policy in 1991, we realized that they had backed away from the 2' acre standard, and retained the 10 acre density requirement. Consequently, the City requested the Metropolitan Council to approve a contract amendment to the Lake Ann Agreement to eliminate the lot area standard while maintaining adherence to the density requirement. The Metropolitan Council unanimously approved this contract amendment. In December of 1991, the Metropolitan Council amended their policies for the Rural Service Area. The density will still remain at one unit per 10 acres but there will no longer be a minimum lot size. One of the major goals of this change, as stated in the policies, "encourages communities to implement the density standard through clustering where appropriate. Clustering may aid in adapting the density policy to the diverse character of the landscape. Some areas have lakes, wetlands, wildlife areas, or difficult soil conditions to make clustering more desirable." es- t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Chanhassen Planning Commission February 27, 1992 Page 2 The policies recommend that lot sizes should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they should ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield, and a replacement should the original fail. Standards regulating minimum lot sizes are reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Any changes to the Comprehensive Plan will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. Analysis The City's Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for building in the rural service area. These standards are outlined in Article XXIII, General Supplemental Regulations, Sec. 20- 905, Rural Lot building eligibilities (Attachment #1). The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance need to be amended to reflect these changes. Staff would recommend the following changes to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Residential-Large Lot (R-LL) section, which states: "Large-Lot residential developments are subject to a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres with an overall density limitation of one unit per ten acres... The only means by which new lots can be created is from clustering 2.5 acre lots at a gross density of 1 home per 10 acres." The 2000 Land Use Map shall also be amended to reflect this same change. The Zoning Ordinance should be amended in the following areas. 1. Article X. "A-2" Agricultural Estate District Sec. 20-575, Lot Requirements and Setbacks (1) "-- - - - . ' - . - - . The minimum lot size shall be subject to Section 20-906 rural lot building eligibilities. 2. Article XI. "RR" Rural Residential District Sec. 20-595, Lot Requirements and Setbacks (1) The minimum lot area is -two and one half (2112) acres. The minimum lot size shall be subject to Section 20-906 rural lot building eligibilities. 3. Article XXIII. General Supplemental Regulations Sec. 20-906, Rural lot building eligibilities (b)(8) Each site must have at least one acre (1) of area which can support two (2) septic system sites a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five (25) percent of less. Chanhassen Planning Commission February 27, 1992 Page 3 SA) Common septic tanks may be used for adjoining lots where appropriate to support clustered development. Two septic sites must still be provided and protected by easement on a slope of twenty-five (25) percent of less. The applicant will be required to develop disposal system plans prepared by a qualified engineer for city approval. Such systems should be designed to promote future hookups into city sewer lines that may ultimately be made available. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum lot size in the rural area as noted in the report. 20-906 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE r Sec. 20-906. Rural lot building eligibilities. (a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter. (b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an existing single-family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: (1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines: 0-19.99 acres equals one(1)single-family unit. 20-29.99 acres equals two(2)single-family units. • 30-39.99 acres equals three (3)single-family units,etc. (2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1987, shall be deemed as buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by paragraph (10). (3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections 20-575 and 20-595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials,up to two(2)parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement. Supp.No.3 1230.8 r ZONING § 20-907 (4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well. (5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in- - stalled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (6) The one (1) unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one(1)of the parcels. Transfer • of development rights from one (1)parcel of land to another is not allowed,except as permitted in paragraph(9)below. (7) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain- ing or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development rights from one (1)parcel of land to another is not allowed. (8) Each site must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five(25)percent or less. (9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does ha-. public street frontage and • meets other provisions of this section. (10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area at. identified in the compre- hensive plan to contain a development density•of one (1) unit per two and one-half (21) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the following information is submitted to the planning department: a. Completion of the application for subdivision. b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners. — c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern. d. Submission of required application fees. Further,these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval by July 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table final action on the application until after July 1, 1987. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 7, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-907. Height regulations. (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one(1)story in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be permitted on the downhill side of any building. (b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the following: ( (1) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation 1231 AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (MDIF) POLICIES FOR THE RURAL SERVICE AREA Adopted December 5, 1991 Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Publication No. 640-92-012 AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (MDIF) INTRODUCTION On the pages that follow are amendments to the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) that were adopted by the Metropolitan Council on December 5, 1991. The amendments affect three sections of the MDIF. New language is indicated by underlining. Language that was deleted from the MDIF is stricken (stricken). Pages 1-9 of the amendments modify pages 22-25 of the MDIF, beginning with the section titled "Rural Service Area." This is part of the Geographic Policy Areas section of the MDIF, and contains the policy statements. Pages 10-14 are modifications to pages 33-35 of the MDIF section titled "Planning and Investment Procedures: the Council and Metropolitan Systems." This section gives direction for future revisions of other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; in this case, the Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan and the Transportation Policy Plan. A small change was also made to the section on parks which relates to the rural area. This change is being made now in order to incorporate policy direction from the recently adopted Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan. It is consistent with discussions of urban-generated uses, held in connection with the rural policy study. Pages 15-16 are two new appendices to the MDIF. The first is "Criteria for Council Approval of Local Plans That Are Inconsistent With MDIF Rural Area Policies." The second is "Land Uses in the Rural Area." This clarifies for the Council and local governments what land uses are appropriate for the commercial agricultural region as compared to the general rural use area. For additional copies of this document, for the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework itself, or for additional background information, contact the Metropolitan Council Data Center, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101; telephone 291-8140. The MDIF costs $5; the other documents are free. Questions about the policy amendments should be directed to Anne Hurlburt of the Council staff, 291-6501. • AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (MDIF) PART ONE MDIF, Page 22-25 RURAL SERVICE AREA 1 The focus of the Council's growth-management strategy of encouraging growth within an urban J service area requires an accompanying policy that limits growth in the rural area. Extensive development outside the metropolitan urban service area is not appropriate because it can lead to premature and costly demands to extend regional services such as sewers and highways, and does not take advantage of regional investments that have been made in the urban service area. Development outside the urban service area contributes to urban sprawl and increases the costs of services. Some services that require higher concentrations of people to be cost-effective, such as transit. may become prohibitively expensive. Development in the rural area also results in demand for local services, and can change the character of rural communities. While existing service levels may be low, new residents are likely to demand additional services. Development can result in erosion of the natural and man-made environment that attracted residents in the first place. Conflicts often develop between new exurban residents and residents who depend on agriculture for all or part of their livelihoods. Development in the rural area can have adverse impacts on the quality of the natural environment. Protecting and maintaining the quality of surface water and groundwater is a key concern of the Council. While technological advances have improved on-site sewage disposal systems, their proper installation and maintenance is still a critical concern. A common misconception is that agriculture and other rural activities are only temporary land uses. just waiting for the land to be developed. Most of the rural area will not be needed for urban development in the foreseeable future. Agriculture and rural land uses are legitimate and permanent land uses in these areas. As the region grows, there will be a need to expand the urban service area into some areas that are currently rural. There are potential regional, as well as local, impacts from inappropriate development of the rural areas that may be needed to expand the urban service area. If communities do not plan for their future urban service areas before development occurs, it is possible that land uses and development patterns may later block the contiguous, efficient and cost-effective extension of local and regional urban services. 1 The cumulative negative impacts of development that is inconsistent with the Council's rural area policies may have a substantial impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan transportation and wastewater treatment systems plans. Therefore, the Council may require communities to modify comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the policies. Some communities cannot comply with all of the Council's policies for the rural area because they have existing development patterns that are inconsistent with the policy. In the past, the Council has found these plans to be inconsistent with rcgional policies, but has not provided a procedure for making exceptions to the policy where it may be warranted. Criteria for Council approval of inconsistent plans are provided in an appendix to this document. Commercial Agricultural Area The commercial agricultural area includes those lands certified by local governments as eligible for agricultural preserves under the 1980 Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. This approach places the responsibility for defining agricultural lands on local governments. With Council protection policies for commercial agriculture focused only in areas where there are local government plans and protections, local and regional policies support one another. The amount of land included in the commercial agricultural area is large, covering about 600,000 acres in 19851990. This constitutes over half the farmland in the seven-county area. The geographic area defined as the commercial agricultural area is subject to frequent change when tied to the Agricultural Preserves Act because land can go into and out of certification when local governments decide to alter its status. Local governments may replan and rezone certified areas if a change in policy is desired, but this change must occur as a public process. For the purposes of this document, the commercial agricultural area is defined as the area certified as of March 1 of each year. This date is the end of each Council reporting year required under the Agricultural Preserves Act. Under the Agricultural Preserves Act, a local government passes a resolution certifying land eligible for protections and benefits and limiting housing density to one unit per 40 acres. The certified area is then considered long-term agricultural land. The local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance must reflect this land use and zoning. Farmers owning land within the certified area may then enter the program. Land in the program is referred to as covenanted land. The Agriculture Preserves Act provides protection for the farmer from urban assessments, property taxes at development value and conflicting land uses in exchange for a legal commitment to continue farming for at least eight years. Within the commercial agricultural area, all land has been certified by local governments as eligible for the agriculture preserves program. However, the Council recognizes two levels of protection in the commercial agricultural area: primary and secondary protection areas. Primary protection areas are lands covenanted as agricultural preserves. They will receive the greatest protection possible from incompatible uses because the greatest level of commitment to farming has been established. 2 Secondary protection areas cover the farms in the area that have not yet farmed-been covenanted as agricultural preserves. The Council believes the commercial agriculture area is a place where agriculture is the best permanent use of the land. Long-term investments in farm equipment and in land preservation can be made with the confidence that urban development is not going to destroy or limit these investments. General Rural Use Area The general rural use area is the area outside the urban service area that is not designated for commercial agriculture. Over 40 percent of the land in the Metropolitan Area falls in this category. The area contains a wide variety of land uses, including agricultural, residential and urban-type facilities. There are sizable parts of the general rural use area that host no particular kind of land use--land that is often called unused. Most of the area looks rural, but many of its residents are tied economically to the urban area and many of its land uses provide services to people living in the urban service area. General Farmland • A large part of the general rural use area is devoted to agriculture. The Council supports the continuation of agriculture and encourages local governments to support it by zoning agricultural land at one unit per 40 acres. For farms within an area so zoned that are subsequently certified eligible sige-up for the agriculture preserves program, the Council will reclassify them as part of the commercial agricultural area. Rural Residential Development Rural residential development may be an appropriate land use in areas that are hilly, wooded or otherwise unsuited to agricultural production. The Council urbanization. The Council supports this type of use as long as the density does not exceed one housing unit per 10 acres of land. The Council will compute rural residential density on the basis of 640-acre parcels (one square mile or section based on the public land survey). This will prevent excessive clustering of a large number of homes on small minimum lots that sires, l • . . - _ - - - _- r _ -- - - - _ - ' . .. .... could result in the need for urban services, such as package sewefage disposal systems. Some communities in the rural area have significant land area in public parks and open space, or wetlands that are legally restricted from development. Others have protected large amounts of agricultural land by designating it part of the commercial agricultural area. The Council will recognize this when it applies the density policy. Lower densities in areas restricted from development may be used to balance higher densities in sections without such limitations, provided it does not result in excessive clustering that would create demands for services (such as sewer and water systems, storm sewers, roads and other urban services) not typically needed in 3 rural developments. The only areas that will be excluded from this calculation are surface water and major metropolitan highway rights-of-way. The Council encourages communities to implement the density standard through clustering where appropriate and consistent with local planning objectives. Implementing the density standard as a 10-acre minimum lot size is simple to administer, but may result in an inefficient development pattern and in more land removed from agricultural production than if smaller lot sizes are used. Clustering may aid in adapting the density policy to the diverse character of the landscape. Some areas have lakes, wetlands, wildlife areas, large areas of public lands or difficult soil conditions that make clustering more desirable. Other areas have good agricultural land that can be protected through clustering, and used to balance the density of development on areas less suited to agriculture. The Council does not recommend a minimum lot size. Lot sizes in the general rural use area should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they shall ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. All residential development in the general rural use area must be subject to the standards for proper design. location, installation, maintenance and on-going monitoring provided by the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan to ensure against negative impacts on the environment and the metropolitan wastewater treatment system. Existing Urban-Density Development • Residential subdivisions, mobile home parks and clusters of moderate-density residential development also exist in the general rural use area. They frequently demand urban services but are in locations where urban services are difficult or costly to provide. The Council's principal concern is the potential need for the costly extension of central sanitary sewer and particularly metropolitan sewer service. i- = -2 . _' . - :__ . _ - _. -- - - -- -- -- . _ _ _ _ .- _. - - -- - - - - • -- -• - - - . Local governments with existing urban- density development should address the operation and maintenance issues of on-site systems to avoid potential problems and the eventual need for costly local investments. Urban-Generated Uses Many facilities exist in the general rural use area that require isolated and spacious locations but may be intended to serve the urban or entire metropolitan area public. These facilities include campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks, regional parks, trails, waste disposal installations, racing facilities, gun clubs, festivals, mining sites and similar facilities, and are usually public or quasi-public in nature. The general rural use area is an appropriate location for these facilities. The Council's interest is that these facilities are provided with adequate public services adequately sued, consistent with local and regional plans, and to the extent possible, that they do not interfere with agricultural activities. Other Land Uses — In addition to agriculture, single-family residential development, existing development and urban- generated uses, there are other land uses that may be appropriate in the general rural use area. Whether or not a land use is appropriate depends on whether it is consistent with local and ' 4 regional plans and if it meets all environmental quality standards. An appropriate land use would not require urban-level support services (such as highways transit or sewers). Uses should be of a scale compatible with the services available and the need to serve local market demands. To the extent possible, they should not interfere with agricultural activities. One category of land uses that may be appropriate in the rural area is neighborhood convenience retail, such as a grocery store or gasoline station. If it is of an appropriate scale to serve local residents and does not need urban sewers or highways, it may be appropriate in the general rural use area. - Even though a particular land use may be acceptable from a regional perspective, the Council will not recommend that every community provide for every possible land use in its rural area if it would not be consistent with local plans. Each community must determine whether particular land uses would be compatible with existing uses, local standards and the goals of the community. All uses would be subject to any local, regional or state permitting or licensing requirements. Examples of uses that may be acceptable are included in an appendix to this document. Lot sizes for all land uses should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they should ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site. a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. All development in the general rural use area must be subject to the standards for proper design, location, installation, maintenance and on-going monitoring provided by the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan to ensure against negative impacts on the environment and the metropolitan wastewater treatment system. Rural Centers Rural centers historically have served as retail service centers and transportation centers for the surrounding rural area. However, changes in agriculture and rapid urban expansion have changed the traditional rural service roles of many of these small centers to residential areas for urban people and locations for industries with little tie to local agriculture. The latter make use of available labor in rural areas and, by their nature, tend not to be dependent on close contact with - other firms for their supplies or critically dependent on transportation. The Council has identified 35 rural centers, with populations ranging from just over 100 to more than 5,000. Some rural centers, such as Norwood and Young America, encompass the entire corporate limits of the community. Others, such as Lake Elmo, are small enclaves within a larger rural community. Services available within rural centers vary. Some have central sanitary sewer; others depend on on-site waste disposal systems. Some have central water systems. Some provide the full range of convenience retail stores, while others have only a bar or gas station. Some have small manufacturing or service businesses; others are almost exclusively residential. The Council does not support the extension of regional systems to rural centers because of the distance from the urban center and the small populations of rural centers. Rural locations in the past decade have been attractive and some, although not all, communities have experienced an upsurge in growth, principally residential development. Development trends are down from the highs noted in the early 1970s but continue at modest levels into the 1980s. 5 Several services are important in adequately serving additional rural center development, but sewage disposal is the most critical. Urban-density development in an unsewered rural center poses the risks of on-site sewage system failure, contamination of groundwater and eventually the expense of new on-site or central sewer system installation. The possibility also exists that remedying a pollution problem may require an extension of metropolitan sewer service through rural areas. Lack of sewer service is a serious constraint on the amount and type of development that rural centers can safely accommodate. Some parts of the rural Metropolitan Area, especially Anoka County, are receiving large amounts of scattered urban development. This scattered development poses service problems and may, at a later date, result in very high local service costs. The Council proposes a strategy that offers local government an alternative way to structure this development by designating and creating a "rural center." These new centers would be limited enclaves for urban-density land uses, facilities and services within the local governments' broader corporate jurisdictional boundaries. They would not be coterminous with the entire corporate jurisdictional limits. Under this strategy, a local government would identify an area to receive urban-density residential, commercial and industrial development and the facilities, including local central sewer, where appropriate, needed to serve it. Financing of necessary support services would be a local responsibility. Areas of existing urban-density uses are likely candidates for selection as new rural centers. Rural centers should accommodate additional development consistent with their ability to finance and administer services, including sewer, roads, water and stormwater drainage. If additional land is needed to accommodate growth, rural centers should extend services in a staged, contiguous manner. Residential, commercial and industrial development at urban densities should be accommodated only in rural centers with central sanitary sewers that are meeting state and federal water quality standards. Larger projects should be located in freestanding growth centers that have a full range of services. Rural-to-Urban Transition Planning Rural-to-urban transition areas are areas that may eventually be needed for expansion of the urban service area but are currently part of the rural service area. While these areas will not be considered a separate regional policy area, the Council encourages local governments to plan for potential expansions of the urban service area in their comprehensive plans. Communities planning for transition areas should consider land characteristics (such as soils, wetlands, watershed boundaries, agricultural soil capability), existing land use and development patterns, the transportation system, and long-range plans for expansion of local and regional utility systems. Transition areas should generally be contiguous to the existing urban service area. In most cases, it would not include the entire jurisdictional limits of the local government, but might if the community wishes to plan for the eventual urbanization of the area. Land in a transition area should be protected from incompatible development patterns and land uses that may later obstruct the extension of urban services. The most effective strategy to protect the transition area is to restrict development to very low-density (one per 40 or lessl _ residential development or agricultural uses, which preserves large parcels intact until they can be subdivided into small lots and provided with urban services. If residential subdivisions are permitted. clustering should be encouraged. The large parcels remaining may later be efficiently 6 resubdivided, and the smaller, clustered lots can be more economically provided with services or bypassed if necessary. Local governments should use caution in implementing "ghost platting" or similar methods for subdividing land into larje lots with the intention of resubdividing them when services are to be provided. Resubdivision and installing utilities in existing subdivisions can be a very difficult process and result in higher costs. The development pattern established may not be appropriate or desirable when the area is incorporated into the urban service area. Local governments may also want to consider whether the land uses permitted in transition areas would discourage or prevent urbanization in the future. For example, a use that requires a spacious. isolated location should probably not be located where it is likely to be surrounded by incompatible urban development in the future. The Council will review local comprehensive plans that include plans for rural-to-urban transition areas. but will not commit to the future extension of metropolitan services to serve the area or to any time frame for expansion of services beyond the urban service area. The Council will continue to apply its policies and criteria for expansion of the urban service area when a regional need has been demonstrated. The Council will support local efforts to prevent development incompatible with future urbanization. The Council will examine the need to plan for rural-to-urban transition areas in its metropolitan systems plans. Local plans will be considered but will not determine the transition areas designated for regional purposes. RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES 17. The Metropolitan Council does not support extensive development outside the urban service area because it can lead to the premature expansion of local and regional services, and fails to take advantage of regional investments that have been made in the urban service area. The cumulative negative impacts of development that is inconsistent with the Council's rural area policies may have a substantial impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan transportation and wastewater treatment systems plans. Therefore, the Council may require communities to modify comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the policies. The Council will consider exceptions to the policies for local governments that cannot meet the policies because of existing subdivisions or land development. Commercial Agricultural Area 138. The Metropolitan Council supports the long-term continuation of agriculture in the rural service area. The Council will use the following ranking in decisions to accommodate facilities serving urban residents. 1. Primary protection area: land covenanted in agriculture preserves will receive primary protection. Urban facilities should be prohibited in this area unless there 7 is strong documentation that no other locations in the Metropolitan Area can adequately meet the siting and selection criteria. 2. Secondary protection area: lands certified but not presently in agricultural preserves will receive a level of protection secondary to agricultural preserves. Urban facilities should not be located in this area unless there is strong evidence that a proposed urban use cannot be located in the general rural use area. General Rural Use Area 1819A. The Metropolitan Council supports long-term preservation of agricultural land in the general rural use area. However, the Council will also support residential development at densities of no more than one unit per 10 acres computed on a 640-acre basis (a maximum of sixty four units per 40-aeces square mile based on the public land survey). The Council will allow land area in public parks or open space, wetlands that are legally restricted from development, and agricultural land that has been designated as part of the commercial agricultural area to be used to balance higher densities in sections without such limitations, provided that it would not result in excessive clustering that would created demands for urban services. The only areas that will be excluded from this calculation are surface water and major metropolitan highway rights-of-way. 19B. The Council encourages clustering of residential development, which will result in a _ more efficient development pattern and help to protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands. Lot sizes in the general rural use area should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they shall ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. 19C. The Council will not extend metropolitan systems to serve urban-density residential development in the general rural use area. Where urban-density development already exists, a local government should address service issues in its plan, particularly on-site sewer system operation and maintenance. 19D. In addition to agriculture, single family residential development, existing development and urban-generated uses, the Council will support other land uses in the general rural use area, provided that they are consistent with local and regional plans. Appropriate rural land uses must meet all environmental quality standards, not require urban-level support services, and be of a scale compatible with the services available and the need to serve local market demands. To the extent possible they should not interfere with agricultural activities. • Rural Centers 209 The Metropolitan Council will support a rural center's plans to accommodate additional growth provided they are consistent with the center's ability to finance and administer services, particularly sewer service. The Council supports rural center service improvements but not at regional expense. 8 210. The Council will support a local government's plan for a new rural center and its requests for state and federal grants, provided the local government restricts urban densities from surrounding rural areas and will support the new center with necessary service investments. Rural-to-Urban Transition Planning 22. The Metropolitan Council will encourage local governments to plan for rural-to-urban transition areas in their comprehensive plans, and will support local efforts to prevent development incompatible with future urbanization. The Council will not commit to the future extension of metropolitan services to serve the area until such time as there is a demonstrated, regional need to expand the urban service area in accordance with established Council policies and criteria. Local plans will be considered but will not determine transition areas designated for regional purposes. 9 PART TWO MDIF, Page 33-35 PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: THE COUNCIL AND METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS The Metropolitan Council is concerned with managing metropolitan systems in ways that will help realize the objectives for long-term development of the region as reflected in this document's discussion of the geographic policy areas. The following metropolitan system guidelines provide direction to the Council's systems for developing the more detailed policies and programs contained in the individual system plans. The metro governance process, discussed later, explains the procedures for carrying out the guidelines through the actions of the metropolitan agencies. METROPOLITAN SYSTEM GUIDELINES The Council is committed to providing regional services and facilities within the urban service area. However, the Council will not support development of facilities substantially in excess of forecasted need. The challenge to the Council and commissions is to find the middle ground between overbuilding and undersizing essential facilities. Some facilities that deliver services to the urban service area will have to be physically located within the rural service area even though they primarily serve people living in the urban service area. This may result from land requirements, the location of natural resources or the need for interregional connections. For example, solid waste landfills with requirements for large acreages will likely be located in the rural service area; sand and gravel extraction and regional parks depend on the location of the resource and often occur in the rural service area; and highways, power lines and pipelines that tie this region to other parts of the state and nation will have to — traverse the rural service area. When urban facilities must be located in the rural area, they will be located, developed and operated in a manner that minimizes interference with agriculture and the rural settlement pattern. Sewers Only land within the urban service area will receive regional sewer service. Service will be provided in accordance with regional and local staging of development as outlined in the Council's sewer policy plan and local comprehensive plans that are in conformity with the Council's regional plan. The Council will take the necessary actions to provide metropolitan sewer interceptors and wastewater treatment plants adequate to transport sewage generated by users in the urban service area and to treat it to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the national pollution discharge elimination system permit for each treatment plant. Central sewer service currently provided in rural centers can continue at levels consistent with each center's ability to finance and operate systems locally. In rural centers or any other part of the rural area receiving regional sewer service, the Council will determine regional service allocations for sewer flow using the same procedures that are used for other communities located within the metropolitan urban service area. ' 10 The Council will assure the continuation of service adequate to meet the needs of development currently receiving regional sewer service. In order to meet this commitment, the Council emphasizes the need to monitor the condition of older sewers and sewers with a history of problems, as well as the trends in sewage volume as opposed to design capacity. The Council will also work for increased coordination between the sewer and the solid waste system in the area of planning and project development of composting and co-composting. Recycling residuals from the waste treatment process with municipal solid waste may help resolve disposal problems confronting both the sewer and the solid waste systems. The Council will establish standards for on-site sewage disposal systems in the rural area to protect the region's groundwater and the health of rural area residents, and to prevent the need for premature extensions of the regional sewer system. All elements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards for on-site sewage disposal systems should be followed in all areas. All communities shall require at least two sewage-disposal drainfields to be located on each building site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. Except in the commercial agricultural area, all facets of the Council's standards for the proper design, location, installation, maintenance and on-going monitoring of on-site systems should also be adopted. The Council will require all communities to certify that they have met these standards prior to approval of local comprehensive plan amendments or making favorable recommendations in project reviews. The Council will review its existing policies concerning community on-site sewage disposal systems and package treatment plants in the rural area in light of the.Council's policy to encourage clustering in the rural area and the improved technology which is or may become available in the future. The Council will also consider whether monitoring of rural water supplies may be necessary to detect pollution from on-site sewage disposal systems. Planning for the metropolitan sewer system should address the impacts on the system from development outside the urban service area: specifically, impacts on the service availability charge 'SAC), and the underuse of metropolitan sewer facilities. Planning for the metropolitan sewer system should also consider how local comprehensive sewer plans should address the rural-to-urban transition areas, and protect them from incompatible development that may later block the efficient extension of the sewer system. Transportation Metropolitan highway improvements will be planned and developed to serve the needs of residents in the urban service area, including the freestanding growth centers. Highways will be provided in accordance with the Council's regional transportation policy plan and local comprehensive plans that are in conformity with the Council's regional plan. Varying levels of highway service will continue to exist in the urban service area due to travel behavior, development patterns and the nature of highways facilities, but efforts will be made to provide a reasonable level of metropolitan highway service throughout the urban service area. 11 The Council influences metropolitan highway development in a variety of ways. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) constructs and maintains most of the roads in the metropolitan system, and the ultimate authority for highway programming decisions rests with the state commissioner of transportation. However, Mn/DOT seriously considers the Council's highway policymaking and project planning in virtually all metropolitan area highway priorities. The Council approves construction on controlled-access highways and develops guidelines for setting highway priorities as well as guidelines for approval of interchange improvements. The Council is also responsible for endorsing Federal Aid Urban and Interstate Substitution funding priorities, which are set by local elected officials acting through the Council's Transportation Advisory Board. Highway planning is very important because the ability of people to take advantage of the opportunities the area offers and acquiring essential goods and services depend on having a good highway system and on keeping it operating well. This means roads on the existing system must be able to provide the type and level of service designated in the Council's transportation policy plan. Traffic management strategies or new construction will be necessary when traffic volumes approach design capacities, when road conditions pose hazards and slowdowns, and when new developments are proposed that differ substantially from assumptions made in the regional transportation plan. Implementing traffic management strategies for metropolitan highways is a state or regional responsibility that frequently has direct or indirect implications for local systems. Local governments will have primary responsibility for carrying out traffic management strategies on local systems. . New sources may share the responsibility for funding new construction with the traditional county, state and federal sources. New sources may include the region, local governments and the private sector. With the potential for funding and operational limitations, denying access to the regional system may also be necessary for unanticipated new developments. Highway planning should also address air pollution caused by heavy concentrations of auto, truck and bus traffic. Although this problem has traditionally been associated with the two metro centers, it is a growing problem in the regional business concentrations where highways are reaching capacity. The relationship between metropolitan highways and outstate Minnesota is another consideration in highway planning. The Council recognizes the importance of outstate connections, particularly for economic development, . . _ .. ._ '_ _. _ - -..•: . . . -_ . . Metropolitan highways in the rural area will be planned to support a level of development consistent with the Council's rural density policies. The Council will not plan for a level of service that would support or encourage development greater than the policy except where an exception has been approved according to the guidelines of the Metropolitan Development and r Investment Framework. Highway planning must also consider the rural-to-urban transition areas, and how rights-of-way for the system of principal and minor arterials that will be needed in the future should be protected from incompatible development. 12 Buses operating on streets and highways will probably dominate public transit service through the remainder of the century. This does not preclude the introduction of some fixed-guideway facilities in heavily traveled corridors, but costs and time constraints work against a massive shift in form over the next 15 years. Nevertheless, the Council will continue to seek creative, forward- looking solutions to transit service problems. Locations with large numbers of households and/or high employment in relatively small areas offer good potential for public transit service. It is also important to provide transit to the people who have no other way to travel. This generally means elderly, handicapped, low-income and young people. Providing service to these people will probably involve above-average subsidies. Some parts of the urban service area with low-density development may be served only by paratransit on a demand basis. This is also true for some of the transit-dependent people who live in low-density areas or cannot use the public system. Regularly scheduled regional transit service will not be provided to the rural service area, but residents of the area can arrange for and — finance public transit or public paratransit on their own if they so desire. This does not preclude the Council or the Regional Transit Board from becoming involved in planning for the special mobility needs of elderly and handicapped people in the rural service area or for the use of public funds specially appropriated for this purpose. Transit planning will take into account the cost of providing transit services to low-density areas, and how that may change over time as transit-dependent populations increase in these areas. Planning for highways and transit should consider the relationships among transportation needs, population densities and the provision of human services including public schools, health and social services, employment opportunities and emergency services. Parks The regional parks and open space system includes facilities in both the urban and rural service areas. Regional recreation open space will be acquired to serve the needs of today's urban population and to preserve outstanding natural and recreation resources for the area's future population. Facilities will be developed according to priorities in the Council's regional park plan, which will emphasize the needs of residents in the urban service area. The development of regional park facilities that attract large numbers of users will generally occur in the urban service area, unless the demands cannot be adequately met. If it is necessary to develop such facilities in the rural service area, adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided. Airports Every effort will be made to get the maximum use out of the existing airport system, consistent with the Council's airport policy plan. This is especially important for the "major" and "intermediate" airports, all of which are located in the urban service area. These facilities should continue to operate and to operate safely even if it requires substantial upgrading of existing facilities and modifications or controls on nearby land uses and development proposals. Land use 13 compatibility is critical to ensure future as well as current adequate operations at the regional airports. If a new "minor" airport site is needed, lands in the commercial agricultural area as defined in this document should be avoided. In addition, the only facilities developed on or adjacent to the airport should be those directly involved with making it useable and safe. Other Area Systems This framework focuses on the four metropolitan systems of sewers, transportation, regional parks — and airports because the Council has special obligations and responsibilities for them under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Under the Waste Management Act, the Council's solid waste program has the same status in many respects as the four metropolitan systems and will receive the same level of protection as those systems. However. The Council also has planning responsibilities for several other systems that serve the residents of the Metropolitan Area. Currently, the Council has adopted plans dealing with housing, health, surface water management, juvenile justice and water resources, as well as major position papers on the aging, arts and development disabilities. All of these planning documents and the programs associated with them contribute to metropolitan resource management. The Council must direct attention to the impact of this framework and metropolitan system plans on these other area plans and programs, as well as the extent to which the other plans and programs modify the development and investment framework and metropolitan system plans. The Council also recognizes that numerous interrelationships exist among the other area system plans and the metropolitan system plans. Examples include aging and health, transportation and housing, and sewers, solid waste and water resources. For some of the other systems, the relationships are less obvious. However, all of the systems, whether designated as metropolitan or not, have the following in common: a) assumptions about future directions of area-wide growth and change and reliance on a uniform set of forecasts; b) accountability to Council legislative mandates; c) concern with orderly and economic development; d) adherence to the same process of regional planning and decision-making; and e) reliance on the area's population for most of their financial support. 14 PART THREE MDIF, Appendices Appendix: Criteria for Council Approval of Local Plans that are Inconsistent with MDIF Rural Area Policies Some communities in the rural area have existing development patterns that are inconsistent with Council policy. Specifically, some communities have already developed at-residential densities greater than one unit per 10 acres. This appendix provides criteria and procedures for review and approval of local comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the density policy. Exceptions to the policies for the rural area will be considered only for communities that cannot meet the policy because of the existing subdivisions or land development. The Council may approve an exception as part of its review of a local comprehensive plan. The extent of the exception will be based upon how well the community will or has: • protected good agricultural land; • protected wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas; _ implemented performance standards for on-site sewage disposal systems that are consistent with the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan;,and • adopted a comprehensive plan consistent with all Metropolitan Development Guide chapters, especially those for the metropolitan systems (sewers, transportation, aviation and parks.1 In order for the Council to support an exception to the rural density policy, the community must provide the following as a part of its comprehensive plan amendment: 1. The total land area (acreage) of the community, adjusted for surface water and major highway rights-of-way. 2. The number of existing lots of record. 3. The amount and location of land owned by public agencies or occupied by institutional uses and restricted from development. 4. The amount and location of undeveloped land, with an analysis of its development potential based on current and proposed planning and zoning_ 5. The amount and location of land planned and zoned for uses other than agriculture and residential development, with a description of uses that will be permitted. 6. The amount and location of agricultural land uses, and any areas that will be certified eligible for the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program. 7. The amount and Iocation of wetlands, with information demonstrating how such areas will be protected from development. 8. Copies of all local ordinances relating to adoption of performance standards for on-site sewage disposal systems. 9. The location of any proposed rural-to-urban transition areas, along with plans and policies to protect such areas from premature or incompatible development. 10. Additional information that may be necessary to bring the local comprehensive plan into compliance with metropolitan systems plans. 11. Schedule for implementing the plan amendment. 15 Appendix: Land Uses in the Rural Area This appendix helps clarify what land uses may be supported by Council policy for the rural service area. and provides guidance for both the Council and local governments. It is important to remember that even though a particular land use may be acceptable in the rural area from a regional perspective, the Council will not recommend that every community provide for every possible land use in its rural area if it would not be consistent with local plans. All uses would also be subject to any local, regional or state permitting or licensing requirements. Land Use Recommendations for the Rural Area Policy Area Examples of Consistent Land Uses Commercial Agricultural: broad range of agricultural land uses, including horse boarding and Agricultural Region training, kennels, sod farms, tree farms, fish production and processing, storage areas or buildings; for primary protection areas, uses consistent with 1980 Agricultural Preserves Act Residential: single family residences at a maximum density of 1/40 acres, accessory apartments Commercial/Industrial: small on-farm operations normally associated with farming Institutional: urban generated facilities, such as waste disposal facilities; prohibited from primary protection areas unless no other location available; prohibited from secondary protection area unless no site in general rural use area available General Rural Use Agricultural: all uses listed for commercial agricultural policy area Area Residential: single family residences at a maximum density of 1/10 acres computed on the basis of 640 acre parcels (one square mile), twin homes/duplexes (meeting density standard), accessory apartments, group-living homes with shared cooking facilities Commercial/Recreational and Urban-Generated Uses: urban-generated uses, including recreational vehicle parks, racetracks, festival sites, campgrounds, gun clubs, private airports, solid waste facilities, auto salvage and recycling, other similar facilities, neighborhood convenience/service/retail uses, such as financial offices,video stores, gasoline, groceries, daycare centers, commerciaVservice/retail uses adjacent to or served by existing metro highways, agricultural products processing, home occupations, bed and breakfast lodging facilities,dentist and doctor offices, landing areas for ultralight and model airplanes, retreat facilities, golf courses Industrial: sand and gravel mining, urban-generated uses that require a spacious, isolated location, small manufacturing firms originating from home occupations, oil or gasoline storage tank farms, refineries, solid waste transfer/processing facilities Institutional: urban-generated uses, such as waste-disposal installations,jails, prisons, public airports, human service agency satellite offices, parks, trails, open space, other similar facilities, unique natural or conservation areas, schools, churches, cemeteries bbrar pll,b compplae md:frupo 16 CITY OF -- I,40%1 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 27, 1992 SUBJ: Continued Discussion - PUD Residential District At the January 15, 1992, meeting, the Commission continued its ongoing discussions of residential PUDs. Essentially, it was agreed that a clean slate needs to be used and staff was asked to bring in information on other communities' residential PUD standards. In attached materials, you will find copies of residential PUDs for the cities of Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Eagan, Burnsville, Maple Grove, Plymouth, Maplewood, and Brooklyn Park. In these communities, acceptable lot sizes range from a minimum of 8,700 square feet in Eagan up to 13,500 square feet in Eden Prairie. The only exception to this is a requirement that corner lots in single family areas in Bloomington be 15,000 square feet (interior lots can be as small as 11,000 square feet). You will also find a letter from Peter Olin of the Landscape Arboretum in your packet. In it Peter suggests that a PUD ordinance might better focus on the intent of the district rather than including specifics concerning lot sizes. I find that I generally agree with him in principle. The intent section can clarify a lot of goals aimed at the improved quality of development that is intended to result. As far as an intent section goes, it may not be a bad first attempt. However, to suggest that this represents a legally defensible ordinance that provides sufficient guidance for reviewing future development proposals, is probably somewhat naive. At last Monday's City Council meeting, the idea of minimum lot sizes was discussed briefly by the Council. The Mayor and Councilman Wing specifically indicated their concerns about decreasing lot sizes. Planning Commission Chair Batzli and Commissioner Emmings were present during this discussion. Frankly, I think when the question of lot sizes is taken out of context, it is very understandable that City Council members would raise opposition. However, I believe that for this question to be considered adequately, the intent of the PUD ordinance or its goals must clearly bt understood, and I do not believe that this was is t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission February 27, 1992 Page 2 the case Monday night. Fundamentally, I believe that the-matter of intent for the PUD district has not been adequately explored, at least recently, and deserves some attention. Additionally, I think we need to focus some discussion on lot size in general. The problems related to lot size stem from two distinct causes, both of which can be addressed. The first _ cause is that when the lots were created, there was no real analysis or assurance that a reasonably sized home, deck, and rear yard could be accommodated without a variance. Often due to setbacks, peculiar lot configurations, and other features, we found that after — the fact it could not. This problem can easily be responded to by making the developer demonstrate that a reasonably sized home, deck, and rear yard can be accommodated on every lot as a condition of the approval process. The second set of problems stem from our — ordinances focus on gross lot area rather than developable lot area. You can have a 30,000 square foot lot that is highly inadequate for normal single family use if much of it is covered by drainage easements, wetlands, or is significantly impacted by surrounding roadways. I — really believe that we should be looking at revising not only our PUD standards, but our subdivision standards to establish minimum developable lot areas for each parcel that is created in our city. — The last item which will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting are two alternative development scenarios prepared by Hans Hagen Homes for a parcel of land — located east of Galpin Boulevard, south of Timberwood, and north of the railroad tracks. The first sketch plan illustrates a PUD concept that would have an average lot size of 15,000 square feet but a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. In this instance, this flexibility — provided for by the PUD ordinance would be used to locate smaller lots in what is now a soy bean field and larger lots in a more desirable wooded hilly area with the plat design to protect as much of the forest as possible. Through the use of larger lots in this more sensitive area, the streets are further apart and grading requirements and tree loss are minimized. The alternative plan as prepared by the applicant, shows a straight 15,000 square foot lot subdivision with its intended impacts. Under these plans, the straight subdivision option would result in 165 lots, whereas, the PUD concept resulted in 156 lots and is a much more creative and less intensive proposal. — I believe the juxtaposition of these two plans will be found to be interesting by the Planning Commission. As is often the case with this sort of scenario, I believe the developer overstated the impact of the straight subdivision to some extent, however, the design issues remain valid. I was ultimately able to convince the developer to completely revise his concept and produce a standard plat that I believe meets our design goals,while maintaining or exceeding the 15,000 square foot lot area. This plan is expected to be submitted shortly for your review. Planning Commission February 27, 1992 Page 3 SUMMARY As I have indicated on recent memorandums on this subject, staff does not want to be in a position of beating a dead horse. From a professional standpoint, the Planning Staff honestly believes that the city would be better off with an intelligently crafted residential PUD section. We believe that the variety of housing opportunities can be expanded, that environmental protection design can be improved, and that there is a potential of providing cost reductions for the home buyer. We further believe that these benefits can be achieved without the problems that have been attributed to this type of development in the past. However, if there is simply no support for this concept, I would hope that you would be so directive. PUD LOT SIZE SURVEY CITY LOT SIZE Eden Prairie 13 , 500 Bloomington Corner Lot 15, 000 S. F. Interior Lot 11, 000 S. F. Eagan Up to staff/ Smallest existing lot 8, 700 S. F. Burnsville 30% deficient of 15, 000 S.F. which is the standard/ Corner lot 12 , 000 S.F. Interior lot 10, 000 S. F. Maple Grove 10, 000 S . F. Plymouth Recommend denial of less than 10 , 000 S. F./ No minimum Maplewood 10, 000 S . F. for all lots/ Corner lots have frontage of 100 feet/ Interior lots have frontage of 75 feet Brooklyn Park 10, 800 S . F. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Twin Cities Campus Minnesota Landsc Arboretum P.O.Box 39 3675 Arboretum Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 February 6, 1992 TO: Ladd Conrad t\ FROM: Peter Olin , RE: PUD Ordinance In many cases, people forget that the intent of a zoning ordinance is the single most critical factor in controlling development. If the intent of a law is clearly spelled out, it will hold up in court and is generally easily defendable. The PUD ordinance is no exception and can easily be defended and give the town what it wants if it clearly relates back to the city plan and explicates the concepts the plan sets forth. • I would suggest a simple ordinance which sets the parameters for development, not the specifics. Lot size, as you suggest is irrelevant. So is setback and side yards (assuming city water and sewer) . Even tree planting (after all, not everyone wishes to live in the woods! ) . What is important is to maintain the physical and social character of the town. My suggestion: In order to preserve the physical and social character of Chanhassen, the Planning Commission will entertain a variety - of development ideas. The criteria to create a variance from existing zoning regulations will be: preservation of land form, vegetation and wildlife; preservation of farmland and agrarian lifestyles; preservation of the open field, wood lot and wetland combination that constitutes the rural character of Chanhassen. Further, the proposed development must fit within the spirit of the planning framework and infrastructure of proposed roads, drainageways, utilities, open space and public buildings. Further, no adverse situations may be created that severely impact wetlands, increase erosion, destroy unusual wildlife habitat or create other environmental degradation. The landmark elements of the land to be developed must be identified along with the environmental analysis of the site, the analysis of off-site relationships (to surrounding lands within the viewshed) as well as to the watershed. CITY OF0:111 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: 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 - gym« 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 change 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 alternative * 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 . Emmings : 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 MEP 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 . Itseemed '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 the 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 lotlinehomes 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 iMONI 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 . Imp ( 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 will be 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__ graphsand 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? Krauss : 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 because 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 stuf— 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 units per acre . Emmings: Right , but you 're not going to let them do that is 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 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 our standard is bigger than that . So my problem , our standard is typically lot 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 . WPM Batzli : Whereas I would agree with everything you said except I 'm not comfortable with 9 ,000 . 111 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 to 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 . Ellson: 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 and 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 tc— achieve . The comprehensive plan 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 t 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 slightl— 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 ' 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 . rhart : yI 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 lc— size csize 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 hat 'cwhat 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 . 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 famil 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 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% . gimm 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 25% 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 41% . 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 pi. 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? Krause : A requires that you give us a mix of lot sizes so even if you core 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 wha 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 . -X- guess 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? Min Krauss: That 's a lucky one there . Erhart : Well that 's a . . .does that seem right to us? I don 't know . Emmingz; : 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 a,Id 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 no 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 . Ellson : And that 's the carrot that you get them to use . We talked about it 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 units 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 . Ellson: 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 . Ellson: 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 't even want to sit next to him . Batzli : Lot 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 wa M- 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 . Ells.on: What 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 things . In a lot of cases . They don 't know any better . Even somebody such as 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 — 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 . The 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 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 Imo 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? Elison: 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 . lom 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 was kind of liking this until Brian . Erhart : We were sold on the 9 ,000 square foot lots because we got a few of 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 . Elison: 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 cobjection 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 ave:raage . Maybe we set a 12 ,000 average . See what I 'm saying? We 'r— kind of inviting a lot of 9 ,000 square foot lots the way we have this tabl 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 foot lots 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 GEM 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? 11 Conrad: No , minimum . Emmings: That was a minimum . Conrad: We 're talking here now . I get real concerned when we talk average 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 want 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 . Ellson: 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 . r _ 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 lotsize 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 in open 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 han 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 tha`- 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 lo size . Erhart: Average real lot size is dinky . — Krauss: But that 's normal . You look at subdivisions around Chanhassen , they 're all like that . Batili : 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 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 Imm 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 get 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 Commission 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 '—. 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 wa a major thing for that . I remember that presentation . That was a big dea 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 ONO 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 . Yino 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 . Krause: 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 Oldsmobile 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 you 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 clear and 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 preservec 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 neve 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 mea— 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 elm 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 size 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 down 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 gets 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 minimun, 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 pug. 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 Ply because he wants to have some setbacks , special setbacks for something . WF 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? Elison: 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 R5F 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 the PUD to be . 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 20% 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 . — Krauss: 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 wha 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 t'he 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 new subdivision things are changed a little bit but they still have setbacks and things applied against them and they don 't understand the nuances of the PUD . That 's my only point that they 're getting a smaller sized lot and 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 feel 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 how you do i t . 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 dictate 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: Cut I 'm not sure I know how to get there . — Emmings : Paul won 't . He flexed his eyebrows . Kraus : No , I see . . .45 minutes ago . Conrad : Well we 're missing things . Emming.. : 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 L.J. 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 instanc 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 mentione 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 , I don 't like it because it 's not meeting what we 've seen in 'the past in th 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 you 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 . aMm 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 nye that the advantage of a PUD is financial anyway . One way o— 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 . FarmakeT : 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 diy 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 . lanning Commissi'on 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 to come up with all this stuff . I don 't know if it 's worth it for them . I honestly don 't . Emmings: Why don 't you 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? IMO 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 things 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 Lucy 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 Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 47 Krauss; : 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? Krauss: That 's new . Batzli : We talked about this . — Ellson: 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 spa=? 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 yc 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 tF 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 RIM 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 . It 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 . I 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 . Elison : These are the things that . . .remember this exactly . For this reason 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 nimurr. . 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 see 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? Krauts: Yeah , but 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 , or 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 . Elison: Brian 's usually the one that finds those . Batzli : I didn 't get 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 25% 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 i.s , 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 . Emmin, s : I have no problem with that . Krauss : Brian you still do? Batzli : I don 't if that 's average . Erhrt : If 15 's average? Batzli : Yeah . Emmincs: Alright , if I have 100 acres and I 'm putting on four 9 ,000 squar . 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 Commission 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 because it 'd be over 2 ,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 . E'_ lzcn: 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 $100K 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 • Krauss: 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 als.Q 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 go 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 . Then 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 on 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 . Mom Emmings: Right . No , I don 't think we want . If it 's not parkland and it 's 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 association 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 wooded 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 what 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 . Elison: 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 'r= 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 Wate. 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 . Tha 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 '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 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 . Planninc 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 'sbeing 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 P' anning Commissipn Meeting FeDruary 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 , — P1: nning 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 a'nd 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 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 _ wereleftover 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 meting - 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 densityandthen 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 . 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 . RESIDENTIAL PUD ORDINANCES L L L L Community Development • BRO-1TY OF 5800 85th Ave. No.. Brooklyn Park. MN 55443 ■ Phone 612 424-8000 ■ Fax 612 424-2213 OKLYN y TDD 612 424-3646 } PARK JAMES F. WINKELS Director DATE: x - 14- -�z_ TO: Sr'i, Atr - U -f Gr P7 Gf c-r-f k74-S 5 EA) bio c-0 a�7t-r2- pg-r v 6 • CN�,�th4�SE�r ru rU SS 3/1 . FROM: [ ) James F. Winkels - Director of Community Development [ ] William T. King - Economic Development Director [ ] Scott M. Clark - Planning Director [v( Alan A. Kretman - Senior Planner/Landscape Architect [ ] Donna L. Datsko - Senior Planner [ ] Patrick A. Peters - Senior Planner [ ) Cheryl A. Nelson - Planning Specialist [ ) Thomas C. Bakritges - Associate Planner SUBJECT: f'D A . C OrnjxFrv6-E • PURPOSE: [4 As you requested [ ) Review and return [ I Reply to sender I I For your approval [ I For your information I ) Other (See Remarks) REMARKS: -1- )/L-(- SE/•-07 Li0Q OUL' Pup Suyt.KA1e- RZCEIVED — COPY TO: FEB 21 1992 Printed on 100% Recycled Paper CITY OF CHANHASSE Amend 364 .20 Planned Development Area, to read as follows: 1. The purpose of this section of the zoning ordinance is to provide a method by which tracts of land in the "R-1, " "R-2, " "R-3 , " & "R-4" zoning districts may be developed utilizing unique platting techniques due to the existence of the following constraints or considerations: overwidth easements for major utilities, the express public need for additional right-of-way width, the replacement of wetlands in a mitigation procedure which requires in excess of a 1: 1 replacement, the involuntary dedication of parkland over and above the minimums proscribed by ordinance, the creation of on-site storm water detention ponds, or any other governmental action which, due to no fault of or action by the property owner or developer, effectively reduces the amount of land ' area within the tract that is available for development into lots. The owner or owners of any tract of land in the above defined "R" districts may submit to the City Council for approval a plan for the use and development of such a parcel of land as a PDA by making application for a conditional use permit authorizing completion of the project according to the plan. The plan for the proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the use district within which the land is located except as hereinafter provided. a. The tract of land for which a project is proposed and permit requested shall not be less than ten (10) acres. b. The owner or developer of a tract of land which qualifies for platting as a PDA shall be permitted to receive density bonuses of no more than a fifteen (15) percent reduction in the required minimum lot area and no more than a ten (10) percent reduction in the required minimum lot width for a total of not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the lots proposed to be developed. c. Where land is not available to the owner or the developer for platting due to the constraints or considerations identified in the purpose statement above, that land shall not be considered as part of the gross acreage in computing the maximum number of lots that may be created under this ordinance. d. The application for a conditional use permit shall state precisely the reasons for requesting consideration of the property as a PDA. If the alleged condition warranting a PDA is related to wetland replacement, the applicant shall submit a report prepared and certified by a qualified professional setting forth the specific procedures for replacement. 1 e. The application 'for the conditional use permit shall include a preliminary plan and shall be submitted in complete conformity with the City subdivision regulations. Variances to the requirements of the subdivision regulations or zoning ordinance may be requested by the applicant as part of the PDA submission and must be so noted on the preliminary plan at the time of application. Such variances shall be specified in the approval of the conditional use permit. f. The land which is to be set aside as open space shall be clearly indicated on the plan. Provisions for recreational area and for continual maintenance of that area not dedicated and accepted by the City shall be required. g. No conveyance of property within the PDA shall take place until the property is platted in conformance with the City subdivision regulations and MSA 462 . 358 unless specifically waived by an approved conditional use permit. All bylaws, homeowners association articles of incorporation, and protective covenants must be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the record plat. h. Approval of conditional use permits shall be by the City _ Council after recommendation by the City Planning Commission as set out in Section 365. 02 of the City Code, and improvements required as per Sections 345. 67, 345. 70, 345.73 , 345.76, and 345.82 of the City Code. 2 CT', E= °: TEL :612-681-4612 Feb 21 92 15:01 No .013 P.01 Fax Transmittal Memo 7672 ft aPa9" ` To.,.o." , rfM a From C0'pin' C.rr-1 cF C►La�\iA� R� Comoen; c bc- E_!°1(fes) �ocwo, ►4u'4, (Yrr;f Fax 1� —TSC\ T"'vok� Faa�>4+t-4(oi� ifMc�on°' , I-4C=L,- Con,s,tf Diemen,, IQ, SF 1n- Subd. oSubd. 12. Planned Developments. In platting areas zoned "Planned Development" (PD) Districts as described in the Zoning Chapter, the following shall be required: A. A valid "planned development agreement" shall be entered into at or prior to final plat approval by the City or said approval shall be null and void. B. As a part of the approval of a plat, the Council may grant any dimensional deviations from the strict dimensional requirements for each base zoning district as deemed necessary to accomplish an overall plan under the provisions of a Planned Development District. C. Said deviation as described in the above Subparagraph shall not be interpreted to automatically increase densities above those permitted in the Planned Development Agreement. Said deviations shall relate only to dimensions. P. Said dimensional deviations approved as a part of a plat in a Planned Development District shall not require inMividual variances. E. Said diinensiona] deviations as referenced in this Subdivision of this Chapter shall relate to lot area, lot width, lot depth, frontage on a public street, street width, setbacks for any yard, height, setback from adjacent zoning district or use, length of cul-de-sacs, length of block and radius of cul-de-sacs. F. Said dimensional deviations shall be clearly stated and documented at the time of approval by the Council before they shall have full form and effect. Subd. 13. Plat Approved Without Variances. Where a plat has been approved by the City and recorded with Dakota County which contains a lot or lots which do not meet the minimum required dimensions as stated in this Chapter or in the Zoning Chapter, said lots shall have the following status: A. Said lot(s) shall be considered conform- ing lots and be entitled to all rights normally expected with a conforming lot under the circumstances of Subpara- graphs B and C below. B. Said lot(s) shall not be entitled to any special consideration for other variances and no other dimensional variances other than those existing on the plat shall be automatically accrued. C. Deviations fiom the Zoning Chapter are noted in Subdivision 12 of this Section. • 390 (1-1-83) FEB - 21 - 92 FPI 15 : 08 P . 0 1 -- - - City of Map1e Grove 9401 Fernbrook Lane,Maple Grove, Minnesota 56369-9790 612-420-4000 FACSIMI LI E TRANSMISSION FAX 420-7966 TO: NAME -5XLARi€1/1) C`JA-51c DATE ;2 -.2 ) -q2- ADDRESS -zI -q2ADDRESS - PAGES TO FOLLOW /p COMPANY �J z.)A FAX # 7 .i 7- S 7i - FROM: NAME dV GCr TIME SENT 5 DEPARTMENT c, C> INITIAL 4 . MESSAGE_/QL5IDE2'r/AL -r7;44-1"/M,-S- /`';'e7//� Note to Facsimile Operator: Please deliver this facsimile transmission to the above addressee. If you did not receive all of the pages in good condition, please advise us at your earliest convenience. Thank you. "Serving Today, Shaping Tomorrow" AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER James Deane David Burtness Charles F. Dehn Donald J.Ramstad Leinn Sargent Mayor Cnuncilmember Councilmcmber Counulmember Cnuncilmembcr ira 1-A I-I a-2 11-2h 1-3 I.4 e•5 1.1 Minimum Lot Ares/Owelling unit 20 etre* 20,000 10,000 min 10,000 lain 10,000 mini 10,0001 15,0001 _ 15,.)301' 3 (square feet) 11,000 evg 11,000 avg 11,000 avg Minimum Lot Width (feet) 500 100 60 min 60 min 80 min 100 120 120 SOS corner 105 corner IS evg 90 avy 85 meg 115 corner 145 145 110 abutting corner lot on Berner lot on mal« street major street mayor street Minimum floor Aree/Peelling unit (pyre feet) Exclusive of Garages and Seeament Lavoie jirtole family Detached Dwelling Unit 1 Story without basement: 3 bedroom or Ins 1,0005 1,0033 1,0005 1,30010 1,�5 More then 3 beware704 704 704 100 704 1 Story with basement 3 bedroom or Ins 960 960 960 1,260 960 Noes then 3 bedroom 704 704 704 1004 704 1.5 Story (split entry) 3 bedrooms or less ISO 850 850 1,250 150 Mere than 3 buena= 704 704 194 1004 704 2 Story 3 tetras or less 1,4401,440 1,440 1,140 1,440 Mm re than 3 becroo� 704 704 794 1304 704 Split level S, 11 11 S, 11 S, it S II 3 bedroom or less 960 9605' 960 1,360 960 ' Mare than I bomb-mem 704 794 - 104 10(`4 704 Single !amity Attached, pueCilyenho4te()welling Unit 2 I Story 3 bedroom or less 800 1100 600 1.5 Story 3 bedroom or less 1,440 1,400 1,400 2 Story 3 bedroar or Less 1,400 1,400 1,400 Multiple bwettirs unit6 Efficiency SCO? 5007 5007 1 bedroom 8008 eve 1001 ave 1001 M 2 bedrooms 1,0004 erg 1,0004 M 1,0004 avg More than 2 beost roa Minimum Setbects (feet)9 front Tsrdl 50 35 25 25 25 40 30 30 Side wards Interior Lots 15. any aide IS Any One Side S S S S 6 15 Both Slate Combined 30 30 15 15 16 30 Ferrer Lot Interior Side 5 5 5 5 6 IS Side Abutting Public tub 30 30 15 15 15 30 Corner Lot Abutting Major Street Interior Side S S S 5 5 15 15 Side Abutting Major Street SO 35 25 25 25 40 40 liar T r 30 30 30 30 30 40 40 30 Garage and Accessory Buildings (tree adjacent lot exclusive 5 5 5 5 5 5 S S of easements) Double Geroge Dain, Garage bauble Garage Double Garage Single featly legvired Inquired lequiretd Inquired Requires Gable Garage Motu eeight (I f)10 3 Story or 35' 3 Story or 35' 3 Story or 35' 3 Story or 35' 3 Story or 35' 3 Story or 35'_ 3 Story or 35' 3 Story or 35' FOOTNOTES 1. 7,000, 5,000, 2,500 and 1,000 square feet per unit required for two family, townhouse or quadraminium, multiple family and elderly housing, respectively. 2. Refer to 375:18 Subd. 5(a) (3) and (4) for varying square footage requirements. 3. Refer to Section 375:72 Subd 4 (g) for reductions in square feet of lot area per unit when bonus features are provided. 4. Additional square footage required for each bedroom over 3. 5. No more than 100 square feet to be used for utility space. 6. Refer to Section 375:18 Subd 5 (b) for varying square footage requirements. 7. 440 square feet for elderly housing. 8. 520 square feet for elderly housing. 9. Refer to Section 375:15 for items not considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements. 10. Refer to Section 375:18 for items to which the height limits do not apply. Garages and accessory buildings shall not exceed 15 feet in height, except for farm buildings. 11. Excludes first level of dwelling. . W W O ~ O O 0 0 0 0 to rig S U 1-• V •.t 4 4 .t .-. cc W J .t xS C v 1 Z = H ^ ' 7 ll .iJ L L L LT. O O O (\j r ✓ ✓ ✓ � � ••••-• ? •----• W - �y ( cr z z C. OL Z W < ( < ( ( Ifs V1 0 N.1 0 M Y1 0 L L Z Z • • (/) O O N O O N Lit Co i . f1 W, 7 1. a H' UI = �' 1 C CO d 0 C 0 0w§ CNQC U X J - Y Y Y Y �[O \ Y \ W W • ( L L L L L p • L O 7 \ m o C C C 0 ✓ C 0 ✓ co C C z a C. C. C. d w d•C•. • CBiN yC sO O O O O 0 < 0 WOce O N N N 2 V NPA P •O N W .•. .• .( . N r Jr N = W .- C ✓ W 0 . in M Cc in N in N N N CDM V 11- Jr. irli 4 L O d••O d ' CC « CO o .n u rn� o Irill O .N-- M M N N CO CO N u'1 W CO N Col v✓d N O C NO O d t 6-,E CO .- NVNm co_ = O.N I 5r o 0 0 0 0 o in L W V1 M M M M M M W L 4. • O O O O O EL CV 0 0 W M y • 4.. O 0 0 f fO ECi 4..C t = -• ..c 13 P � p O C0 CCCO 7 .- c• ; E.F mn f 2 Z in LL = O O O O VP tO O O M N O Ifs4 CV PA _ L L O V N P r N �i N < O M in O O O O M C e, 0 i N C u 1 . U c.o C CO _ ` N y N PA N C•W o ( 3 'Cd i sr � N C > u 4 V d 10 v W H • IIII ti W 0 cc ^~• O O O O Oo v= S v d M<i CI W ►- , S N tW ^ N M M n t _ CIC X W Q — 0 0 0 0 2 < N C[m S 4 m L A L. L L 4(CIC >O >O >.0 >O L ✓ L ✓ L ✓ L L . C\• v O N O N O N O N N.— N.r N— N..- 0 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Ar H ^ M 7 7 DC Q 2 NUn nun nun Mtn t 00 00 00 00 z 14▪.1 Lu a-cc W Z C ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ cc 0 0 0 0 ` 0 Z O C,� C 12 OI 1Z Ca Of C, 1 = � • C ✓ C ✓ � ✓ � ✓ J ✓ _ N W W - • 3 E U E E Esv d v C, i i i O CL p 4 p d 0 O. i L. m • 0 Lf' N 0 0 ..4 •O N N L/1 un 1 0., ..4 DC U U 4 L N • 0 O O O O wv, ,z, -0 m N v •O •O a- li .-- 1 0 - c SC r X °['v, . 0 0 0 0 0 p LO)LL 00 N M M LA . I a., - O 0 1A 1l� O C h 1` Ln 1: : : : : : In hi In 2 _ Cil d W N a) M N U CY U LO. L L CIC t C o Cu < _ V, \ L O N 1f1 V1 Z SCN CO , P _\ CO 0 • CO 4.• X21- .r . • d M ` p u • i \ C .gyp ✓ C 4! • _ 41).0 ea u tel 0 .......i v. L 01 a n L, a Z ei .0.•G tZ N IA LI COC d I-w ►- N W • . 11—lOC C.7= jy. M I•Ot M O O c,, ... d v w i- x y w IA O 4 m '-t • E :c. M N N K1 N Z <m O O p C C w v Z G UJ CC .. t OC L L L L 6. !.y ° T OOC LL I.- 4, L✓ ` L ✓ L ✓8v ✓ C ° y oy 0 yi S Min N.t N.* M.t Nv lam j 00 00 00 00 00 1 ict y ` . 1.1 r=t 11 ce C " CE dE liii c4 = 4 Co Co a0 a 0 d 0 a O. to LII O• o o L .c ryO v° a •✓ '^ s*m'y,... � 4 -1 � v O O'y'w N N in N i i 4, • N r..i L L IL 1..., IAin M M M i II ✓ • O O i. ) ^O N M 01 o 1 1 N i3 1 w d ° a 0 0 et d 0 0 ` L O u u 00 0 u o 4 C 0 V1 O O N N N N CO N. ••, P O 4-• co O O ,Il • 2 r... L O .- 4.1 an U 1... 4.0.0 w u-0 ea Yon LO, C N Odm w >W V 4 ✓oU U �` V = 4 L tit ! O i U V g w eV y W 11-10d _ 1 1 l L V • SECTION 11.30. I - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. Subd. 1. Purposes. The purpdses of the I-Industrial District are to: (1) Reserve appropriately located arra fo. industrial and related activities; (2)Protect areas appropriate for industrial use from intrusion by inharmonious uses; (3) Protect residential and commercial properties and protect nuisance-free, non-hazardous, industrial uses fror noise, odor, insect nuisance, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat and cold, glare, truck and rail traffic, and othe objectionable influences, and from fire, explosion, noxious fumes, radiation, and other hazards incidental to certain industrial uses; (4) Provide opportunities for certain types of industrial plants to concentrate in mutually beneficial relationship to each other; (5)Provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern industrial development includin off-street parking and truck loading areas and landscaping; (6) Provide sufficient open space around industria. structures to protect them from the hazards of fire and minimize the impact of industrial plants on nearby uses; (7) ' Minimize traffic congestion and avoid the over-loading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings c excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them; and, (8) Permit and reserve areas for employmer activity and service to the public which do not materially detract from nearby industrial uses. A. Special Purposes of Industrial Park Districts. • 1. To establish and maintain high standards of site planning, architecture, and landscape design that will create an environment attractive to the most discriminating industries and research an development establishments seeking sites in the Metropolitan area. 2. Provide and ensure the continuity of locations for industries that can operate on small sites wit'minimum mutual adverse impact. B. Special Purpose of the IGEN General Industrial District. To provide locations where industries that desires larger sites and outside storage can operate with minimum restriction and without adverse effect on otht uses. l Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. Manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, distribution, processing, packaging, assembling, compounding, . and accessory uses, conducted within a building. B. Office Uses. • C. Public facilities and services. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 D. Supporting minor commercial uses as contained within office/industrial buildings,providing a supplemental function to the major office and/or industrial use. The commercial use is not to exceed 15% of the groca Floor Area Ratio of the building it occupies. Source: Ordinance No. 9-87 4 Effective Date: 5-7-87 E. Gymnasium. —1 Source: Ordinance No. 16-82 Effective Date: 1-14-83 • 11-34 ' _i ' 1111 Subd. 3. Required Conditions. A. Acceptable, approved sanitary sewer service must be provided to all occupied structure. B. Zoning requests will be considered only on the basis of a Comprehensive Guide Plan for the entire area to be zoned and specific plans for initial structures and site development. 1 C. Office uses as permitted in the Office District shall be permitted in the Industrial District. Office use in the Industrial District shall in no event exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area of the structure. Such office use shall comply with all of the requirements of this Chapter. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 (Sections 11.31 through 11.34, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) SECTION 11.35. PUB - PUBLIC. 1111 Subd. 1. Purposes. The purposes of the PUB - Public District are to provide a procedure for the orderly establishment of public facilities, expansion of their operations, or change in the use of lands owned by governmental agencies and for the identification of drainage ways and flood plains. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. 1111 A. Public facilities and services. B. Drainage ways and flood plains approved by the Council. IN Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 C. Churches. Source: Ordinance 137-84 1 • Effective Date: 1-17-85 D. Cemeteries. E. Private schools and related boarding facilities which have public sanitary sewer and water service and which are located within the following area: Source: Ordinance No. 12-87 • Effective Date: 3-17-88 (Sections 11.36 through 11.39, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) SECTION 11.40. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT. IN Subd. 1. PUD Concept Review. Any person or persons who may apply for a PUD may request a concept review ("PUD Concept Review") with respect to land which may be subject to a PUD. The purpose of a PUD Concept 1111 Review is to afford such persons an opportunity, without incurring substantial expense, to have the general 11-35 11 111 feasibility of a PUD proposal considered. PUD Concept Review shall consist generally of an informal consideration by the Planning Commission and the Council of such person's PUD proposal. PUD Concept Review may be held with a public hearing. An application of PUD Concept Review may provide such information with respect to the request as the applicant shall deem appropriate in consultation with the Director of Planning. An applicant for PUD Concept Review shall pay all fees and costs provided for in this Chapter. Upon conclusion of a PUD Concept Review the Planning Commission and Council may make such recommendations and comments and take such action with respect to the proposal as they deem appropriate, provided, however, no approval under this Section shall constitute, or in the future require,approval or formal establishment or designation of a PUD,zoning or subdivision by the Council of the land which is the subject of the PUD Concept Review. Subd. 2. Definition. As used in this Section, the term 'original district" means a zoning district described in this Chapter. Subd.3. Zoning District Supplement. Planned Unit Development District('PUD")is supplementary to a zoning district within or encompassing all or a portion or portions of one or more original districts in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. Subd. 4. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to: (1) Encourage a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land in the City; (2) Allow variety in the types of environment available to the people of the City; (3) — Encouraee more efficient allocation and maintenance of privately controlled common open space through the distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible; and, (4) Provide the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 12 (relating to subdivisions) of this Code while at the same time preserving the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants. Subd. 5. Designation. All PUD's shall be designated in the legal description of the original district being supplemented. Cc r?Ce 1 Subd. 6. Minimum Area. A PU13 must include an area of at least 15 acres. l , QA6 ._�f-9/ EYt' /Q-s-i/ Subd. 7. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses set forth in this Chapter pertaining to the original district or districts _ within a PUD shall apply to and be permitted uses in that part of a PUD in which such a district is encompassed, except as such use or uses may be limited by a development plan, an agreement or imposed by the City as a condition to approval of the PUD. • Subd. 8. Zoning and Subdivision Standards and Requirements. All standards and provisions relating to an original district as set forth in this Chapter and to the subdivision of land as set forth in Chapter 12 (if land which is the subject of a PUD is or will be subdivided in connection with a PUD) shall apply to an original district situated within a PUD and to such land subdivided or to be subdivided unless any such standards or requirement has been modified or waived as provided in Subparagraph A and B hereof. A. Any standard or provision, except permitted uses, set forth in this Chapter relating to an original district may be waived or modified by the City provided the ordinance relating to such PUD sets forth specifically or by reference to a development plan or an agreement such modification or waiver. B. Any standard or provision set forth in Chapter 12 relating to the subdivision of land which is the subject of a PUD and is being or will be subdivided in connection with a PUD may be waived or modified as provided in Chapter 12. 11-36 Subd. 9. Application. An applicant for a PUD shall submit in the application all of the material required by this Chapter for rezoning and if land encompassed within the PUD is to be subdivided, all of the material required by Chapter 12 of this Code relating to the subdivision of land. In addition, an applicant shall submit the following information: A. Project Identification. The following and such other information as is necessary to clearly and completely describe the project shall be provided: 1. Ownership. Identify all owners legal and g equitable of and all encumbrances and easements upon the land within the proposed PUD. 2. Developer. Identify all parties involved in the development, including their previous experience and the nature and extent of their participation. 3. Financing of Project. Identify the source and type of financing of the project, including financing such as: Municipal Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Housing Revenue Bonds, or t otherwise. 4. Development Method. Describe what will be done with the project, if approved, and who will do it. Will the property be marketed undeveloped; rough graded; developed; or will the developer carry the project through actual construction of structures? Will structures be retained, sold, or leased? S. Development Timing. Specify timing of each stage of development from initial site development through building construction. Any phasing of different portions of the project should be clearly explained. 6. Critical Public Decisions. Identify all governmental agencies which have review authority over _ any portion of the development, what aspect of the project required their review, and what approvals are necessary. Explain what public improvements would be necessary to serve the project, such as: utilities, roads, road improvements, parks, schools, etc. 7. Other Information. Include any other information necessary to explain the unique characteristics of the project. _ B. Plan Area Identification. Provide the following to identify the land included in the proposed PUD. 1. PUD Boundaries. A plan clearly denoting overall project boundaries. 2. PUD Area. A plan which shows the overall PUD area as well as the adjacent parcels and their ownership. 3. Regional Relationships. A description of regional factors the plan is predicated upon such as: market area, population centers, major roads, railroad, airport, proximity to Regional Services, etc. Also describe any impact the PUD would have on Regional Services and Systems. 4. Existing Land Use and Occupancy. S. Existing Transportation Systems. Describe how the land within the PUD will be served by transportation systems and provide an analysis of the PUD's impact upon such transportation systems. If transportation systems are not adequate to accommodate the traffic expected from the • 11-37 � t � 1111 111 development, describe improvements necessary. Illustrate how the plan provides for pedestrian and bicycle sidewalks and trails and how they tie into the City-wide system. P6. Existing Zoning. A map which shows the existing zoning and zoning of adjacent parcels. A listing of any zoning district changes or variances from City Code provisions should be provided. 111 7. Guide Plan and PUD Concept Framework. A map which shows the Guide Plan Designation of the project and surrounding uses. If the plan was originally part of a PUD Concept Review, the plan reviewed should be submitted together with a comparative analysis of the proposed PUD. 8. General Analysis and Conclusions. C. Plan Area Analysis. Provide the following relating to analysis of the plan: 1. Two-foot contour topographic map depicting existing and proposed contours should be submitted at a scale of 1' = 100'. IE2. A soils map depicting surface and subsurface conditions that may affect construction. 3. A map depicting vegetation of the site with detailed locations of trees 12' or over in diameter. 4. All water, streams, lakes, marsh,ponds, drainage, subsurface, flood plains, should be denoted on a site plan. 5. Photographs of the site sufficient to convey its general visual qualities and relationship to area and proposed development. 6. A general discussion of natural ecological factors, analysis and conclusions. 7. A utility plan which illustrates the easements, and general sewer, water, and power services to all uses. 8. Preliminary architectural drawings depicting normal detail achieved during 'design development phase" of architectural design process (does not include single family detached housing). 9. Legal instruments for plan implementation including homeowner's association documents, scenic, pathway, drainage, or other easements and private documents, etc. 10. Housing or land/building use profile including computations of gross/leasable square footage, housing unit breakdown to square foot, bedrooms, persons/unit, parking requirements, etc. D. Fees and Costs. Applications for a PUD shall be filed at the office of the Planning Director. A non- refundable application fee in the amount established by the Council by resolution to defray administrative costs shall accompany each application. A deposit established by the Planning Director shall accompany the application. The deposit or a portion thereof, will be refunded after final Council action on the proposal if the total sum is greater than the administrative review cost, which may include, but not be limited to: 1. Consultant fees assisting in City review. 2. City Staff time expended in specific development review. 11-38 3. Mailing, legal notices and other administrative costs. 4. Any other reasonable costs incurred by the City in review of the proposal. Full payment by the proponent of all fees and costs for City review must be made prior'to consideration of the application. Subd. 10. Public Hearing. A public hearing on an application for a PUD shall be held before both the Planning Commission and the Council. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of each hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When a PUD involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 500 feet of the property to which the PUD relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to whi.;h the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made. A. Ana application for a PUD maynot be acted upon by the Council until it has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of referral to the Planning Commission. • B. In the event land within a PUD is or will be subdivided in connection with a PUD, such subdivision pursuant to, or any waiver or modification of any provision of, Chapter 12 may be approved only upon compliance with such additional procedures as are set forth in Chapter 12. Subd. 11 Findings Required. The findings necessary for approval of a PUD shall be as follows: A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the City. B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. Any exceptions to the standard requirements of this Chapter and Chapter 12 of this Code are justified by the design of the development. D. The PUD is of sufficient size,composition,and arrangement that its construction, marketing,and operation , t Gt2L5t feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit 34-1.4-{ rG//i Subd. 12. Revisions and Amendments. A. Minor changes in the location, placement and height of buildings or structures as well as other matters set forth in the development plan, or any agreement, except as described in Subparagraph B below, may be authorized by the Planning Director if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final development plan was approved. B. Changes in uses as well as any modification or waiver of any standard or requirement relating to an original district or amendment of any waiver or modification thereof granted in connection with a PUD may be made only in accordance with the procedures applicable to amendments of this Chapter pertaining to zoning. Changes relating to any standard or requirement set forth in Chapter 12 pertaining to the subdivision of land or amendment of any waiver or modification thereof granted in connection with a PUD 11-39 1 • 1111 may be made only in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 12 of this Code pertaining to subdivision of land. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 SECTION 11.41. CONDITIONAL USE PERM TS. Subd. I. Declaration of Policy and Purpose. It is hereby found and declared that certain lands within the City have been included within and designated as the 'Major Center Area', (MCA), and are the subject of the 'Eden Prairie Major Center Area Planned Unit Development', (MCA-PUD), adopted by the Council on July 10, 1973, as an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The MCA-PUD as well as the Comprehensive Guide Plan contemplate multiple uses, including office uses, of the lands within the MCA-PUD. Some of the lands intended for office use are situated in the R1-22 (Residential) or the Rural District and have dwellings situated thereon. Development of some of the lands within the MCA for the uses intended has occurred. Development of some of such land has not and may not occur in the immediate future because of time, economic and other constraints. Thus, use of lands in the MCA have been and are in a state of transition. The development and use of some of the lands for the purposes intended may adversely affect the use of certain dwellings for residential purposes situated on some of the lands within the MCA. It is, therefore, advisable to enable the owners of lands on which are situated such dwellings to temporarily use or permit use of the same for other purposes under proper and specific conditions to ameliorate the impact of the transition of uses within the MCA. In order to accomplish such purposes the following provisions relating to the issuance of conditional use permits are adopted. fl Subd. 2. Areas Where Conditional Use Permits May Be Granted. That part of the following described lands situated within either the R1-22 or Rural District may be used for those permitted uses described in Section 11.20 (Office District) hereof upon issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with and subject to the provisions and conditions contained in this Section. Sec. 14, T. 116, R.22 NW-l/4 of the NE-1/4 SW-1/4 of the NW-1/4 SE-I/4 of the NW-1/4 NE-1/4 of the NE-1/4 SE-1/4 of the SW-1/4 • SW-1/4 of the SE-1/4 SW-1/4 of the SW-1/4 111 Sec. 23, T. 116, R.22 The South 650 feet of the NW-1/4 of the NE-1/4 Subd.3. Required Conditions. A conditional use permit may be granted only to the following subject condrhons. A. There shall be no business or advertising sign in excess of 8 square feet. B. The conditional use permit shall be for a period not in excess of three years, provided, however, the Council may grant a conditional use permit or permits effective subsequent to the expiration of a previously granted conditional use permit. I 1 11-40 I Section 9, Subdivision B SUBDIVISION B - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) — 1. Purpose a. The provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to provide areas which can be developed with some modification of the strict application of regulations of the normal zoning districts in accordance with the provisions and regulations contained herein, the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan, the general intent of the districts in which the development is proposed, and generally in accordance with the "Community Structure Concept" of the Comprehensive Plan. b. The provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance provide design flexibility for the development of larger parcels under single ownership or control , in order to obtain a higher quality of development than might otherwise be possible should development occur under strict application of the zoning ordinance regulations for a particular district. c. The benefit to the developer is one of design and development flexibility; in order to utilize this flexibility, the developer has the responsibility to demonstrate that its utilization .does indeed provide a development which has substantial attributes to enhance the particular area or the City in total . Expected attributes are: (1) Benefits from new technology in building design, construction and land development. (2) Demonstration of more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities and public facilities to yield high quality development. (Ord. Amend. 91-9) (3) Where proposed, recreation facilities and other public and common facilities shall be more usable and suitable located than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development procedures. (Ord. Amend. 91-9) (4) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the preservation and enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics as defined by the Plymouth "Physical Constraints Analysis". (Amended Ord. No. 82-15 & 91-9) d. The provisions for Planned Unit Developments in this section are applied in two separate and distinct forms: A Residential Planned Unit Development (R.P.U.D.) and a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (M.P.U.D.) . Where provisions are not specifically designated for either the R.P.U.D. or M.P.U.D. , they apply to both types. All property within a R.P.U.D. shall be in one or more R Districts. Within a M.P.U.D. land shall include one or more non-residence districts and may or may not include one or more R Districts. RECEIVED FEB 2 4 1992HAS 9-5 Cr -'r �nNNSEN PLYMOUTH ZONING ORLiNANCE Section 9, Subdivision B 2. Permitted Uses a. Within a R.P.U.D. no land or buildings shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) Those uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the District(s) in which the development is proposed. (2) A variety of housing types allowable in any one Residence Zoning District may be provided in any of the Residence Zoning Districts within a R.P.U.D. , subject to 3. , a., (2) , of this Subdivision. (3) Consideration will be given to the integration of small retail convenience centers, medical and professional offices within a R.P.U.D. , provided such uses are designed and intended primarily for use of the residents in the development and not in conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan as to maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood concept. b. Within a M.P.U.D. no land or building shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) Those uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the Zoning District(s) in which the development is proposed. (2) Principal uses as allowed in Subparagraph b. , (1) , above and as uses any allowable secondary uses in any of the Zoning Districts of this Ordinance. 3. Area. Density. Setbacks. Height. Signs. and Lot Coverage Regulations (Amended Ord. 89-26) a. Area and Density Regulations (1) . The minimum total land area shall be not less than forty (40) acres. Lots of less than forty (40) acres may qualify only if the applicant can show that the minimum area requirement should be waived because a P.U.D. is in the public interest and that one or both of the following conditions exist: (a) Unusual features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood are such that development under the standard provisions of the normal District would not be appropriate in order to conserve a feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. (b) The property adjoins property that has been developed under the provisions of this section and will contribute to the amenities of the neighborhood. (2) The maximum number of dwelling units allowed in a development shall be determined by the density (units per acre) approved for the development within a minimum to maximum density range for the living area (LA) category shown in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 9-6 PLYMOUTH . 'KING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B The density shall be established by the City Council with the approval of the Concept Plan based upon recommendations from the Planning Commission. The actual number of dwelling units allowed in a development shall be determined upon the review and approval of the RPUD Preliminary Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit. The actual number of dwelling units allowed shall be within the assigned density range for the development and shall be a function of the review of the detailed plans and information required for the Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plan, and Conditional Use Permit. The gross density allowable in any RPUD shall fall within this range to only the degree that the RPUD Plan responds to the intents and purposes of this PUD Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The allowable gross density shall be for only that land above the high water elevation established by the adopted City Storm Water Drainage Plan as verified by the City Engineer. To enable an objective assignment of gross density, a density bonus system is hereby established providing for gross density to be allocated in increments between the minimum density and the maximum density as per the LA category density ranges. The allowable gross densities with bonuses applied are as indicated on the Bonus Point Table in this section. (Amended Ord. No. 82-15) 9-7 PLYMOUT, ZONING ORDINANCE _ Section 9, Subdivision B BONUS POINT CALCULATION TABLE LAND USE TYPE PERMITTED GROSS DENSITY PER ACRE Number of Bonus Points ) =1 =2 = LA-1 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 LA-2 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 LA-3 2.8 3Th 3.5 4.0 4.5 LA-4 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Number of Bonus Points 4 1 2 3 A 5 LA-1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 LA-2 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 LA-3 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 ' 7.0 7.5 LA-4 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 Number of Bonus Points .6 2 13 9 14 LA-1 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 LA-2 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 LA-3 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.0 10.0 LA-4 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 Bonus points may be assigned by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission with Concept Plan approval on the following basis: 9-8 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDI.:ANCE Section 9, Subdivision B BONUS POINT CALCULATION CRITERIA (Amended Ord. No. 82-15) (a) The project is of a viable scale for PUD design -- Add one (1) bonus point for each ten (10) acres of project size above forty (40) acres up to four (4 or subtract one (1) bonus point for each five (5) acres of project size under forty (40) acres (no fractional assignment) . Minimum project size may not under any circumstances be less than 15 acres. (b) The project proposes a significant percentage of quality housing affordable by persons of low and moderate income as defined by the Metropolitan Hoising Authority; only projects demonstrating a firm commitment for the financing of such housing under a bona fide Federal , State, Metropolitan, or local program; or under a bona fide private financing program which provides for the same assurances, shall be eligible -- 0-2 points. (c) The project provides a variety of housing types to include a substantial mix of attached, detached and apartment-type dwelling units subject to the following criteria: -- 0-2 points. Type of Dwelling Units Percentage Mix . Points - Detached Single 100% 0 - Detached Single with attached 40% or less 1 - Attached with Multi-story Apartment 50%/50% 1 - Detached Single, Attached, 40%/30%/30% 2 NOTE: The percentage mix may be adjusted up to 10% to allow for design alternatives in all living area categories except LA-1 . (d) The project clearly demonstrates affirmative design through provision of private/public open space, net (exclusive) of required street right-of-way, required public park and trail dedication, required storm drainage ponding areas, and required rear yards, according to the following schedule: -- 0-2 points. Percentage of Open Space Points 10 - 20% net area 1 20% or more net area 2 (Amended Ord. No. 86-07) b. Front, Rear and Side Yard Building Setback Regulations: Building setbacks from all property lines shall conform with the standards of this ordinance except as otherwise authorized and shown on the approved final P.U.D. plan. c. Building Height Regulations 9-9 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B Height limitations for any building in a P.U.D. shall be as shown on the approved P.U.D. Plan; provided however, the following State of Minnesota Code of Agency Rules, Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division are hereby adopted by reference: 14 MCAR Section 1 .3015 (Criteria for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation) and 14 MCAR Section 1.3018 (Seaplane Operations within the Seven County Metropolitan Area) . These regulations apply to the City of Plymouth due to the classification of Medicine Lake and Schmidt Lake for seaplane operations. All developments involving structures of a height governed by these regulations shall be subject to the requirements of those regulations as if they were part of this Ordinance. (Amended Ord. No. 82-15) . d. Special Protection District Requirements. Planned Unit Developments involving land within the Flood Plain or Shoreland Management Overlay Districts shall be subject to applicable regulations set forth for those Special Protection Districts in Section 6 of this Ordinance. Section 6, Subdivision B, contains specific regulations for Planned Unit Developments in the Shoreland Management Overlay District. (Amended Ord. No. 82-33) e. Sign Requirement Signs shall conform with a Master Sign Plan that shall be considered and approved with the Final Plan. All signs shall conform with the standards of this ordinance unless specifically approved otherwise by the Master Sign Plan. Changes to the Master Sign Plan including variances from the ordinance standards for signs constitute amendments to the P.U.D. Plan and shall be considered pursuant to the amendment requirements of this section. (Amended Ord. 89-26) 9-10 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B 4. Building and Site Design. Construction. Maintenance, and Transition Regulations a. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in any PUD. b. Architectural style or type of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan. However, the overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development will be given primary considerations in the review stages of the Planning Commission and City Council c. No building permit shall be granted for any building on land for which a plan for a PUD is in the process of review or which does not conform to the approved final plan or for one phase of the final plan. d. Staging of Development: (1) Any P.U.D. Plan proposed to be constructed in stages shall include full details relative thereto and the Planning Commission and City Council may approve or modify where necessary any such proposals. (2) The staging shall include the sequence and the proposed time for beginning and completion of each stage. Such 'sequence and/or schedule may be modified by the Planning Commission and City Council on the showing of good cause by the developer. (3) The land owner or developer shall make such easements, covenants and other arrangements and shall furnish such performance bond or bonds as may be determined by the City Council to be reasonably required to assure performance and completion of private streets and utilities, landscaping and privately owned and maintained recreational facilities in accordance with the plan and to protect the public interest. e. Open Space: A primary function of P.U.D. provisions is to provide developments which will preserve and enhance the worthwhile, natural terrain characteristics and not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site. In evaluating each individual proposal , the recognition of this objective will be a basic consideration in granting approval or denial . The public or private open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Municipal Plan, park and Trail System and with the stated purpose of preserving natural site features. All open space shall be labeled on the P.U.D. Plan as to intended use and ownership. f. Operating and Maintenance Requirements for Common Facilities: In the event certain land areas or structures are provided within the P.U.D. for private recreational use or as service facilities, the owner of such land and buildings shall enter into an agreement with the City to assure the continued operation and maintenance to a 9-11 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B predetermined reasonable standard. These common areas may be placed under the ownership of one of the following, depending which is more appropriate: (1) Dedicated to public where a neighborhood wide use would be anticipated. (2) Owner control when property not subdivided. (3) Property Owner's Association, provided all of the following conditions are met: (a) The Property Owner's Association must be established prior to any sale. (b) Membership must be mandatory for each owner, and any successive buyer. (c) The open space restrictions must be permanent, not for a given period of years. (d) The Association must be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and the maintenance of residential and other facilities. • (e) Landowners must pay their pro rata share of the cost and the assessment levied by the Association that can become a lien on the property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. (f) The Association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changed needs. g. Covenants, Easements and Restrictions: The final plan shall identify and contain such proposed covenants, easements and other provisions relating to the bulk, location and density of such residential dwellings, non-residential uses and public facilities as are necessary for the welfare of the Planned Unit Development and are consistent with the best interest of the entire City. All or any of the covenants, easements and other provisions, if as part of the final plan may be modified as deemed necessary by the City Council when the final plat is approved, for the preservation of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of all City residents. h. Streets, Utilities, Services and Public Facilities: The uniqueness of each proposal for a P.U.D. requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities and services may be subject to minor modifications from the specifications and standards established in this and other City ordinances governing their construction. The City Council may therefore waive or modify the specifications or standards where it is found that they are not required in the interests of the residents or of the entire City. The 9-12 Section 9, sucalviston plans and profiles of all streets, utilities and services shall be reviewed, modified if necessary, and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official prior to the final approval of the P.U.D. plan by the City Council . All P.U.D. projects shall be served by public water and sewer systems. All utilities including electrical shall be placed underground. (Amend. Ord. 90-20) i . Transition Design: (1) The City Council has determined that specific standards and guidelines are necessary and desired with respect to the _ transition of Residential Planned Unit Developments particularly where such development contains housing types other than single family detached dwellings, and abuts existing or future residential development containing single family detached dwellings. 9-13 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B (2) The intent of the transition at the perimeter property line is to create by design, the perception of a single family detached neighborhood. (3) Elements of the transition design may include: (a) Existing topographical and vegetation features. (b) Landscape plantings. (c) Spatial buffering through yard setbacks and open space. (d) Single family detached homes. (e) Existing arterial streets. (4) The following standards shall apply as a guide to the use of various transition elements: (a) As a single element, two tiers/rows of single family detached dwellings with approved yard setback and site improvements may be used. (b) An equivalent effect of the above single element may be created through the use of spatial buffering (distance) , berming, and landscaping. (c) Sight lines and the spatial perspective of scale must be considered particularly where multi-story structures are involved so that the perception of the development from the perimeter is generally one of a one or two story roof line. (d) Spatial buffering (distance) alone is not deemed to be an effective transition, and must be supplemented with landscaping and berming. (e) Use of rights-of-way will be considered as a part of the transition only in the case of existing arterial streets which have been installed at full design standards. (Amended Ord. No. 82-15) 5. application. Review and Administration Procedures The general sequence for application, review and action on a P.U.D. shall be according to the following requirements and, where applicable to the requirements of Section 6, Special Protection Districts, of this Ordinance (Amended Ord. No. 82-33 a. Application for a P.U.D. shall be made by the owner of the property except that an option holder may apply for a P.U.D. provided his application is accompanied by a signed statement indicating no objections from the owner or owners of all properties involved in the application. 9-14 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B b. The applicant shall submit a Statement of Concept and a Concept Sketch Plan to the Planning Commission Staff for approval in principle prior to submission of a formal application for a P.U.O. Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the Concept stage is to inform the City of the applicant's intentions and to inform the applicant as to the general acceptability of the proposal before extensive costs are expended by the applicant. The Concept application shall contain as a minimum the following exhibits: — (1) Location Maps showing the location within the City and more detailed locations on half-section plat maps showing all perimeter property lines. (2) Names and addresses on self-adhesive mailing labels of all the owners for parcels under consideration and of all owners within five hundred (500) feet, as the same appear on the records of the Hennepin County Auditor. (3) A Written Statement of Consent of all owners of property within the P.U.D. District. (4) A General Statement of Concept explaining: How the proposed project will specifically address each of the' expected PUD attributes listed in this Section; the land uses proposed in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan; public lands, parks and open space and their intended ownership; availability and timing of public utilities, tentative staging and sequence schedule; financial capabilities of proposed developer(s) ; other exhibits relating to land characteristics that will affect the Concept of Development. (Amended Ord. No. 82-15) c. The Planning Commission Staff shall submit a written review along with the applicant's plans to the Planning Commission prior to their meeting to consider the proposal . The review shall contain: (1) Relationship of proposal to the surrounding neighborhood. (2) Compliance with City ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. (3) Recommended action. d. The Planning Commission shall hold an informational public meeting (not the required public hearing) of all interested parties. Property owners within five-hundred (500) feet of the proposal shall be notified in writing although failure of any such owner to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. The applicant shall be present to discuss the proposal and answer questions concerning the proposal . e. The Planning Commission shall make its recommendation on the Concept Plan to the City Council within thirty (30) days of the informational meeting. 9-15 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B f. The City Council will take action on the Concept Plan. Approval of the Concept Plan shall be limited to the general acceptability of the land uses proposed and their interrelationship. Such action shall in no way bind the Council to subsequent action on more detailed plans. g. If the Concept Plan is approved by the City Council , the applicant may then proceed to submit a Preliminary Plan as described below. h. Application for a P.U.D. Conditional Use Permit shall be filed with the Planning Commission Staff together with the required number of copies of the following plans and information: 9-16 — PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B (1) All information required in the Subdivision Ordinance for a Preliminary Plat. (2) All information required in the Zoning Ordinance for rezoning, if the property is proposed to be rezoned, which is mandatory if the subject property is in the FRD district; the names of area _ property owners on mailing labels as provided with the Concept Plan may be used, provided application is made within six months of the Concept Plan application date. (3) Location maps as required in the Concept Stage. (4) Preliminary site plan for the total parcel . (5) General location of proposed structures. (6) Amenities to be provided, such as recreational areas, open space, walkways, etc. (7) General location of parking areas. (8) Preliminary architectural concept plans (maybe perspective character sketches or a model) . (9) Tabulation of total area, area and percentage in each category, densities of residential areas, parking provisions, etc. (10) A Natural Resource Analysis containing the existing vegetation areas consisting of forest and woodlots as well as wetlands and wetland vegetation; the geology, slope, soil and ground water characteristics of the site; existing lakes, streams, ponds, drainage swales, run-off settling areas, and floodplains must be identified; analysis of the relationship of the proposed use of the existing natural conditions listed above. (11) Circulation - including vehicular and pedestrian movement throughout the site, relationship to the City Thoroughfare Guide Plan and the adjoining land, a descriptive statement of objectives and standards for the various circulation elements and the proposed jurisdiction of each component. (12) Densities and distribution for the various residential categories, projected occupant characteristics and projected market sales price of the housing units. These tabulations will be used to evaluate the adequacy of living space, open space, educational facilities, utility systems, traffic generations and other services both public and private. (13) Mass grading - indicating which areas must be adapted to allow the development proposed and how it will visually and physically affect adjoining lands, and what soil erosion and sediment controls are to be employed. 9-17 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE — Section 9, Subdivision B (14) Staging plan indicating geographic staging and approximate sequence of the plan or portions thereof. i . The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing or hearings on the P.U.D. Preliminary Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Amendment in the manner prescribed in Section 11. j . The Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, shall make its recommendations to the City Council for approval ; approval with conditions; or denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D. , preliminary plat and rezoning if considered. The Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations based on and including, but not limited to the following: - (1) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development. (2) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. (3) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circulation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces. k. The City Council takes action on the P.U.D. , Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and applicable Rezoning. The City Council may adopt the P.U.D. , Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, and applicable Rezoning or any portion thereof, as it deems advisable. The approval shall be effective only if four-fifths (4/5) of all the members of the Council concur. If approved by the City Council , the P.U.D. Plan is attached to and is a part of the Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Administrator shall then make a notation on the Official Zoning Map designating the area as a R.P.U.D. or M.P.U.D. whether or not a zoning change is involved. A number shall be assigned each R.P.U.D. and each M.P.U.D. in sequence through each year (i .e. , R.P.U.D. 74-1. . .) . If the subject property is to be rezoned, the ordinance implementing the authorized zoning change shall be adopted by the City Council but shall become effective upon publication following Council approval of the final plat and P.U.D. plan. 1 . The Final Plat and Site Plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved Preliminary Site Plan and Plat. Substantial compliance shall mean: (1) The number of residential living units has not been increased. (2) The floor area of non-residential uses has not been increased. (3) Open space has not been decreased or altered to change its original intended design or use. • 9-18 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B (4) All special conditions prescribed on the Preliminary Site Plan and Plat by the City Council have been incorporated into the Final Site Plan and Plat. m. The application for P.U.O. Final Site Plan and Plat approval shall be accompanied by the following plans and data: (1) A plan with locations of all structures including placement, size, and type with existing and proposed topography showing two foot contour intervals, except where multiple buildings are to be placed on the same lot or parcel of MPUD's involving industrial buildings shall not be required to show exact placement of such structures. (2) Preliminary architectural delineations including but not limited to building plans, elevations and sections together with preliminary specifications. These plans and specifications are applicable to all structures other than single family detached dwellings. (3) Elevations or sections through the site which will best indicate the relationship of the buildings with the various terrain features and site elements. (4) Grading and drainage plan at two foot contour intervals. (5) Utility plans for all public utilities. (6) Landscape plan prepared by a professional landscape architect. (7) Signing and lighting plans. (8) Deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, by-laws or proposed Homeowner's Association and other documents controlling the use of property, type of construction or development or the activities of future residents. (9) The procedures for approving and recording of final plats shall be followed. (10) Any other information which is necessary to fully represent the intentions of the P.U.D. n. (1) When the Final Site Plan and Plat are approved by the City Council , the Final Site Plan and all supporting documents will be filed in the P.U.O. Conditional Use Permit file and together they will form the conditions of the permit. (2) If the Final Plat is not recorded with Hennepin County and the Development Contract is not fully executed with all required bonds posted within eighteen months of the date said Final Plat and Development Contract were approved by the City Council , then the Conditional Use Permit for the P.U.O. shall become null and void. 9-19 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B o. Building permits shall not be issued for any of the structures or land alterations shall not be made until the following conditions are met: (1) Public open space has been deeded to the City and officially recorded. (2) A development contract has been approved and executed by all required parties. (3) The Homeowner's Association by-laws, covenants and deed restrictions have been approved by the City Attorney and officially recorded. (4) The construction plans for proposed structures have been approved by the Building Official . (5) The Final Plat has been approved by the City and recorded with appropriate governmental agencies as required by law. Such recorded plats shall contain a statement indicating that such plat is a part of R.P.U.D. Na._, or M.P.U.D. No.__, City of Plymouth. (6) All detailed Site Plans have been approved by the City Council . 6. General Regulations a. Rules and Regulations: The Planning Commission and City Council may from time to time amend or vary the application and review procedures and the quantity and type of documents to be presented. b. Plan Changes: The Zoning Administrator may authorize minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures after the Final Site Plan has been adopted, however, any change in use, provisions of open space and any other major change shall be made only after public hearing by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council . Any such changes shall be recorded as amendments to the Final Plan. c. Certification of Plans: All architectural and engineering plans shall be designed and certified by a professional architect or engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. The site plans may be prepared by a professional site planner, but must be certified by a registered engineer or architect. d. Review: If the development is not progressing reasonably well , according to schedule, the owner may be required to submit a statement to the Zoning Administrator setting forth the reasons for the lack of progress. If the Council finds that the, development has not occurred according to the established development schedule or is not otherwise reasonable in 9-20 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9, Subdivision B the view of the Council , the Council may revoke the Conditional Use Permit and all development shall cease until a revised schedule is approved. e. Ownership: = Application for a P.U.D. may be made only by the owner of the land involved in the application, or by his duly authorized representative, except that a long-term option or contract holder may apply, provided his application is accompanied by fully executed agreements or documents from the owner stating that he has no objections and is joining in the same as his interest may appear. The applicant must furnish with the Preliminary Plat one (1) copy of an up-to-date certified abstract title, registered property report, or other evidence as the City Attorney may require showing title or control by the applicant or other consenting owners. f. Withdrawal : Any application for a P.U.D. may be withdrawn by the applicant at any time prior to filing the required Final Plat thereof as required in the Subdivision Regulations or at any time during the approval process. g. Miscellaneous: Signs, parking facilities and any other provisions not specifically discussed in this P.U.D. Section shall be regulated by regulations contained elsewhere in this Ordinance or other applicable ordinances, laws, or regulations. 9-21 CONDITIONAL USE/PUD ORDINANCE• • 136-436 MAPLEWOOD CODE • ARTICLE V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS' • Sec. 36-436. Purpose. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the city with some discretion, based on specific standards in determining _ the suitability of conditional uses. The city is not obligated to • approve such uses. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) Sec. 86-437. Conditional Uses. Conditional use permits may be issued by the city council for the following uses in any zoning district from which they are not — permitted and not specifically prohibited: • (1) Public utility, public service or public building uses. • (2) Mineral extraction. (3) Library,community center,state licensed day care or treat- ment center (unless exempted by state law), church, hos- pital, any institution of any educational, philanthropic or • charitable nature, cemetery,crematory,mausoleum or any other place for the disposal of the human dead. — (4) An off-street parking lot as a principal use in a commercial or industrial zoning district. (5) Part of an apartment building for commercial use, in- tended for the building's residents, such as drugstore, beauty parlor, barbershop, medical office or similar use. (6) Planned unit developments (PUD). (7) Construction on an outlot. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) 'Editor's note—Ord.No. 648, 15, adopted July 20, 1969, amended Art.V of • Ch.36 to read as herein set out.Prior to amendment,Art.V pertained to similar subject matter,consisted of 1:4 36.436-36-445,and wa!derived from the following ordinnntt.— Ord.No. Section Dote Ord.No. Section Dote 535 2 1-24-83 563 1,2 1- 9-84 545 1 6-27.83 620 2 1.25.88 Supp.No.8 2300 • RECEIVED FEB 2 5 1992 CITY ur 16 ATTACHMENT 2 ZONING 4 36-438 l/ -- Sec. 36.438. Planned unit developments generally; defini- tion, purpose and intent, requirements. (a) A planned unit development(PUD)is a development having p. 1 two (2) or more principal uses or structures on a single parcel of 1 land of at least five (5) acres. A PUD may include townhouses, • apartment projects involving more than one building, multiuse • structures, such as an apartment building with retail shops at ground floor level, and similar projects. A PUD may not be di- vided unless the density distribution approved in the PUD is ensured. • (b) It is the intention of this section and the other sections of this article relating to planned unit developments to provide a V. J means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the pro- f visions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks,height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit devel- opments provided that: (1) Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. n , (2). The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. _ (3) The planned unit development would produce a develop- ment of equal or superior quality to that which would re- . sult from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. (4) The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values,safety,health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. (5) The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable • physical development and are not required solely for finan- cial reasons. (c) The development shall conform to the plan as filed with the city. Any substantive changes in the plan shall require a recom- p p. 2,3, mendation by the planning commission and approval by the city - council after a public hearing. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7.20.89) Supp. Nu R 2301 17 — • • • • • f 3G-439 A1AT'LE\VOOU CODE Sec. 36-439. Outlots. • (a) No building permit shall be issued for construction upon an S outlot, except by conditional use permit. • 1 (b) The city council shall not grant a conditional use permit for building upon any outlot, unless said outlot meets the following • conditions: • • (1) It meets the minimum size and frontage requirements pro- vided for in this chapter. • (2) It has the requisite public improvements. • (3) The permitted density under this Code has not been trans- ferred to another parcel and is, therefore, sufficient to ac- • commodate the proposed construction. • (4) The outlot is not used for permanent common open space. • (5) The proposed construction can overcome or accommodate topographical problems and peculiar site characteristics. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) Sec. 36-440. Application. • An application for a conditional use permit may be made by P• �� any person having a legal interest in the property described in the application.All applications shall be submitted to the director • of community development upon the form supplied by the city. The director shall not accept an application that is not complete. Specific application requirements shall be as stated on this form, but shall include at least the following information,if applicable: (1) All information required on the community design review board application. (2) Written justification for any PUD deviations. (3) An abstractor's certificate showing property owner's names and addresses within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundaries of the property for which the permit is re- quested. (4) Any other information required by the director of commu- nity development,the city council or the council's advisory bodies. Supp.Nu.8 2302 • 18 / ZONING t 36.441 The applicant shall also, at the time of filing such application, pay a fee to the director of community development to defray administrative expenses incurred by the city in the handling of the application,which fee shall be established by the city council, by ordinance from time to time. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7.20.89) • •0 , c— 1 L Sec. 36.491. Procedure. (a) After an application has been submitted, the director of community development shall prepare a report and recommen- . dation and submit it to the planning commission and community design review board,as appropriate, for a recommendation to the city council. The planning commission and community design review board shall take action on the application within sixty(60) • days of their respective hearing dates, unless an extension is approved in writing by the applicant. The staff report and the planning commission's and community design review board's rec- ommendations shall then be forwarded to the city council. (b) The city council shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit. This hearing shall • ( not be held until the council has received written recommenda- tions or reports from the city staff,planning commission and com- munity design review board or until sixty(60) days have elapsed from the respective hearing dates. The director of community development shall have a notice of the hearing published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days before said hearing. The director shall also cause a notice to be mailed to each of the owners of property within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundary lines of the property upon which such use has been requested, which notices are to be mailed to the last known ad- dress of such owners at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing. Such notice shall include the date, time and place of the hearing and shall describe the conditional use request. Failure of property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate any of the proceedings in this section. (c) The council may refer the application back to the planning commission when the council finds that specific questions or in- formation that may affect the final decision were not considered by the planning commission. This procedure shall only be used once for each application. Supp.No.R 2303 19 36-441 N.APLEWOOD CODE (d) The city council may approve,amend or deny an application for a conditional use permit by a majority vote. • (e) All decisions by the city council shall be final, except that • any person aggrieved by a decision may,within thirty(30)days of the decision, appeal to the county district court. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20.99) Sec. 36-442. Standards. • (a) A conditional use permit may be approved, amended or de- _ nied based on the following standards for approval,in addition to any standards for a specific conditional use found in this chapter: (1) The use would be located,designed,maintained,constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's compre- F. 2 hensive plan and Code of Ordinances. (2) The use would not change the existing or planned char. .. • atter of the surrounding area. (3) The use would not depreciate property values. (4) The use would not involve any activity,process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dan- gerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nui- sance to any person or property,because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water of air pollution, drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. (5) The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or un- safe access on existing or proposed streets. (6) The use would be served by adequate public facilities and • services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures,water and sewer systems,schools and parks. (7) The use would not create excessive additional costs for • , _ public facilities or services. (8) The use-would maximize the preservation of and incorpo- rate the site's natural and scenic features into the devel- opment design. Supp.No.8 2304 20 ( ' ZONING 1 36-443 (9) The use would cause minimal adverse environmental ef- fects. ffects. (10) The city council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or utility structure, provided the council shall first make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental units of the state would be best served by such waiver. (b) The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the use _ wauld meet all of the standards required for approval of a condi- tional use permit. The city may require the applicant provide, at his or her cost, any information, studies or expert testimony nec- essary to establish whether these standards would be met or to establish conditions for approval. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20.89) Sec. 36.443. Conditions. (a) The city council, in granting a conditional use permit,may impose such conditions and guarantees that it considers neces- sary,and ns supported by the record of the proceedings,to protect adjacent properties and the public interest, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. (b) Conditions and guarantees may include but are not limited to the following: (1) Controlling the number, area, bulk, height, illumination and location of such uses. (2) Regulating access to the property, with particular refer- ence to vehicle and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic control and emergency vehicle access. (3) Regulating off-street parking and loading areas, including the number and width of parking spaces. (4) The location and design of utilities, including drainage. (5) Denning,fencing,screening and landscnping,including un- derground sprinkling. • (6) Compatibility of appearance with surrounding land uses. (7) Preservation of the site's natural, historic and scenic fea- tures in the development design. Supp.No.8 2305 21 --�7 36-44 J MAI'LE«'UU1J CODE (8) Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signage, notwithstanding the provisions of article III (sign ordi- nance). (9) The location, dimensions and upkeep of open space. (10) Increasing required lot size, yard dimensions or setback • requirements. (11) Compliance with any plans presented. (12) A time limit for review of the permit. • (13) A written agreement, cash escrow, letter of credit or other guarantee to ensure that the project will be built as ap- proved. (14) Restrictive covenants. (15) Control of the interior and exterior components of a building,provided that such condition does not conflict with the building code. Such components may include, but nut be limited to, the finished exterior materials and installa- tion of elevators. (1G) Control of potential noise generators. • • p 3 Sec. 36.444. Start of construction or use. 1 The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may grant up to one one-year extension of the permit if just cause is shown. This requirement shall not apply to PUDs with an approved phasing plan. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the director of community development at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original conditional use permit.There shall be no charge for filing such petition. The request for exten- sion state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the conditional use permit. (Ord. No. 648, § 7-20-89) Sec. 36443. Permit duration. (a) All conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the council within one year of the date of initial approval,unless such review Supp.No.8 2306 22 ZONING 6 36.446 is waived by council decision or ordinance. At the one-year re• - view, the council may specify an indefinite term or specific term, not to exceed five (5) years, for subsequent reviews. The council may impose new or additional conditions upon the permit at the • time of the initial or subsequent reviews. • (b) A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as • • • the conditions agreed upon are observed, but nothing in this sec- ' tion shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official . controls to change the status of conditional uses.Any conditional • use that meets the agreed upon conditions and is later allowed - because of the city enacting or amending official controls shall be considered a legal nonconforming use. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) Sec. 36.446. Permit termination, suspension or revision. (a) The council may suspend or terminate the permit if the approved conditions have been violated or the use is no longer in _ effect.Where the construction of a building or structure of a mon- : etary value in excess of one hundred thousand dollars($100,000.00) . has been permitted, the council shall provide for a period of am- -`) of not less than five (5) years. Where public health, safety and welfare concerns are threatened, the five-year amor- tization period is not required and the council may determine the amortization period, if any, to be allowed. The property owner of the property upon which the conditional use permit was issued shall be notified in writing at least ten(10)days before the meeting. If the proposed termination is based on a violation of conditions, the property owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet shall also be notified. The director of community development may issue a stop order for work in progress until the council hears the • matter. (b) In the event the council in its review process decides to consider imposing additional conditions, the city council shall hold at least one public hearing on that permit. The council shall cause a notice to be mailed to each of the owners of property within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundary lines of the property, upon which such use has been established. The notices are to be mailed to the last known address of such owners at least • ten (10) days before the date of the hearing. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, • 7.20-89) • Supp.No.8 2307 • • 23 • - - - . f 36-447 h1APLEWOOD CODE - • Sec. 36-447. Reapplication. • • Whenever an application for a conditional use permit has been denied by the city council,a similar application effecting substan• - • tially the same property shall not be considered again by the city for at least one year from the date of its denial,unless the council • directs such reconsideration by at least four (4) votes. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7.20.89) Sec. 36-448. Conditional uses to conform to terms and con• ditions attached to granting of permit. (a) Any use permitted under the terms of any conditional use permit shall be established and conducted in conformity with the terms and conditions of the permit. (b) Any change involving structural alteration, enlargement, intensification of use,or similar change not specifically permitted by the conditional use permit shall require an amended permit and all procedures shall apply as if a new permit were being issued. All uses existing at the time of adoption of this article shall be considered as having a conditional use permit which contains conditions which permit the land use and structures as they existed on said date. Any enlargement, structural alter- ation, or intensification of use shall require an amended condi- _ tional use permit as provided for above.(Ord.No.648, § 5, 7-20.89) Sec. 36.449. Records. The director of community development shall maintain a record of all conditional use permits issued,including information on the use, location, conditions imposed by the council, time limits, re- ' view dates and other information as may be appropriate. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) Sec. 36-450. Filing of permit. A certified copy of any resolution approving n conditiannl use permit shall be filed with the county recorder or registrar of ti- tles.The resolution shall include the legal description of the prop- - erty.Failure to file does not effect the validity or enforceability of the permit. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) - Supp.No.8 2308 • 24 OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCE Sec.' 36-14. OL,Overlay Districts—Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the OL, Overlay District, is to provide a method .whereby the individual characteristics and development needs of • specific geographic areas or neighborhoods can be incorporated within a set of zoning regulations which will accommodate the following: • (1) Match the zoning regulations with the specific needs and problems of the particular area or neighborhood; (2) Permit the continuation of existing,underlying,basic zon- - ing districts and their control and distribution of land use; (3) Avoid distortion of underlying basic zoning districts through • attempts to provide for many individual area or neighbor- ' hood requirements; and •• (4) Avoid an undesirable proliferation of zoning districts or subdistricts in order to provide for area or neighborhood differences. (Ord. No. 381, § 902.040(1), 1.16.75) Sec. 36-15. Same—Establishment. • (a) OL Districts may be established only in conjunction with other districts.An OL designation shall be combined with whatever other district designation is applicable to the area in which an OL District is established. • • (b) The provisions of sections 36.14 through 36-16 of this article shall apply in an OL District, which district shall also be subject to other provisions of this chapter,including the provisions applicable to the particular district to which the OL District designation is added and combined; provided that where conflict between regula- tions occurs, the regulations specified in this section or in the spe- cific Overlay District shall prevail. • i (c) Whenever an OL District is established, any subsequent ap- i plication to change the district with which the OL District is corn- : bined shall not be construed to be an application to eliminate the OL District for the area covered by the application, unless such • intent is expressly stated in the application. • (d) Establishment of, and any subsequent modification of, the boundaries of any OL District shall be by ordinance amending the • zoning map of the city. Such amendment shall comply with the i requirements of article VI of this chapter. (Ord.No.381,§ 902.040(2), 1-16-75) Sec. 36-10. Sarno—District regulations. In any OL District parcel criteria,property development and use regulations may be established in accordance with the objectives identified in the district's individual purpose and intent section. • Such regulations shall be structured to implement the purpose and • intent of the individual district and shall be applied uniformly to all properties within the district. (Ord. No.381, § 902.040(3), 1-16-75) 25 ATTACHMENT 3 .•.�.•, City of AV. . BURNSVILLE 10-27-1 10-27-1 - RECEIVE() CHAPTER 27 FEB 2 4 1992 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CITY Or Lr-Iri'nr, SEN SECTION: 10-27-1: Authorization 10-27-2 : Allowed Uses 10-27-3 : Required Standards 10-27-4 : Coordination With Subdivision Regulations 10-27-5: Revisions and/or Changes 10-27-6: Phasing and Guarantee of Performance 10-27-7 : Control of Planned Unit Development Following Completion 10-27-8 : Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development 10-27-1: AUTHORIZATION: Planned Unit Development authorization may allow: (A) Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land uses, housing types and densities. (B) Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance standards associated with traditional zoning, Planned Unit Development can maximize the development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. (C) Efficiency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. (D) Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions. (E) District Integration: The combination of uses which are allowed in separate zoning districts, such as: 1. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied within the project. 2 . Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides increased density on the property if a PUD is utilized. 10-27-1 10-27-5 E) 3 . Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within the project. 10-27-2 : ALLOWED USES: Uses within the PUD may include only those uses generally considered associated with the general land use category shown for the area on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses with the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in list of uses presented in the development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD and will follow the procedures specified in Section 10-5-6 of this Title. 10-27-3 : REQUIRED STANDARDS: The City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to •achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodland and the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and residents of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the Council may find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 10-27-4 : COORDINATION WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: Subdivision review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans required under this Chapter shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for the preliminary and final plat. 10-27-5: REVISIONS AND/OR CHANGES: (A) Minor changes such as the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by Engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed with the Director of Community Development. 10-27-5 10-27-6 (B) Changes in uses, any rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. (C) All of the provisions of this Title applicable to the original district within which the Planned Unit Development District is established shall apply to the PUD District except as otherwise provided in approval of the final plan. (D) Review: If substantial development has not occurred within a reasonable time after approval of the PUD Zoning District, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district. It shall not be necessary for the City Council to find that the rezoning was in error. 10-27-6 : PHASING AND GUARANTEE OF PERFORMANCE: (A) The Planning Commission shall compare the actual development accomplished _in"the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule. (B) Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and for good cause shown by the property owner, the Council may extend the limits of the development schedule. (C) The construction and provision of all of the common open space and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final development plan must proceed at the same rate as the construction of dwelling units, if any. The Development Review Committee shall review all of the building permits issued for the PUD and examine the construction which has taken place on the site. If they find that the rate of construction of dwelling units is greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public and recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, they shall forward this information to the Council for action. 10-27-7 10-27-8 10-27-7 : CONTROL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING COMPLETION: (A) After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the planned development shall be governed by the final development plan. (B) After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the approved final development plan except upon application as provided below: 1. Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this Section may increase the cube of any building or structure by more than ten percent (10%) . 2 . Any building or structure that is totally ,or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to the final development plan is approved under Section 10-5-6. 3 . Changes in the use of the common open space may be authorized by an amendment to the final development plan under Section 10-5-6. 4 . Any other changes in the final development plan must be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under Section 10-5-6. 10-27-8 : PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: (A) Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Director of Community Development. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. 10-27-8 10-27-8 (B) General Concept Plan: 1. Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: a. Overall maximum PUD density range. b. General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. c. General location and extent of public and common open space. d. General location of residential and nonresidential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. e. Staging and time schedule of development. f. Other special criteria for development. 2 . Schedule: a. Developer meets with the Director of Community Development to discuss the proposed developments. b. The applicant shall file the concept stage application and preliminary plat, together with all supporting data. c. Within thirty (30.) days after verification by the Director of Community Development that the required plan and supporting data is adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing. d. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within three hundred fifty feet (350 ' ) of the boundary of the property in question. 10-27-8 10-27-8 B,2) e. The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. f. The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the report. The Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council. 3 . Development Stage: Following general concept approval, if given, the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with Section 10-5-6 for zoning district changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and development stages may proceed simultaneously. 4 . Applications: Ten (10) copies of the following exhibits, analysis and plans shall be submitted to the City: General Concept Stage: a. Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision Title. b. General Information: (1) The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject property. (2) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner. (3) The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. 10-27-8 10-27-8 B, 4 ,b) (4) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to- date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of Title or control of the subject property. c. Present Status: (1) The address and legal description of the property. (2) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within one thousand feet (1, 000 ' ) of the property. (3) A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within one thousand feet (1, 000' ) thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet (100 ' ) of the property. (4) A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. (5) Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100 ' ) . (a) Contours; minimum two foot (2 ' ) intervals. (b) Location, type and extent of tree cover: (c) Slope analysis. (d) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands, and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet (300 ' ) of the property. (e) Significant rock outcroppings. 10-27-8 10-27-8 B,4 ,c) (f) Existing drainage patterns. (g) Vistas and significant views. (h) Soil conditions as they affect development. All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross reference. The use of overlays is recommended for clear reference. (6) Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. (7) A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: (a) Area devoted to residential uses. (b) Area devoted to residential use by building type. (c) Area devoted to common open space. (d) Area devoted to public open space. - (e) Approximate area devoted to streets. (f) Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. (g) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. (h) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use. (8) When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public 10-27-8 10-27-8 B, 4 ,c) or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such state and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. (9) When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. (10) Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. (11) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. (12) The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or document required in this stage which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal. (13) The City may require the submission of any additional information or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD. d. Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementations of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include but not be limited to: (1) A final plan and information required by the City subdivision Title. (2) Ten (10) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100 ' ) (or scale requested by the Administrator containing at least the following information) : 10-27-8 10-27-8 B, 4 ,c) (a) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the county where the subject property is situated) . (b) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. (c) The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stories and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, including mobile homes, and existing buildings which will remain, if any. (d) Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. (e) Location, designation and total area of all common open space. (f) Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities. (g) Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system. (h) The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent properties. (i) Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping. (j ) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. (k) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. 10-27-8 10-27-0 B,4 ,c) (3) An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. (4) A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected population. (5) A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by type of activity (e.g. drug store, dry cleaning, supermarket) . (6) Preliminary architectural "typical" plans indicating use, floor plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobile homes. (7) A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and purpose of all streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping plan, structure, including mobile homes, and uses. (8) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography and natural site vegetation. The Plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. (9) A preliminary plat prepared in accordance with • the Subdivision Ordinance. (10) A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts, Department of Natural Resources, • Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. (Ord. 244, 11-15-82) BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE (10) Hospitals, sanitariums, and rest homes. (11) Interior decorating. (12) Medical and dental offices and laboratories. (13) Meeting halls. (14) Mortuaries. (15) Motels and hotels. (16) New motor vehicle sales. (17) Newspaper distribution stations and collection stations as secondary uses. _ (18) Nonprofit clubs and lodges. (19) Offices, business and professional . (20) Off-street parking and loading. (21) Personal services, including but not limited to barber shops, beauty shops, picture framing, photography studios, and locksmith shops. (22) Pet shops. (23) Photodeveloping and processing. (23.5) Printing and publishing. (24) Public and public utility uses. (25) Radio and television broadcasting stations. (26) Repair of household equipment (not including motor vehicles). (27) Retail shopping uses. (28) Schools - music, dance, business, commercial, or trade. (29) Seasonal business. (30) Theaters, except drive-ins. (31) Travel bureaus. (32) Warehouses. — (33) Wholesale businesses. (34) Day care facilities occupying no more than 30 percent of the floor area of a building. (c) Conditional Uses - (1) Animal hospitals. (2) Car washes. (3) Discount stores in excess of 26,000 square feet. (4) Outside storage. (5) Restaurants except where included with a hotel or motel . (6) Service stations. ' (7) Trailer rental or sales. (8) Truck rental . (8.5) Repair of motor vehicles. (9) Used motor vehicle sales. (10) Railroad lines. (11) Commercial recreation, including bowling alleys, pool halls, game parlors and skating rinks. (12) Physical culture and health services. (13) Reserved. (d) Combination of Uses - To allow development of smaller businesses, a combination of uses may be allowed in the same building or separate buildings provided that: (1) the total floor area is at least 4,000 square feet; (2) parking and drives are combined for all uses; (3) separate buildings are connected by common wall, corridor, passageway, or other structure; (4) all buildings of a combination are constructed at the same time. (e) Performance Standards - (1) Structures - All buildings erected on lands within Limited Business (B-1) Zoning Districts shall be of steel, reinforced concrete, Type III construction, masonry construction, or an equivalent or better. No building shall be constructed of Type V construction. Exterior wall surfaces of all buildings shall be faced with face brick, stone, architectural concrete cast-in-place or precast concrete panel , or an equivalent or better. Up to 15 percent of any wall surface of a building may be wood or metal used as architectural trim. 19-50a ZONING (2) Minimum lot size - No construction shall be permitted on any lot having street frontage of — less than 90 feet. (Combination of uses may include total frontage of combined lots to meet the 90-foot requirement. ) (3) Minimum setbacks - From any street 65 feet side lot 10 feet, unless the building is set at lot line for 0 setback, rear lot 25 feet, residentially used building 100 feet, residential zoning line 50 feet, buildings concerned in a combination of use may use common walls; but if separation exists between buildings, connection shall be provided by tunnel, corridor, passageway, skyway, or other structure, and the side-yard setback may then be variable. (4) Floor area - Any use or combination of uses shall have a building with floor area of not less than 4,000 square feet. (5) Additional design requirements - (A) Every new use of building in this zone shall have at least one flagpole a minimum of 25 feet high within the front setback area. (B) Any new building in the zone shall be planned so that all exterior sides shall be surfaced equivalent to the front. (C) In lieu of the provisions of Section 19.52(d) and (e), which require a 20-foot landscaped yard and screening along street frontage, planter boxes may be provided at least six feet in width and two feet high with permanently maintained landscaping. — (D) Within the 20-foot landscaped yard or six-foot planter, one shade tree of no less than three-inch caliper measured one-half foot from the ground shall be planted for every 50 feet of frontage. (E) Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 19.66, business signs within this District — shall be no higher than the building and shall be set back at least 20 feet from a front or side property line except when attached to the building. (F) Structure height shall be regulated pursuant to Section 19.47 of this Code. (f) Change in Existing Uses - No existing structure for any conforming or nonconforming use shall be enlarged, altered, or increased or shall occupy a greater area than that occupied on March 22, 1976, unless the building meets all of the performance standards of this Section, nbtwithstanding the provisions of Section 19.10 of this Code. • (g) Special Central Business (CB) District requirements - (1) No permit for development within the CB District shall be issued by the City until final site and building plans have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council , subject to the provisions of Section 19.40.12 of this Code. • (Code, 1958 S 7.13; Added by Ord. No. 67-69, 12-18-67; Ord. No. 68-24, 4-8-68; Ord. No. 76-12, 3-22-76; — Ord. No. 78-36, 6-5-78; Ord. No. 79-1, 1-22-79; Ord. No. 82-23, 6-21-82; Ord. No. 84-68, 12-27-84; Ord. No. 86-2, 1-6-86; Ord. No. 86-2, 1-6-86; Ord. No. 87-50, 7-27-87; Ord. No. 88-39, 5-16-88; Ord. No. 88-53, 9-19-88; Ord. No. 89-16, 3-27-89; Ord. No. 90-29, 7-2-90; Ord. No. 90-42, 9-10-90) _ SEC. 19.37.05. RAILROAD LINES. Any preliminary or final plat which has been approved as of January 22, 1979 with conditions specifically relating to railroad lines shall not be affected by Ordinance No. 79-1. (Code, 1975; Added by Ord. No. 79-1, 1-22-79) SEC. 19.38. OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS. (a) Purpose - To provide overlay zoning districts which additionally regulate uses and characteristics of uses permitted in primary zoning districts as deemed in the public interest. (b) Establishment of Districts - The following overlay districts are hereby established: (1) Planned Development PD (2) Flood Hazard FH (3) Bluff Protection BP-1 (4) Bluff Development BP-2 (5) Homart Project - HP 19-50b • 19.38 BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE (c) Applicability and Interpretation - All provisions of the Zoniny Code shall apply to the overlay zoning districts; however, in any instance where the provisions of an overlay zoning district shall conflict with the provisions of a primary zoning district, the provisions of the overlay zoning district shall take precedence and govern. (d) Supplemental Definitions - The following words and terms when used in this Chapter shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Bluff face - The finished grade surface of the Minnesota River Bluff. Caliper measure - Tree diameter measure made one inch above the root flare. Contour - Synonomous with elevation and does not imply either existing or proposed circumstances unless specified. Development potential - The theoretical maximum dwelling unit density or maximum floor area which would be permitted in a zoning district without bonus provisions or planned development incentives. District - Includes both primary and overlay zoning districts. Elevation - Shall have the meaning of height above mean sea level. Equal degree of encroachment - A method of determining tie location of floodway boundaries so that floodplain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood flow. Flood - A temporary rise in lake level or stream flow or stage that results in inundation of the areas adjacent to the channel . Flood boundary and floodway maps - Floodway delineation and floodplain boundary maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated September 16, 1981. Flood fringe - That portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. 19-50c 19.38 BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) - Flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency which are dated September 16, 1981. Flood protection elevation - An elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood or the most restrictive high-water elevation identified by a public government agency with jurisdiction, plus any increase in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain which result from the designation of a floodway. Floodplain - The areas adjoining a watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood and that includes the floodway and flood fringe. Floodway - The channel of the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplains which —. are reasonably required to carry and discharge the regional flood. Overlay zoning district - Overlay zoning districts are established to additionally regulate uses and characteristices of uses permitted in primary zoning districts in order to protect the public health, _ safety, and welfare from the improper use of land subject to flooding and other natural hazards or to provide for the most appropriate use of land by providing design flexibility to allow for the preservation of natural features, the efficient provision of streets and utilities and the sensitive blending of new development with existing uses. Over-the-bluff stormwater discharge - Sheet surface drainage which flows on the surface of the Minnesota River bluff, but does not include storm sewers which do not discharge within the Bluff Protection Overlay District. - Primary zoning district - Primary zoning districts are established to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by designating specific areas for uses of similar characteristics and requirements. In these districts, further regulations are established which are designed to protect the public well- being by regulating the location and extent of land utilization. Regional flood - A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100-year reoccurence interval . Regional flood is synonymous with the -- term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study. Regional flood elevation - The maximum high-water level of the regional flood. In instances in which the regional flood elevation is expressed in part as a fraction of a whole number, the regional flood elevation shall be interpreted as the next highest whole number (e.g. , regional flood elevation + 814.25 feet, the regional flood elevation is interpreted as 815 feet). Substantial improvement - Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure either before the improvement was started or before a damaged structure being repaired was damaged. (e) Designation - All overlay districts shall be designated on the official zoning map of the City and in the legal description of the primary zoning district which is supplemented. (Code, 1958 S 7.14; Added by Ord. No. 67-68, 12-18-67; Ord. No. 68-10, 2-19-68; Ord. No. 68-30, 4-15-68; Ord. No. 68-72, 9-23-68; Ord. No. 71-67, 8-9-71; Ord. No. 72-5, 1-10-72; Ord. No. 82-54, 12-27-82; Ord. No. 86-74, 12-15-86) SEC. 19.38.01. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) OVERLAY DISTRICTS. (a) Intent - The purpose of the Planned Development Overlay District is to promote creative and efficient use of land by providing design flexibility in the application of the provisions of a primary zoning district by providing an overlay district within any of the primary zoning districts. The planned development provisions are intended to: (1) Protect natural features in private, common or public open space, (2) Improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities, (3) Provide transitions in land use in keeping with the character of adjacent land use, or (4) Improve the arrangement of structures, facilities and amenities on a site for both private and public benefit. (b) Designation - All Planned Development Overlay Districts shall be designated on the official zoning map of the City and in the legal description of the property being overlayed. 19-51 — i 19.38.0 ZONING (c) Uses - All principal, provisional , conditional and accessory uses allowed in the primary zoning district are permitted in the Planned Development Overlay District subject to the provisions of the primary zoning district and as specified on an approved development plan. (d) Applicability - All applicable primary zoning district provisions, other than use provisions subject to the provisions of Section 19.38.01(c), are superceded by the approval of a preliminary development plan by the City Council . The approved preliminary development plan establishes the requirements for a planned development and shall govern and take precedence over primary zoning district provisions. No preliminary or final development plan shall be approved by the City Council which, for the total land area of a planned development: (1) exceeds maximum structure coverage of a lot by more than fifty percent of the applicable district provision; (2) exceeds maximum density or floor area ratio by more than twenty percent of the applicable district provision; (3) reduces minimum lot area and lot width by more than twenty-five percent of the applicable district provision; and (4) reduces minimum setback in an industrial primary zoning district from a property line adjoining a residential primary zoning district. The approval of a final development plan subject to the provisions of the Planned Development Overlay District shall satisfy the requirements for final site and building plan approval in all primary and overlay zoning districts. (e) Procedures - Prior to the issuance of any permits for development within a Planned Development Overlay District, a rezoning to Planned Development Overlay District shall be adopted by the City Council, a preliminary development plan shall be approved by the City Council , and a' final development plan shall be approved by the City Council according to the following procedures: (1) The purpose of the preliminary development plan is to establish the intent, density, and intensity for a proposed development. The applicant shall submit a preliminary development plan to the Issuing Authority together with an application for rezoning to Planned Development Overlay District. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Article II of this Chapter, to consider the rezoning request, and hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Article II of this Chapter, to consider a recommendation for approval or disapproval of a preliminary development plan. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission shall receive a report from the Issuing Authority recommending approval, disapproval or approval with specified modifications. Upon due consideration, the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council either: (A) approval or disapproval of the rezoning; (B) approval of the preliminary development plan; (C) disapproval of the preliminary development plan; or (D) approval of the preliminary development plan with specified modifications. (2) Following Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council shall hold a public hearing for consideration of the rezoning request and hold a public hearing for consideration of a preliminary development plan. At this public hearing, the City Council shall receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and a report from the Issuing Authority. Upon due consideration, the City Council shall either: (A) approve or disapprove the rezoning; (B) approve the preliminary development plan; (C) disapprove the preliminary development plan; or (D) approve a preliminary development plan with specified modifications. (3) The purpose of the final development plan is to establish a detailed development plan for a proposed development. Following approval of final development plans by the City Council, permits for development within the Planned Development Overlay Districtmay be issued. The applicant shall submit a final development plan to the Issuing Authority. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Article II of this Chapter, to consider a recommendation for approval or disapproval of a final development plan. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission shall receive a report from the Issuing Authority recommending approval , 19-52 I7.JU.UI BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE disapproval or approval with specified modifications. The Planning Commission shall determine that the proposed final devi. 1pment plan is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary development plan. Upon due consideration, the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council either: (A) approval of the final development plan; (B) disapproval of the final development plan; or (C) approval of the final development plan with specified modifications. (4) Following Planning Commission recommendation, the City. Council may hold a public hearing for consideration of the final development plan. At this public hearing, the City Council shall receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and a report from the Issuing Authority. Upon due consideration, the City Council shall either: (A) approve the final development plan; — (B) disapprove the final development plan; or (C) approve a final development plan with specified modifications. (5) The Planning Commission and the City Council shall find the following prior to the approval of preliminary development plans or final development building plans: (A) The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. (B) The planned development is not in conflict with any adopted district plan. (C) The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the primary zoning district. (D) The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City Code, subject to the provisions of Section 19.38(c). — (E) The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. (F) The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. (G) The planned development will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of neighborhood property. (H) That any variation from strict application of the primary zoning district provisions in the planned development are not in conflict with the intent of the Planned Development Overlay District _ and are justified by the design of the proposed development. (6) Minor changes to final development plans adopted by the City Council may be approved by the Issuing Authority, provided that the changes do not involve the following: (A) Increase in floor area of structures or number of dwelling units. (B) Change in exterior building material . (C) Alteration of any condition attached or modification to the final development plan made by the City Council . (7) A major change to a final development plan which is at variance with any standards of the City Code or is less restrictive than any conditions of approval for the initial final development plan, shall require approval by a majority vote of all members of the City Council . — (f) Preliminary Development Plan Content (1) The applicant shall submit preliminary development plans which include the following: (A) A location map which indicates existing and future land uses. (B) Maps of existing and proposed site features and uses at a scale specified by the Issuing Authority which indicates topography in two-foot contours; building outlines; location of significant vegetation; location of streets, drives and parking areas; and other significant features. (C) Drawings of all proposed structure elevations including signs. (D) A preliminary circulation plan indicating pedestrian and vehicular movement systems. This plan shall also include service access for receiving material and trash removal . (E) A preliminary drainage, grading, utility and erosion control plan. • (F) A written report which indicates covenants or agreements which will influence the use and maintenance of the proposed development, describes the analysis of site conditions and development objectives which has resulted in the planned development proposal, and statement of which primary zoning — district provisions are being modified by the planned development. (G) A shift of density or intensity plan, if applicable. 19-53 ZONING (H) Any other information deemed necessary by the Issuing Authority in order to evaluate plans. (I) Five copies of the above information shall be submitted plus one reduced set no larger than 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches. (2) For City initiated rezonings to Planned Development Overlay District, the preliminary development plan may consist of any information deemed necessary to identify and protect the public interest. (g) Final Development Plan Content - The applicant shall submit final development plans which include the following information: (1) A location map which indicates existing and future land uses. (2) Maps of existing and proposed site features and uses at a scale specified by the Issuing Authority which indicate topography in two-foot contours; building outlines; location of significant vegetation; location of streets, drives and parking areas; and other significant features. (3) Detailed drawings of all proposed structure elevations, including scaled elevations of all signs. Samples of all proposed materials which will be used on the exterior of structures may be required with the elevation drawings. (4) Proposed floor plans for all floor levels. (5) A landscape plan indicating tree and shrub species, luminaire location, type and height, and provisions for plant material watering. (6) A final circulation plan indicating pedestrian and vehicular movement systems. This plan shall also include service access for receiving and trash removal . (7) A final drainage, grading, utility and erosion Control plan. (8) A written report which indicates covenants or agreements which will influence the use and maintenance of the proposed development, describes the analysis of site conditions and development objectives which has resulted in the planned development proposal , and statement of which primary zoning district provisions are being modified by the planned development. (9) A shift of density or intensity plan, if applicable. (10) Any other information deemed necessary by the City Council in order to evaluate plans. (11) Five copies of the above information shall be submitted, plus one reduced set no larger than 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches. (Added by Ord. No. 82-54, 12-27-82; Ord. No. 89-55, 10-23-89) SEC. 19.38.02. FLOOD HAZARD (FH) OVERLAY DISTRICTS. — (a) Intent - The Flood Hazard Overlay District is established to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare; to minimize the extent of floods and flood losses; to assure the appropriate use of land; to regulate uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property in time of flooding or which _ cause excessive increases in flood heights and velocities; and to provide an overlay zoning district within any of the primary zoning districts. (b) Permitted Uses - Within the Flood Hazard Overlay District, only the following uses having a low flood damage potential and not obstructing flood flows shall be permitted to the extent that the use is not prohibited by a provision of the primary zoning district and provided that the use does not require Structures, fill, or storage of materials or equipment: (1) Agriculture. (2) Public government use. (3) Parks, playgrounds, golf courses, and tennis courts. (4) Public utility installations, but not buildings or electric substations. (c) Conditional Uses - Within the Flood Hazard Overlay District, only the following conditional uses having a low flood damage potential may be granted pursuant to Section 19.22 of this Chapter to the extent that the use is not prohibited by any provision of the primary zoning district: (1) Uses having principal structures. (2) Uses having structures accessory to open space. (3) Uses having structures accessory to public government uses and public utility installations. (4) Uses requiring placement of fill . 19-54 19.38.02 BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE — (5) Extraction of sand, gravel, anu other materials, including dredging. (6) Marinas, storage of boats, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and water-control structures. — (7) Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipelines. (8) Temporary storage of equipment, machinery, or materials related to on-site construction activities. (9) Flood-control uses such as dams, levees, dikes, and flood walls. (d) Prohibited Uses - All uses not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in the Flood Hazard Overlay District, and specifically mobile homes, are prohibited. (e) Procedures - The following rules and procedures for interpretation of boundaries, determination of flood characteristics, recordkeeping, notification of governmental agencies, granting of conditional — uses and variances, and amendment of these provisions shall be observed. (1) The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources shall be notified by the City at least ten days in advance of any public hearin; for a conditional use within the floodplain or variance to floodplain requirements and shall be notified within ten days of any official action taken under the provisions of this Section. Additionally, no amendments to the floodplain regulations shall be made without written approval of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2) The issuance of a variance or conditional use permit for any use shall not allow for a lower degree of flood protection than that established within the floodplain regulations. (3) The Issuing Authority shall maintain a record of the elevation of the first floor, including basements, and the elevation to which the structure is floodproofed of all new structures or — additions to structures in the Flood Hazard (FH) Overlay District. (4) In determining the regulatory flood protection elevation of a proposed use for a conditional use permit, the Issuing Authority may require the applicant to submit the following information and any additional information as deemed necessary to make a decision: (A) Five copies of a typical valley cross section showing the channel , cross-sectional areas to be occupied by the proposed development, and high-water information. (B) Five copies of plan views showing elevations or contours of surface features; fill or — storage elevations; size, location, and spatial arrangement of all existing and proposed structures; location and elevations of streets; photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and downstream; and soil type. (C) Five copies of profiles showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream for at least 500 feet in either direction from the proposed development. (D) .Five copies of an approved administrative plat or standard plat showing the limits of the floodplain, floodway, and the regional flood elevation height. One copy of the above information shall be transmitted to the appropriate watershed district or designated expert for review and recommendation regarding determination of the flood protection elevation and the extent of the floodway at the site. Procedures consistent with Minnesota Regulations NR-86-87 shall be followed in making this determination. In making this determination, the watershed district or designated expert shall estimate the peak discharge of the regional flood, calculate the water surface profile of the _ regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and over-bank area, and compute the floodway necessary to convey the regional flood without increasing flood stages more than one-half foot. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach shall be assumed. Utilizing the recommendation of the appropriate watershed district or designated expert, the Issuing Authority shall — determine the extent of the floodway and the flood protection elevation. (f) Special Flood Hazard Overlay District Requirements. (1) Any fill deposited in the floodplain shall be no more than the minimal amount necessary to conduct a conditional use. Fill shall be limited to that needed to grade and landscape for the use and shall not in any further way obstruct the flow of floodwaters. Fill from dredging or sand and gravel extraction shall not be deposited in the floodway unless it can be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 19.22(6) of this Code. All fill shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, permanent paved surfaces, o- erosion control devices approved by the appropriate watershed district. 19-55 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19 , 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p .m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Steve Emmings MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT : Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Kate Aanenson , Planner II ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ; Todd Gerhardt , Asst . City Manager ; and Dave Hempel , Senior Engineering Technician Batzli : We 're going to rearrange our agenda briefly , while we 're waiting for some technical difficulties to be resolved with our overhead projector . We 're going to jump into the old business , organizational items first and take care of those things before we hold our public hearings . ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY—LAWS. Batzli : What I 'd like to suggest is that we have staff take a look at them and make them gender neutral . Also there is a typographical error somewhere . Someplace here and I can 't find my copy now because we skipped ahead here . Does somebody have their copy handy? In Section 4 . 1 , first paragraph . Third sentence reads , each member shall cast it 's ballot for the member he wishes to be chosed for chairman . And I remember . Emmings : What 's wrong with that? Batzli : Chosed for chairman? Well , first of all there 's a he in there and I 'd like that to be gender neutral but I would like it to read , eliminate chosed for and have it read , elected as . Any problem with that anybody? And also chairman throughout I think should be chairperson and then wherever it 's he , it should be added , or she and there are several places throughout . If we can just do that kind of by voice vote tonight . Krauss: We can make those changes . Batzli : Okay . Any other changes? So we need to adopt the By-laws if somebody would like to make a motion , as amended . Emmings : So moved . Batzli : Second anyone? Conrad: Second . Batzli : It 's been moved and seconded that we adopt the Planning Commission By-laws as amended . Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to adopt the Planning Commission By-laws as amended . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 2 LIAISON ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS . Batzli : Steve , the last year has been attending just about all of them anc in the past we 've rotated . I prefer to rotate I think . I will try to attend as many as possible myself probably but . Erhart : I prefer to have Steve keep doing it . Batzli : Okay , then Steve can just go . — Conrad: Oh , you 're really squirrels tonight . Batzli : He 's not going to make it easy . Conrad : Kind of a freshman chairman . Batzli : That 's right . He 's going to nail me . I would prefer to see rotation . Is someone against having to go to one out of 7 Council meetings? — Conrad: That 's probably a smart thing to do . It 's also though , what did you say Brian? You were going to try and make as many as possible? Batzli : Yeah . Conrad: The continuity is also real valid , and Steve , what was your — feeling when you were there? Did they call on you quite a bit? Did they get to know you and feel confident? Emmings : I went to about 1 out of 7 . And lots of times didn 't make it to the planning issues because they tend to come on later . Wasn 't really , when I was there and there was a planning issue , and now we 're getting down to kind of a fluke , I didn 't think they were , there were only 1 or 2 occasions where they were interested in input from me . Their dynamics are so different than ours that I can 't say that while I thought it was important to be there and watch how they work , I don 't think it really gave— me much to bring back here . Batzli : But see that 's why I would rather have it rotate . Because I would_ like everybody to at least see the dynamics and how they 're resolving some of our issues rather than forcing m 'oi or one other person to attend every meeting for that . Because I also have attended a lot of meetings where they don 't call on you at all or else they 'll note that I 'm in the audience . Well why don 't we ask him and then somebody else jumps in and so they never end up asking anyway . So you know . Conrad: That 's because it 's you . Batzli : That could be too . I think the upshot was that we 're going to have a rotating . So we need a schedule for rotation among all the commissioners . Krauss: Okay . From our standpoint we can do that . The only thing for us — is we mail out a Council packet to who 's ever going to attend so when you - Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 3 get the Council packet . We ' ll make up a schedule . Batzli : I 'd like you to give everybody the schedule also. Krauss : Just as a reminder too . Your proposal that the City undertake a Highway 5 corridor study is going to be heard at the Council on Monday . So - — if you wish to be there . LIAISON ATTENDANCE AT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETINGS . Batzli : Our last bit of old business to clean up here , and I note that we 've got our overhead so we can move onto our public hearings after this , is the Liaison at the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meetings . Is - anyone interested in doing that? Ledvina : I ' ll volunteer . Batzli : Okay . So in the future Paul , if you can deliver the packets . Conrad: Before we move on Mr . Chairman , we had a problem with terms . I 'm - reflecting back on . • Batzli : By-laws? Conrad: On By-laws . I 'm sorry , just catching up but we did have a problem with staggering terms . Now with new members , actually with Matt on board , no . With 4 new appointments , we did stagger them and how did we stagge) , , . . ; y -10,1, 1 .1 be strgc, , :' t - > 2 years for rotation and what have you . We shouldn 't end up with what we had the last time . Krauss: You did wind up staggering them . As I recall , Tim was absent from that meeting and got stuck with the longer term . Conrad: And that was perfect . So do we need to adopt something specifically to stagger? How do you do this Paul? How are we staggering • terms? Krauss: You 're doing it by nature of the fact that you serve set time periods now and those time periods are now staggered so . Emmings: They should stay staggered . Krauss: Yeah . As long as somebody leaves early , we make sure that whoever 's appointed fills that until the duration of their original appointment and then gets reappointed . It will all work . You 're all at staggered terms now . Conrad : We are? Batzli : So do the 4 people who were just appointed understand the length of their term?. I mean are they all being appointed for 3 years? Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 4 Krauss: Why don 't I give you at the next meeting that list . I had my secretary make it up . I ' ll bring it in . Conrad: Okay . But we 're not going to get another time where we have 4 appointments at the same year? That 's the only thing I want to validate so_ whether we do it in terms of amending our By-laws or just administratively doing it Paul , I don 't care . And I think you 've taken care of it but I just want to make sure . We should not have 4 re-appointments in one year . Sorry , Mr . Chairman . Batzli : Okay . Is that taken care of then? Conrad: Nobody cared . Batzli : No , I think it 's important but I think Paul 's going to tell us how we 're staggered . I think in the past what happened was there was a lack of record keeping which created part of the problem . It was unsure for example when someone filled in a position where someone had left early , there was a lack of communication of how the length of time that — appointment was for . So I think that was part of the problem . There, was a turnover in the Planning department which I think created kind of a lack of records . In any event . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 2 .107 ACRES IN10 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 915 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD , EDWARDS VOGEL SUBDIVISION , SCOTT EDWARDS AND DAVID VOGEL . Public Present: Name Address Scott Edwards Applicant Daryl Fortier Representing Frank Beddor Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Just for my own education , when we 're treating something as a flag lot , normally on a flag lot aren 't they sharing a common drive? Aanenson: You don 't have to , no . There 's a private drive , you can have up to 4 homes but the only addition on the flag lot would be the side yard setback which have to be 20 and that lot significant . What you do is take the frontage back to a depth of where it 's a square lot . You wouldn 't include this piece right here . You 'd take the frontage based right there which he has over 120 feet . 125 feet and the minimum would be 100 so . - Technically you can 't develop on a lot that doesn 't have public frontage . Batzli : Right . So you 're treating it as a flag lot solely for the purpose_ of allowing them to subdivide it? Is that what you mean? Aanenson : Yeah . That he does have access . He does have enough frontage further back in even though it 's not on the public street . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 5 Batzli : Is the applicant here and want to say anything at this time or do you agree with the staff report? Scott Edwards: Yes . My only question was the need for . . .7 feet on Pleasant View . . . Batzli : Okay . Are you actually the applicant? Scott Edwards: Yes . Batzli : So you 're Scott Edwards? Okay . No one else wants to speak at this time . Okay . Daryl Fortier : I 'm Daryl Fortier representing Frank Beddor who 's the adjacent property owner . Batzli : Can you come up to the podium please . Daryl Fortier : I 'm Daryl Fortier . I 'm representing Frank Beddor , Jr . who is the property owner of the Vineland lots immediately adjacent to the west . We 're in favor of it providing access off of Outlot B which is the staff recommendation . My only question tonight is whb currently owns Outlot A? Your staff report says someone is , Mr . Cunningham would like to purchase it . The question is from whom? Aanenson : The developer of Vineland Forest Subdivision . Daryl Fortier : Alright , thank you . Aanenson : And that was created just so there was an existing home on Vineland Forest . That was just created so that person could have a drive and they don 't even need it anymore . Emmings : Say Daryl? Daryl Fortier : Yes . Emmings: On the Vineland Forest plat , you had a similar issue over the 7 feet . Extra 7 feet along Pleasant View Road , isn 't that right? Do you remember that? Daryl Fortier : That 's correct . Emmings : You didn 't want to give that to us either but you did , didn 't you? Daryl Fortier : Actually it was on Troendle . Vineland did not give up the 7 feet . Troendle plat did . Emmings: Oh , okay . It was Troendle . Daryl Fortier : I believe it was deemed as an oversight on the Vineland plat. . Planning Cuo,mission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 6 Emmings : Yeah , you 're right . Aanenson: Those three lots . Batzli : Anyone else want to speak to this matter at this time? Erhart moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Tim , do you want to lead us off? Erhart : Yeah , what 's Outlot B? Why does that City want that? What is it used for now? Aanenson: Utility easements is what we 'd like to maintain ownership for . Erhart : Okay , you still have those easements though if you allow this to be used as a driveway? Hempel : It 's currently owned by the City , Outlot B is . We do not , with the plat we do not have any drainage or utility easements over it because we own the property . Erhart : I know but you would maintain the right to go over that? Hempel : Undoubtedly an agreement the City Attorney would prepare . Erhart : That 's your intention here? Hempel : That 's right . Erhart : Okay , essentially he 's getting almost like a driveway easement then? Aanenson: Right . Erhart : And moving the property line to the south 10 feet , you feel that 's required because the rear yard setback , because the house actually faces east . There is no way to view it as the back yard being the west _ property line? Aanenson: Even if it 's the rear , the supplementary regs as far as this . Krauss : Yes , it 's frontage is on Pleasant View regardless of which way the house if oriented . Aanenson: But even so , the size of that garage , because it 's almost , well it 's 755 square feet and an accessory structure has to be less than 400 to be get that benefit of being up closer to the setback . If we interpret it the other way . Erhart : Item number 3 . You say you want a landscaping and tree preservation and home placement plan at the time the subdivision is done . - Isn 't that normally done with the building permit application? Planning Commi Sion Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 7 Aanenson: Home placement plan be submitted? Erhart : What you 're trying to do now is essentially tie down where the home is going to be? Aanenson : Well he 's going to submit a home building plan . Krauss : It 's in the building permit . Erhart : Okay , does that have to be in here as a requirement then? Krauss : Yeah . It 's here as a requirement and it 's tripped when they come in for a building permit . We can 't add requirements to building permits unilaterally . Erhart : You want to do it in here? Aanenson: Condition of the subdivision . Erhart: Should that state to be submitted with the building permit? Krauss : Sure . Erhart : And item number 5 . Who pays for that sanitary sewer and water brought to the property? Hempel : That would be paid for at time of building permit application . Erhart : By the applicant? Hempel : By the applicant . Erhart : Okay , I would read this as , the City just assume responsibility for it . The way the condition reads . Maybe it 's not an issue . If I was the applicant , that 's the way I 'd read it . And 7 additional feet ,. what total right-of-way does that give us then on that side of it? Aanenson: It would be half of the 80 so it 'd be a 40 foot half width . Erhart : 40 foot half width? Aanenson : So we still need 7 on the other side . Erhart : Okay , that 's pretty good for Pleasant View . That 's the one that 's all chopped up isn 't it? That 's all the questions I 've got . Conrad : I agree with staff report . Ledvina : No questions . Emmings: I agree with the staff report . Farmakes: No further comments . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 8 Batzli : Have we ever granted driveway easements over outlots that we own for access purposes before? Aanenson: I spoke with Roger and he said that that shouldn 't be a problem but not that I know of . Batzli : Is this setting a precedent that the city has to do this everytime we get a landlocked? Krauss: What was unusual in this case was that we thought ahead enough when we platted the Vineland Forest to know that some kind of provision there was required and we just took possession of it . It 's somewhat of an — unusual situation in that regard . We 've only allowed access to lots via private driveway for the last year and a half so it probably is the first time we 've done it this way but that 's the reason . _ Batzli : Is there any problem allowing access points onto Nez Perce , either because it 's on the curb or because it 's close to the house to the , whichever way to the right on the map is . Is that south? Aanenson: To the south , yeah . We looked at that . The way the driveways line up and the homeowner came in and spoke with me do that one and it looks like it shouldn 't conflict with his driveway at all . Batzli : Okay . _ Aanenson: But there was a concern but actually the best sight distance was right at that corner . The other way to develop it would be , I mean if they combine private driveways and come out on Pleasant View but we felt like it - makes more sense to put it onto Nez Perce and allow more access onto Pleasant View . It will be a Class II and 80 foot wide . Batzli : I guess my only comments are , I agree with the staff report . I 'd like to see that several technical things happen when somebody makes the motion , including that the plans are included in the motion somewhere . That item number 1 reads so that the existing home meets the setback standards . I think we 're talking about proposed Lot 1 or the garage and not necessarily the existing home . Just so that it 's clear as to what we 're trying to do there . And then an additional 7 feet of right-of-way , - they 're not giving us anything under this subdivision other than the 7 feet right? So it 's not necessarily an additional 7 feet . They 're just giving us 7 feet that isn 't shown on the plan? Aanenson : Right . Batzli : Okay . I 'd accept a motion . Erhart : I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that we approve Subdivision #92-2 as shown on the plans dated January 21 , 1992 with the following conditions . Item number 1 , delete the word home and substitute Lot 1 as shown on the plans . Item 3 to add the phrase , at the time of the building permit . ' And item 5 , the phrase that states that the expense is the responsibility of the developer . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 9 Conrad: Second . Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92-2 as shown on the plans dated January 21 , 1992 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 Lot 1 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 at the time of the building permit 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 . 5 . The City will provide and install sanitary sewer and water to the property , at the developer 's expense, at the time the 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 . = All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 . Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Engineering , do you want to comment at this time before we hear from the applicant or about the traffic study or anything? Hempel : As Sharmin had pointed out Mr . Chairman , kind of a last minute traffic study by the City 's traffic engineer consultants , Strgar-Roscoe- Fausch , they had prepared the downtown traffic study so they 're quite familiar with our future land use and potential number of cars using Market Blvd . . We also have the Eastern Carver County Transportation study that was prepared , in the year 2010 and full development , they estimated 7 ,400 trips per day on the street . That had engineering somewhat concerned with a full access onto Market Blvd . . Based on their calculations that Strgar- Roscoe performed , if future land uses intensify in the downtown area , we may have to relook at this intersection . If the number of accidents become Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 10 excessive , the City would like to reserve a condition that if there are excessive accidents , that we have a right to limit or restrict that access - to a right-in/right-out only and reconstruct the center median area . Batzli : Would you like to give a presentation now? Randy Schultz : Good evening . My name is Randy Schultz . I 'm President of the Americana Community Bank . We 're here tonight to show you a design for a site plan of a building project that we 'd like to put down on West 79th - and Market Blvd . . We have an artist drawing here of what we think the building will look like . Would be pretty close to . We also have a board on the floor here that would show you some of the materials that we 'd _ expect the building to be made out of . Just like to say that we think it 'd be a very attractive building . We think it 'd be the kind of building the City of Chanhassen would be proud of to have right there on that main intersection coming into the community and we look forward to constructing - the building and doing business in Chanhassen . As far as any questions , I ' ll turn it over to our architect Kim Jacobsen to tell you more about the building . Thank you . Kim . - Kim Jacobsen : As you remember we came in before you last time with a gray building I think when we were here . It was redone . 'It came back to being _ a building that was technically Phase I . It was on a different site . Opportunity came about and we said we 'd like to add Phase II . It was always planned but this was what developed in Phase II . We 're still trying to keep some of the downtown character . I think that was one of the goals we tried to feel and wanted to have a building we 'd feel comfortable in town . So we kept a roof . . .we have the Timberline shingles , we 're feeling comfortable with it . We 've got an exterior material that is a masonary . material . It 's stucco type of material . It has a color to it . We 've got a rock faced block that goes down . . .to tie the building down . Overall we received fairly favorable comments . Put awnings on it to kind of keep the _ sum shade out and give it some color and feel . That in a nutshell is our building . We did a plaza out in front . Put flagpole there . There is a big fountain across the street and our earlier proposal had a fountain in it but we felt it would not really fit with the large spray across the street to have something that was fairly small . And we developed our parking and everything predicated on the parking movements and movements on the site . If there 's questions , I 'll sure . . . There 's some tiles for color . There 's some inserts of tiles that are going to . . .building to just kind of break it up a little bit . We do have some signage that . . .over the entranceway . Erhart: When will you see completion? Kim Jacobsen: We would like to get started , you know if everything goes well , middle of April through the end of April at the latest . I figure 4 or 5 months until completion so August . July or August . . . Batzli : Does anyone else have any questions right now? Some might come up I guess . I guess no one else is here for the public -hearing . If someone would like to . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 11 Erhart moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . — Batzli : Jeff , what do you think? Farmakes : The building I guess it 's an improvement over the original — building . I guess I appreciate the fact that they made an effort to not be the same as some of the other development buildings in the interpretation I think I talked about that before . Basically being a carry on an identical building because I think the city loses out with that . — Particularly with an opportunity to have an upper end building in an important location in the city . I always have been uncomfortable with reading that it should be compatible with retail development that 's going on . It seems to me we 're limited ourselves . I see the definition of compatible as being , doesn 't clash with . Not the same as . And it 's a far friendlier building than the original that I 've seen . I guess I would have liked to have seen maybe a bit more of the detailing of the plaza . It seems like it can be again a nice feature and a key corner . I have not had the opportunity to look at some of your drawings a little closer . But it looks like a major improvement . The signage area , I think for the size of - the building , that the signage is appropriate . I do have a question in regards to the , who is the other tenant in the building? Does the tenant want that too? Kim Jacobsen : There is leaseable space right now . 1 , 2 or 3 tenants . The bank will have about 2/3 of the main floor . The upper floor and the last — 1/3 of the south side facing 79th Street would be leaseable space . Farmakes : Right now it shows that the Americana Community Bank on the monument sign is very , very small . Is tenant 1 you and then tenant 2 — another leasee or would it be two other tenants? Kim Jacobsen: It would be Joe Smoe 's whatever and somebody else 's — whatever . Farmakes : Okay . So the monument sign would primarily then be for your tenant? Kim Jacobsen: For tenant only . . . - Batzli : Does that fit in with what the sign task force is looking at? Farmakes : Well , that 's still pretty fluid . Real fluid as a matter of — fact . We 've just begun that but I don 't want to hedge on that because I 'm one member out of many that my preference would be that the monument sign reflect the major tenant of the building . But I don 't believe our present ordinance is that . Batzli : What do you think about the turn in , turn out? Did you take a look at that? Do you have a feeling about that? Farmakes : I would leave that up to the engineers . I can see that that may be a problem when the area 's entirely developed . That 's a difficult read for me considering that basically right now a large extent of that area is Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 12 empty . And I don 't think that that street is very heavily used right now . But I think once that development is in place , it will see far more traffic . That will be main street . I have no further comments . Emmings : All and all , we 've seen most of this before and we 're just moving_ it to a different site and it looks fine to me . I wondered if the parking information that 's in here , they 're required to have 30 and they 're providing 36 . It says in this report . Now is that based on just Phase I or is that both? - Al-Jaff : With Phase II , they would need 47 spaces . They will be providing 52 . So they 're fine . Emmings: Okay . So that 's fine . Alright . I think that 's all I 've got . It is . Oh , and the hard surface coverage also , it says 62% and there 's a 65% requirement The 62% is both phases? Al-Jaff : I think it 's Phase I only . They will be very close to 65% . Dave tried to calculate the hard surface coverage and he was very close to 65% . - Emmings : So it looks like it 's alright? • Al-Jaff : Yes . They 're still fine . We did a very quick check-up with Phaes II before we came down here . Not all the information is in the report that we gave you but they are fine . Emmings : Okay . That 's it . Ledvina : I had a question regarding the engineering staff and their - recommendation regarding two traffic accidents . It doesn 't state the time period . Eventually two traffic accidents are going to occur . So is this a year or? Hempel : That 's correct . That was an oversight on our part . We 're looking at a 12 month period . Ledvina : Okay . I 'm a little bit confused about the number of tenants that would be in this building . Would there just be Americana and then one other tenant or Americana and potentially a group of other businesses? Randy Schultz : . . .we 're not sure at this point . We have lease space and of course we 're going to obviously try to find good , suitable tenants and we 'd like to have as few tenants as possible . _ The building will be - designed , it will be able to accommodate a large tenant or another smaller tenant . How that will shake out I don 't know . Ledvina : No other comments . Conrad: It looks good . The impervious surface or the hard surface , as I look at the map it doesn 't look . It looks like there 's a lot of hard surface on the diagram so I just want to make sure . We did the calculation today or when did we do the calculation for everything including Phase II? Hempel : Approximately 2 weeks ago . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 13 Conrad: But you 're pretty confident we 're close? Hempel : Very close . Conrad: Okay . The question on future parking . The site north of the drive thru . Is that a bermed area? That 's grassy and we ' ll convert it to parking? Kim Jacobsen: Right now in order to Phase II in , that already will be bermed . Conrad: Is there grass there at all or is that just parking? Is that just hard surface parking then? Batzli : Are you looking at the new set of plans? Conrad : I 'm looking at whatever Tim has here . That is grass , okay . Kim Jacobsen: In the plaza design , the amount of hard surface in the plaza has been cut down . There is a design . . . landscaped and it comes back in and it 's full of plantings . has a seating area to it . That was done as representation of the plaza . . . We 've actually cut down on the hard surface area or soften it a lot . I 've got it along if you 'd like to . Conrad: Well yeah . Is it easy to? As they're doing that , our left in off of Market Blvd . , if we were to , what do we do? Do we create a left turn lane then or is that just a left turn from , as we 're going south , is that just a left turn from one of the two lanes that are there or how do we handle that traffic? - Hempel : Prior to this bank proposal there was another one , Crossroads Bank . They had looked at originally a full access also I believe . The original Market Blvd . construction plans showed a median going all the way up to the railroad tracks and a standard width of the road . Since that bank proposal they looked at cutting back the center median and also putting a tapered end on the west side of Market Blvd . to expand the lane width . This taper here was expanded to allow for left turns into here . Into the bank site and also to swing traffic around the median . Actually there are two lanes capable up here . A 12 foot lane . . . What happens with the expanded driveway , if we allow the wider cut . We are cutting back the - median and it 's kind of a short taper zone then . When you 're driving south on Market . It 's actually below design standards right now . Staff looked at , originally sat down and looked at this and on a quick note , we thought well if we 're going to have a left turn lane or allow a left turn onto southbound Market , it might be a good idea to provide an extra lane width in the access . So we have a right out , a left turn and one lane in . After rethinking that , we believe the site will function properly with just a two - lane entrance . One lane in , one lane out. If stacking becomes a problem on left turn lane , they can loop back through the site and exit out to 79th Street which is the desired out anyway . Conrad: So we don 't end up with a left turn lane coming in? Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 14 Hempel : Yes we would . That can be striped . Right now it is a painted median out there . That would have to be revised . Conrad: Did you find the? Batzli : Yeah . It 's still at this end . It 's coming around . Farmakes: I have just a quick question . Is this relatable in size to the site plan that we have on page 1? Kim Jacobsen: Pardon me? Farmakes : How does this relate in size? I notice a difference in what I 'm seeing here . Kim Jacobsen: It 's a 1 to 30 and the other one is 1 to 40 so you 're at different scales there . That 's a working drawing . Batzli : Do you want to take about a 2 minute recess while you get a chance to look at this and look at what we 're doing here? I think there 's been a lot of changes and I wouldn 't mind taking a short break just to try and figure out what changes this is . ( The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting . ) Batzli : Ladd , we were right in the middle of you and your discussion . Conrad : I 'm done . I think I feel comfortable with what I see . I do . No 1 more questions . Erhart : Where 's , the bank customer , where 's the predominant parking when you want to go in and make a large withdrawal? Who parks in the north parking lot? Where the 16 stalls are . That 's employees? Kim Jacobsen: Employees and some leased major tenant that would come in . Same thing with the far easterly stalls . . .most of those are again for employees or tenants of the building parking . Randy Schultz : Employees will be asked to park as far from the building as possible . Erhart : Right , okay . Batzli : Is there a rear entrance to the building? Kim Jacobsen: It 's not a public rear entrance . It would be a person would — walk ould —walk into the lockable entrance . Randy Schultz : You can enter off of the plaza . That would be an entrance . Erhart : But that 's the only entrance so if you 're parking on the east end , you have to walk around the front? Randy Schultz : No , no . That 's the main entrance to the building . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 15 Erhart : Oh , it 's not from the plaza? Krauss : It 's got two entrances . Kim Jacobsen : The main entrance to the building would be right off this parking lot into that entrance there . Erhart : Into the bank? Kim Jacobsen: Into the bank or actually into a leased space . Erhart : What about into the bank? Kim Jacobsen: Into the bank , this direction also . Erhart : So you can get into the bank from both directions? Kim Jacobsen: You can get into the bank from both directions . You can get into the leased space from . . . Batzli : So are people from the parking lot then cutting through the drive thru traffic if they 're parking in the north stalls? : Kim Jacobsen: They shouldn 't be . It 's two way traffic on that northern route . Krauss : No , but I see what you 're saying and yes , that 's a possibility but what we 're talking about doing is probably an oversight on our part but we have typically labeled more inappropriate stalls as employee parking only forcing those folks to park in places that might be a little more hazardous . Like the ones just to the outside of the drive up should definitely be employee parking only . You want to free up the best spaces in front of the door . Kim Jacobsen : That parking up there has actually been created . They have a room which may operate as a community room or as a service room for the ' bank and that appears off the plaza and that would be open late hours . In other words it might be open until 9: 00 or 10:00 . The drive thru would traditionally close at 5 :00 or 6:00 . 7: 00 , whatever . It 's really to serve late night if someone comes into that room and uses it . Conrad: Sidewalk on both those streets? Kim Jacobsen: There 's an existing sidewalk on Market and yeah , we 're being asked and we will put in a sidewalk on 79th . Erhart : On the parking lot adjacent to the bank but on the east side , is that for people who are going to be coming and going frequently? Kim Jacobsen : Yes . It would be customers that either bank or the lease . . . Erhart : That 's a lot of turning in there isn 't it? Dave do you see that as well designed? Or acceptable . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 16 Hempel : It appears acceptable . Any kind of banking facility like that you 're going to have a lot of vehicles moving . Pedestrian traffic is — always a concern . Erhart: I understand the movement . It just seems you 've got to turn in and_ allof a sudden you 've almost got to turn like it 's almost another entrance ontoanother street to turn into that parking lot . I see a lot of potential for conflict there . Almost create a lot . Kim Jacobsen: It 's not a major street . It 's a parking lot . Traffic 's moving at 5 to 10 mph . I don 't see internal problems . . . A lot cleaner than the last one we brought to you . — Erhart : Well yeah . A lot of turns but I 'll leave that up to Dave . What are the awnings , that 's awnings I think on there . I 'm getting old . I can't_ see so good . Is it awnings right? Kim Jacobsen: Yes . Erhart: What 's the material? What 's the life of the material? Color or durability? Kim Jacobsen: 3 to 5 years on an awning . Erhart: Really? — Kim Jacobsen: A commercial awning . It should be 10 years but I would never tell anybody that . They ' ll tell you 10 years . Erhart : When it fades and starts looking ratty , who 's responsible to get it changed? Kim Jacobsen: The bank . It 's got an image . You 're not going to stick dollars into a bank without an awning . I mean I think that 's the biggest thing you 've got . You 've got tenants . . . Erhart : You 're not a savings and loan right? Randy Schultz : No , it 's not a savings and loan. We 're a bank . A year or — two from now you may not think. . . Erhart: Is staff satisfied with the awnings issue? Non-issue? — Krauss: It really is a self controlling problem. If it got notoriously bad and we had to interact , I mean the property owner has an obligation to maintain the property in the condition you approved it . So theoretically — we could go after somebody if it became a problem. - Emmings: Are we approving it with awnings? I mean we 've got a drawing — out here . An artist rendering. Krauss: Yeah . It 's part of the architectural elevations . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 17 Emmings: Okay . Does it appear in the plans too? The plans that we 're approving? Kim Jacobsen : Yes , definitely . The elevations . . .face south and leave those windows exposed , we 're going to have a real heat problem . Farmakes: There are no graphics on those? Krauss : I think one important thing that you need to recognize on this site is that it 's a corner site . It 's a little more difficult to develop but I think there 's a real advantage with this site plan over the Crossroads . I don 't know if the Crossroads appeared in your packet but Crossroads had all the drive thru was on the corner and the building was further back . It had less conflict in terms of the parking lot but your main view of the place was a drive up window which really was not all that appealing and I think this with the plaza and the building and everything behind it is a lot more attractive . Emmings : It also made you feel a little insecure to have a bank with wheels underneath it . Erhart : Okay , I 've just one last question . Maybe somebody asked this . The plaza , the material itself , is that a non-slip? Kim Jacobsen : Yeah , we 're going to use a crushed concrete and exposed aggregate mix . Erhart : Oh , so it 's not tile? Kim Jacobsen : No tile . . .so we 're keeping it so it will be non-slip . Erhart : Okay . Looks good to me . Conrad: 90% of your business would be drive thru traffic probably? Randy Schultz : Usually 60% to 80% . Conrad: 60% to 80% , okay . The only thing that really bothers me about the plan is that little bit of a cross street . You know most of the folks will be going through your 3 drive thru stalls and our engineer has looked at it and he 's comfortable with the taffic alignment on the north side of the property . Just , and you 've probably thought about it . You 've got cars backing up into the inbound lanes and I know why you 've got those parking stalls with the berm on the south . However , would it make any sense to put the berm on the north of those parking stalls so you don 't have folks backing up into the inbound? Krauss: But then you would have them trying to back out into what may be standing traffic in front of . Conrad: The drive thru . Maybe . There looks to be space there . Batzli : Isn 't that the truck lane? Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 18 Kim Jacobsen : . . . I think that northern road really is for employee parking . If I went into the bank I would probably come back out of that — parking lot and exit back onto 79th Street . . . Conrad: Most of the traffic is drive thru and most of the traffic will be coming from Market Blvd . , that 's why you want to be on that left end I assume . Kim Jacobsen : I think that most your traffic 's going to come from going home . It 's going to be a normal drive thru is 3:00 to 6:00 peak time . They 're going to be coming off of TH 5 . They 're going to be right turning in . My guess is once you do it once , you 're going to turn in on 79th and drive thru . It 's going to take one time and you 're going to find people go to the easiest way . Conrad: Yeah . So your premise is , most will be coming from TH 5 and then you 're right . They will go to 79th . If they come in from downtown , they 're going to be coming in , they 're going to take your northerly access off of Market Blvd . . Kim Jacobsen: And I really think that if you think about your normal traffic pattern when you go to your bank , it is normally on your way home . __ At least for me it always is . Batzli : You get a lot of traffic Saturday mornings though and that will probably be the other way . Conrad : Well you 've thought it through . Batzli : Tim , did you have anything else? Erhart : No . Batzli : Okay . We were given a look at the new plaza but it 's nowhere on our plans . How do we make sure that that gets into what we approve tonight , if that 's what the applicants are going to do and we all like that new concept? Krauss: I don 't know if that sheet was dated or anything but you can reference it in your recommendation to make sure it gets approved . Maybe I should explain why , I mean we don 't usually like to bring these things that are , have loose ends dangling but we 've worked with this group for quite a while to get them into the city . We 've got a good working relationship with them . Because only due to some unfortunate delays with Market Square they would be open already and we 've really been trying to work with them on their schedule as much as we can to facilitate this thing moving through . So we apologize for some of the loose ends but that 's the reason for it . Batzli : Okay . On a technical matter here , we simultaneously I assume are withdrawing approval of the site plan for the Crossroads Bank? Al-Jaff : True . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 19 Batzli : And since we 've given them approval , we 're taking something away from them . Does the City have it in writing that they are not planning on proceeding or something so we 're not? Krauss : Todd Gerhardt is here and can explain the status of it but the HRA controls the property . Crossroads has no interest in it any longer . Their option agreement lapsed and the sole control is vested in the HRA . Batzli : Okay . So we don 't have a problem with withdrawing their approval? Okay . I guess I 'd like to see the 16 stalls to the north labeled employee parking only , just so that we don 't have people traffic through the drive thru . Krauss: Would it be acceptable to label it employee and tenant parking? Batzli : Yeah . Just so we don 't have people going into the building through that traffic there I think makes sense . People are filling out their check stubs or what have you in their car waiting in line and sometimes they 're not paying a lot of attention to people darting between the cars if they 're trying to get that front door . I didn 't have any other comments that haven 't already been discussed . I 'd entertain a motion . And I assume when , whoever does make the motion , that we 'll be going off the February 19th revised application? Emmings : That 's what they 've given us . We 're talking here about the , we 're not doing anything on the subdivision? I 'd move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #92-1 as shown on the site plan dated February 19 , 1992 and subject to the conditions in the updated staff report that is also dated February 19 , 1992 with the addition that additional condition that Brian mentioned . That the north 16 parking stalls be labeled for employee or tenant parking only . Batzli : Did you want to include anything about the modified plaza? Emmings : I don 't know how to reference it I guess . It doesn 't have a date . I guess let 's do this . As an additional condition I will say that . the plans for the plaza ought to be submitted to the staff for approval . I don 't know what else to do . Batzli : Sounds good to me . Is there a second? Erhart : Before that I 've got a question here . Item 9 . Applicant receive a Watershed District permit . Why is that required? Krauss : That 's a normal requirement for any development that disturbs more than one acre of ground . In this case the Watershed District may well tell them a permit is not required because it fits into our overall downtown drainage system . Erhart: Okay , with that I 'll second it . Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #92-1 as shown on the site plan dated February 19 , 1992 , subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 20 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 enter into a Site Development Contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee installation of the required public improvements and costs associated with the traffic study . 4 . Revise architectural plans as follows : a . Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof . b . 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 shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval . 6 . The applicant shall indicate on the site plan utilities proposed for the building and additional 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 . All boulevard restoration , sidewalks , driveway aprons and median improvement shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City 's Standard Specifications . Detailed plans and specifications shall be prepared by a Professional Engineer and submitted for approval by the City Engineer . 8 . The applicant shall be responsible for any damage to the City 's existing sidewalk along Market Boulevard . 9 . The applicant shall receive a Watershed District permit and comply with all conditions of the permit . - 10 . The northerly 16 parking stalls shall be labeled 'Employee and Tenant Parking Only' . 11 . Plans for the plaza shall be submitted to city staff for approval . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Batzli : I think we need a motion^ on the withdrawal of the Crossroads . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 21 Emmings: I will move the Planning Commission recommend the withdrawal of approval of Site Plan #89-6 for the Crossroads National Bank building . The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County . I 'm not sure I understand that . Batzli : Which applicant needs to file that? Emmings: Yeah . Al-Jaff : The Americana Bank would . Batzli : Should we put that in our other motion? That probably should have gone in our earlier motion that they need to file that notice but . Emmings : Well we 've got it here . Batzli : Okay . Is there a second? Conrad : I second . Emmings moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the withdrawal of approval of Site Plan #89-6 for the Crossroads National Bank building . The applicant , Americana Community Bank, should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Krauss: Could I propose another agenda change? We have Todd Gerhardt waiting for an item . I think it 's an item you may find a little bit interesting anyway . It will get Todd home at a reasonable time . - Erhart: Can we vote on that? Batzli : Okay , we can vote . All in favor of moving up to new business to - previous to the PUD stuff signify by saying aye . Ledvina voted in favor , the rest opposed . • Batzli : Why don 't we do that first . So Todd , why don 't you go ahead with your modified tax increment financing district . - 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. Gerhardt : The first item I have in front of you is a modification to development district No . 2 and modification to tax increment plan No . 2-1 and creating a new district called 2-2 . And you 're saying , what is all this? In the past the City Council who is acting as the Economic Development agency for the city of Chanhassen , created a district is what - we call the McGlynn District which is 2-1 , highlighted in the blue . Approximately 2-3 months ago the Planning Commission approved an expansion to the industrial park called Chanhassen Business Center , which is highlighted in the red called 2-2 . To get businesses like McGlynn , Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 22 Rosemount and those , cities have to be competitive with the Shakopee 's and the Chaska 's in creating economic development districts to assist businesses in writing down public improvements . Roads , sanitary sewer , water and special assessments . As a part of that , staff is recommending to the City Council that you create a new district called 2-2 and expanding the boundary , the development boundary which is the heavy black line so that increment dollars from district 2-1 can be used to buy a middle school site . In your guide plan you highlighted a piece of property located north of the Timberwood as a future school site for the City of Chanhassen , — District 112 . Paul 's got some maps that lay out and we 're going to probably have come back a modification to your land use plan . That site no longer can support a middle school for some cf the facility needs that Chaska or District 112 is looking at . Do you want to highlight? Krauss : Yeah , maybe I should touch on this . First let me say that by your approving the tax increment plan tonight in no way are you authorizing — changes to the Comp Plan . We just want you to know what is current and what 's happening out there . Some of you may be aware of the fact that the City Manager and I and Tom Workman sit on a committee that the School District established to get a handle on the future growth needs . We did that to keep in mind you do have a middle school site located here which is part of our comprehensive plan . And fit into what we' were looking for in terms of breaking up the TH 5 corridor area in terms of making sure we had - a residential feel . Initially the school district 's architect told us that a 40 acre site would be sufficient . We went out and visited a few of them , that one included . They felt that that would meet their needs . We 're now - getting down to more of the nitty gritty and we find a couple things . First we find that the State has apparently established different guidelines or more strenuous guidelines for school sites and they 're really_ looking like , if the State allows you to build a new school , they want the school site to be able to accommodate growth until the next milleniun and you basically have to provide an extensive amount of athletic fields . And the site required to accommodate the school itself has to be pretty , 40 or - 50 acres for the school still but it 's got to be 40 or 50 acres . What we found , in fact we found when Ryan Development had prepared a preliminary program to develop an office/industrial park up there , we looked at the land that was left for the school site . Gave that information to the school district 's architect and he came back to us and said the school won 't fit there anymore . Now what I 've done here is kind of just sketched up two alternative scenarios . The first one is kind of , it 's what 's in the comprehensive plan right now . Showing the school over to the northeast corner of Timberwood . McGlynn sits right here . What you 've already improved is land up to the east bank or the east channel of Bluff Creek as - office industrial . The land beyond that was residential . I 'm sure you . . . extensive discussions with Timberwood and all that . Where is the road going to go and all that . Well , the Council , I know I mentioned this to you several times , when the Council adopted the Comp Plan they kept your residential designation in front of Timberwood entact but provided an alternate scenario that a very high quality office , industrial park developer could achieve . They met I think it 's 5 particularly strenuous criteria . Well Ryan Development 's been working with us to do that so essentially this infill portion over here between the two branches of the creek , up to the former school site , could and possibly would be developed - into a park and office park . . . We had been working with Ryan to do this . . . - Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 23 school site but we found a couple things . First of all we found that the road goes back even further but we originally had shown , by me meaning Mark Koegler and myself , originally had shown the road down near Timberwood . I believe we had one resident in Timberwood who objected to it and the road was kicked up north . The road really wants to be further south . We 're looking at the stacking distances that you have over here but if the school went here , you couldn 't put the road up there because there 's no place to stack school buses come out and realistically the road wants to hang south . Except for right in here where there 's a wetland but there 's a way to bring the road through . We now have better information . So this is basically the status quo . This is what the comprehensive plan says now . This is what Ryan has been working with us on to date . Again the problem is the school district is telling us that it won 't fit . And we 've even looked at - massaging this around . Todd met with Zak Johnson , the school district 's architect who 's working with us on expanding the school site out to this area and wrapping it around Timberwood and the terrain just gets very tough . You 've got creek channels . You 've got a wetland . It becomes too discontiguous for the school site to work effectively . So what we 're doing right now is looking to work for alternative scenarios to achieve a similar goal but still allow for sufficient school to be developed . And I 'm showing this to you for informational purposes only . We 're not requesting that you change anything now . We 're not even positive- it works but what this does is locate the school on the land , the 35 acres that McGlynn 's has open right now plus other land between the McGlynn site and the creek . This map is a little bit out of scale over here . There 's actually more land here than it would appear but it 's quite flat land . It 's also very prominent land as you 're traveling down the corridor . Wrapping single family residential around the Timberwood project which is consistent with what we 've been trying to do all along because the road coming in is a way to bring this road through . In fact we 've been working with a developer on - this property down here and if the plans go ahead , they 'll include provisions for this road connection to come around the corner so we can service residential development there . Preserving a creek corridor which is consistent with what we 've always wanted to do . . . .so we can generate enough revenue to secure the school site because it 's certainly not cheap . And also be a sufficient amount of office/industrial development remaining . We wind up shifting that component over to the former school site . Now the premise here that this is better than normal quality stuff . That 's what the comprehensive plan says . It basically said that it 'd have to walk like an office , talk like an office . . .qualify for tax increment but it 's going — to be brick and glass construction most of it . It 's going to be very , very attractive stuff . Well in fact we 've been working with Bill Morrish who you met last time on some alternate designs . He hasn 't seen this one yet but the philosophy that we 're trying to have here with the good setbacks , which is really one of the reasons as well for pushing the road back down here . One of the things that Bill has hit on a lot , which we agree with him a lot is you do not want a scenario where you have 4 lanes of TH 5 and - then 2 lanes of collector on either side of it all paralleling each other across the entire expanse of that property between Galpin and Audubon . In fact we 've had some preliminary meetings with MnDot and looking at a rural - road section now which is something . . .change their minds on but it means it 's going to be a very wide corridor . So what you 're really looking to do is to kick that road down here where it 's going to be masked by all those trees and the wetland that separates it from Timberwood and focus that Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 24 development a little bit back onto it away from TH 5 . And we think it 's kind of a workable concept . We 're going to be working with the school - district 's architect and make sure the school can fit on there before we go any further . But before we did that , you know I wanted to use this opportunity with the TIF district to kind of bounce this off you and let you know which way we 're going because it is a change in direction . So if you have any comments . Batzli : Let 's say we don 't like this configuration . Does it make sense to - go ahead with the TIF district to buy a school that 's not large enough? Gerhardt : What the plan lays out right now is one that says that you can _ use tax increment to buy a school site somewhere within the district . It doesn 't say a site specific spot . Batzli : Correct . Gerhardt : And then if were to pick out a site specific spot , I 'd have to come back through with another modification and we would not acquire the site until we had agreements where somebody wants this school site . But I wouldn 't enter into a purchase agreement until I came back to the Planning Commission and City Council for their approval of this modification . Batzli : But my question is , if the school site doesn 't fit on the area where it was initially proposed by us in the comprehensive plan , if it won 't fit there and if what we 're looking at right now doesn 't really turn - us on , why do we want to do this tax increment financing district? Gerhardt : The tax increment financing number , well we 've got a couple of - things on tonight . We 're making the modification to 2-1 saying that increments could be used to do a school site . If for some reason we decide that there isn 't any money or there isn 't a site anywhere within that boundary for a school site , we just don 't do it . If you can 't find a spot anywhere within that area that 's fit for a school , then you just don 't do it . You don 't follow through with the plan . I mean I can 't go buy a school site and then come back to you and say we have a site . I 've asked the Attorney that it almost seems illegal . . .now but we wanted to get it out there and we talked about buying a middle school somewhere along . . .and within the plan but that does not mean we have to follow through with it . So in your land use plan laid out for that . . .middle school site somewhere within this area so we are following through with what we 've got so if you do pass a resolution , you are . . .But right now in front of you that doesn 't work . . .so basically what we 're doing is looking at alternatives . Finding how alternative sites does work within that area and that would be acceptable to Timberwood . That would be acceptable to the present landowner and everybody . We wanted to stay along the TH 5 corridor . . . One of the other things that the plan does is lay out , this increment dollars could be used for the TH 5 corridor . . . So that 's one part of it . The other part is that you 're creating a new economic development district called 2-2 which would approve special assessment reductions for any building development that takes place on the business center . Ryan Business Center that you approved about 2 or 3 months ago . So you 're not locked in on buying the school site by approving the resolution tonight . You 're not approving where the school 's going to be located . However you - Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 25 are approving the concept that the school would be located somewhere within the boundary but if you decide that you can 't find a school within that boundary . . . Krauss: A couple things and I didn 't touch on something real critical . Expanding the district allows us to do other stuff in there . We 've talked — about bridges . We 've talked about working with MnDot to improve the highway . Those kinds of things are something we can do with the expanded district . The second thing is . Batzli : Let me stop you right there . In the public facilities to be constructed in the modification we list school district land , purchase land for future park and construction of a sanitary sewer lift station . Where does the bridge come in and those types of things? Krauss : We have to add that . Gerhardt : Well , we don 't know where the bridge is going to be again and we 're probably going to have to come in and condemn some additional land for . . .easements and as a part of that you 'd have to do another modification . Once the TH 5 corridor has been approved by City Council and you have a plan or feasibility study for what you 're 'going to do , then we can come in and incorporate that plan within the economic development - district plan and then send out based on TH 5 corridor plan . . . I would get future modification . Krauss: The other thing I wanted to touch on too is as this idea of the school is being talked about some . One of the reasons the school tends not to fit there and something we need to talk to the school district a little more extensively , is they 've got some incredibly huge recreational requirements that we understand are from the state but we 'd like clarification of that . You were looking at 4 softball fields , 2 baseball fields , 2 football fields , 2 soccer fields . Batzli : For middle schools? Gerhardt : . . .all purpose areas . 2 soccer fields and just the green area for those recreational fields comes up to be 23 acres . Krauss: We 're not certain if this is a state requirement or because it - fits into something the school district wants to do . We ' ll clarify that some more and the site isn 't totally out of the running if we can figure out a way around it . One of the things we 've been looking to do and we 've had some conversations with the Mayor and City Manager on this is , there 's a consensus being developed that when and if the school is built here that we want to do everything we can to make it more than a school . It 's going to be a recreational and community oriented major element of our community and we want to get these recreational facilities and a pool built with the school and all that and probably would be using some of the tax increment to help with that kind of construction as well . So a lot of it 's still up - in the air but a lot 's happening very quickly and we 'd like to be in a position to be able to move forward and bring it back to you on some concrete term . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 26 Gerhardt : The owner here is really been questioning us too . He wants to know what 's going to happen you know . They 're saying they 've got a million— dollar . . .they 've got to make in the next couple years and they want to start marketing the property and is it going to be marketed as single family or multi-family or is it going to be marketed as industrial . . .school going to be here or is it going to be over there , that makes them real nervous . You how long is this going to be drug out . We get those . . .I think there 's still some time in there that we can pacify them . . .they 're going to benefit from a school . . .SO tonight what I 'm looking for is - approval of modification to 2-1 for a public improvement to what would be Audubon Road . Some public improvements that would . . .that weren 't in the modification last year and that the dollars be also used to be spent on a middle school . But again , that 's more of a . . .want to buy a school site somewhere within that area . . . Second alternative would be to recommend to the City a special assessment reduction program for District No . 2-2 where Economic Development . . .would provide 2 years worth of increment to write down special . . .for any developments to occur on the Chanhassen Business Center site . And also your increment dollars for the acquisition of a lift station that would be on the southerly part of , or the northern part of Lyman Blvd . and the location to be determined by the future feasibility study . . . And second , for the Park and Rec , as the need for parklands in this location here . The wetland but there 's a . . .comprehensive plan shows a trail system coming in and then connect with future trails through this residential neighborhood and out to TH 5 so we 're going to use tax increment to buy parkland generated from that area . And that 's it . Everything that we 're proposing is consistent and basically that 's what you ' ll find . We 're not doing anything that inconsistent with what you planned to date for the City 's long range plan in the future . Batzli : Okay , thanks Todd . Anybody have any questions , comments? We ' ll just kind of throw it open if anybody would like to comment or have any other discussion . Farmakes: I have a comment of curiousity . If it doesn 't fit where , do you have alternative sites that you 're looking at if that doesn 't fit? Krauss: You mean like the McGlynn site doesn 't work out either? Farmakes : It seems a gray area what you think the requirements are . Krauss: Well , we 're trying to get them to better define it a little bit too . I mean it sounds like there 's enough sports facilities here for Minnetonka and Eden Prairie as well . So we 're not exactly sure where the - school district is coming from . We suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact that there 's completely inadequate recreational facilities down at the existing High School and sort of defacto they 'll be leaving the High School , well this is one scenario . Leaving the High School there and building a lot of recreational . . .school district up here . To the extent that that makes sense for our community as well , it 's probably a dandy idea that we get the facilities and we get to share them and make more efficient use out of it . If none of this washes , there are other possible sites in the corridor . I personally have never been a strong proponent of any of them for the simple reason that it didn 't fit . None of the other ones fit real well with the idea of a residential crossing of TH 5 . The idea that Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 27 Bill Morrish has been pushing is one that you developed 2 years ago with wanting to bridge TH 5 and Bill built on that . I think it 's a valid one . The school site , it 's a real handy element because it 's so much open space and so much green area but basically is a residential appearing component . . . .by the school district . We 're fortunate in being able to piggyback this onto a tax increment project but elsewhere in the corridor there 's no increment , there 's no project and I 'm not sure where that would put us at that point . Gerhardt : You can look at the map and see certain areas that work . I mean architects like to work with a flat piece of ground with no trees , no hills , no wetlands and it 's got perfect clay soils and all you need is to put a little black on top so they don 't have to truck any black dirt in . That 's a perfect scenario and you know when he started explaining that to me , if you look at the McGlynn piece , you can 't find a better flat piece of ground that has nice clay soils to work off of . He got excited when he saw 33 acres of this flat ground and no wetlands on it . He 's starting to say he can set everything on the 33 acres and you had 60 , yeah I think it was 60 acres that we were working with the other site and he couldn 't fit anything on it . So the topography plays a big factor in this . To answer your questions , I always push for 2-2 as being a future school site because the land 's a little cheaper than what McGlynn 's wants for theirs but again we want to try and keep that corridor along TH 5 with the school and the access . It just works a lot better in those areas . But to answer your questions , a third scenario could be 2-2 . . .Business Center site and that 'd be a school site . Batzli : What we 're doing tonight doesn 't enlarge in anyway the area 2 does it? District No . 2? Those boundaries were already previously drawn? Gerhardt : District No . 2 is the dark black line . Batzli : Right . Gerhardt : The previous , that is being expanded . Where it used to fall , it went like this . So this would be an expansion and the reason why we did this is , what you can do is take the increment created off of the McGlynn piece and spend those dollars anywhere within the dark black line . So it gives enough play in those areas to use those increment dollars in finding a piece of land . And it also , if Galpin ever needs to be upgraded , you can use the increment from this district to assist in writing down costs of upgrading Galpin and part of Lyman if you need to . Batzli : Is there any impact on Timberwood by including them in the district? Gerhardt: No . The only place where tax dollars would be affected is in those dashed areas so you did not create any increment outside the red and blue area . So this , it 's within the district boundary but the taxes generated off these parcels would not go into the district . It 's only in those areas in the dashed areas . Krauss : The reason for not excluding it is . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 28 Batzli : If you got the roadway back . Krauss: Well , you 've got the roadway and you 've also got your lift station that 's going to be here or here and you 've got a forcemain that 's going to come up this way and another one that 's being split up that way and you 've _ really got to wrap that area to build those lines . Batzli : Jeff , I cut you off earlier . Did you have another question? Farmakes: No . It didn 't pertain exactly to this . I guess a lot of what if questions . Batzli : Does anybody else have any comments? Questions? Motions? Conrad: I make a motion the Planning Commission adopt 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 the Tax Increment Financing District No . 2-2 . Emmings : Second . Resolution #92-2: Conrad moved , Emmings seconded to adopt 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 . All voted in favor and the motion carried . ADOPT RESOLUTION STATING THAT MODIFICATION NO. 11 TO REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY 'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . - Gerhardt : The second item in front of you tonight is what we call the Redevelopment Tax Increment District . On the back of your report you 'll notice that some of the newer members . . .but the district boundaries for the redevelopment district follow the dark line , go up TH 101 , follow TH 5 , go around the Taco Shoppe , come back down West 78th Street , go down along St . Hubert 's , goes around the new Heritage Square Apartments and then follows along the parking lot behind the Riv and behind the Town Square Center and then follows back up and go , divides the school property and the fire station and then takes into account the West Village Apartments over here . - And then follows due west and then the boundary is being modified in this location here . With the TH 5 upgrade , the City is going to have to build a new service road to get to Lake Ann Park . We 're proposing to use tax increment dollars to build that service road because they 're going to close off our entrance off of TH 5 . There will be a new service road that will go along there . Krauss: It 's part of the collector , frontage road system that you have on your Comp Plan . Batzli : So this isn 't just an access road . This is actually the road that will be the . Krauss : The first leg of that road . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 29 Batzli : Yeah , okay . Farmakes : How does that fit into the corridor plan? Krauss : I think the corridor plan is going to have some role to play in where we put that road and how we build it . Do you displace it? I mean we know where it 's got to pick up on 78th Street . Gerhardt : Well the big thing you 've got here is that you don 't have much of a choice for this corridor . You 've got some huge wetlands over on this site and there 's really one path . Krauss : Around the south end . We don 't control all the land yet do we? Gerhardt : No . We 'd have to condemn to get the right-of-way but that 's a future problem . So does everybody feel pretty good of where the boundaries - are? Batzli : Does this then include City Hall? Gerhardt : Yes . Batzli : Did it previously? Gerhardt : Yes . So the only modification to the boundary and this again , we can only capture the increment within this area but we 've expanded the boundary so that means we can spend the increment from within the district outside into the project area . Again this is Modification No . 11 . This plan was adopted back in 1978 by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority . _ And there 's been 10 modifications up to this one since that time . There 's a list of 9 items in front of you that the HRA is going to undertake here in the next couple of years in the downtown area and along TH 5 . The first of that is the construction of a center park out in front of City Hall . - There 's been 3 to 4 public hearings on the concept of building a park in front of City Hall . This is one schematic design for it . It 's not going to look like this . This is the best rendering we have to date but they 're really doing some interesting things in this area here and taking into account sort of a bandshell type of effect , the two sided bandshell . Wanted to take advantage of the hillside for what I 'll say is the smaller event and then for some of the larger events , the 4th of July that you would use - the opposite side where the larger gathering would take place and your concerts in the park and things of that sort . There 's been some discussion that there may be too many trees in the plan so it sounds like every other - tree will be coming out of here . This road alignment through this area , you ' ll notice that we 're taking out the West 79th or Coulter . The road that goes to the south of City Hall . That will be vacated . The City would have to come in and acquire the 3 lots in this location . Demolish the bank building and relocate those tenants and then take the road out and then realign that road that would come through this location here . We 've done other drawings of how that would work . Right now it looks like it goes - right through a parking lot and that 's not how it 's going to lay out . It will be a road through that area . ' There will probably be future dollars spent by the Park and Rec to buy additional lands up here because you 're - going to relocate a softball field in this area . That 's one of the Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 30 projects that the HRA is undertaking . A second is the construction of a senior housing project . There 's been talk and Paul 's done a couple of studies on a need for senior housing in the community . When we built Heritage Square Apartment building , that took 3 to 4 years for the HRA to approve that project and I want to say 3 years of discussions it was always _ going to be a senior facility and it never came . To get financing they couldn 't designate the building as just for seniors . They had to designate it as seniors to low to moderate income people . But the HRA still wants to try to get a senior housing project built and they 're going to look at building their own facility . One other spot that they 've been looking at is over by old St . Hubert 's Church to the Jerry Schlenk property . The little house with the pink roof sits . They would go in there and acquire that land and put in anywhere from 24 to 40 units in that location . Staff has felt that that 's a good location . St . Hubert 's was trying to build their own senior facility and attaching it to their sanctuary facility and _ they just decided that they didn 't have the money and the need wasn 't there for them to do that . So that 's been a goal of the HRA to build a senior complex . And it 'd be an interesting one that they want to get away from some of the FHA guidelines and criteria that go with that . They want to go- with a straight rents would be 25% of whatever your incomes are . Right now if you follow FHA guidelines you look at 25% of what you income is plus whatever you have in the bank . So you get a lot of older people in this area that sell their house and they potentially have $100 ,000 .00 or $200 ,000 .00 in the bank , well that just puts them right out of the rent bracket for some of these facilities . What the HRA is looking at doing is building their own facility and giving that back to the City Council or to the City and then city money , hiring a management company to come in and run it under their guidelines . So you 're not dictated by FHA or any of those agencies under their guidelines . So that 's an interesting approach - and it would be a revenue producer for the city too . Because the building would be given to the city so it would be debt free so the rents generated off of that goes to management company and upkeep but anything in excess of that would be revenue back to the City . And that 's one of the HRA 's goals is to try to look at producing revenue once the district does go away for the city and that 's one approach that they 've come up with . The second area was construction of a library . The HRA right now is in ownership of the Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus area and that is the old Pony Express and John Pryzmus ' own building between what was the Pony Express and Pauly 's . The HRA owns all three of those buildings . The lease with Pauly and Pryzmus ends in 1994 and at that time the HRA would not renew their leases and would ask them to leave . They 've got compensated for those buildings and the HRA would tear the buildings down and construct a new library in that location . Expanding the park inbetween what would be St . Hubert 's , old St . Hubert 's church and Village Hall . Krauss: one of the reasons for building a new library is not just to move - it but the fact that this library is inadequate . I forget what the formula is but I think it 's a 1 ,000 square feet for every 1 ,000 people . Gerhardt : It 's 100 square feet for every 1 ,000 people you have in Chanhassen . Maybe it is 1 ,000 . Krauss : Yeah . We were looking at the possibility of putting a facility there that would accommodate a city of 23 ,000-24 ,000 people which we 'll be Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 31 in the not to awful distant future . Gerhardt : But that 's the library criteria . We like to use the 500 feet criteria and cut them in half and we feel that that 's more appropriate . Right now that means they would take the Council Chambers and the new wing over there to meet that criteria right now and that financially we just can 't support that . But in that location it would be I think 11 ,000 square foot library . 11 ,000 to 12 ,000 square foot library and down around that area . Heritage Square Park , that is between St . Hubert 's and City Hall . Acquisition of the Hanus Building . Hanus building is where Gary Brown 's service station . It 's the building directly east of the Rapid Oil facility . We have an option right now to acquire that building . The reason why the HRA 'would want to acquire that building is to go in there and follow through with whatever City Council approves with the TH 5 corridor study . To look to either landscape that area to what the needs are and in the future if the building should happen , if they say the building should be taken down , that could be an option . If the building stays , they would want it as a private user to be used for City . Public works needs . Park needs . Whatever it may need . We have several options open but the real reason why everybody wants to acquire it is to landscape that area . Right now it just sticks right out as you 're driving down TH 5 . And it was just a big mistake on when TH 5 was rerouted that they left that gap of land between the railroad tracks and TH 5 there . And if you look at - the map , I mean that little block there , it 's just crazy . You just can 't tell that a building in there . You know we 're going to acquire the Taco place and the Red-E-Mix . To go back in there and put something else in , how could you put a building any bigger than the Taco place in there? I mean if you put anything bigger than that , it 's going to stick out like a sore thumb because the width of the lots in that area are not , they 're very small . It 's a real narrow piece and that was just a big mistake for the State to allow that to occur . They should have acquired that entire area and it should have been right-of-way and that was a real mistake because it 's just not wide enough for any development to occur . By the time you - put parking lots , have a little green space and your building , you have nothing . I mean Taco has absolutely no green spaces . It 's just one gravel parking lot . Construction ,of a senior center . I think that 's on for City Council approval of plans and specs this next Monday night . We had a bottom portion of the public safety wing over here would be rennovated for a senior center . They would have small kitchen facilities , meeting room space , bathrooms and just a place to gather and to do some of their things . Park and Rec is taking an active role in doing some programming for them and meeting some of their needs . Play cards , meet and have congregate . Not congregate dining but they could bring some food in and . . .since and the - refrigerator . Conrad: Todd , what 's the percentage of seniors in Chanhassen? Krauss: It 's a lot higher than you would think . At the present time , if you use the over 55 criteria , there 's somewheres upward of 900 to 1 ,000 people in town that qualify and it 's a very rapidly growing segment . What - we found is that we have a couple of different classes of people that are becoming seniors . We have the original Chanhassen group . The folks that have been here for 30 years who have aged in place , and they don 't tend to , you know they tend to stay . A lot of them are still here and stay . We 've Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 32 got the people who have moved in in the 70 's who are aging in place and have now , you know the kids are out and they 're still here . Steve keeps — thinking and talking about it . . .and we also have a bunch of people that are starting to , who have parents who are becoming dependent on their kids again and the nature of this country now is that a lot of people don 't live _ anywhere near their parents and they 've had to relocate their parents from other communities . I 've got a woman on my Senior Commission who 's son lives in Chanhassen who moved her out from Chicago when the neighborhood started going bad and when she needed more help and that 's becoming more common . So the senior population is growing nationally dramatically and locally as well . Right now we have , we don 't have any facilities for seniors in the community . We support South Shore Senior Center which - caters to some of the demand . We do have a card club that meets once a week which we ' ll provide space for but there 's a pretty hefty demand and we have a senior services coordinator that we 've retained . So it 's really _ starting to snowball . Conrad : Thanks Todd . Gerhardt : Paul 's been real active with the Seniors . I mean that 's the thing . If Paul 's numbers are right , it 's about 10% of the population that are seniors but the interesting thing about that 10% Is that they 're very _ active here . They want to be with other seniors . They want to play cards . They want to be active . They don 't want to sit at home and watch TV . They don 't want to just go out and buy groceries or do whatever . They want to be active . They want to be a part of the community and it 's interesting that they pushed for this very hard . Conrad: Well 10% of the population is a big number . It used to be about 3% that 's why I was interested because it used to be real small . Krauss: Well if you look at the resources we devote to kids recreation and you realize that we 've done nothing for the other end of the spectrum to date , it 's a good fit and having them downtown where there may be housing , where they 're supposed to be shopping , where we have a park , where we have those kind of facilities is really a very nice fit . Gerhardt : Now they 're taking my storage area and so I 'm a little mad about it but I think it 's going to be a real asset . I mean they 're right next to - the library . When we get the grocery store in , this is just going to be a real asset to City Hall I think . Having those people that close . The next item is the West 78th Street Detachment . In previous modifications we 've always added project numbers that would qualify for a special assessment reduction . It looks like this project is going to be built this year . They did some grading . You can see some of the alignment where West 78th Street would be detached as it would connect over here onto CR 17 . One of the reasons why that 's been delayed is that TH 5 's going to be raised by a foot and when you do the West 78th Street detachment you 're going to have to reconstruct that intersection and that portion of CR 17 and if you 've got TH 5 a foot up and we built the road say 2 years ago , you 've got CR 17 a foot below it . It doesn 't work . You 've got to do them in conjunction with each other so that 's why that project 's been delayed . We 've been taking a . . .we 're just doing this for a the fun of it but we 've been delayed by what 's delayed TH 5 . TH 5 improvement , entry features . When Market Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 33 Blvd . was built , the HRA acquired right-of-way for that and with that they acquired some additional land as a part of the TH 5 corridor upgrade which , as I was talking to Dick , hopefully this goes along with it . We are - going to build some entry monuments as you enter TH 5 and Market Blvd . and Great Plains Blvd . and TH 5 . So that would be , we 're going to hide the bank and be over next to the Holiday gas station . What they 're looking at is a wall monument that would look like this with landscaping and trees . This would be the Market Blvd . area . How it is laid out . And then they were also going to , in this location they were going to introduce a vertical element similar to the clock tower but substantially taller . It - would be 45 feet and then again the wall underneath it would look like this . - Conrad: Where 's that Todd? Where 's the wall? Gerhardt : The wall would be the dark purple line . Conrad: What 's in your right hand goes where your left hand? Gerhardt : Right . That is just another concept . You like that one - better? Everybody 's looking for a home for my railroad depot . Erhart : You 've abandoned the railroad depot again? Gerhardt : We own the depot . Erhart : I know you do . Conrad: Where 's the depot? - Krauss : It 's the shack that 's been sitting out by Natural Green . Batzli : Oh really? We own that? I didn 't know that . So we 're going to put it there? Gerhardt : No . • - Farmakes : I have a question . The type that 's on the Chanhassen logo , this sign that you just showed . - Gerhardt : The maple leaves? Farmakes: Yeah . Apparently when Bloomberg built this place there was like a western theme . You see it smattered about and I 'm just curious to know the history behind that . Gerhardt : I think we 're getting away from the country theme and now we 're , - what they 're calling is a country modern type style . With the lap siding , cracked off cinder block . This cedar shake . Farmakes : Textured . . . Gerhardt : . . .and the peaked roof . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 34 Krauss : But if you go back , I think it started in the late 70 's there was actually a concerted effort to get a prairie theme . _ Farmakes: Which is , it 's TV cowboy is what it is . This horseshoe type type is . Krauss: In retrospect it 's very chintsy , yeah . Gerhardt : Have you been over on France Avenue? Next to Fudruckers there 's- a big old office building and did you notice the wall element there , I think it says the Minnesota Center . That 's where this came from . It 's made out of limestone . This would be a 6 foot 6 wall . That 's a _ substantially smaller one but that 's the concept for this . The same architect that designed that is designing this . Erhart : That 's 6 feet tall? Gerhardt : Yeah . Krauss: The key idea here is to let people know who are traveling down TH 5 that they 've entered into our community . That these are the entry ways into our downtown and in some cases where you have like the Holiday store , to kind of cover up the back of the Holiday store which wasn 't really built with an eye towards the highway or beautification . This is also , I mean it points the way to some of the stuff that we 'd like to be doing on the rest of TH 5 with that tax increment district and working with - MnDot and working on the corridor later on . Similar efforts also have to be done on the previously finished portion of TH 5 east of downtown . Farmakes : . . .why the city is married to that type . Is it a consensus on the HRR? Gerhardt : Are you saying the lettering or the? Farmakes : The lettering . Not the maple leaf . The lettering itself . That just seems to be a hold over from that previous development . I was wondering how relevant that is . Gerhardt : Well where they got that , the City 's letterhead . Farmakes : I understand that . It seems to , did that theme come from because the City chose that particular letterhead or did that reflect that? Gerhardt : I 've been here 6 years and that 's what the letterhead 's always looked like while I was here and I don 't know where the lettering style came from . It looks western to me , yeah . Farmakes: I just don 't know how relevant that is to us here . I don 't know if that 's , it didn 't seem relevant to our community . The type style . Not _ the sign . Batzli : Do you think it looks too heavy? I mean is that , or just too cowboyish? Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 35 — Farmakes : I just don 't see us as that . It almost looks like we 're wearing Stetsons and , it looks like TV western type to me . I realize that a lot of people say so what about that sort of thing but it is a style . If you go - out and you look at different communities , particularly water towers , you 'll see Excelsior is an old gothic . You 'll see Edina in helmetica . Very contemporary , modern type . It does seem to say something , just as — much as it does about a business or corporation . That you look at a letterhead and I don 't know how reflective that is of our community . Batzli : I think a hand written script would look kind of trendy . What do you think? Farmakes : Well you get 100 different opinions but I 'm just saying , I 'm not — sure . It just seems to me that I suspect that 's a carry over from that original development theme and I don 't know how relevant it is . Gerhardt : These are lights so in the evening you 're going to see this area at night . I think this is also back lit . But that 's something that can be changed . I ' ll bring it up to the HRA when they do final plans and specifications for construction of it because that 's one of the things that — they 're going to approve is the letter style . Emmings: I 've just gotten so used to it , I 've stopped thinking about it — but I think Jeff 's comments are very good ones . I think it is a hold over and we just don 't see it anymore because we 're so used to seeing it but I think maybe changing it to something else a little , well plainer . Farmakes: Is the green on there or is that a copper type thing or what is that? What is the material on that? - Gerhardt : It 's a painted metal letter and a pre-case letter . The green is matching , the decorative light standards in the downtown so that 's where the green comes in . And you will have decorative lighting introduced in — this area over here and over here but again the color hasn 't been approved . But I 'm sure they 're doing that trying to stay consistent with those country colors . They 've been using the grays , the bluish greens and greens . Farmakes: Is that supposed to be like a kasota stone or did you mention what type of stone that is? Gerhardt : It 's a limestone veneer with a rough face . Not the smooth . — Batzli : Would this come back before us for any reason? No . Okay . Emmings: HRA stuff . — Gerhardt : I mean if you wanted to see it , we can put it on the agenda . Farmakes : This is an important thing because this what people are . . . Gerhardt : Yeah , as Dick and I were talking over there he said did Morrish look at any of this and I said , I don 't think so . One of the things that we 're going to work on is we 're going to try and get this with the Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 36 University of Minnesota and say is this what we had been planning for this area . I know there 's some talk at one of the public meetings that . . .and green areas at some of the intersections . Krauss : Morrish has seen this . Yeah , in fact we had meetings to put them together as kind of a team for a while so yeah , he and Barry Warner did take a crack at that . Gerhardt : Okay . Once we put a set of plans and specs together , I don 't have any problems coming back to Planning Commission and showing you what we 're doing and if you want to make suggestions . The HRA is really interested in getting public input . I mean we held 4 or 5 public hearings on the park . I 've gone to Rotary . We 've gone to the Chamber with it to get input . We don 't get anybody to come to our meetings . Farmakes: Other things that you 've mentioned it 's nice about the sign is - the color scheme . I think it 's a nice environmental , friendly color scheme but the materials also I think are important . You use the rough stone , you should be careful about the letters and the materials that those are made out of , even the look of letting copper go green . With the look on the 'CCO building downtown , it 's quite reflective of that color scheme there . But that gives it a far different look of natural look versus green metal letters . For instance of fake metal plastic type thing . It gives it a - little look . It says something different of our community . Gerhardt : The metal letters would probably be made out of some type of - aluminum that would not bleed into the rocks and there again they would be painted with whatever color they decide to paint it or whatever . But that is a good point . Farmakes : Copper does go green . Gerhardt : Right . Well we see that with the other type of light poles that- we have in the downtown . You go over in the parking lot over there and you notice that the exposed metal lights , they corregated steel . . .get wet they bleed down onto the top of the concrete . So it does look a little weird . We 've got that bleeding down over there . Batzli : How many new lawnmowers are we going to have to get to keep up all of these new park type areas throughout the city? Gerhardt : Let me see , we bought one last year . What we do is there 's one full time employee who maintains the downtown and now we 've hired a seasonal person so he does help out during the summertime in mowing the area . SO you basically have 2 people during the summer who maintain the downtown picking up the garbage , mowing , fertilizing , and this would be an - extension to that . Batzli : I mean are these types of areas , they 've got these things heavily landscaped and flowered . Are you going to be installing sprinkler systems - and having like the Garden Club take care of it hopefully so it actually looks nice rather than , if the City tries to do it it will probably not get as much attention as it deserves . — Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 37 Gerhardt: Well you 're looking at the head of the garden club . I run the garden club . And if the garden club 's getting more areas than what they want , so I 'm out there planting flowers . I think I was out here and you guys were walking in and tripping over me and . Batzli : No , we appreciate that but I just think if it 's left up to the city from time to time , things get a little bit unruly before they get back to us . Gerhardt : Then you call me and then we get on Charlie and Charlie 's out there . You know it 's amazing , Charlie has 12 ,000 bosses . Everytime somebody drives by , they roll down the window . You should be trimming these trees in this location and so everybody keeps a pretty good eye on it and I think he does a real good job . Batzli : Oh , I agree . I mean he can 't be everyplace at once . I 'm just curious to know whether we 're going to have city staff out there tending , you know clipping out the dead flowers or is this going to be kind of a community get , maybe some of the seniors like the Excelsior seniors . Gerhardt : The garden club 's growing every year and they take on more and I 'm sure the seniors , you know with their center , I think they 're going to get more active . I 've been working with Ben Gowen and he wants to flower hostas and some other flowers off of TH 41 . He 's going to assist in the garden club in trying to get them more active . The garden club 's more , they want to be more than just planting flowers . They want to go to seminars . They want speakers to come in . They don 't want to be a laborer for the city or the HRA in trying to beautify . They want to learn and we 've got a lot of novice gardners in this club . And we can take a flower and stick it in the ground and water it but . . . Batzli : For example I think the , you know what they do in Excelsior on that little piece of triangle . I mean they give high visibility to the fact that these are the people taking care of it and you drive by it and you 're just impressed as heck . And if we can give an opportunity like that so people even know ( a ) that there 's a garden club , and ( b ) give them a show piece . Then it would be worth their time out there planting things rather than you 're right , just having to be slave labor . Gerhardt : We bought little signs that say garden club . We 've taken out a good relationship with the newspaper in trying to get members . The next newsletter , well not the next one but the following one will have join the garden club . We 've done a lot of things . We have right now about 10 members in the garden club so that should be an area and similarly this would be a mirror image of the sign over on the piece by the Holiday station . Batzli : Chanhassen would be spelt backwards? Gerhardt : Right . Backwards . Upsidedown . Not Home of the Dinner Theatre . That 's not going to be in there . We showed this to the bank and with what the bank 's doing with their entry piece and what this is doing in that area , the HRA wants to put an active bell in this thing too so it will play chimes and stuff . So they 're into it . I think it 's going to be a Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 38 real nice area . Walkway going alone there . We 've changed that from a bituminous walkway to a concrete walkway and staying with the TH 5 in - concrete , we thought we should be consistent with what the road structure is . And one of the other things that the HRA would be spending money is that you 're going to have a lot of detailed brick work that they 're spending money on . Pedestrian crossways would be done in brick . It would be brick . . .with special paving . . .that will look like brick and it will be colored like brick that will follow along in the median section in this area of Great Plains and Dakota . As you come down Chanhassen you see these entry monuments and you see this brick fading with the concrete roadway , people are going to realize , hey this is downtown Chanhassen . This is different and special . Just coming across brick and it 's going to be . . . Farmakes: I have a question . Is there anything written as to , I 'm just wondering how people friendly this , it will look nice . I 'm just wondering how useable it is or what purpose is intended for it . Is there any study in regards to , for instance there 's a bench overlooking TH 5 and I 'm wondering how relevant that is . Krauss : TH 5 has a bike trail , pedestrian trail . Farmakes: Well I didn 't mean that . I was wondering if somebody 's going to plant themselves down next to full of traffic . Gerhardt : well if somebody 's going to ride a bike , I mean from what we 've been told , this is going to go out to Carver Park . This trail . Ultimately if TH 5 is upgraded so you can get a lot of people biking out to the Arboretum , out to Carver Park from Eden Prairie and along the way they want to stop and rest , they can sit on the bench . $100 .00 bench you know is there if they want it . Farmakes : What I was saying though or the comment I was making , I was just wondering if there 's anything . There have been occasions where communities have spent a lot of money for park areas where they thought they would be useable and have not been , including like New York City for instance . Gerhardt : . . .active park area . We 're not trying to encourage people to come down in this area . The bench is there again , this is going to be constructed with TH 5 as it gets through Eden Prairie . We didn 't put any parking lots in to accommodate people to come down here and use this . It 's more of a visual , as you 're driving by type pleasure and it 's not an active area . We 're not trying to encourage people . . .want to go down and sit and watch cars go by on TH 5 with the exception of . . . Farmakes: Has there been communication between the other elements that were on the corridor study? The urban design center . Krauss : Well yeah , Morrish has seen this stuff . Gerhardt : And Barton-Aschmann is the engineers that are working on the TH 5 plan . The HRA has hired them to make sure that TH 5 is being built , that these elements can be introduced . The special brick paving is TH 5 being upgraded that we can get those special brick pavings done with that . - Who better to do that than the architects and engineers that are working on - Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 39 TH 5 . With the contract , Barry Warner from Barton-Aschmann has been working with Bill Morrish and Paul and also is very good friends with Peter Olin from the Landscape Arboretum so he bounced all of this off of Peter and what Peter thinks of this and the HRA and their thoughts of what this area should be looking like . But we 're open to any change on it but a big factor in this was to try to get this done with the TH 5 improvement and • — that segment is going to be built this spring . Batzli : Where 's the fountain in, right there? Gerhardt : Right here . Batzli : And you 're not going to put the depot there like in the other concept drawing? Gerhardt : No . We want to put the depot in a spot where the best thing we - can do is to get it reused . To have people use it instead of it just being an empty building sitting somewhere . Similar to Old Village Hall . You wouldn 't believe how much the Old Village Hall gets used . That book upstairs is booked . Wedding parties use it to dress in . There 's school classes , the Cub Scouts , there 's tap dancers , and the floor 's got little pits in it from the tap dancers . But the building gets used , it 's unbelieveable . And I 'd like to do the same thing , rennovate the old depot - and put that back to a similar use . Be it whether I rent it out for some realtor or somebody to go in there or something and has money generated but I think the best way to use these older buildings is to put them back to use and that 's the only way they usually keep upgraded . Batzli : So you 're still looking at doing something like that within this TIF district then? Gerhardt : We 'd like to get it down next to St . Hubert 's Church . By Old Village Hall , what we looked at , what we 've got there is basically a little historical area and I always figured a nice spot would be on a Klingelhutz piece between those two big oak trees next to the railroad tracks . If not in that location , a little bit farther east of where Jerry Schlenk 's house ' is next to the railroad tracks . And those are my thoughts . Sometimes they go to the wayside but we haven 't designated a site but it more than likely will be down in that area somewhere . . . That 's all the modifications as a part of what 's going on . Again when your passing a resolution saying that the modifications that we 're making are consistent with the overall development of the community and I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have . . . Batzli : Thanks again Todd . Tim , do you have anything? Ladd? Matt? Jeff? Okay . Any motions? Ledvina : Okay , I 'd like to offer a motion that 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 . Conrad : I ' ll second . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 40 Resolution #92-1 : Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Gerhardt : If you are interested , we can as soon as , we haven 't seen any architectural plans and specs for those entry monuments . If you want , we can bring those back to you and , HRA 's looking for comments and I don 't have any problem coming back and presenting those to you if you have an interest in seeing those . Because ti; ? HRA is always looking for comments . Conrad: I 'd like to . Batzli : I think that would be a good idea to bring them back . Gerhardt : . . . it 's been our policy in the past to bring any public buildings back and then we . . .site plan approval . The library would come through with a site plan approval . Batzli : Okay . Real good . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS . Batzli : Paul , do you have some materials or ' couldn 't you get them together? - Krauss : I thought I was going to be able to give them to you . It turns out that we 're not going to be able to provide them until next meeting . You _ may want to , I think our next agenda is fairly light . We may want to consider putting a couple of these things on there and tackling them then . Batzli : Just so everybody else knows , Paul is going to give us some ordinances from some other communities and also I think take a look at one proposal that at least has been bounced around with Paul for a PUD area so we can kind of take a look at how our proposed ordinance would affect that and take a look at some of those things . So I 'll save my comments on that then . But we can do that at our next meeting . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 5 , 1992 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Krauss: I don 't know if you wanted to take much time on this . Most of the stuff is as you recommended . The beachlot stuff has been generating a lot of , somewhat I guess controversy . A lot of calls . But a lot of the discussion appears to be interesting and Councilman Wing 's here tonight to relayed some of that to me that we had a few beachlots , the Council did go with the '82 baseline but , and obviously that raised the ayre of some of the beachlot associations that exceeded their '82 allocations by substantial margins . But there was almost an equal outcry of folks who have been controlling themselves or individuals who have concerns about beachlot associations that violated this stuff where they 're saying that we fanning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 41 - want you to enforce it this way and Councilman Wing 's indicated to me that he continues to get a lot of calls on it and it sounds like the calls are coming in from similar , both sides . Equal who wanted to enforce it . The second reading of that is on Monday night and we 're already looking to bringing back in the first round of non-conforming use permit applications to you the second meeting in March . Batzli : So all summer are we going to be looking at these non-conforming beachlots? - Krauss : Well , we 're thinking of taking about 3 or 4 at a time . Most , I think there 's 13 of them and if my memory 's correct , 9 of them there 's really no problem . Conrad : 3 or 4 that are . Krauss : So what we want to do is tackle one each time . So we 'll be - bringing that back to you . Farmakes : The people that came to speak that wanted the '82 guidelines on - the lake , were they centered around those 3 or 4 or were there further complaints in regards to the ones? Krauss : I think the ones we heard at the meeting were the ones that you heard about the beachlots that you heard . Councilman Wing indicated to me now that we 're starting to hear of people complaining about other situations elsewhere . Farmakes: I thought the newspaper article didn 't explain it very well . The company staff . They left out a lot of key points . They kept referring - to a survey rather than the ordinance that they were following at that time . Or that these are in violation of that . As I understand it . That 's the way it came out in the article so I don 't know how many people consider that to be an affront against their riparian rights or what but . Ledvina : Seeing the two surveys , the distinction between them was arbitrary and . . . Conrad: Is there a chance that the Council could change it 's mind on it? Councilman Wing : You know the Council better than I do Ladd . I think they do , there 's a lot of environmental arguments and I don 't think the environmental argument has any weight at all on this issue . I think the plan is it 's own issue . I think if you look at the 1992 shoreline management that 's coming through . . .recreational beachlots . I have polled Planning Commissions in the past and Park and Rec Commission and City Staff and former Mayor and everybody 's in agreement that 1982 is fair and just . . . - and I think one of the comments that will be made Monday night is we have . . .so there 's a lot of ramifications on this thing . I guess I put everything out of my mind except what we 've done in 1982 and why and . . . I think we did the right thing and I would support the 1982 count based on why it was done . That very few are in violation. We 've got some very vocal people but they 're the ones in violation . And there 's going to be strong . . .cooperated and . . .lakeshore control by the amount of people Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 42 complaining . We have a 50 foot lot that has 14 boats on it , that 's pretty high intensive useage . So to answer your questions , I don 't know . I think- that the lake people seem to be lobbying for 1982 and the . . .certainly for 1982 and you supported it . The problem is , you support this thing and have reasons for justification but then you don 't show up at the City Council meeting and stand your ground and share your thoughts . . .so there 's a loss of transition in there and I think . . .that you should be there to stand . . . and giving the Council your input . Batzli : Well it comes up for second reading next Monday? Councilman Wing: On the consent agenda . Batzli : Okay , and that 's the same meeting that is going to have the corridor study? Krauss: Yes . Batzli : Okay . So there may be more of us there at least . So if it does - get yanked off of consent . Conrad: It 's on the consent agenda . Is that right? Krauss : Well given the comments that Dick 's been receiving , I think the other Council people have probably been receiving them as well , I wouldn 't be surprised if it got pulled off . Batzli : It will get pulled off of consent agenda . Conrad : And who 's made aware? It 's not a public hearing at this time . Do people have the opportunity to talk? Krauss : The Mayor 's always , if it 's pulled off the consent agenda , the Mayor 's always had a very open stance toward people wanting to comment on things and they 're always given an opportunity . Conrad: And who is going to show up for this? There 's been one reading . Did people go away feeling that it 's a done deal after the one reading? Councilman Wing: I think that it 's been my limited experience on the Council , the first reading is a good time to sit quiet and say nothing but then the second reading is the time to pull it off the consent agenda and hit it head on . I 'm assuming that the majority of the discussion . . .real decision will be made on the second reading . That 's my opinion based on previous ones . I think of the landscape ordinance . Nobody said anything . . .and they had a million reasons why and no chance to discuss or counter - or even be rational on the issues . . .so I can see that happening Monday although the lake people who were here , that are calling me are certainly planning on coming in with a lot of background and professional people with _ them . . .so there 's a lot of , they 're not interested in . . . Conrad : I 'm just curious . I 've talked to a councilmember or two and I don 't know that there 's support for the 1982 . I don 't know that the 1982 is going to be what is agreed upon . But there is opportunity for people to Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 43 speak but oh well , thank you Dick . Batzli : Anything else Paul? Krauss: A couple other things that didn 't happen at the Council meeting but are happening at the storm water meetings . One of the goals that was established and one of the early directives on this thing was to attack the problems in our wetlands ordinance and develop a new ordinance and official map . What we 've done is break out a subcommittee of the , what the swamp group , we ' ll go by that acronym , that 's working at a more rapid pace on geting a new wetlands ordinance in place and adoption of the official map . So I 'm hopeful that you ' ll be seeing the fruits of that effort before we get too deep into the summer season . The other element that you 're probably going to be seeing in short order is , there 's a set of manuals for maintaining a site during construction and I 'm sure Matt 's familiar with it . It 's called Best Management Practices but there 's different manuals by different organizations . Basically it 's guidelines that establish in great detail how you best control erosion during various construction stages . Re-establishment of cover and what not . Our ordinances are extremely bad on this thing . We 've been kind of making do by sticking people with erosion control plans and what not as a part of approvals but we really don 't have a comprehensive document that tells us what to do and where to do it . So we 're probably going to be looking to an ordinance , in fact it 's one of the topics that 's probably going to come up next week at the swamp meeting . Ordinance amendments to deal with that head on and get that into place before we get too deep into the construction season as well . Batzli : Does that make Tim Chairman of the Swamp? Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : Well is that an ordinance that we can merely adopt a certain manual as our guiding light? Krauss: We 've got a couple of approaches to that . I 've been working with Bonestroo . I think my preference is to do what you 're saying . Is that not , to go into great technical detail in the ordinance because it 's confusing and it 's to adopt either that manual or a manual that we develop for ourselves by reference in the ordinance and then we can update the manual whenever we need to without changing the ordinance . Batzli : Okay . Moving onto ongoing items . Jeff , has the sign group been meeting? Farmakes: Yes . We met for the second time this morning . And it 's going along pretty good actually . We 're making some headway . We 're dealing with the intent statement now and then starting to deal with some of the special , with how we approach districting for signage . Batzli : Okay . Any administrative approvals? Krauss : Yeah there was one but I can 't remember what it is right now . I 'll try and think of it . Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 44 DISCUSSION OF GROUP HOMES . Batzli : What do we need to discuss? Krauss : Well okay . I don 't know if you , again because of the lateness of the hour whether you want to get this in time . Even though the agenda says the sexually oriented materials on there too , Roger was not able to get that into the packet in time so that 's something that will swing onto the next one . I asked Roger to give us a memo on outlining with group homes what we do now . What recent court actions are saying that you may be able to do . What you can 't do and then to look at some alternatives . This is one of our work items . Ongoing items . What I 'd like to do is , in view of -- the hour if you don 't really want to really discuss this in detail at this point . I didn 't work on it but it came from Minnetonka . Minnetonka I thought took a real progressive stance on group homes in that the City worked diligently to allow these things into the community in a reasonable and responsible manner but right now we have an ordinance that says some classes are protected by the State . They can move in , you say nothing but the larger ones have a conditional use permit but there 's no guideline . And what Minnetonka did is develop some very good guidelines and I have copies I can give you tonight or in the next packet , however you wish , that outline where a group home , a licensed group home is a reasonable use and where it 's not . I think you 're way ahead of the game to examine this issue somewhat dispassionately when you 're not being confronted by some raucous crowd of folks telling you to shoot something down . And I 'm not asking you to jump into anything quickly . We can always have Chuck Gabrielson , I 'm sure he 'd be willing to comment on some of this stuff . He operates the home out on TH 5 . I 'd like to involve him just to get some expertise . But Minnetonka had some horrific experiences . One was a home for teenage kids - that had problems . It was in an old school . Another one which was really an awful situation was a home for battered women that was moving out of Hopkins and into Minnetonka and the ordinance that they developed I think _ showed a lot of foresight and they had a lot of input . They served on a State committee on regulating group homes and what not . So I 'd like to bounce some of those things off you to show what I think could possibly be done and what we maybe ought to look at . And if you agree we 'll come through with an ordinance amendment to do it . Batzli : Currently what do we do? Do we regulate it at all? Krauss : Well we do but it 's like so many of our CUP 's and we 've tried to fix them as we 've tackled them . It says it 's a conditional use permit . There 's only four specific standards , and this is for the ones that are between , 7 to 16 adults or children . What we require that they have a State license . Now that 's sometimes problematic because the State doesn 't license everything . So you need to look at that . Compliance with building and fire codes as a condition . Well , that 's nice . That 's reasonable . Annual review . Well all CUP 's have annual review and it 's got to have a septic system in compliance with the ordinance . Well , this doesn 't tell me - a whole lot or give me a whole lot of guidance . The stuff that Minnetonka developed was things like , if you 're going to have a group residential facility in a single family neighborhood , you 've got to recognize it 's not a single family use . I mean not exactly and that the intensity of the use is somewhat greater . So what they did in Minnetonka is I think they - Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 45 established a requirement that for each residential above a certain number you have to have 3 ,000 feet of lot area . Off street parking has to be provided . That these things should not be located at the bottom end , dead end of a cul-de-sac but on a more prominent street , possibly where it 's not as intrusive . And a lot of what regards is somewhat like a church . A church is allowed in a residential district but you don 't want it at the — end of a cul-de-sac because it has inordinate amounts of traffic and noise and whatever else associated with it . I think that there 's a way to reasonably approach these things without being punitive and I think we ought to look at it when nobody 's asking us the question . Farmakes: Is it a practical matter with some of this stuff though that because a lot of these organizations are starved for cash that they take over existing buildings that have been either abandoned or looking to unload them . Say for instance I know in some communities there 's been problems with churches who get a single family exemption and they 're in a — single family community and in some cases they 're quite close to these places . And they come in . There 's usually a regulation that states that they can only be used for religious purposes . It has to be an active survey and they try to do , get the zoning changed just for that one corner . That one lot in a single family zone . Do you envision that sort of thing? Krauss : Well churches are a little tough . A little different but I know - I 've dealt , I didn 't have to deal with it fortunately but there was an instance in Minnetonka where a family , a religiously oriented family moved into a home and turned their house into a church where they had meetings - and streets up and down on both sides were filled with cars and it became a real significant problem . I think you do need to look at that and churches are not very well regulated by our ordinances . Farmakes : Don 't confuse me . What I 'm talking about in this particular case that I know , it was actually a convent . A small convent . Residential convent area . Because it had a chapel in it , it was classified as for religious use . But it had an exemption and it was in a single family area . Krauss : No , we don 't exempt anything for religious purposes . Farmakes : No , no . I meant that the building had an exemption being placed in a single family zone . = Krauss: We don 't have that in . Farmakes : Not in this community but what I 'm saying is that what happened is that they tried to find someone to take the building . Basically they couldn 't find another religious organization to take it so they , there was a group , a home that had a contract with the County who wanted to take over _ the facility . Wanted to rezone it . Pressure because the contract was with a municipal government that to change that within the single family zone . Krauss: Well that can certainly happen . I worked on one in Minnetonka on Excelsior Blvd . which was a convent and there are no more nuns living in it and it was a home for Alheizmer 's . A residential home for Alheizmer 's patients that had an operation in Minneapolis that wanted to move out there . I never thought it was going to be controversial but , I mean it was Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 46 a building that was designed for multiple occupancy . It had a lot of little cells for the nuns . But those kinds of things , that particular kind— of thing you can deal with with the ordinance that I 'm thinking of . Of at least laying out for you to take a look at . Batzli : Why don 't you bring it back next meeting with what you 'd like to see . Obviously with a conditional use permit we already have flexibility as to what we need. The only thing we 're going to gain by putting criteria in there is you 're going to have it in writing to put under somebody 's nose and say this is what we want . Krauss : With our CUP standards the way they area , we have some specific standards for some CUP 's and then we have the mom and apple pie CUP standards that apply to everything . You 'd be very hard pressed to develop detailed guidelines on an impromptu basis when somebody 's already in with _ an application request that would be upheld by a court . Batzli : Then we should get rid of all the detailed CUP stuff shouldn 't we? Krauss : No , I think the reverse is true . You should be more specific on the CUP standards . And again , keep in mind , my own professional opinion about group homes is they 're something that I think wee have an obligation as a community to do our share . I don 't think we can ship all these problems off to Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis and shouldn 't attempt to do that . Batzli : So this is an . . .problem? Krauss : Yeah , very much so . One other aspect of this that Roger touched . on that we had a problem with recently is I had a woman who runs a senior residence . They wanted to buy a home in Chanhassen and we have a definition of what constitutes a family . Our definition says that you can have up to 5 unrelated people . She wanted to take in , it was a 4 bedroom house and it was she and her husband and she wanted to take in 3 senior citizens that needed a modest level of care and 'wanted to live in a residential setting . Sounded real innocuous to me . I couldn 't see any problem at all with it . In fact there was no problem at all with it under our current ordinance . But then she said , well what if I have a baby? My husband and I are thinking of having a baby . Well , then you no longer have -- 5 unrelated people . You have 3 related and 3 unrelated , 6 total and technically it 's a violation of our ordinance . I mean ordinances were never designed to look at the multiplicity of living situations that people have and the courts have had some recent rulings which is why I asked Roger to get involved . But I think it 's a fairly interesting topic and I think the only time you can really look at it is when you 're free to do it without pressure . Batzli : Okay , sounds good . Why don 't we take a look at it next week with your thoughts on what you 're trying to get us to look at . Krauss: We also have for the next meeting another work item , and I know from talking to Commissioner Erhart about it , it 's one that we 've been meaning to tackle for quite a while . We got approval from Metro Council to lower our lot sizes in the rural area . We 're scheduling an ordinance Planning Commission Meeting - February 19 , 1992 - Page 47 amendment to follow up on that for the next meeting . Batzli : I 'm sorry , to do what? Krauss : If you recall with the Lake Ann agreement , we got that contract change which authorizes us to lower the lot area below 2 1/2 acres but - that 's what our ordinance says right now . In the rural area . So we need to amend our ordinances accordingly . - Batzli : I thought you could only be 2 1/2 acres if you were prior , if you subdivided it prior to the? Krauss: No . What you can have is , you 're subject to the 1 per 10 acre density cap now but you also have to have 2 1/2 acre lots . The premise we were looking at is if you have 40 acres , instead of having 10 acres of it in 4 lots , you may be able to have four 1 acre lots as long as you can meet — the drainfield requirements and leave the rest of your land open . So we 're not messing with the density . — Batzli : Okay . Remind me to ask you about a conversation we had months ago about leaving open space like that and who 's going t^. care for it . Let 's talk about it then . Let 's move on. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT REGARDING SALES OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL . Batzli : I understand this came from the Council . Krauss : Yes . And that Roger didn 't have a chance to finish that one before the packet date so we 'll get that on your next meeting . In the past I don 't think too much has changed . You can regulate the sales of sexually oriented materials . It 's very difficult to do and you want to get away from that community standard and all that . But in essence to regulate it , to ban it from some part of your town you have to allow it someplace else . - You can 't totally prohibit it so basically you wind up having to consign a portion of your town over to the possibility of having this stuff and what area do you want to write off . Roger was quite specific . You can 't hang - it on a bluff in the middle of nowhere or in an industrial park . It 's got to be in a consistent retail area . Batzli : Well the issue for us right at this point is , in the past we 've looked around at each other and said do we want to do anything with this? Everybody said no and we 've just dropped the ball . I understand now that the Council is requesting that we do something with it? Krauss: Well the Mayor asked that we bring this up . When I showed him your list of work assignments for the next year , he specifically asked about this one . Frankly I mean , I don't know what Roger 's going to tell us exactly but if he tells us what he 's told us before , you may draw the same conclusion but we can carry that forward to the City Council . - Farmakes : I have a question on the one thing . It said business and it didn 't say material and this one says materia?. . Does that refer to two bars or that type of thing where they have entertainment or are we talking - in here about? Planning Commission Meeting February 19 , 1992 - Page 48 Krauss: It was an inopportune choice of words . It 's supposed to apply to all of it as I understood what the Mayor was looking at . So you 've got the- bars . You 've got the videos . You 've got whatever else is being sold . Ledvina: Would that apply to like a Video Update that would sell X rated films? Krauss: Well theoretically it could . Farmakes: What is the application to the entertainment though of that sort of thing? We don 't have bars here that provide that . Krauss : Roger 's told us that we have , or the Council has a tremendous amount of latitude over bars because we can do virtually anything we want with a liquor license and courts won 't overrule you . Farmakes: Minneapolis is wrestling with that right now aren 't they? Krauss : Yeah they are and I 'm not sure why the premise seems to be so much- different in Minneapolis but here you can attach , we 've been told you can attach conditions to a liquor license that would prohi.bit that . Batzli : So what we 're going to do now is we 'll wait for Roger and discuss it next week and all of us need to try and decide whether we want to consign this type of businesses to a certain part of Chanhassen before the fact or wait for one to come in . That 's the bottom line decision . Conrad moved , Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 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 28, 1992 SUBJ: Report from Director At the City Council meeting of February 24, 1992, the following actions were taken: 1. Zoning ordinance amendment establishing a requirement that non-conforming recreational beachlots obtain a non-conforming use permit was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. Ultimately, it became clear that the primary difference between the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance is essentially one where the new procedure will allow recreational beachlot owners to discuss and come to agreement with the city upon the level of acceptable use. Under the current ordinance, the city's only recourse to responding to complaints is to issue citations or file legal actions which refer the matter to the courts. Once there was agreement on using the 1982 standards rather than going with the 1991 survey, the Council agreed that the new ordinance offered significant advantages. Although the meeting was very well attended, almost no one chose to speak on either side of the issue. The Council approved final reading of the ordinance and it is currently slated for publication. We will be bringing the review of the beachlots to you in the near future. The Council further determined that no fee should be required for these permit requests. 2. Progress Valley Mini-storage facility - a) Zoning ordinance amendment to allow screened outdoor storage as an interim use permit in the BF District, and b) Interim use permit to allow outdoor screened storage were approved on the consent agenda. 3. Approval of wetland alteration permit for construction of storm water ponds within 200 feet of a Class A wetland for the Minnewashta Parkway project. This item was pulled from the consent agenda for brief discussion. Staff indicated that water t* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Report from Director February 28, 1992 Page 2 — quality improvement measures proposed by Bonestroo as well as the project architect area included in the project. The Council voted to approve the wetland alteration permit. 4. The Council approved the contract for forest cover inventory project between the _ city, DNR, and Lance Anderson. This effort will form the basis of the city's forest cover inventory which will be put into ordinance later this year. 5. The City Council discussed the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Hwy. 5 corridor study be undertaken. In general, there is very strong support for the goal of completing the corridor study; however, concerns were raised regarding the — anticipated $40,000 to $60,000 cost that had been mentioned by staff. No conclusion was reached and staff was asked to come back with alternatives on financing. I was also directed to contact consulting firms that may be candidates for the work and see if we can refine the work program and cost estimates further. It is anticipated that this matter will be further discussed at the Saturday, February 29, 1992, goals meeting with the City Council. — 6. The City Council approved plans and specifications to construct the Senior Center -" on the lower level of City Hall. REVISED FEBRUARY 27, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) Several meetings held with task force. U and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study of M Program to wrap up by January 1. PC recommended to proceed with study. Currently being evaluated by CC. 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 Completed review of issue paper. Starting work on new standards. 3.* Tree Protection Ordinance City/MnDNR have jointly contracted for Mapping of significant detailed on-site tree inventory to be vegetative areas conducted spring/summer, 1992. 4.* Wetland Ordinance/Surface Main group establishing public Water Management Program information and erosion control program Task Force established. along with other work. Special wetlands subcommittee working to fast track development of new ordinance. 5.* Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on a draft of the ordinance. 6.* Group home ordinance PC review on 3/4/92. 7. Rural Lot Area Policies PC review in March, 1992. 8. PUD Ordinance Future meetings required. 9. PC input in Downtown 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 Preservation Greenway 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 approved by CC on 2/24/92. ordinance - Re: Non- — conforming beachlots 13. Ordinance amendment to Non- PC approved. City Attorney to redraft. — conforming use section 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 standards. Request by PC. 16.* Sexually oriented businesses PC review on 3/4/92. * Change in status since last report CITYOF 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 26, 1992 SUBJ: Discussion of Group Home Regulations State law outlines cases wherein certain types of group homes are protected as permitted uses. Thus, there is no local control over these uses. The premise behind this is that these are small group residences that functionally resemble normal single family occupancy. Our ordinance was designed to incorporate these provisions and to date we have had no major problems materialize. We have one significantly sized group home located outside of the MUSA area that is subject to special conditional use provisions. This home has also operated without generating any noteworthy concerns. However, the ordinance provides very little in the way of guidelines for the location of larger sized group home operations within the community. This does not mean that they are prohibited. For example, group homes serving from 7 to 16 persons are allowed as a conditional use in the R-8, Medium Density District. However, the guidelines we have for reviewing this are very minimal at best. My reason in asking the Planning Commission to re-evaluate how group homes are regulated should be touched upon. I am a strong believer in the concept that a community has an obligation to provide services and living situations for all its residents. The law has established legal mandates for doing this to an extent, but I believe it is more. There should be a philosophical commitment to achieving this goal. In the past, many communities turned a blind eye toward group home situations and they were essentially dumped in less desirable areas in the central cities. For example, the Chicago Avenue area in Minneapolis has a large number of these facilities. However, the central cities are no longer willing to accept being dumped upon and the courts continue to reaffirm that there is an obligation for communities to accept a fair share of these facilities. Thus, in bringing this up for your review, it is with an eye towards developing more appropriate conditional use permit standards to allow for the appropriate design and placement of these facilities. We may have a goal of providing equal housing access for these uses but this does not necessarily Is to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Group Home Regulations February 26, 1992 Page 2 mean that these uses are reasonable on every residential lot. It is also my belief that we are much better off examining this issue at this point in time when there is no pending application for such a facility. These applications more often than not invoke considerable neighborhood concern and it is simply not possible to deal with this issue effectively after the fact. In attached information, the city attorney has reviewed legal requirements for regulations of group living. In addition, I am including sections from the current ordinance, wherein, group living situations and standards are described. I am also including a section from the Minnetonka zoning ordinance concerning licensed residential care facilities for your review. _ At the time these were developed, Minnetonka had reviewed and ultimately approved, several controversial group resident situations. The Minnetonka Planning Director served on a Hennepin County Task Force aimed at facilitating the location of these facilities in a _ more equitable manner, and it was through their input plus the city's experience, that this ordinance was developed. I believe that it points out the possibility of adopting some very reasonable standards that don't seek to preclude the opportunity tb provide group living situations. Rather these standards tend towards ensuring that the group residences can be effectively accommodated and merged with a neighborhood without undue impact. I would appreciate it if the Planning Commission could discuss this matter and give staff guidance on how to proceed. CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P_.A Feb 13 , 92 16 :03 No .006 P .02 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorneys at l.aw Thorna,J.Gunpbcll (612)452.5000 Roo„er N.Knutzon Fax(612)452.5550 Th,um.,M.Scott — Gar. G.Fuchs James R. ' 'Aston Elliott B. Knet ch February 13 , 1992 K.liclrtal A.Rru1„icl. Rcnac D.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 (5) 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 . EaQandale Office Center • 1380 C ornnrarc. Center Ctirv,' . Fnnnn XAN Sc171 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. g 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. Q1 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. Paul, 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. g 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 Homes 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 Mme. 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' ' F: - -, _1 6 • • , COTT • FUCHS, P.A. B Y: • Roger N. Knutson RNK: srn ZONING § 20-256 Sec. 20-252. Bed and breakfast establishments. The following applies to bed and breakfast establishments: — (1) Two(2)off-street parking spaces plus one(1)additional space per rental room must be provided. (2) There shall be no more than one(1)employee in addition to the residents. (3) Establishment must be owner occupied. 64) There shall be five (5)or less rooms for rent.) krr 02-0 IS I (5) The rooms shall not be rented for more that seven (7) consecutive days to the same person. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(1)), 12.15-86) "X---Sec. 20-253. Group homes. The following applies to group homes for seven (7)to sixteen(16)persons. (1) The structure must be in compliance with the state licensing requirement. (2) The structure must be in compliance with local building and fire codes. (3) The site will be reviewed annually through a public hearing process. (4) Septic systems must be in compliance with chapter 19, article IV. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(2)). 12-15-86) Sec. 20-254. Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies. The following applies to commercial kennels, stables and riding academies: (1) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, article III. (2) The site must be located on a collector street. • (3) The structure must be a minimum of two hundred (200)feet from wetland area. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5.9-1(3)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-255. Reserved. Editor's note—Former § 20-255,"Contractor's yard,"was deleted in its entirety by § 1 of Ord. No. 103, adopted May 22, 1989. Such former section derived from Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(4)), adopted Dec. 15, 1986. Sec. 20-256. Commercial communication transmission towers. • Commercial communication transmission towers not designed to collapse progressively shall be set back from all property lines a minimum distance equal to the height of the tower. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(5)), 12-15-86) Supp. No. 2 1177 ZONING § 20-634 ARTICLE XIII."R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four(4)dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) Public and private parks and open space. (4) Group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) State-licensed day care center for twelve(12)or fewer children. (6) Utility services. (7) Temporary real estate office and model home. • (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-633. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-4" District: (1) Garage. (2) Storage buildings. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. • (6) Home occupations. (7) One(1)dock. (Ord. No. 80,Art.V, § 6(5-6-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20.634. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an"R-4"District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. Supp.No. 2 1211 § 20-634 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) Reserved. (4) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(5), 2-12-90) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-635. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "R-4" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is as follows: a. For a detached single-family dwelling unit, fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet per unit. b. For a two-family dwelling, ten thousand(10,000)square feet per dwelling unit. (2) The minimum lot frontage is as follows: a. For a single-family dwelling, eighty (80)feet. b. For a two-family dwelling, fifty (50)feet per dwelling unit. c. If the lot fronts on a cul-de-sac the width of the lot at the building setback lines - shall be: 1. In the case of a single-family dwelling, eighty (80)feet. 2. In the case of a two-family dwelling,fifty (50)feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five(125)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is thirty(30)percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30)feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30)feet. c. For side yards, ten (10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3)stories/forty (40)feet. b. For accessory structures, one (1)story/fifteen(15)feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 2, 3-14-88) Sec. 20-636. Reserved. Sec. 20-637. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "R-4" District: (1) Boarding houses. (2) Private kennels. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Supp. No. 2 1212 i. - Zoning Ordinance Section 300 . 02 . Page 7 it22 . Community Based Residential Care Facility - Any facility similar to but not included within the definition of licensed residential care facility. These may include public or private facilities which provide one or more persons with up to 24 hour care , training , education , rehabilitation , treatment or other support services . 22A. Comprehensive Plan - The document entitled Comprehensive Guide Plan for the City of Minnetonka with associated Guide Plan Map , adopted June 15 , 1981 , as amended , or as hereafter revised or superseded by new comprehensive plans . - 23 . Conditional Use - A use permitted in a particular zoning district only upon showing that such use in a specified location will comply with all standards of this ordinance for the location or operation of such use . The city may impose additional conditions in specific instances to protect the public health , safety or welfare . 24 . Conditional Use Permit - A permit.. to allow a conditional use duly authorized by the appropriate authority as described in sections 300 . 16 or 300 . 21 of this ordinance . A conditional use permit may be subject to periodic review upon determination by the city. - 25 . Cul-de-sac - A street with a t T 1 I / single means of ingress/egress and YL:: �• `l•• ./ having a turnaround at the end . `">'�htest' rb, \ �, �w (Figure 3 ) 1, 7- ��`. �.. \ _ . •.,.../ � N,„„ I '3o'tta� , , ....., 26 . Density - The number of dwelling units per acre of Land as regulated by the comprehensive plan. All property zoned as wetlands or floodplain shall be excluded from the calculations but a density credit of two units per acre may be computed for each acre of such land . 27 . Director of Planning For the purpose of this ordinance , director of planning shall refer to the individual holding said position or a designated representative . 28 . Dwelling - A building or portion thereof designed or used exclusively for residential occupancy. 29 . Dwelling , Attached - A dwelling attached to one or more dwellings by common walls or floors . / Zoning Ordinance 1 Section 300 . 02 . Page 11 52 . Intensity of Development - A measure of the magnitude and impact of a land use on the environment and neighboring land uses . Variables include , but are not limited to , the levels of traffic that are generated , degree of lot coverage , volume of noise or odor emitted and similar factors . 53 . Level of Service - The traffic capacity of an intersection based upon criteria established by the Institute of Traffic Engineers , as amended periodically . 54 . Licensed Day Care Facility - Any facility , public or private , which for gain or otherwise regularly provides one 1 or more persons with care , training , supervision , habilitation , rehabilitation or developmental guidance on a regular basis , for periods of less than 24 hours per day , I in a place other than the person ' s own home . Licensed day care facilities include , but are not limited to , family day care homes , group family day care homes , day care centers , day nurseries , nursery schools , developmental achievement centers , day treatment programs , adult day care centers and day services . 455 . Licensed Residential Care Facility - Any facility, public or private , which for gain or otherwise regularly provides one or more persons with a 24 hour per day substitute for care , food , lodging , training , education , supervision , habilitation , rehabilitation and treatment they need , but which for any reason cannot be furnished in the person ' s own home . Residential facilities include , but are not limited to , state institutions under the control of - the commissioner of human services , foster homes , residential treatment centers , maternity shelters , group homes , residential programs , supportive living residences for functionally impaired adults or schools for handicapped children . 56 . Loading Space - That portion of a lot or parcel of land designed to serve the purpose of loading or unloading all types of vehicles . 1 I I 1 1 I I 57 . Lot - A designated parcel Char 4. 06008 s> „ ! — of land established by plat or ,�_. subdivision adequate for ciwp,1 b 1 occupancy by a use permitted in 1 ; 2= . 4 ' iz this ordinance and providing 1 I 1 ! f — — sufficient area required for '� 1Isi µ Iis ,Q III ,10•,9 ^•1� minimum open space and a i 14 j appurtenant facilities as ---J required by this ordinance . I ' > > 1 „ . is — .(Figure 6 ) fl _2 ,, is ! is l n l \_J cr4.W —/ Zoning Ordinance Section 300 . 16 . Page 74 1 ) side and rear setbacks equal to the height of the structure or 15 feet , whichever is greater ; 2 ) no additional curb cuts to be permitted ; 3 ) not to be used for commercial activities ; 4 ) structure to be architecturally consistent with the principal structure ; 5 ) landscaping to be required to buffer views when the structure is highly visible from adjoining properties ; and 6 ) site and building plan subject to review pursuant to section 300 . 27 of this ordinance . h ) home occupations • 1 ) only limited retail sales activity; 2 ) no exterior signs ; • 3 ) maximum of one outside employee ; 4 ) adequate off-street parking based on number of employees and customers per day ; 5 ) parking area screened from off site views ; 6 ) no outside storage ; 7 ) shall not result in significant levels of noise , air or other pollution; • 8 ) business hours restricted to no more than 8 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. ; and 9 ) Outside parking of no more than one commercial type vehicle or vehicle identified for business purposes not to exceed one ton capacity which is used for both personal and business transportation . The vehicle is to be owned and registered by an occupant of the property and parked in a screened location. (Amended by Ordinance 87-450 , 1-20-87 . ) Aki ) licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care facilities for six or fewer persons located within 1/4 mile of another similar facility or Zoning Ordinance I ~ Section 300 . 16 . 1 Page 75 for more than six persons or other charitable , religious , counseling or therapeutic service entity involving regularly scheduled meetings ; (Amended by Ordinance 87-450 , 1-20-87 . ) _ 1 1 ) 3 , 000 square feet of lot area for each overnight resident , based on proposed capacity; 2 ) 300 square feet of residential building area for each overnight resident , based on proposed capacity; 3 ) no external building improvements undertaken which alter the original character of the home unless approved by the city council ; - 4 ) traffic generation : A detailed documentation of anticipated traffic generation shall be provided . - In order to avoid unreasonable traffic impacts to a residential neighborhood , traffic limitations are established as follows : (Amended by Ordinance 88-508 , 8-1-88 . ) a ) the use shall not be permitted on properties which gain access by private roads or driveways which are used by more than one lot ; b ) for property located where traffic from the property will always utilize the same portion of a local residential street before reaching a collector or arterial street ( for example , a cul-de-sac ) traffic generation shall not exceed 23 vehicle trips per day; I c ) for property located on a local street not subject to paragraph b above , traffic generation shall not exceed 32 vehicle trips per day; d ) for properties located in close proximity to a collector or arterial roadway , traffic generation shall not significantly impact local residential streets . 5 . no on-street parking to be allowed . Adequate off-street parking shall be required by the city based on the staff and resident needs of each specific facility. Private driveways shall be of adequate width to accommodate effective vehicle circulation and are to be equipped with a turnaround area to prevent backing maneuvers onto public streets . Driveways shall be maintained in - an open manner at all times and emergency vehicle access is to be available . Driveway slope shall , \ _i Zoning Ordinance Section 300 . 16 . Page 76 not exceed 8% unless the city determines that site characteristics or mitigative measures to ensure safe vehicular circulation are present . Adequate sight distance at the access point shall be available . (Amended by Ordinance 88-508 , 8-1-88 . ) 6 ) all facilities to conform to the requirements of the Minnesota state building code and fire code ; 7 ) landscape buffering from surrounding residential uses to be provided consistent with the requirements contained in section 300 . 27 of this ordinance . A privacy fence of appropriate residential design may be required to limit off-site impacts . Landscape screening from surrounding residential uses may be required by the city depending on the type , location and proximity of residential areas to a specific facility; 8 ) submission of detailed prograi information including goals , policies , activity schedule , staffing patterns and targeted capacity which may result in the imposition of reasonable conditions to limit the off-site impacts ; 9 ) the facility to be overseen by a board of directors ; 10 ) submission of bylaws of the board of directors , resumes of members of the board of directors and articles of incorporation to the city; 11 ) neighborhood representatives to be invited to sit on the board of directors or advisory board if required by the city; 12 ) for community based residential care facilities only , a background investigation shall be performed to verify the qualification of the director and the responsible operation of the program. This investigation to be paid for by the applicant ; 13 ) submission of a formal site and building plan review if a determination of need for such review is made by the city; and 14 ) additional conditions may be required by the city in order to address the specific impacts of a proposed facility. j ) private , non-profit recreational facilities as a principal use 5. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorneys at Law Thomas 1.CamThcll (612)452-5000 61. Roger N.Knutson Fax(612)452-5550 Thomas NI.Scott Gary G.Fuchs James R.Walston February 24 , 1992 Elliott B.Knetsch Michael A.Brohack Renae D.Steiner RECEIVE!) Mr. Paul Krauss FEB 2 5 1992 Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 CITY ur t.r Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Regulation of Adult Entertainment Dear Paul : Municipalities, through their police power, have attempted to — use various zoning ordinance provisions in an attempt to control the location of sexually orientated businesses. Municipality must show a rationale government interest in order to exercise its police power authority. Municipalities frequently employ two types of zoning ordinances that attempt to regulate sexually oriented businesses: 1. Ordinances that disburse such businesses throughout the community, usually by limiting their proximity to one another, or to churches, schools and residential areas ; and 2 . Ordinances that concentrate such establishments in a — particular area, thus creating "adult entertainment districts" , commonly known as "war zones" . The courts do not prefer one method of zoning sexually oriented businesses over another. In Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50, 71 (1976) the Supreme Court said "It is not our function to appraise the wisdom of its decision to require adult entertainment theatres to be separated rather than concentrated in the same areas. In either event, the City' s interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect. Moreover, the City must be allowed to a reasonable opportunity to experiment with solutions to admittedly serious problems. First, it is necessary to distinguish between "obscenity" and "adult entertainment" . Obscene material is not protected by the first amendment and may be totally banned. The Supreme Court provided the following test for deciding what types of materials may be banned as obscene: Suite 317 • EaganJale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 Mr. Paul Krauss February 24 , 1992 Page 2 1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the apparent interest; 2 . Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and 3 . Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary artistic political or scientific value. Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973) . Many of the materials that fall within the adult entertainment genre do not rise to the level of obscenity as defined by the Supreme Court. Therefore, non-obscene adult entertainment materials are protected by the first amendment. Adult entertainment establishments are generally defined as businesses which depict, describe or offer for sale instruments designed for use in connection with "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas" . "Specified sexual activities" include fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks , anus, or female breasts; sex acts; masturbation or excretory functions . "Specified anatomical areas" include human genitals in a state of sexual arousal . only businesses that have as "one of its principal business purposes" the sale, description or depiction of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas are included in the definition of sexually oriented businesses. The Supreme Court has developed two approaches to the resolution of first amendment disputes. Under the first approach, the court determines whether the governmental regulation is aimed at the communicative impact of the speech or expression. This approach is commonly referred to as "content-based" because the government is restricting the speech on the basis of its content or because of ideas contained in the speech. It is unlikely that a governmental unit could meet the standards of this test, and an ordinance which regulates speech based on content is routinely invalidated by the courts. For example, if the City attempts to regulate sexually oriented businesses because the City feels the sexually oriented businesses offer immoral materials, the court will strike down the ordinance. Under the second approach, the court determines whether the governmental regulation is focused on the non-communicative impact of the right being protected but which nevertheless has adverse effects on communicative opportunity. The government ' s actions are said to be "content neutral" in that only the time, place or manner Mr. Paul Krauss February 24 , 1992 Page 3 of the speech is being regulated. A municipality is entitled to greater latitude when it is attempting to regulate speech in a content-neutral manner. This test is used when the court determines that the ordinance is aimed not at the content of the adult entertainment materials but rather at the secondary effects of such materials on the surrounding community. The secondary effects that municipalities attempt to regulate are increased crime, prostitution, the decrease in value of real property, and to protect and preserve the quality of the City' s neighborhoods. The court has developed the following test for determining the validity of a time, place or manner ordinance: 1. The regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest; and 2 . It must leave open alternative channels for communication of the information. The leading cases in this area are Young v. American Mini Theatres 427 U.S . 50 (1976) and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. , 106 S . Ct. 925 (1986) . In Young, the Detroit City Council passed ordinances which attempted to disburse the location of sexual oriented theatres, book stores, and cabarets by prohibiting their operation within 1000 feet of any two other regulated adult uses or within 500 feet of a residential area. The ordinances also required operating licenses. The Detroit City Council decided that if its sexually oriented businesses were allowed to be concentrated _ in certain areas, there would be a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhoods . The court found the ordinance to be a valid, content-neutral, time, place and manner restriction, since the purpose of the law was to "preserve the quality of urban life" by avoiding secondary effects on the community, such as increased crime rates, and not to actually censor the speech itself. The court stated that the purpose of avoiding the secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses is substantial enough to justify the lower degree of first amendment protection. The Young court further determined that an ordinance which controlled the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses through location restrictions would be constitutional if the statute did not directly limit the number of uses, or greatly restrict access to such uses. In City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, the City Council of Renton enacted a zoning provision that was concerned with adult entertainment. The ordinance had the effect of clustering adult entertainment operations by prohibiting any adult motion picture theatre from locating within 1000 feet of any residential zone or - single or multiple family dwelling, any park or any area zoned for such use, or within one mile of any public or private school, thus Mr. Paul Krauss February 24 , 1992 Page 4 creating a "war zone" . The Supreme Court in Renton held that because the ordinance did not totally ban adult theatres, but merely provided that such theatres may not be located within 1000 — feet of any residential zone, single or multiple family dwelling, church, park or school , the ordinance is properly analyzed as a time, place or manner regulation. The Court found that the City of Renton passed the ordinance in order to prevent crime, protect the City ' s retail trade, maintain property values and generally "protect and preserve the quality of the City's neighborhoods, commercial districts, and the quality of urban life" and not to suppress the expression of unpopular views. Id. at 929 . The court went on to find that Renton was entitled to rely on the experiences of Seattle and other cities in determining whether the adult entertainment establishments had detrimental secondary effects. The court held "the first amendment does not require a City, before enacting such an ordinance, to conduct new studies or produce evidence independent of that already generated by other cities, so long as what ever evidence the City relies upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the City addresses" . Id. at 931. The court found that the Renton ordinance was narrowly tailored to affect only that category of theatres shown to produce the unwanted secondary effects. The ordinance also meet the third part of the test which requires that a reasonable alternative avenue of communication be available. The court found that there were over 520 acres of land within the city limits zoned to accept adult entertainment establishments. The court rejected respondents arguments that the land was too expensive to make relocation economically feasible. The court held that "respondents must fend for themselves in the real estate market, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees. . .We have never suggested that the first amendment compels the government to ensure that adult theatres, or any other kinds of speech-related businesses for that matter, will be able to obtain sites at bargain prices. Id at 932 . However, in Alexander v. the City of Minneapolis, 698 F. 2d 936 (1983) , the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Minneapolis dispersion zoning ordinance violated the first and fourteenth amendments. The court found that the ordinance, which provided that an adult theatre could not be located within 1000 feet of any two other regulated uses or within 500 feet of a residential area, effectively limited the number of adult entertainment establishments to twelve possible legal sites for relocation. The court found that the Minneapolis ordinance not only regulated new adult facilities but also affected those in existence at the time it was enacted. Thirty-three adult entertainment establishments were currently in existence. The Mr. Paul Krauss February 24 , 1992 Page 5 court found that the ordinance would "greatly suppress access to adult theatres and book stores, thereby violating the requirement under the content-neutral test that requires that the ordinance does not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication" . Id. at 939 . In summary, a city may zone sexually oriented businesses by either dispersing or concentrating the establishments. If the city is attempting to regulate the content of the establishments, the Courts will apply a very difficult test to determine the validity of the ordinance. Municipalities rarely are able to meet the requirements of this test. However, if the city is attempting to regulate the "secondary effects" of sexually oriented businesses, which include the detrimental impact of these types of businesses on the quality, value and safety of neighborhoods, retail areas and the overall quality of urban life, the courts will apply a less difficult test. Under this test, the city must show a substantial governmental interest, an ordinance which is narrowly tailored to meet that interest, and a reasonable opportunity for sexually oriented businesses to locate or relocate somewhere in the city. The above mentioned interests are all considered to be substantial governmental interests ; an ordinance is narrowly tailored if it -- only zones those businesses that cause the "secondary effects" ; and a reasonable opportunity to locate is afforded to sexually oriented businesses if there are a sufficient number of places within the city that a sexually oriented business may locate. As a word of caution, if Chanhassen attempted to zone sexually oriented businesses, it would be necessary to establish a record showing that the city relied on reports showing the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses, and showing that the reason for zoning sexually oriented businesses was to regulate the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses and not to content of sexually oriented businesses. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P A, Roger N. Knutson RNK:bmp PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SCHEDULE FOR ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Ahrens March 9 Ledvina March 23 Farmakes April 13 Conrad April 20 Emmings May 4 Erhart May 18 Batzli June 8 Ahrens June 22 Ledvina July 13' Farmakes July 27 Conrad August 10 Emmings August 24 Erhart September 14 Batzli September 28 Ahrens October 12 Ledvina October 26 Farmakes November 9 Conrad November 23 Emmings December 14 PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS Three Year Terms NAME APPOINTMENT DATE TERM EXPIRES Joan Ahrens 9/1/86 12/31/95 Brian Batzli 1/1/88 12/31/93 Ladd Conrad 2/2/81 12/31/94 Steve Emmings 9/9/85 12/31/94 Tim Erhart 2/12/86 12/31/94 Jeffrey Farmakes 1/1/91 12/31/93 Matthew Ledvina 1/1/92 12/31/95 h - ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION City visio n.':collid es with . - t- fiscal realties on Hwy. 5 Corridor studymay be • •rear- ._ n i - • rear-ended by. budget andPërsonnelcQnstraintsY9 hay Thomas Lpic •'-.` :"Y��•••''';t•to`ld the Council that he didn't know" '.-it'm Certain if we do not act,we . Chanhasen's continuedwhere the money would come from might get exactly what we deserve," Mg growth and development�' since it was not in the current budget. argued Council member Toni Work- on into the budget realities of the ' There was strong agreement man. . • 1990s Monday night. - ' -``'' among oouncl members that creating "As-far ss the future goes,this can • On the city council agenda was a a vision for Hwy.S and then manag- be our legacy,"said Cotmcil member proposal from the city planning do- tag development was important for Richard Wing. • partment, endorsed by the p the city. However there was just as . However,he added, a concern aboutowe'as we =mission,recommendinga fo... strong financing the discuss this without knowing where corridor study of Hwy.S corn- project •• "- :e. . ... -., c re?",e the finances a dor study would become part of - . - -• . • • C nhh.c en's Commhensive Plan which outlines the 'on and vi- sion of Chanh assn.'s growth through the rest of this century.Instead of approving the recom- mendation fora corridor study, the council directed staff to see if there- was any money available to do the studycfi.and then to report back to the The proposal to proceed with a formal corridor study was the result of months of meetings held by a task force studying Hwy.S development in conjunction with the University of Minnesota's Urban Design Center_. Paul Krauss, Caanhaasen Plan- - ning Director, told the cotmci that whatever it decides to do with a corn. dor study, there already it intense erasure to develop the corridor along Hwy.5. 'The clock is ticking out there.If there is a window to jump through,it is open,"Krauss said. . However. noted Krauss, one of the difficulties confronting the conn- dl is that the formal corridor study could not be carried out within the pig int because`we just don't have the time and people to do this." Fanning the study out could he. expensive. "Based upon some pee:- liminary estimates,a 540,000460,000'. effort is a reasonable range,"Krauss told the council. - "I like everything shoat this trAdy except the money,"nosed Mayorpoa ChmieL . :i i i f� "Where the money dome from?"asked Chmiel.He wondered if there was any federal or state money available to help fund this type of- study. • wile funding will have to Come from us," responded City Manager Don Ashworth< However,Ashworth•._ .r' • •.CouncIIacLs1oHmItoverusei• - , • • . - .- ,' • .1; . . �:-!:CSI° �. .1 !"�i7: - �^•. ,.Y ' � f• and abuse . hanhassen:-lakes •The use and,intone 1..fc:--aperatice of their beawhkrt.It amid ess whereby&spates over the num- . nage from rubber romping what her of boats allowed an be resolved. num- cane.overuse 1.>R1'(8 �= �. ' � Miflnewashta and other• 'have there 1c having some real sen- ''We do have an obligation to nus discussions— about the increased enforce our ordinances,"noted Kant- lakes by area boat owners asap am the_last .10 yews,*.clson,He alae out that the onl was again discussed at . d� Kram � Planning kg s wilt an amend �Nonday's meeting of the '� , • :-. .---F to the existing 1982 ordinance.. 6b AttiosaeY. mer �[nrmoa . the ordinance itset>;,t�Vith all its pyo- ChEirlhaSS6r1 city co_ USI. mooed the same view."ibe purpose' tisk.cerosin binding,he said Council members -• :_*. .' behind this proposed amendment was . 'Even if you do nothing tonight, authorized an amendment . g"'e e`O C an 'p° ' So *he ordinance do 'y ► none before the city an r thefr . inubsoe Heid 16e tonna'] 1 aimed at strengthening and beachlot,''aid Knutson.The amend- 'The important words ere liti- darfiying an existing , meat only-vppliea'a/.psa198Z �m�baa��ni�add coin- ordinance which limits such beachict'ung this procedure our only (amendment) is fin attempt to dun Craft . . _ } :: 's would be to takejoople to this mess fir'be continued. i + _ _Court whenJue so be is Wink added that be and the .. ..g"` violation. they BY Z'botnsf Iipk ' ` . 'II`!rC -Ordinance," said dl certainly an not dot b .• . By a unanimous vote,idlyamaze Kamm, I ie t;:.t .)r; i >1,,i -.4 osetidents who ban more than 'the members soused the second and final Opponents to the amendment--appro''ed number of boats." eer• sending o an amendment to a 1982 argued for using a baseline *stab: 'lain1Y ••' I'm�,.. to eve them the benefit ordinance which will restrict the hailed in 1991, which would have a[the .• t,'he said.. - 4 number of boats allowed co Liu allowed more boats than-the 1982 =Cbl membeCTA#Workman Minnewashte and other city lakes to baseline.. Oty staff also supportedecd.. -+- = . - c.- _ that number which was approved in the 1991 inventory numbers ` ;- Steve Dea arum � of the 1982 What's different about the new beceusc determining the number et water quality task kwoe,-Yold•the measure, however, is that Itclearyboats allowed in 1991 would be mud'.!council,,Mint is i strong stand.It is a establishes a baseline for the mamba easier than looking back to 1982.?;::=:.-acetdorsemeat of the Planain f am' of boats, clarifies the intent of the However, the-council seemed 1tl!$.-rissioo trod, the.Naar siaahtY task ordinance, describes the permitinj agree with coungl member -Tpa force.'.. - . process to legitirai7P useage and sett Workman when be said, '•'You In '; bn In current form,flue new tiiss- • c penalties and finesiag to punish one aide or other.But .sire seeks to control the number of people who violate the ordinance its tough to tell those who are in boats allowed on arras known Wilson- 'When all is said and done, the compliance(with the 1982 ordinance) conforming recreational beachlots,• council decided not to devisit from that they screwed'(by being in which refers,among other things,to the 1982 ordinance. What they did compliance). .::..., - — . beachfront with less than 200 feet of decide was that each pre-1982 - Knutson told the oornmcl] and the shoreline and less that 30,000 sq.ft. beachlot owner will have to come in nearly 50 people present that the of area, found.in lots dating before and obtain a permit so legitimize the proposed amendment creates a pros'. .1982...,,ii;L,;k.;Z.f •4.,,-:, e ... - +•..e-..y.a..-mss...-�w..a+.a.w-wr�t.r - "+M.•i.l+�.�. Senior center plans andspecificatJors approved - Bids are ready to be let for construction By Thomas Lpic "We think we are getting a center - `-'• a• - Following months of meetings, that will provide multi-functions," On a related topic, the senior discussions and planning, the Chan- Planning Director Paul Krauss told commission unanimously approved a haasen Senior Commission on Friday the council.Krauss indicated that the spending schedule of Block Grant approved the final plans and specifi- center could be used for additional money. • . cations for the proposed Senior Cen- meeting space and other gatherings Paul Krauss, Chanhassen Plan- ter. The city council followed suit when the seniors do not have ached- nine Director,submitted a recommen- Monday night, giving the Planning sled programs. dation to the senior commission on Department unanimous approval to . Approval by the city council where to spend the$41,511 available solicit bids for the$170,000 project means that plans and specifications in the 1992 Community Development "We should come within budget,'- for the center can be distributed Block Grant program,which the city Bert Haglund,vice president of Eos- immediately to bidders.The submit- receives from Hennepin County. Architecture and designer of the nen- - ted bids will be opened March 13, Traditionally,block grant money ter,told the commission.The Hoes-• with the city council reviewing sub- has been used to fund senior citizen ing and Redevelopment Authority was misted bids on March 17. :. needs. using a projected budgeted of- -• If the current time line is followed, "In the past,we have helped fund $175,000 from tax increment financ- construction on the center could be Southshore Senior Center," Krauss ing for the 2500 sq.ft project. gin March 23,with substantial con- explained. - 'This is very good news," said - pletion by mid-June. . ' According to Krauss, while not Barbara Montgomery,Chairperson of Previously theseniaoommissian abandoning Southshore, Cbanhas- the senior commission. +i had hoped that the center would be sea's focus will shift more towards "The total amount knocked me opened by May, which is Older funding its own senior center. off my seat,"Mayor Don Chmiel said Americans Month.But that deadline `List year we gave them(South- Monday night"I initially thought we no longer seems possible. - shore)about$8,000.This year we are were going to be in the $75,000 to "Initially we didn't think that the proposing$4,000,"Krauss noted. $80,000 range," he added. Chmid, city council would have to ove "So many Chanhassen people use however, did support the proposal the plans,"explained Ha Southshore, it is good that we con- after expressing his desire that coats ', "But they do, so that slowed us time supporting Southshore,"empha- be kept as low as possible. - . > down a bit,"he continued. -... , sized Commissioner Emma St.John. - 7� - , 'We never had any intent to abate- �; f don it,but we can't fund it at the same ; f levels,"Krauss said. • ,� • •. ' Krauss also told the commission _ - that Southshore had been fully in- + p- ,-.. �...... . , _ formed that Chanhassen's funding r� 404111 1 Mak priorities would shift u its own senior r, �-� a i 'r ' 1 center was built. i, ' �„� In addition to giving Southshore •-'' ..--.....4A.2.--.• ; +---r .-, $4,000 Krauss proposed using$5,830 ,, '- i, i -'a •. - • ■ 1 4 , .. w -- to continue funding the HOME Pro- -• p® .!. .■.l •,. 1 . gram, which provides available in- ,, _.-r• r r- - - • -I. i ..a -iiiii ..,,,...y door and outdoor services far Chan- ' , ... ,r .�. i I r"'`t L 3 . . _ +.:e _ Bassen senior citizens. . _ j$ - ,'ti . . 1..- . . : He also recommended using — . ' 1 - 58,736 to continue funding the Chan- • r.4 . _�' 1 �}�;,,v ��.: hassen Senior Coordinator position, - - :•S currently held by Judy Colby. _ t e1:'.". * ..t�v �:? t''. +,....--4•�. E>'-. :.�,:.L: . .. ' • Finally, he suggested targeting %-!'•;-•-•,'., _. -K-t0 e_ t• ;_ -.. _ 514,945 to fund a senior housing needs - • ' - - '-- ' . - CENTER •t•:-:.' . . - �ys _ - :•i -CHANHASSEN SENIOR . "This is something we hid planned : -y- A.9O "At,_- - b.,...'.. to do this year,but we used the money �_ for Bert (the architect who designed the senior center)," Krauss told the The Chanhassen Senior Center will be built la the lower level of city ball, commission. immediately west of the library.The current time line calls for a June With the take commission'sthe approval, opening date.Included In the center h a coffee nook and a sliding- tions lt Kraussstowill tyurecommends- wall divider.The center will also be availableilfor non-senior activities, tions the city council for fins}re- such as public meetings. - _. . ..,. _. ...„ , ETROVOICE _ INTER 1992 A METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PUBLICATION ON TWIN CITIES AREA ISSUES Transit moves into the fast lane _ How can the Twin Cities Area stay "mo- bile"in the face of growing traffic congestion and declining transit ridership? — The Metro Council offers some answers in • a plan it has just adopted. r _ The key challenge facing transit is to offer an attractive, workable alternative to dnving — alone. The plan calls for doing this by giving advantages of time, cost and convenience to people willing to nde transit or to carpool. Exp That task is all the more challenging in this O -0NFss e ' — re metro area because tips during rush hour are `�°^c oo;;� Y` --- el. _- - very dispersed. Many people go from one \e`+, „...1.:...,-1.__ :".".•.....: ': r.•+• ” s . suburb to another. Most don't go to the . / Ili": - , ;q •• Minneapolis or St.Paul downtowns--the focus _ ,... i, of existing bus routes. �� In addition,bus ridership has dropped by •,,4 • " �., ,•. .. t about 27 million annual riders since it peaked in ., • _ >, , 4 1! _ 1978. More le are driving alone to and from i: - • _ r PSP g . - y work. And congestion is mounting. �� - TM Metropolitan Council's " ft;' `� - `� "Transit has to be more flexible and more �` • regional transit plan calls for: • adapted to people's needs,'said Council Chair 1' — Mary E. Anderson. "It must offer a range of •esciuslve lanes for buses and carpools, ,.-•...--,--e- "fight rail transit,and options." "improved bus service. Transit to page 4 • Region at watershed over its Introducing... the Metro Voice water supply This is the first issue of the Metro Voice,a new quarterly publication from the When Sondra Simonson was a child, her Simonson chairs the Council's Environ- Metropolitan Council The Voice will pro- parents owned a gravel mining business in mental Resources Committee, which helped vide Information, fresh insights and Dakota County. To find water to wash the formulate the plan.The legislature's request for perspectives on Council efforts to gravel,they drilled into the Jordan aquifer. the plan was triggered by a drought in the late plan for the long-range growth "Clean water came gushing out a big 1980s. and development of the seven- county Metro ro Area. It is In thh pipe,"she said recently. "But because it cost In planning a region-wide response to a mailed to ab t Issue... more to cap the pipe when we weren't using it, future drought, the Council found three addi- we just let it drain into an adjacent marsh. tonal problems: lit officials,civic lead- • Forum Back then nobody thought about wasting the • Contamination is reducing the region's ers and other Citi coming on how aquifer." supply of drinkable groundwater. zens who follow governments car Today Simonson has a very different view • Minneapolis and five suburbs depend metro issues. spend less, deliver • about wasting water. She is a member of the entirely on water from the Mississippi and have The Editor more. Page 6 Metropolitan Council, which in January sent only a one-day reserve in the event of drought the Minnesota Legislature a plan addressing or contamination.Thenver--spannedupstream •Plan to expand airport problems in the Twin Cities Area's water by 35 road bridges. B rail crossings and an oil ir capacity advances. Page 5 suPPIY Water to page 3 t •Growing use of regional parks Is i . mixed blessing. Page 8 , Paul.Point We considered it to be Metropolitan Council Chair,Mary E.Anderson the best way to provide capacity there because the expected rid- ership could Finally, support LRT a truly regional transit plan 11P' ay washe of-way was too squeezed for at- For the first time in many years,this region A key idea in the transit plan is to give _4 ' grade HOV lanes. On has developed a broad consensus about how to transit important advantages and other support the other hand, the plan meet its future transit needs. That consensus that make it more competitive with driving recommends HOV lanes in a - is reflected in the regional transit plan that the alone. Contributing to that concept are exclu- number of other corridors because Metropolitan Council just adopted. sive rights-of-way for transit vehicles--whether such lanes can increase capacity at The plan marks a milestone! It shows that a carpool,bus or a light rail line. Also,metering less cost per user than LRT. this region can come to grips with the trends .freeway entrance ramps and faster clearance of 5. Draw on the best thinking of many that have challenged our transit system over highway accidents,which are recommended in sources. the past decade or so. the plan,will enable transit vehicles like buses Our process in developing the plan was Those trends include reduced funding for and carpools to travel more smoothly in mixed inclusive--:t brought together the affected and - transit, declining transit ridership, and the traffic. interested parties to share ideas and work out growing"suburbanization"of jobs and popula- Redesigning bus routes into a "hub-and- concerns. The Council drew on a lot of ideas non,with an accompanying dispersal of trips. spoke" system, as the plan proposes, could and other help from a variety of organizations: Meanwhile, increasing travel on our region's make longer trips via public transit workable the Metro Transit Commission (MTC), Re- - has caused serious traffic congestion and attractive for more people. And transit gional Transit Board, the Minnesota Depart- in many areas. ridership could be strengthened over the long ment of Transportation,suburban transit pro- The plan deals with these issues in work- term by the plan's recommendation to encour- viders outside the MTC system, cities in the able and, I believe, creative ways (see article age higher-density. "pedestrian-friendly" de- region, county regional rail authorities, the - page 1). velopment in corridors well-served by transit University of Minnesota's Center for Transpor- In putting together the transit plan, we and ndesharing. tation.Studies and the Citizens League. learned some things that may help the Council 3. We should be prepared to experiment In addition, I think our recommended shape solutions that will keep pace with future reasonably and build on what works. governance structure for light rail transit will change: A number of strategies in the plan look provide the necessary coordination and over- 1. We'll probably need to use many ap- promising--light rail transit, HOV lanes, the sight by the Council. It will also give the metro proaches because there are no "magic hub-and-spoke system for transit service,along counties,the Regional Transit Board and the bullets." with a number of other proposals. Although Minnesota Department of Transportation the The transit plan calls for many forms of nobody knows for sure how well they will work flexibility they need to work out their specific transit and a variety of facilities to meet the as full-scale systems, we can implement them roles for LRT development in the region within different needs of people in the region. The incrementally to get a better idea of how suc- the framework we set. Transportation agen- — range of options includes carpools and buses on cessful they'll be. cies at the state,regional and local level now high-occupancy vehicle(HOV)lanes, light rail 4. We need to build flexibility into solu- can work toward the same goal. transit, local suburban and central city bus tions. In these and other respects, the transit service, and other choices We didn't assume that the same solution plan represents the kind of problem-solving I — 2. We need to recognize how different would work in different highway corridors. For think the Council should do more of. strategies can contribute to an overall, example, the plan recommends LRT in the coordinated vision. Central Corridor between Minneapolis and St. Housing proposal under consideration As the Metro Voice went to press, the some rural towns. Another is the growing lack dents in the homes is a vital component of the Metropolitan Council was considering a legis- of affordable housing for low-income house- revitalization fund. Programs under the fund as lative proposal addressing Metro Area housing holds and other vulnerable populations. The proposed would assist households with in- needs for people with low incomes. third is the growing need to link human services comes no greater than 60 percent of median The Council's Metropolitan and Commu- with housing. income. Several options to p pay for the fund and racy Development Committee was considering The proposal was developed by the ways to structure it are under consideration. creating a Metropolitan Housing Revitalization Council's Housing Legislation Work Group, State fund. — Fund and expanding the existing state Housingwhich was made upof area legislators, Pease g the state housing xP 9 9 housing trust fund would increase affordable housing Trust Fund. The committee is scheduled to officials, Council members and other citizens. available to households with very low incomes meet again Feb. 24 to consider policies and Metro fund. The housing revitalization (30 percent of median income or below). Rev- revenue sources for the two funds. It may fund would finance programs in the Metro Area enues for this statewide fund, established in — recommend that the full Council propose legis- to rehabilitate housing and help stabilize dete- 1986,have been relatively limited--less than S2 lation. norating neighborhoods.It could include hous- million a year. The proposal before the committee ad- ing rehabilitation, maintenance, energy con- The Council was expected to act on the dresses three Metro Area housing problems. servation, and removal of condemned, aban- proposal Feb.27. One is the rapid deterioration of neighborhoods doned or overly deteriorated housing.' in the central cities, older suburban areas and Providing necessary human services to resi- Jim Martin 2 Water from page 1 The strategy behind the Council's long- After two years,the Council would evaluate Use Mississippi River range plan is to use more of the Mississippi communities'local plans. If they did not suffi- when plentiful--a huge, continuous volume of ciently address the problems,the Council would more, says plan water-•and less groundwater, which takes a recommend stronger options. pipeline--has no pollution warning system. long time to renew itself. The plan does not call for establishing • The region's supply of groundwater is The plan calls for coordination and coop- water as a "regional system," which Council -- limited, limited, particularly in northern and western eration among local,regional and state govern- Chair Mary E. Anderson says is premature. areas where suburbs are growing rapidly. The ments, as follows: "We agree with local governments that we limitations result from the region's most pro- •Communities in the Metro Area would may not need as much authority for water ductive aquifer, the Prairie du Chien-Jordan, seek to conserve more water, share water supply as we already have over the four current which is shaped like a huge saucer--deep and sources and treatment facilities, and make regional systems--park,airport,transportation thick in the center portion of the Metro Area, aggressive efforts to prevent pollution. They and sewer facilities,"Anderson said. but thin or absent at the edges. would spell this out in their comprehensive ,7 l "The region has plenty of water,"Simonson plans,to be reviewed by the Council. City officials• Q 11 U the said,"but if we don't use it wisely,we could run •The Council would look for alternative into problems." sources of water,explore the feasibility of build- AMM look forward to ing reservoirs in the region or up north near the It's cod the Council is Mississippi, develop a model of the region's working cooperatively g groundwater,and plan how to provide water to• getting on top of this developing suburbs. The Council is asking the with the Metropolitan legislature for Sl million to complete the plan council in developing before a crisis occurs. t •The state would periodically review wa- water supply all d 1% dont want to harm ter permits,require cities to plan responses to eCo1101I11•C development. drought or contamination, prohibit any new management plaits to wells until nearby groundwater is evaluated, --fern Peterson,executive director, and prohibit use of groundwater to maintain protect the region 's Association of Metropolitan Municipalities lake levels. valuable water Growth projected beyond aquifer resource. --Bob Long,president, _ Association of Metropolitan Municipalities The plan,for the most part,is supported by • - the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. rr K A "The Council has a legitimate interest in water supply," said AMM Executive Director Vern Percent of total regional Blai e increase for each suburban Co.' Ra•Vb IPeterson recently at a Council public meeting group, 1988-2010 1 on the plan. "It's good the Council is getting on Fr top of this before a crisis occurs.We don't want Brookly. Pi;:k II. 12°/b 2:I "`�`( to harm economic development." Golde = at *7•=:`..MIi 113.14- T O N Water supply is linked closely to the region's M a p I - ' 21.:ntitt._ € economy. "An adequate supply of clean water P I y ■ 19%° ' e` +. is vital for us to compete with other metro areas Q Prairie du Chien- t�:r.-0 ‘ s for business and industry, and to maintain a JOrtlan aquifer M � •_,. � , • ` ' ' a t' •ale stable work force,"Simonson said. – .sl. Anderson said that in the last two years, Jt L:dbury C A Pi v E R �` yl, {��pp yea e 4% many people have come to accept the limits to p p ' ?C. _ I mom 12 the region's water supply, and agree that the problem requires a region-wide response. The tt .•41..4p,.. Council's coordinated approach to water sup- r rr 31% - ply is consistent with what the Council was :-+ Z formed to do,she said,plan for the orderly and E•e n P-� ' e Eloplattei economic growth of the region. N Eagan::::"..'`:,': 1 .A Jim Martin S � OTT ..n...; ... i:Rosemo..ii# E — 0 10 20 30 =iiIiii• :: :: : '':... Miles O ., at _ CO OI e U The Council projects that 78 percent of new demand for water by the year 2010 will occur In cities totally _ dependent on groundwater(blackened areas on the map).Some of that future demand will occur at the fringe of,or beyond,the region's most productive aquifer,the Prairie du Chlen-Jordan. 3 Transit,from page 1 developed suburbs, including more frequent create stronger"magnets"for trip destinations, Several transit modes service, stronger security and expanded ser- thereby boosting transit ridership, reducing vice hours.It will also serve suburb-to-suburb congestion and revitalizing older urban areas. to improve and city-to-suburb trips better. And develop- Cities will be encouraged to promote develop- - The main features of the plan are: ing suburbs will get more local service. ment or redevelopment near transit hubs,tran- • Exclusive lanes reserved for carpools, Bus service will be reorganized into a'hub- sit stations or park-and-ride lots. buses and other "high-occupancy vehicles" and-spoke system, much like the technique The plan recommends a number of major (HOVs). the airlines use. Bus service will converge on capital improvements in the region's high-traf- - • Light rail transit (LRT) in one, possibly transit "hubs"--high-activity centers around fic corridors. It proposes LRT for the"Central two, corridors. the region's fully developed area and develop- Corridor"between the Minneapolis and St.Paul •Improved local and express bus service. ing suburbs. downtowns. That is the first corridor in the Many of these services and facilities will The plan also ra1i5 for improving the effi- region where a line is built. serve growing suburban areas as well as the ciency and safety of the existing highway sys- A second LRT line could be built in the 1- region's central cities and adjacent suburbs. tern. This will enable buses and carpools to 35W corridor south of downtown Minneapolis, The key advantage that the plan would give travel smoothly in mixed traffic. The Minnesota but this decision will be made in the future. The buses,carpools and LRT is exclusive rights-of- Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT)would I-35W transit right-of-way might be used for an way to speed up travel times. They will, in double the number of freeway-ramp meters and HOV lane instead when the freeway is recon- effect, "clear a path" through congestion in triple HOV-bypass lanes on freeway entrances. anucted. heavily traveled corridors. They'll also add Capabilities will be expanded to monitor traffic At this point, the most promising transit — "people-moving capacity" in those corridors for problems and advise drivers accordingly. option along I-494 from Minneapolis-St. Paul without adding lanes for solo drivers. The plan encourages higher-density, de- International Airport to Minnetonka seems to Under the plan, the bus system will be velopment in corridors easily accessible by be the addition of an HOV lane. The plan also reorganized and reinvigorated. It will be transit and ridesharing. Such development will says a lane on I-94 east of downtown St.Paul - strengthened in the central cities and fully encourage biking and walking. It will also should be converted to HOV use. Congestion is not currently a problem,but an HOV lane would reserve capacity for future use. For I-94 north of downtown Minneapolis, the plan recommends conversion of a lane to More highways lead to more congestion HOVuse between downtown Minneapolis and I-694, provided that Mn/DOT resolves certain issues involving merging traffic and access. In • a later stage,an HOV lane could be developed Increased highway from I-694 to Rogers. The plan says Hwy. 36 accessibility should be studied to determine the best way of - increasing capacity. Funding--especially federal funding--is yet - -- t to be worked out. At this point,funding from r VA �.,. the Federal Transit Administration looks prom- :_ i • -{ _ , • ' st ising for LRT,and the new Intermodal Surface 4 -ti-...-7, , ""'� Transportation Efficiency Act may be available b.. ' i ' , ' to fund HOV lanes and other improvements. - "r'� "�F-►�_ _ .'r The plan recommends an organizational / - "T ,� - -- framework for building LRT in the region. The ,,a` ' .....:4•-• •-' RTB and Mn/DOT will be responsible for the '�' !""'�•+': - `'~-- environmental impact studies. The affected Inc •�` = 1nC d regional county regional rail authorities would provide tong: ; ' ata', ,_._ entral lzatl on these two agencies with technical work for the _k:'s ;r_. �," -` studies. r vilit;__ Under the recommended framework, Mnl _ _, z \ ''` �"'� DOT will propose a lime's final design. The -fMetro Council will have approval authority over _. _ +. "'• the design,Emit now has with controlled-access . '� highways. After a go-ahead by the Council, .-,f�- - .\ - • � Mn/DOT could proceed with construction. The Metropolitan Transit Commission will l', - - operate and maintain,the system after it's built. Details of these agencies'respective roles will be spelled out in a memorandum of understand- lilcreased vehicle trips ing negotiated among the parties in the next few weeks. For a copy of the plan, see New Publica- tions Order Form,'page 7. Leigh Homstad Building additional mixed-use highway lanes would only encourage greater automobile use and promote Increased urban sprawl.That would add more vehicle trips,increase traffic congestion,and lead to a demand for more lanes-a vicious cycle.What is needed Is to boost transit ridership and the number of people In cars. 4 Plan to expand airport capacity advances Two sizable steps were taken at the end of tan Council chose a search area--a general bers of flights and passengers at MSP. That -- 1991 that will help answer the question,"Should location in east-central Dakota County--for a study will be done this year,with the assistance the region expand capacity at the current air- possible replacement airportshoulditbeneeded. of an independent panel of experts. port, or should it build a new, replacement The search area is a 115-square-mile area east In addition, the Council has initiated a airport?" Answers will emerge from the"dual- and south of Hastings,and south of Rosemount, study of the possible reuse of the MSP site tack"planning process mandated by the Min- including part of the city. should a decision be made to move the airport. nesota Legislature in 1989. This area is the most accessible and has the This study will be completed this year. On one planning track, the Metropolitan fewest environmental constraints of three areas The overall goal of the studies is to get — Airports Commission(MAC)developed a long- the Council looked at last year. Very prelimi- information and plans together to compare the range plan for changes at Minneapolis-St.Paul nary estimates indicate that building a new two options. By 1995 or 1996 at the latest,the International Airport (MSP). The changes in- airport would cost from 83.7 billion to 84.2 two agencies will make recommendations to valve building a new runway, building a re- billion. The cost of the new-airport option the legislature,which will make the final deci- — placement passenger terminal on the west side cannot be determined yet,because it depends sion. of the airport,building new highway access on on what site is selected within the search area. For a copy of the plan, see'New Publica- the west, constructing more passenger gates, The MAC is now turning its attention to tons Order Form,'page 7. and expanding parking. The plan was judged locating that site,and then will plan the site and the best of six alternatives considered by the review its environmental, community and re- Ken Reddick MAC. gional impacts. The Council will help in this The plan would cost art estimated 81.65 planning. Both agencies hope this phase of the _ billion. In addition,the cost to address commu- overall planning can be completed in early mty disruption from noise by removing or sound- 1995--some 15 months ahead of the schedule proofing homes and businesses near the airport established in the 1989 state law. could be 83.4 billion, according to estimates In a related matter,the Council is taking a — from the seven cities around the airport. fresh look at the assumptions underlying air- On the other planning track,the Meuopoli- port capacity and forecasts of increasing num- Dakota Search Area .. _. .ji ~ t1/4.: C:Kew. is M/5515 LVN 10 NiiNill.‘4,04 1...a. IT- R06aMOVNT ,.,...,.,...101;� l .1 L-4 0 li..\4 -.;.-;„,.•,._ a` �( � � igood P 1 -......„:„ Al ...... 11 ,/ # - NININGER . a'+r�°° —� , i _. .. , w.L' f:'.i: .... ' ... ti' %.. @ t , \ gr . ilib:S;r- - .i.!::. ,: / A- ,..,.. „ ,ft , A@ VERMILLION If"r • C7 1 :. ? •J'" Ail 11 r e ID EMPIRE ( r l v3RN • i ® Iry \• p .. ,.. AsAMINE111 17, i I I etw5vroN ! ✓_ .:. tt .^ l ,� I® P • This is the search area designated for a potential new major airport. The Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Council are now beginning a study to locate a site within this area, Future planning will include representatives from Dakota County,communities in the search area,groups with regional interests,the MAC and the Council. 5 - Forum to spotlight ways to spend less, deliver more Public policy analyst Ted Koldene has never Arne Carlson's ideas. Carlson has urged the Gaebler is a former city manager in Visalia, forgotten this Star Tribune headline he saw 10 Council to look for ways to save taxpayers Calif., and Vandalia, Ohio. years ago: "State will get fewer services for money by bringing local governments together The forum will feature activities by local more taxes." Koldene believes it's high time for to help them find cost-cutting efficiencies. governments and school districts that have the public sector to reverse that,by spending "Public services in the Twin Cities Area are moved beyond traditional ways to deliver ser- less and delivering more. the key to our success as a region," said vices. The event is designed for local officials The Metropolitan Council is thinking along Kolderie, senior associate at the Center for from cities, counties, townships, school dis- the same lines this year. Itis launching an effort Policy Studies in Minneapolis. tzicts and other interested people. For details, to help the region's governments produce the "Public services in cold, geographically see Meetings below. best possible service at the lowest possible isolated Minnesota have tended to cost more Local officials have said they need informa- - cost. In other words, to spend smarter. than in other areas. It's a way we attract and on about new approaches to service delivery. The Council will start by hosting a March hold businesses and people who might other- In response,the Council has started to catalog 30 forum,"New Ventures in Delivering Govern- wise move to areas with higher temperatures new approaches already occurring in the re- ment Services." The forum will seek to stimu- and lower taxes,"he said. gion,state,nation and the wor,i. The informa- late new thinking and showcase activities by He said that while the public wants ser- tion will be housed in the Council's library. local governments that promote efficiency and vibes to grow, it resists endless increases in Information about some new approaches cut costs. taxes. Something new must be done. N e w will come from a survey of cities currently under The Council's effort is in response to Gov. approaches showcased at the forum could in- way by the Association of Metropolitan Munici- dude governments cooperating with one an- palities. The survey will determine the extent other;sharing services;consolidating services; and nature of service delivery among cities. At finding lower-cost, low-tech options, or high- the same time,the Council is surveying coun- mill I tech options that save the region money. ties, school districts and townships for the Other approaches could include injecting same purpose. more competition in service delivery by offering Council staff will work with local officials '•`I choice to citizens, and contracting out more this year to define barriers to effective service ~" . ." V:/ services to bidders competing for the work. delivery. In October,the Council will present a People could be encouraged to change behav- second forum to explore additional service- #+�..�` iors to reduce the need for some services. delivery options and to propose alternative e. The keynote speaker will be Ted Gaebler, government structures for greater effective- ` coauthor of Reinventing Government, a new ness. The Council is forming an advisory task book that highlights examples of the entrepre- force to assist in this effort. • Ted Ga.W.r neurial spirt in transforming the public sector. JJm Martin • e 0 Meetings ,o F :� New rural area policies will be the sub- The forum,which costs S15,will be held at The task force is studying the feasibility of ject of a planner's forum Feb. 27 sponsored by the Council from 8 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. To building a mobile radio communications net- the Metropolitan Council. The new policies register,call Shirley Willenbring at the Council, work accessible to government agencies concern land outside the Metropolitan Urban at 291-6445. throughout the region. When the date is set, Service Area that is not designated for commer- Effective service delivery by local gov- notices will be mailed to interested govern- - cal agriculture. The policies provide more envnents will be the focus of a forum hosted by ment officials. For more information,call John flexibility for communities to plan for develop- the Metropolitan Council March 30. See story McGough, Council planning coordinator, at ment and services that fit community condi- this page. 291-6388. eons. It will be held at the Earle Brown Contin- The Council's annual State of the Re- The forum will be held from 9 to 11 a.m.at ing Education Center on the St.Paul Campus of gion event will be held in November this year the Council. For a copy of the policies,see"New the U of M, 1890 Buford Av.,from 8:15 a.m.to instead of in the spring. The event will focus Publications," page 7. For more information, 4:45 p.m. The forum, which includes lunch, on how the Twin Cities Area is changing, call Council planner Bob Overby at 291-6381. costs $45. The deadline for registration is based on an analysis of 1990 census data. New approaches to chemical abuse March 20. For more information, call Terry It will explore public policy implications for and crime in the region will be the topic of a Kayser at the Council at 291-6356. the next 10 to 20 years in land use,transports- March 5 forum sponsored by the Metropolitan A region-wide radio communications tion,airports,water,housing,aging and other _ Council. The forum is titled "The Criminal network serving Twin Cities Area govern- physical and social arenas. The event will be Justice System vs. Drugs and Alcohol: Is the ments will be the subject of a half-day seminar designed for leaders in government,business, Cost Too High?" It will examine the shift in sponsored by the Metropolitan Council planned labor, nonprofit organizations and interested Minnesota's policies on chemical abuse away for mid April.The seminar will be designed to citizens. For more information, call Donna — from a public health focus to an emphasis on brief government officials on findings and rec- Mattson of the Council at 291-6493. criminal justice. The forum also will explore ommendatiorrs from the Council's 800 Mega- alternatives to more jails and prisons. hertz Regional Trunked Radio Task Force. 6 'lkir . , New publications order form The following publications have been 71 Summary: Recreation Open Space published recently by the Metropolitan Coun- n Burnsville Sanitary Landfill Expan- Development Guide/Policy Plan. Sum- cil. They also are available at major public sion, Final Environmental Impact State- marizes main points and policies of the guide, — libraries in the Metro Area. , ment. Contains reviews of a proposed 63-acre adopted last year. No. 310-91-142; 9 pages; To order,place a check 141 1 in the box expansion to the landfill,located in the Minne- Sl. next to publications you want and complete sota River valley. Examines alternatives to the the order information below. proposal, environmental impacts, including ( !Minority Enrollment Trends in Twin -- human health and ecological risk,land use and Cities Area Schools, School Year 1990- socioeconomic impacts, and mitigation mea- 91. For the first time in seven years, Asian [_i Regional Transit Facilities Plan.See sures. No. 520-92-003; 176 pages; $10. enrollment was not the fastest growing ethnic stories pages 1 and 2. No. 550-92-024; 40 and racial minority group in public schools. pages; no charge. (j Fiscal Year 1991 Abatement Progress African American enrollment increased the Report for the Twin Cities Metropolitan fastest,at 8.9 percent. Total enrollment in the 1 Selecting a Search Area for New Area. The region used 39 percent less landfill region's public schools was the highest in the Major Alrpor. Part Four: Search Area space for municipal waste between July 1990 past five years. No. 620-91-159; 48 pages; Designation.See story page 5. No.559-91- and June 1991 than in the previous year. It also $2•50. 156; 16 pages;no charge. recycled nearly 37 percent of the estimated 2.7 million tons of municipal waste managed in the I !Metropolitan Council Publications - I 1991 Airport Planning Contingency region. The effort represents a major improve- Directory. Lists publications,videos,news- Report.Report says activity at Minneapolis- ment over the previous fiscal year,when about letters, brochures and other recent informa- St. Paul International Airport continued to 23 percent was recycled. No.521-91-130; 175 tion products availahlethrough Council's Data grow in 1991,particularly hubbing. Air traffic pages; S5. Center. No.310-92-004;64 pages;no charge. went up 0.6 percent.The number of passen- gers grew by 1.0 percent.No.559-92-021;60 pages; no charge. Available March 1. Name 7 Metropolitan Area Water Supply:A Address Plan for Action. See story page 1. No.590- 92-025; 72 pages; S4. City ' I !Amendments to the Metropolitan Daytime phone Development and Investment Frame- work:Policies for the Rural Service Area. •Checked publications) S Amendments reaffirm basic framework suet- .Sales tax(6.5 percent) S egy of restricting extensive development out- .Total cost $ side the urban area and,at same time,giving Mail this page with check to: rural area communities more flexibility in Metropolitan Council Data Center, Mears Park Centre, 230 E.Fifth St., St.Paul, MN 55101 guiding development. See"Meetings,"page 6. No.640-92-012; 16 pages; no charge. The Council has prepared two-page po- :; sition papers, available at no charge, for ,1,4110 '; legislation on the following subjects: - G SI- a ; `."y``.. sL� []Regional Transit. No. 310-92-014. � - nr- -`1fi. ' .".,..14C.'• X90. { ,_/ ..... Water Supply. No. 310-92-016. _ �' ,/ `- ❑Regional Parks. No. 310-92-017. -� -_;�-.a- mei—� .; � ❑Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves ' -; ?I. •- ',• ` , ,',d Program. No. 310-92-018. publication, /-.1, 7'T,-J y� ,,e4* Metropolitan Council 1992 Work Pro- L. % ;` ElMetropolitan and Budget. Details work program -44 Y iz �. priorities and operating budget. No.222-91- -^ rtib� 110; 112 pages; no charge. „ �``� <'t j Metropolitan Council 1992 Summary Budget(see item above)also available. No. 222-91-163; 29 pages; no charge. /.---,:—"1---"I' '-' -.: . -,LA...-' ...7. 7 nities while trying to That's a minimum"fair share"for the state to — in My Opinion 1, develop reasonable and contribute. The regional parks serve the Twin stable funding sources. Cities Area just as state parks do in Greater Tl year, we have Minnesota. asp:::.i the Minnesota Second,we have asked for$29.9 million in Growing use . ,r Legislature to do two state bond revenues to acquire, develop and L • things to keep regional redevelop regional parklands and facilities for viable. fiscal 1992-93. Of this amount, $11.6 million of parks a parks First,we are ask- would be used to develop recreation facilities in ing the legislature to high-use parks. Another 811.3 million would be 'nixed continue providing funds to operate and main- used to rehabilitate park facilities, many of tain the parks. Our request is for a S3 million which are just plain worn out. - blessing appropriation from the state's general fund in About 87 million would purchase land for fiscal 1993. These funds would supplement parks and trails in Dakota, Hennepin,Ramsey local tax dollars from regional park operating and Washington Counties--land that otherwise By Roberta Opheim agencies. This request is especially important could be permanently lost to other uses. — Opheirn is chair of the Metropolitan Parks and because of other funding cuts the park agencies We think the list of projects is realistic. It Open Space Commission- have experienced. was selected from$66 million in projects rec- Without the funding, as many as 40 full- ommended by the operating agencies. More than 14 million people visited Twin time jobs and up to 200 part-time and seasonal When times are difficult, it's even more Cities Area regional parks and uails in 1991.For many visitors,the parks offer convenient recta lobs would be lost. Park maintenance would important to maintain what we have and reha- ation that enhances their quality of life. No diminish and some park facilities--and a few bilitate what's deteriorating. Our goal is to limit evidence enhances uggu that parks in our region are parks in their entirety--would close. new development to parks under heavy use and yet numerous enough,large enough,or devel Our request amounts to less than 10 per- to purchase lands only where there is danger of — oped enough to satisfy our outdoors-onented cent of the annual cost to run regional parks. permanent loss to the system. citizens. Legislative funding for regional parks The demand for regional parks is a mixed —" blessing for the agencies managing them. It is Millions of Dollars gratifying to provide a service valuable to so i 35-/ • Requested many. In today's dif5cuit times, people with — — — -- --- fewer recreation dollars have increasingly used !- N 25 — \ e close,relatively inexpensive regional parks as a personal and family recreation outlet. 20 At the same time, funding has been cut _ _ _ _ back. As more and more people visit limited 15 _ O park spaces,the parks become overused. High 10 use combined with funding limitations are _ squeezing regional parks. Relief is not easily 5 \\ /-\ _� _\ \Al hIi[ i found. p I The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space • 1976-77 80-81 84-65 88-89 92-93 et cn Commission and Metropolitan Council are work- 78-79 82-83 85-87 90 91 a ing to provide adequate facilities and opportu- A Publication of the Metropolitan Council A44 Winter 1992 The Metropolitan Coun.:.Deducts long-range plan- METRO yr C,r-��C Bulk eau Th Hing and research for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area in v U-S-Postage such areas as transportation,solid waste,housing and water Metropolitan Council PAID resources It also coordinates planning among local govern- Mears Park Centre Mpla.,MN merits,the metropolitan agencies and the pnvate sector. 230 E.Fifth St Permit No.1610 — The Meso Voice reports fou:tunes a year on activities St.Paul,Minnesota 55101 of the Council and issues of regional interest. For more information.cal)the Council's Data Center at(612)291-8140 Metropolitan Council Member and Their Districts (Address Correction Requestion) Mary E Anderson,char,Liz Anderson,1,Dede Wolfson.2, James W.(Jun)Senden, 3. Carol A. Kummer.4. David F. Fisher, 5, Donald B. Riley, 6, Esther Newsome, 7; Susan PAUL KRAUSS 6660 Anderson,8,Ken Kunzrran,9,Jim Krautkzemer.10,Polly P. PLANNING DIRECTOR Bowies.11,Sondra R.Sunonson,12,Duk deVries.13,Bonrue CITY OF CHANHASSEN - DFeatherstone,14,Margaret Schreiner.15,E.Craig Moms, 690 COULTER DR/BX 147 16 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0147 Metropolitan County,Mears Park Centre,230E.Fifth St..St. ��'� Paul.MN 55101. Telephone(612)291-6359. t./ — Edits• Jim Macon FEB 2 g 1992 Graphic Designer.Ruth Fen Photographer•Cliff Burns �;hrsivnr�0trrt r The Voice is printed with vegetable-based ink on recycled I i/ Coiner. V 8 PLANNING Elaine Cogan on,.. C OMMISSIONERS ...listening to I people have to say 3 Ethics When CX-pa Fie: contacts tan gr you in trouble . 10 For America's Municipal&County Planning Boards Planning Law Primer "Noncor Jormitics'' Planning for Trees —What are thcti•? And why are ti ll considered the VIEWING TREES AS "Achilles heel"of very city and town in without poetry and music.Tree lined zoning? I America can benefit from poli AN IN I EGRAL PART streets are more than shaded passage- 11 OF THE ways linking buildings. They give us cies and programs to increase INFRASTRUCTURE a chance to bring nature into the heart Shared the quantity, size and health of of our communities,while linking us Housing II shade trees along streets and in public to our past.Scientists also have come spaces. Even more important is the by Henry Arnold to find a rational beauty in trees.Trees Your zoning cod opportunity that this presents to use can significantly reduce temperatures definition of "family"may shade trees as pan of _ in town and city cen- preclude an the urban infrastruc- , -�i 1I -. ''',4",, T_ _ - ,., ,44-4-..-"",,--,-- ters, countering the ture. e-�• •t1I'0- �`' '� important hoes. "urban heat island" .-F s. -� ,ii _ z - - '� option for clders� A recent survey " •�i.� 7 -_ _ =- _ 4,—-0•.0;:_� ��J - effect. p.8 This is by the American For • tet. •r:�� , _" - 13 `� ; . • 3 •-- • accomplished not only est Association of �) r? `' ,• .� !1 _ _ through the shading twenty American cities '�\.� ,i/ :` Z-. Insights �• � _ � -• � ,•� =� - •• -� effect of trees,but also found that,on average � -y�'•- -. ' A • 4 =- g 11, i= : - through trees ability to Why plan- wlwi only one tree is planted 1� ..-_i- --4 :,„".1 motivated you t II � L. ; store large quantities of } for every four removed. r.' 1 -1- ' •_ _ carbon—a key factorbeco"ie a►Yarm' Many other communi- . 11;4. ,1�1jIw \ in global warming.Notcommissirntrr? ties embark on tree I. t .t 3 #� only are air-condition- planting programs �''\t\ • 3•. - ing costs reduced, but without taking suffi- 4 x.. and rte: efforts to combat glo•.,,jtient time for sound `2''' bal warming are as- more in this , gli .,..,. .iyi ,,.-•.-:...,:.-:. t� �rplannin The outcomey` � y issue. '. '+ e; listed. is often a misguided �� :!441-1?.;:.".: : ` ff i` �' ......../:::.,,....,..7.,,..,..., iti If this weren't tree planting program, .;:. 'i . ,' 1� �: 4P- � ` ,.'z r _��„ enough,the leaves and with short-term results �`,'•:,�: C` ;.#141-4i.-1;P:/ y'>�-� that never achieve their ` ` i - . 1{ , `ire branches of trees slow promise. 1 yf ; the movement of rain , , s' .,,,, „- �jl,I ,,,�,,- drops, lessening soil I THE BENEFITS OF z ,(Jji 11T e erosion and storm STREET TREES G - 4 t1. — % sewer system overload. A city without .-� _---t-- ��111111 = Trees have also been trees is like a world _= - —c I --_- --- ..---_ — continued on page 4 FEATURES PL 4, N N I N G - FROM THE EDITOR COMMISSIONERS ,sl • Panning for Trees ourna ang for by Henry Arnold Your Help Street trees can help define the hearts of our cities and towns.But too often tree planting programs are based on poor planning and Champlain Planning Press 4 faulty assumptions.An introduction to some of P.O.Box 4295 the basics of planning for trees. Burlington,VT 05406 1. -rte of my hopes for the Planning 1 - Comm sinners Journal is that it will Tel:802-864-9083 you "Family" Definitions & Shared Fax:802-862-1882 provide a vehicle— or network, if Com ta5erve:72570,460 will — for an exchange of views and Housing for Older Americans P — ideas among people who volunteer their by Patricia Pollak planning Zoning code definitions of"family"can end up Editor time and energy to serve on local latutin commissions. barring an important affordable housing Wayne M.Senville Yes, the Journal will provide sub- option for members of the community, especially elder residents.Patricia Pollak Assistant Editor stantive articles and columns on a range discusses shared housing and explains why it KennethLerner of useful topics. But that's only part of should be permitted. _ what the Journal can provide. The rest 13 depends on your interest,and your will- Design Quad Left Graphics ingress, to take a few minutes once or DEPARTMENTS twice a year to send us a note or give us a Burlington,VT call. Share information for the News& The Effective Planning Cover Illustration Notes section. Or respond to an article. Commissioner t Paul Hoffman- What,for example,does your Commis- Do you listen to what members of the public Southbury,CT sion do about "customer service" — as say at your planning commission meetings? know that you're listening?Elaine described by Ray Quay in the first issue? Do people $ Subscription Information Has your Commission had any experi- Cogan tells why this may the most important part of your job as a commissioner. . Published 6 times/year,with an index included in ences with cable TV or other media,like3 the September issue.Standard Rate:S45/yr.Addi- P• awtucket, Rhode Island (see News & Newsom tional Copies:$6 each.Small cormrrturnities(pops - Notes this issue). Do you have any Plan Airs on Local Cable Television I unionsundor25,000)•andsmalicamua°rr`gions reaction to Greg Dale's ethics column— ra discuss? Awards Prom for Well-Planned (populations under 75.000) receive 40%off the o — dcue s?there ethical issues you'ld like to $Development Projects standard rate. ISSN 1058-5605 Postmaster and Subscribers: Send address changes to Planning . If you can invest a bit of time,you'll Commissioners Orientation Manual Being F Commissioners Journal,P.O Box 4295,Burlington, Prepared VT05406 be helping to make the Journal a better Urban&Community Forestry Program Funds - publication for all its readers.I promise. Tree Planning and Planting Editorial Policy Switching gears,in this issue land- 9 scape architect Henry Arnold provides We strongly encourage subscribers to contribute Ethics &The Planning Commission S,information,and ideas.A standard form for — an introduction. Futeo the topic rnof lwill street When should you refuse to discuss a matter submissions to the News&Notts section is avail- trees. Future issues of the Journal gy" before your planning board?GregDale offers able.Articles and columns contoined in the Journal discuss other aspects of"urban ecology some cautions about"ex-parte"contacts. „�necessarily reflect the views of the Journal. —an important field that planning corn- 1 p The Journal;�copyright protected by Champlain missions are increasingly dealing with. •Planning Press 1991.For permission to reproduce Planning law Primer or distribute any portion of the Journal,contact the Also in this issue,Patricia Pollak exam- Attorney Susan Connelly explains the basic Editor. This publication is designed to provide — fines l regularly cover for olderresidents. like th s, law of nonconforming uses and structures accurate and authoritative information on the sub- 11We'll subjects like this, F IKt matter courted It is sold with the understand- that focus on how zoning and planning effect different segments of our comms- Insights ;,,g that the publisher is not engaged in rendering s legal,accounting or other professional services.If Bruce Bender asks why people—like you— 1. legal or other.«pert assistance is required, the nities. want to serve on planning commissions- services of a competent professional should be 16 t sought. Wayne M. Senville k • — PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 tANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 .- u t THE EFFECTIVE PLANNING COMMISSIONER When They spear, Do You Listen? by Elaine Cogan <4( know you hear me,but and listen at one time,citizens would trust . citizen has raised. "Yes, Mrs.Jones, I can "Nearly shout- look more if you put your pencil aside and understand your concern that widening are you listening- look up at them when they speak. the street will take out those two old oak — ing with exasperation,a frustrated Another nonverbal behavior pattern trees. Several of your neighbors have also citizen confronted her commu- that annoys citizens is seeing commission- raised that issue.Let's ask staff to respond. • nity's planning commission after a par- ers chat with each other or staff when the I know they've looked into the matter." Ocularly heated public meeting on a con public is speaking.While you may be dis- Staff may tell you and Mrs. Jones troversial zone change. cussing the subject at hand, or have an- that after reviewing all the alternatives, The chair of the commission took other legitimate purpose,you appear to be they think the old oaks have to go. But, — disinterested in the public comment or after you make it clear that citizen concern exception to her question."Of course we're listening. What do you think we've been just rude. Still another habit to avoid is is important, they may also be willing to doing the last four hours?"They may have drumming your fingers or a pencil on the take another look.Whatever the final de- _ thought they were listening,but the deci- table as if you are impatient to get this all cision, you have shown by your com- over with. ments that you were listening,and are not sion made by the planning commissioners closed to considering new information. soon after the meeting did nothing to con wince a skeptical public.The commission- During the commissioners' discus- "WHENEVER YOU ARE sion after the public comment period is ers voted unanimously to endorse their previous stand on the issue without an}' HOIDING A MEETING over, look for ways to give further — evi- acknowledgment of the public comments ' -WHERE THE PUBLIC LS dence'you were listening. "According to they had ostensibly been"listening to"the what we've heard today, several citizens previous four hours. - 1NVI1LI)TO GIVE seem to think that it is better to save the It is possible that no amount of pub- COMMENTS OR trees than widen the street.I would like to — lic discussion would have changed the TESTIMONY n-IS explore this further before we make a opinions—and the votes—of the plan- decision."decision. Or, even if you think the citi ring commissioners, and it is entirely IMPORTANT TO BE AWARE . zens are off track, you should acknowl- — within their rights to reaffirm their origi- -OF ANY NONVERBAL . edge what you heard, and then go on to nal opinion.But once they opened up the .CLUES,BEHAVIOR OR state why you disagree. discussion to the citizens, they should Most citizens are reasonable, and _ have showed by their questions and other -HABITS THAT MAY SEEM understand you cannot always give them responses that they considered the public's -TO INDICATE what they want. But they do want—and input seriously before they took another T deserve — to have their points-of-view vote. "Why did we bother to come? Theylistened to and acknowledged. Nod affir- didn't even hear what we were saying,"is a matively when citizens talk.Look them in reasonable public evaluation of the pro- the eye when you respond. Refer to them ceedings that occurred. The seeds of an In addition to nonverbal behavior, by name. Show respect. Do these seem- apathetic or militant citizenry are nur- be aware of what you say and how you say ingly small things,and you will have gone tured in such unfertile ground. it.When you answer or respond to a pub- a long way toward becoming an effective Whenever you are holding a meet- lic comment,do you engage in a dialogue and respected planning commissioner. ing where the public is invited to give or in a monologue?In other words,do you Elaine Cogan is a pan comments or testimony,it is important to have your set speech or point-of-view no ner with theirm of ` f� -rte be aware of any nonverbal clues,behavior matter what the citizens say, or do your Cogan Sharpe Cogan, _ or habits that may seem to indicate Mat- responses show you were listening? One Planning and Commu- 4 tentiveness. You send a negative message effective approach is to respond to each nications Consultants, to the public when you slouch in your individual by name.If you are not person- Portland, Oregon. Her — chair or lean back so far your eyes appear ally acquainted,give your memory a boost column appears in each '1 to be closed. Likewise,if you take profuse by jotting down their names as they intro- issue of the Planning ti� , notes with your nose close to your note- duce themselves.Then,take care to couch Commissioners Jour- \ \ _ book. Though you may be able to write your response or comments in terms the nal. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 - U Planning for Trees can take as planners to challeng e the Environmentalcontinued from cover inconsistency between our vision of the I __ al ideal city and our declining urban for- \Benefitsfound to reduce air pollution,by remov- ?One answer is to include trees in the C Gary Moll discusses the environ- ing particulate matter from the air,while est s? city or town plan. Shade mental benefits of trees in"The State of restoring oxygen to the atmosphere. trees are as important to most people as our Urban Forests,"an article in the What are our priorities? Should we not traffic lights, garbage trucks, and storm November/December 1989 issue of view.trees as an integral part of the infra sewers if the message of global warming American Forests magazine.One of the structure of our communities—as valu has filtered down,then I suspect planting able as roads and utilities? key ways in which trees provide envi- more trees will become of much greater ronmental benefits is through their What I want to do in this short article is inspire you to develop a better concern,very soon. shading effectiveness.This,in turn, How do you start planning for trees? 11 depends on the extent of tree cover tree planting program. I will emphasize the need for good planning, and for the There's no single answer. You might be Page 8 on concludes that"the average gin by roundingupagroupof influential adoption of sensible criteria to guide your } city could accomplish a doubling of citizens and creating some kind of offi- jtree cover) to about 60%,which would efforts. The focus of my discussion will benefits."Moll attack the problem.This committee's first be on the most active part of our cities cial or even quasi-official committee to _ triple the environmental points out that because tree canopies and towns: where pedestrian traffic is continuous and lively; where people goal should be to arrive at a broad state- have height,width and depth•doublingobjectives merit of that everyone can the tree canopyto les the leaf area," gather and meet casually outdoors in thery "tnples course of daily pursuits; in short,where support. These could be as broad and correspondingly increasing the environ general as: shade all pedestrian areas mental benefits from the trees. the most people get the greatest benefit from shade trees. This includes the most within the central business district;plant _ intensively developed centers of small three new trees for every one removed; Trees & Sidewalkstowns and places we may not ordinarily re-establish the downtown as a shady Richard Untermann,in his article consider urban. green space; plant two trees for every "Taming the Automobile,"in the N parking space;and so forth.The idea is to o- i vember/December 1991 issue of the INCLUDING TREES IN THE establish a verbal picture of what the Planning Commissioners Journal,also COMPREHENSIVE PLAN municipality can do with trees to make it What is the first large stepthat we delightful. These general statements can _ noted the importance of street trees in g g buffering sidewalks from roadways. ,.- s +,.v • ' / P-r• • Given the root growth of trees,however, iii..140, ., 7. .,, • E_ it is important to carefully integrate the iii ' *it:tom st , �\ ." r , 9�i planting of trees with sidewalks.The • �, 4 �� `w�' M,' ; iii 7- 7nnr1wPP ►it ; rse \ v�"�`1 ``` r - - -qy ! Ire ideal approach is to install new side t �' t `� �.JJj 1 walks and trees at the same time. Plan- '�' sr-;."-ifrsM,.- \ ., '14.• Hing departments can often help in 4)42)� 4.), _ ` •,.'i -'17.riM �,,i 7.49rmoi,,,; :'7, coordinating this,especialhy if they have •• ► _ "`�� '---;1-k,*_,,,,- % N'..1,.--"-.M..,-,-,f-i4' _ ' /!:L .- a role in preparing the municipality's „, fg�F 7s ri �. s• .. '`� ---.�„ �,7,.....? .fl `- capital improvement program. Form more � r�.�-- � 7._-,- ��.�� 1��,��,��. �, /,��,�„1 on this subject,read"Planting New life r , • '�i ,-_- -- \` '=af'\ti�'v),' �' I r in the Cit in the A riVMa 1991 issue I ft 's I _-: �1 i _ ' _ of Urban Forests. ll- tr..,,e- :+s _ - ---.17t.. --_,,. -:.0.4.1•"\V----_-,.....-;..• s T A. It is also essential to use good plant- ,,./ ,/ - =_+_-_°�' I • ��1�-;...- i -=� �t 4 :5#4 "' --4t- Mg methods to ensure tree survival in t s, _ .;i--7-5::1 > i- town and city centers.A good introduc- I ��wtttl�>9� , .ti t 1 1 ,- -'.``' g don to this subject can be found in an � •�v- liIy/ }S\ �� article by Gary Moll and Jim Urban, `i IV I� � 4; _- -% �:�� _,Z 31 — "Designing the Ecological City,Pan 11 i I '• �� E=t / _ - I:l ..i,,. 4!It: —GivingTrees Room to Grow,Urban I k'',7;7:. ir,.;,Y ' J arn 11, ii . i.r.., Forests(May une 1989). , ..". 1— ih; . ';,i,,--:•-•-....,...,-0- 6 4,4 ,5„,,, 44-z--: s'.'.5,'.1:.L'''.-1..''4: ) \ ;••, ..— ,-..-:‘4 !ti --6f.....!-, ‘r.---74. A""L4'1Zi jj,1-...:_'''..._sj. welf-;frilt...- . • a' t•/•-• //. . _.... ,. NY .nww.. • COMMISSIONERS 1� .-____-::: ".:::___ _:_=_.-:_-__' i � � G = 4�� 1— PLANNING COMM15 J - Y `_1- 0 �. --- - -� I _ be refined into a statement of policy that shaping the design of our of cities and t the local go •ernment could adopt.What towns. Trees can create outdoor rooms 0 Trees and Air politician would balk at this? and living arcades. This can only be ac- / \COr1dit1011i Step two might involve the ap- complished, however, through a well- pointment of a"shade tree commission" thought out tree planting program — f The findings on electricity savings whose first mission would be to prepare one integrated with other elements of the E which I cite were presented by Hashem _ a tree plan. This appointed commission comprehensive plan,and based on sound t Akbari,Art Rosenfeld,and Haider Taha � should be carefully selected so that is scientific criteria. at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, members represent a broad constituency. It is surprising how much tree - Berkeley,California, in a working paper Ideally, there should be an urban de- planting has been based on commonly titled,"Recent Developments in Heat signer, a politician, an arborist, a land- held assumptions that are simply wrong. i Island Studies."if the implications of • scape architect and, yes, — practical For example,it is often assumed that for 1 their findings are confirmed,trees have a laymen — but not too practical. This is healthy trees to develop, they must be much greater utilitarian value than was the planning and design stage,and there spaced considerable distances apart.As I i previously believed. should be room for idealism. will soon discuss, this is not true. Simi- The tree plan should be integrated larly, many people believe that species ii Utility Companies - with the municipal comprehensive plan, diversity will produce a more stable and i and Small Trees given a place equal to streets, utilities, robust stand of trees.Again,the scientific *: evidence does not support this Over the past twenty five years, and building design, for example. Why PPo assump- t should the automobile be the only force tion. 1 many utility companies have encour- aged the use of small trees along our that shapes the street? Why shouldn't DESIGN CRITERIA streets.The reason has been to reduce buildings be designed with some defer Let me take you on a quick tour of f maintenance costs for pruning trees ence to the biological requirements of some of the design criteria that might be planted near the wires.This effort has trees and people for air and sunlight? If reflected in a community's tree plan. been exceptionally successful,if judged the utilities are underground, why _Please bear in mind that this is only I. by'the large number of small trees that shouldn't the trees that can shape a hu- intended to skim the surface. There are f. border our streets.If judged,however, mane habitat be given locational prefer- also regional differences that must be e. by the tremendous loss in energy sav- ence? In planning for trees, we should considered (as an obvious example, not i. Ings resulting from smaller trees'greatly recognize their "structural" potential in continued on next page 4 reduced shading effectiveness,the effort �' % y '' -. �' t}�s� ? can hardly be called ed successful. - P:---.4,-,_____ -,.: _ A 'lu�•'% [ ' ' �. In addition,smaller trees lack the ,...rc. 1. - `- .........:t- J *tr. t`\�`i�. `// ->A/r. majestic S — — j beauty that makes trees so �j,_ _ ? ,,:. essential to the human int.While _ _ �'. . ,/1� , E spirit. __: - 0 �;a,s. : ` o`'`? I.t 'tat' r. these benefits are harder to quantify, --_- _ - = .. _&�� i'. ;� {j ' f they are,nonetheless,quiteMidi- "•-•...-,;:- �-` .-7-_--, ...14,3E .�� -, � :� � ess, real. F.cli- ~- ,,,,_,4; . `• ; _ � `, � �' tor's Note:A coming issue of the Journal I 7:'''-\---1= s , _ '_1- t _ n € - �. "%i J the economic of — will feature an article on - _-' - -:-_,A,..,. �7_� 7-=- ��.+i�N�y;"' � .�l �"--4:::%-:"...=1.5-,.. �T :� � aesthetics). ,�—1'1-T 1F-.,,,,*_- ---- �,_-- _• =�� ';( / :;; --�_ '�. r Everycommunity should also +T- -= - A.= = c -,erstc" ::,:,,:.7� - reexamine its list of approved street -, _ _, ir, _ .' trees.Many communities'street tree lists '0\ ` 1 - _ . - _ types simply .~ -1.--,-:,-..-. � ....-:...... -4.,:. �t 1`)/,�' � ��'';• include small tree that are sun 1 „••-•711,1•41, . ..* �-s t i x -_-'_ inadequate to work as effective street - -�1 �.� trees. l __ , Til ii).)‘ . ';''' �� • _-- ! ` `-i__-_° ==__-__ ,_ j i1' _ •� -s 2- JANUARY I FEBl.UAPY 1992 .� I iA*- Planning for Trees ‘,.L p :8 ten times greater than small continued from previous page decorative types such as flowering cher \Tree Diversity all of you live in areas with deciduous ries or dogwoods. Crown volume is the _/ trees).Nevertheless,the following should most important factor in determining — N.A.Richards has shed important shading effectiveness. highlight some of key criteria many corn- new light on one of the most widely munities will want to consider: Researchers have found that for each held assumptions about trees,namely, Location. For street trees,plant large degree reduction in peak summer day that diversity of tree species produces • deciduous trees close to the curb in the temperatures, there is a national savings a more stable or robust stand of city streetsidewalk, or between the sidewalk and in electricity costs of some one million trees. Richards'research has dollars per hour. 5 Small trees the curb. Planting close to the curb gets ' p — undermined this assumption.Amongmaximum visual impact, while also are much less effective in reducing urban his findings are that: (1) there areshading most of the pavement and pro- temperatures. In addition, larger trees relatively few tree species with proven viding pedestrians with a walking area can create broader, more pleasing over- ,— durability and longevity in a particular that feels safe from automobiles., p.4 head canopies, making for refreshing, s urban plant community;(2) high Deciduous trees work well in temperate human-scale places to walk./C) p.5 species diversity tends to be a fragile climates, because they allow for winter Spacing. Avoid planting trees too _ characteristic in plant communities; sunlight. far apart. The distance between trees is and (3)age diversity,rather than spe Type&Size. Selection of tree type an aesthetic choice, recognizing con- , cies is an important charac should emphasize durability and size. straints such as traffic circulation. It is teristic of stable urban street tree These should far outweigh considerations important to note that there is no scien- 1 populations.These findings are report- of seasonal color and "horticultural in- tific basis for assuming that trees grown ed in"Diversity and Stability in a terest,"especially if trees are to be used to thirty feet apart are healthier than trees Sweet Tree Population,"7 Urban Ecol — help structure outdoor spaces.Durability grown ten feet apart. Tree spacing rules � ogv 159 (1983). is best measured by looking for species of thumb found in many tree books and that have proven themselves under simi- local ordinances are based on a prefer- _ Trees & The City lar growing conditions in the same lo- ence for low-branched trees. They also _ (Editor's Note:Historian John Stilg- cality. ignore the fact that trees adapt their form oe has attributed much of the early,20th Street trees should also be large. when closely spaced,and grow very well century decline of eastern and midwest- Tree types such as oaks,plane trees,and close together, even when they are ma- • t ern cities as desirable places to live to the maples provide a "crown volume" ture. Closer spacing can improve the t loss of street trees.As Stilgoe points out, — the massive loss of street trees was _\'' t - % ,`". . , It' T t I , 'l�'a-r ` _J ., 44 t f • 4 s ,lyat-.':,.►.- .ix.` je:I.:_� 'r > f caused by a combination of telephone, :,�-� r •_' ,.77,..; :1'a11;:-.,,,!....t.-,--4.:;,..1,,- : • electric,and streetcar railway cable ..'i. " 1 i; ' / i ij j .,_10.c. 1 •,r 4 i— installation,and street-widening efforts. + * a It t'i r y t • i Asa result, "treeless city streets rein- :' 1 ' •�`. �. J =.0 .tea-.S 1't � i ..� `�'i �� :�M.`— �ja�t�� • , forced the love of commuters for the = 1� , '+n • 1` - _ e:_ ... , •3- x t i sylvan delights awaiting them at the : . -a r -f :1.1!:1;m1'' , i% -"'4�,t;`. l ��vi'": .. 6 •r 4�' e -`��': !: :�`�Tie..a141544-..,-2-1.F.-a + - , .--. . t.! •:1111 s I r,i.=f. • •�,• v:_. . ? •l 11. opposite end of their daily lives."Subur ` - .• Wlj •+► k ban developers took advantage of this,by - • T •••4...--;-: -. ;, A. t- * Y ;-1, i• j am_• .; 3. heavilypromoting both the health and =-'s'may'�t---' •�; " ''l,;- ,..-71•,‘ ' 1.I" ' • t 4'41m. 1 s .5.� G --"-ii,g4 �/t '� 1 t a 1�('!,e_;:,aa,. 1 �• �1 .�V +.;.j.-.t� t .� aesthetic values of trees.See Stilgoe's _3 ..4;, t . 1 ,, ;i••:,'a"• � ;,,; . } t e•ti. 4=t Borderland:Origins of the American �: :s ";'�� • 1' • �` ,"r' �� -: r #, . -�"y • I. `�;l+ ter. lot, 7 �t•,�` :41-.Ala i Suburb, 1820-1939 (Yale University ,--. . ''f i a''1 aft� t. I }� - !t x .q }— Press 1988 � y � .., - _�: �tl� ,� _ .,, — _?-" .,---..-2--...E..--..-,7-----;,......%--„:,,. —� ► i,..s.4...._ __ .....;,.. ... _....:,... ..,..0...,....... .„..kt.,_, .........1...„...„.........a___ . ,... _.___.....:„...,_„:„ . . .......7,..„.,„..._ r...„......i.„........,..„..i. .. . . . ....,..,..... . ..,,.... :. ,..„.....:_:. .........-060.2z.,;,-....1 ,,...._...........-.6..-- " , -. ., _::-.7..... 'a ._�-ni -,...„,,,.:„...1.__•...i...:;-;_-.:3-....._ a 7 L. c — w . . s..'�. fNis' r . ,i' ::Y. 3;si '.Il a Street trees in Cambridge,Massachusetts,planted near the curb where they do the most good t PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 I 111 ''' le A tes' I( 1C + e (I .A.:- fr• _. Ilik. . . • t.. • . -4 E — ,i` ! � 'r ~`>.� S. .! t` .tom' E ••, ..".- -�:�� t V�ir t � -f - rt .r-s �• ' tau kt: a +-: -a t .- . . • v L's jr .• ? ms`s % . .... ..e. .. .7 a « I. , I .. • s `4-•t` _ %A t V ' .4 .• .1/4 i - - . • .. • ... fol} r f s - t • fit. _rj _ h ( ` '�!f A. _ ... -.1, .. 7:I.._ , .• • . .f-- - ,. e,-.-c-.. . 1.*:;, Atilk-iiiii'..ii..! ..% ,,-.„- ., . : ..._ • ii: .. -.; : ti..\,.‘••"(. 4 ailii2.!_tr- i „-rte Vii... a _ f �' e...�.. �^ �`• _ - •" ♦-•_ _w. is�`•. - •. v - •... L.ilw P - • `A,I' '. �-.mss- mar'--- 7;t�_ �iTl'j�e Nit/ • L ci i -+,_ f _ .Y ',:Vi'1 ;, -- 7. "tea • _ - _ -. .w,. - aigi Continuity of tree type is seen in a row of live oak trees in Savannah,Georgia effectiveness of tree shading, especially aesthetic feelings, but scientific knowl- conditions of any particular place.I can- during the first ten to fifteen years of a edge as well. Diversity of tree species not emphasize enough the importance of — trees life. does not create a more robust stand of doing this stage of the work well. There Size at Planting. Street trees should trees.In fact,on an urban site the reverse are thousands of well-meaning gestures be at least four to five inches in "caliper" is generally true. There are only a few in efforts to revegetate our towns and — $0,.Z p. 8 when planted.This will help species of large shade trees that grow cities. The futility of doing it the wrong reduce damage from carelessness or van- well in the cores of our towns and cities. way is strongly evidenced in the way dalism.In addition,the trees will provide These are the ones to plant. Diversity of many central city areas remain almost — earlier shading and visual benefits.While age,not species,is important in ensuring totally devoid of large trees. It is not installation costs are higher with larger healthy trees. p.6 nearly enough to lead groups of boy and caliper trees, your community will gain Sunlight. Criteria for determining girl scouts out each arbor day to plant — in long-term cost savings. how close street trees can be planted to sapling trees. These may be good public Continuity. Plant only one type of adjacent buildings should be calculated relations gestures. However, they ro- tree on both sides of the street in any one from "sun diagrams,"%.Pp.8 by plot- manticize trees instead of facing harder — block. Again,it is best to use a tree type ting solar angles projected between 10 issues.We simply do not spend enough that has already grown successfully in am and 2 pm,for any given latitude.The money on trees. [Editor's Note:While not your community under similar condi- goal is to meet the average shade tree's a panacea, some money is now available _ tions. The ancient practice of planting need for at least four hours of direct through the federal "Urban&Community rows or groups of trees that are all the sunlight. Sun diagrams can also be used Forestry Program,"seeNews&Notes].The same species is still valid today. It pro- as an urban design tool, to shape build- amount of tree cover in almost all of our — videsfor visual continuity along the street. ings in relation to both streets and trees. cities and towns is inadequate. Diversity,if it is believed desirable,should The above comments were meant But even more important than in- be provided at the city or town scale— to illustrate some of the criteria that creasing the number of trees is the need _ not within a single block. Some munici- should provide the foundation for a to increase their effectiveness.This means palities currently require that three or community's tree plan. They must be using trees as part of the infrastructure to four different tree types be used on the based on a thorough,professional under- create ennobling spaces and delightful same street.This contradicts not just our standing of both the technical and visual continued on next page PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 _ Planning for Tresr __ . 4 . ----• -- - - . continued from previous page _ _, ,. ) _-r ,-k- • I A Tree Glossary: Ifin - r -" F .. - streets. It entails using better planting i -,--.7•;_.;----,%.•-,7-' : •Tree canopy or tree cover represents techniques to establish large,healthy tree the amount of surface area covered by a types that will last fifty or more years, t•• r ' tree's leaves and branches. • i- 0�jand that can much more effectively shade _ _r •Crown volume is the volume ofand cool our towns and cities- It is time10..(11 ' space occupied b}'a tree's leaves and we stopped blaming the loss of street branches. It is a good indicator of a tree's r "T :r; trees on poor maintenance, and recog _ - rnvironmental value,in terms of cooling •�� nized that more than 80% of the loss is ."-7.'.•:•:.;, air temperature,absorbing pollutants,and ./...2::;.;::;*-': il v:4, directly attributable to improper plant- - r:.. • \ • ., slowing down runoff from heavy rainfalls. ing methods. 1 •Tree caliper represents the diameter .,,,,11J IIt x: 9 of a tree's trunk,as measured six inches SUMMING UP: If above the ground. Our urban centers need to become II !. I— •Sun diagrams are used toplot the g more attractive to help counter the con ,- - • , _ __11_ f, )i., amount of sunlight a tree will receive tinuation of a sprawl pattern of develop- the da .. A g y. ment.If the appeal of low density,widely scattered develop- at Pennsylvania State University, and is a "°•� mm' -- crow sewn graduate of the University of Pennsylvania in a Eastwesr street merit is derived Landscape Architecture. He is the author of ;t Tree locations related to from the need to be puiaing heght avowing a Trees in Urban Design (see the "Resources" ' Lat23. .� hours of mOday sunlight closer to nature,„,P, , duringgrowingsonfor sidebar). trees on south s de of street then making treesa at a0 Nlatnude— i (Philadelpnia,Minneapolis, an integral pan of CITY TREES � enveFlom r ,nuraa� De- theurban -habitatI sign, van Nostand'Rein- The trees along our cin•streets ys ,,,w_ ,6 „o„ 1980. will help make our �""”" Are lovely,gallant things; town and city cen- ters roots lie deep in blackened soil, •Urban heat island effect refers to ters more desirable places to live and And yet they spread their wings the phenomenon in cities and urbanized work.)2)p.6 It is profoundly impor- areas through which buildings and land rant to see this linkage between making Of branching green or fretted twigs • — absorb and radiate solar heat,creating cities and towns more "liveable" and Beneath a sullen sky, localized pockets of warmer air. stemming the continued spread of And when the wind howls banshee-like scat- tered development across the country- They bow to passers-by +t — side. 3 . 41 —71111,—._ Having established sound criteria In fall their leaves are bannerets `ems— Resources: for a tree plan, the next steps in prepar- Of dusty red and gold. i— ing and implementing the plan as part of And fires dim that warm our hearts Urban Forests magazine,published by the American Forestry Association is a coordinated overall vision should fol- Against the coming cold. an excellent source of ideas on issues low logically and smoothly if the criteria Then delicate through winter's snow relating to trees in towns and cities.For are taken seriousl}. There is a dramatic Each silhouette still makes and inescapable difference between towns i ordering information,contact the AFA P Black filigree,with frostings rare and cities that haveplanted trees in an at P.O.Box 2000,Washington,DC Of silver powdered flakes. : — 20013 or call:(202)667-3300. inspirational way and those where tree The American Forestry Associa planting has been an ad hoc activity for But leafed or bare,the bravely rise . ' ' .4',k lion's National Urban Forest Council, local citizens,no matter how dedicated. , With healing in their wings- - which can also be reached at the above Paris did not happen by accident. The trees along our city streets address,provides information on pre- Are lovely,gallant things. '' paring workable tree ordinances. Henry Arnold is a principal with Arnold Trees in Urban Design,by Henry Associates,Landscape Architecture and Ur- —Vere Dargan i— Arnold(Van Nostrand/Reinhold 1980), ban Design, in Princeton, New Jersey', and From Poems for the Great Days, reprinted can be ordered through the APA Plan- has been involved with issues relating to trees with permission of Ayer Co.Publishers, F ners Bookstore,(312)955-9100. for many years.Mr.Arnold studied forestry Salem,NH. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 NEWS & NOTES Comprehensive Plan 210,Pawtucket,RI 02860; (401) Commissioners groups for projects such as: tree Airs on Local Cable 724-5200. Orientation Manual planting;:conducting tree inven- TelevislOn Awards Program WHITE BEAR LAKE, tones;developing tree plans; PAw rUCKET,RHODE ISLAND v,• MINNESOTA and providing tree maintenance. For Well-Planned • Overall,532 million is The Pawtucket PlanningThe City of White Bear Development provided annually to the states, _ Lake,a community of about Commission recent]} integrated Pro ectSallocated on the basis of popula- public access cable television 22,000,is current]}'preparing KNOXVILLE/KNOX COUNTY, an orientation manual for new tion.The program calls for each into efforts to update its corn- TENNESSEE members.The manual will state to establish an urban for- prehensive plan.The reason for entry advisory'council,to set The Knoxville/Knox Coun- contain information on the doing this was to reach more t}'Metropolitan Planning Corn- planning commission's purpose priorities and establish how people,especially since newspa- funds will be spent Most states' — mission annually recognizes the and responsibilities,the organi- per coverage of the comprehen- in local development zational structure of the city and councils have only recent]y sive plan process had been been set up. sparse. Four one hour pro- projects.The awards program is the planning department,and designed not just to honor area basic planning`tools."Itis The 1990 Farm Bill also — grams were filmed before a established a Rural Tree Stew- small audience. The first fo- architects,developers and con- modeled on a manual prepared tractors,but also to increase by the Minnesota Planning cured on land use,while the ardship program,providing remaining ones included the public awareness of the benefits Association. technical assistance and cost- — other main elements of the of well-planned development. For more information,con sharing to rural private land comprehensive plan (housing. Awards are given in three tact Kathleen Nordine,Associate owners,and a National Tree categories: (1)residential,in- City Planner,4701 Highway 61, - Trust,designed to support _ economic development.circula 'White Bear Lake,MN 55110; volunteer local tree planting tion,public services and facili- cluding single and multi-family ro ects;(2) commercial,in- (612)429-8561. efforts. ties,open space and recreation, P J and natural and cultural re- cluding office;and(3)special [Editor's Note:A number of For more information on sources). uses,such as industrial develop- local planning commissions make these programs,contact your Each program began with a ment,institutional projects, use of some type of orientation state's forestry department.News historic districts,or n space/ manual or materials.If your about the state advisory councils taped introduction from the Pe P — Chairman of the Planning Com- recreational projects. community has any noteworthy is also regularly published in mission. This was followed by a Projects are judged under features or ideas for preparing Urban Forests magazine(sec the the followingcriteria: (a) corn- effective orientation materials— "Resources"sidebar on page 8 of tape showing about two dozen this issue for ordering informs photos related to the plan ele- ' patibility to neighboring land or if you have any special pro- ment (video filming would have uses;(b)respect for the environ- grams for new commissioners— tion). The National Tree Trust ment;(c)qualityof design and please let us know,and we'll can be reached at: (202)been too expensive).while a g includeyour information in the 8733. 628- voice-over — stated what the plan construction,and visual appeal; f element addressed. Next.a four and (d)adherence to adopted next "News&Notes."J person panel answered ques- planning goals and policies.The Urban & Community tions put to them by a modera- judging committee is made up Clarification on Ordering of PlanningCommissioners. Forestry Program Extra Copies of the Journal tor,and then from the audience. Funds Tree Planningwe have received uveal phone many Anyone can nominate a projectcalls asking what it costs to order addi- The sense is that } P J people viewed these programs, for an award.The award win- and Planting tional subscnptions to the Journal.To Hers are honored at the Planningclarify our policy:each additional order though it is impossible to know COMMUNITIES ACROSS going to the same address costs$6.00- for sure.The programs were put Commission's annual meeting AMERICA that includes all six issues. In other in ul words, if you want seven additional together within a fairly short July. One of the"hidden"nug- subscnptions for members of your _ time-frame,and did entail a For more information,con- gets in the massive 1990 federal commission,the extra cost for the year tact Sally Hanson,Knoxville/Knoxwould be 142.00(subject to a funkier substantial amount of work by Farm Bill was the"Urban& discount for small communities and two the Commission's staff. County MPC,Suite 403,City/ Community Forestry Program." year subscriptions).This cost is being County Bldg.,Knoxville, TN kept as low as possible to make it easier For more information,con- ) This program is designed to for you to order multiple copies.Copies tact Paul Mowrel,Principal 37902; (615)521-2500. provide information, technical of the first issue are still available if you Planner,Dept.of Planning& assistance,and money to munic- want to order additional subscriptions beginning with that issue. Development,200 Main St.,Rm. ipal governments and citizen PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 g ETHICS & THE PLANNING COMMISSION Ex-Parte Contacts by C. Gregory Dale,AICP n the last issue, I focused violate those due process requirements, prevailed through the use of"back door" on the ethical problem of conflicts and ought to be avoided. politics. And nothing is more important Having said that, let me acknowl- to you as a planning commissioner than of interest.This column will focus edge that you were appointed as a plan- your credibility and integrity. on another common ethical ping commissioner in large part because There is another,perhaps more dif- - problem facing planning commission- of your knowledge and involvement in ficult,aspect of ex-parte contacts which ers: "ex-parte-contacts. To begin,let us your community. For many of you, it is you may face. This involves attempts by again look at a hypothetical situation:At simply impossible to avoid all contacts elected officials of your jurisdiction to — a local charity fund-raising event,you are involving matters before you outside of influence your opinion—or simply in- approached by the President of a com- the hearing process.In those cases,each form you—of their views on a particular munity council from a neighborhood of you must judge your own community's matter before you. This is a difficult - where a developer is seeking site plan problem both because it is hard to pre- approval for the construction of a shop- "REMEMBER THAT THERE vent,and because it can create a very real ping center. The individual is an old bias in your own mind,especially if you friend who wants to talk to you about IS NOTHING MORE are appointed to your position. what the community believes will be the FRUSTRATING FOR THE . Clearly,you ought not encourage impacts of the shopping center on the LOSING PARTY THAN TO this sort of ex pane contact. If possible, community. She begins to describe the - your board or commission should take traffic,stormwater run-off,litter and other HAVE THE IMPRESSION steps to discourage such contacts,if they problems that they anticipate. How THAT THE OTHER SIDE are occurring. Your job is to make deci- should you react? PREVAILED THROUGH THE sions or recommendations based solely First, any contact that you have OF "BACK DOOR on the evidence presented to you during with a party involved, or potentially in- _ . the hearing.It is at the hearing that elected volved. in a matter before the planning - . POLITICS. • officials, like other citizens, can present commission outside of the public hearing T their views. process is known as an "ex-parte" con- _ tact. Ex-parte contacts can present diffi- tolerance for such type of activities.While C. Gregory Dale,AICP, is a city planner with the f' cult ethical problems for planning you should refrain as much as possible Cincinnati, Ohio, law • commissioners. from engaging in ex-parte contacts, let firm of Manley,Burke Most people tend to think of ex- me caution you that if you are going to Fischer, which, among - parte contacts as referring to contacts discuss matters with interested parties other things, represents that occur outside of the meeting.While outside of the hearing process, that you public and private sector that is generally true,the literal meaning make yourself available to all sides. clients on planning and of the term "ex parte" is "one-sided." Also, any substantive information zoning matters.Mr.Dale This, of course, suggests that when you or facts that you receive during the course is also a past president of engage in an ex-parte contact, you are of those contacts that relate to the matter the Ohio Chapter of the American Planning engaging in a one-sided discussion, at hand ought to be made a part of the Association,and regularly speaks at planning without providing the other side an op- public record so that it can be available and zoning workshops. portunity to respond and state their case. for consideration or challenge by all in- - Critical elements of legal due pro- terested parties.This can be done by way cess involve providing all parties an op- of a public statement by you at the com- portunity for a fair hearing,full disclosure mission meeting. — of information that you are considering, Remember that there is nothing and an opportunity to be heard. Engag- more frustrating for the losing party'than ing in outside or ex-parte contacts can to have the impression that the other side PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 10 EX-Parte PLANNING LAW PRIMER Contacts & '• Legislative Nonconfom'iing Uses t versus Quasi-Judicial �° & Structures A discussion of ex-parte contacts is not complete without a brief mention of by Susan G. Connelly,Esq. the two general "roles"a planning com — - missioner can assume. A planning corn- \enconforming uses and thereto but that does not currently . missioner takes a"quasi-judicial"role conform to the requirements appli when engaged in determining the structures have been with us ever — cable to the zoning district in which it rights,duties,privileges or benefits that since zoning first emerged in the is located. relate to a specific property or property 1920s. Since that time, they owner. This happens,for example, One aspect of nonconformities when a planning commissioner is called have rep"esented the "Achilles heel" of which is often overlooked in zoning on to review a conditional use request planning and zoning. p. 12 The root regulations and which contributes to the for a specific parcel,or a subdivision of the problem is that nonconformities general confusion often experienced on # plat.Because an individual's constitu reduce the effectiveness of what a corn the subject is the significant distinction — t clonal due process rights are at stake, munity is trying to accomplish through between nonconforming uses and bulk ex-parte contacts should be avoided. its comprehensive plan,as implemented nonconformities. In contrast,the other role planning by its local zoning regulations. The con- — i commissioners often assume involves tinued existence of nonconforming uses, for example, undermines what a corn- ' om "THE CONTINUEDdealing with "legislative"type activities. p This role is taken when a planning munity is seeking to achieve when it EXISTENCE OF — i commissioner is engaged in recom- establishes specific allowable uses for a •_NONCONFORMING USES, mending standards that have a general zoning district. UNDERMINLS WHAT A and uniform operation,and which are At the same time, communities— _ t ultimately decided by the local legisla- quite understandably — have been re- COMMUNITY IS SEEKING 1. Live body. For example,when the plan- luctant to call for the removal of ongoing TO ACHIEVE WHEN IT ning commission is working on a businesses and existing structures, re- proposed zoning ordinance that will go Eling substantial financial investments, ESTABLISHES SPECIFIC ect I to the legislative body for final approval, just because they fail to comply with ALLOWABLE USES FOR A # the planning commissioner is engaging current zoning requirements.The"solu- ZONING DISTRICT. ', _ iin what is considered to be legislative- tion"has been to subject nonconforming type activity. In this role,the issue of uses and structures to a diverse assort • - :. ex-pane contacts is not as significant.iignifi r ment of restrictions,all intended to has • - j The planning commissioner is involved ten the day when the particular use or — with obtaining information and data structure either "disappears" or comes Nonconforming uses are activities i from as many sources as possible,inor functions carried on as principal or into compliance with the existing zoning order to make an informed judgment re lations. accessory uses that are not allowed in the — about the zoning ordinance.The ulti- Nonconformides come in all shapes Particular zoning district (uses that may mate decision on adoption of the zon- be allowed by conditional or special use ing change remains with the and sizes. But what they represent is municipality's legislative body. simple enough to state: non-compliance permit are not considered to be noncon with the relevant requirements of a par- Note Examples of typical noncon Note that there are differences from q P forming uses are commercial or industrial • state to state. For example,in some ocular zoning district or classification. The ZoningOrdinance of the City of uses in residential zoning districts. — states,a zoning amendment affecting aIn contrast, bulk nonconformities, single parcel is considered a quasi- McHenry,Illinois,for example,defines a r judicial action,though most states' nonconformity as: also referred to as structural or"standards" nonconfotmities, involve existing struc- i courts would view this as legislative in (Amny characteristic of a build- — tures that do not meet the ordinance's nature.Your town or city attorney can ing,structure,or lot or parcel of land, giveyou the best advice on this. "bulk regulations." Bulk regulations in- gt or of the use thereof,which was law elude matters such as building height, lot by Gary E.Powell,Esq.,Manley, Jul prior to the date of enactment of — Burke&Fischer,Cincinnati, Ohio this Ordinance or any amendment continued on next page I ' PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME ! NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 — IIII • i s 4 Nonconforming Uses... Most ordinances specify that once a The Origins of continued from previous page nonconforming use is discontinued,it may not be resumed. These "abandonment" \ Nonconfonnities width,setbacks, floor area ratio,off-street i provisions usually only apply when the — The draftsmen of the early Euclide- parking standards,signage,and landscap discontinuance of the use is "voluntary" ing and screening requirements. an zoning ordinances anticipated that —as opposed to when the use is discontin- each comprehensive zoning ordinance The variety of nonconforming situa ued during bankruptcy or foreclosure pro- '— would contain maps and regulations tions account for the difficulty in regulat cedures. The zoning ordinance will also ing them. Nonconforming uses in could prescribing the exact uses that usually specify a minimum time period f made of land throughout the communi-be- residential zoning districts can range from before a use is considered to be voluntarily /a— ty...Because the whole idea of compre things such as tool sheds in small acces abandoned.In some states,courts will also pensive zoning was based on the sory buildings to bulk storage of gasoline require proof of an intent to abandon the 1 principle that land use should be neatly or oil in large buildings suitable only for tlse that specific use. separated,it was feared that the whole "Amortization" provisions — philosophical justif cation for zoning Nonconforming uses can also involve through which the local government re • would be impaired if nonconforming uses in structures designed for conforming quires that the nonconforming use or ;„.,_ uses,i.e.,preexisting uses that did notes (such as a manufacturing operation structure be eliminated within a specified conform with these homogeneous zon- occurring in an office building in a tom number of years—have had mixed results i ing districts,were legitimized. ... (But) mercial zoning district) or uses in strut when challenged in court.While the topic tures which may be adaptable to they feared that public and judicial of amortizing noneonformities is a coin- _ opposition to the elimination of existing conforming uses (such as manufacturing plex one that can only be touched on here, land uses might jeopardize the accep- in a factory building, in a multi family a basic rule of thumb is that amortization tante of any zoning legislation at all.... residential district, which could be con- provisions are more likely to be upheld - verted to apartments).Obviously,some of by It was decided to compromisewhen they involve simpler uses or struc- • allowing uses of land thatib)' s these uses are easier to eliminate than tures were whose value can be readily amortized others. tent with the zoning regulations to As mentioned, zoning ordinances over a few years. continue,but by imposing various re- Courts will closely examine the ex- t usually seek the eventual elimination of s strictions that would cause such non- tent to which an amortization provision nonconforming uses and structures. This if conforming uses gradually to disappear. would cause financial hardship or loss to 4-..... The result was a standardized series of primarily accomplished by: (1) limiting the property owner. Thus, a provision of repair,restoration,additions,enlargements i regulations,restricting change of uses, fecung a nonconforming commercial or alterations,repair and restoration of and alterations of the nonconforming industrial business facility is much less 1— structures,and abandonment or discon- structure or of the structure housing the likely to be upheld than one eliminating a • tinuance of nonconforming uses.The nonconforming use;and (2)restricting or nonconforming advertising sign or fence. elimination of nonconforming uses has, prohibiting the expansion or change of the Having provided you with an over- nonconforming use itself. t.— however,proven to be a most difficult view of nonconformities, in a subsequent goal. Routine maintenance and minor re- _ issue I will discuss what communities that Copyright 1991 by Matthew Bender pairs are ordinarily permitted, as long as are serious about reducing and eliminating &Co.,Inc.Reprinted with permission the cost of this work within any twelve nonconformities can do. from Zoning and Ind Use Controls, month period does not exceed a stated • Patrick J. Rohan,editor.All rights re- i.• percentage of the value of the property. Depending on the particular zoning ordi- Susan G. Connelly spe- - served. cializes in land use,real e Hance, the percentage of value is usually * . z • specified as either 33%or 50%.Some zoning estate,and land develop t ordinances completely prohibit any addi- meet law with the law 1, tion, enlargement or alteration of a strut firm of Sonnenschein in n s} Nath & Rosenthal, in ,.. ture housing a nonconforming use unless Chicago, Illinois. in her r the nonconforming use is eliminated. Ex practice, she has repre z' pansion of the existing nonconforming use sensed both developers (for example,adding seating in a noncon- and municipalities. f forming restaurant) or changing from the Susan received her law degree from Florida -- current nonconforming use to another use State University. ✓ not permitted in the zoning district, is often prohibited as well. -- PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME i NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 FEATURE "Family" Definitions & Shared Housing for Older Americans by Patricia Baron Pollak ow-density residential formal social supports they used to enjoy. shared housing are: a reduction in hous- zoning has supported the Although senior citizen housing and ing expenses,increasing the disposable in- retirement communities have been suc- come available for other necessities; an "American dream"of each family cessful and popular, they simply are not increased ability to remain in the commu- having its own home. It sets aside available for many older Americans.More- nit';greater companionship and security; parcels of land. safe from industrial or over, the current economic climate sug- a sense of well-being that comes from an _ commercial competition, so that families gests that significant government funding independent life-style; and the ability to can afford to build those homes. In so for new construction of affordable senior live in an area which is not an"age-ghetto." doing, however, many zoning ordinances citizen units cannot be assured. In addi- Shared housing also benefits the _ contain a definition of what is considered tion,although some older people welcome community. Neighborhoods are more the typical family. These "family" defini- a new and separate life-style, and some stable when long term residents can stay in tions,often written fifteen or twenty years their homes. At the same time, shared ago, can have major impacts on housing "IT IS IRONIC THAT MANY housing results in a reduced demand for options. One unfortunate result—which ' social services, including nursing homes this article will focus on—is that shared OF THE NEW and other types of community-provided housing for older residents is frequently aSHARED'FAMILIES HAVE SO support services. A benefit both for the precluded. MUCH IN COMMON WITH family and the community is a more effi- Not long ago it was fairly common TRADITIONAL EXTENDED tient utilization of the existing housing for older people to live together with their stock. adult children and their grandchildren in FAMILIES, YET FAIL TO This is especially true in older neigh- extended families.As a result of a number SATISFY`FAMILY' borhoods having large single family homes of factors, the extended family living ar- DEFINITIONS IN THE that are difficult to maintain for today's rangement is no longer common.We now » single family household. Shared housing have relatively smaller single family homes, ZONING ORDINANCE. can result in better property maintenance. a far more mobile labor force,and increased - As a result of reduced housing expenses, — financial independence for our elders in householders can better afford to maintain part due to Social Security and private need special nursing care,most are capable property and have necessary repairs made. pension plans. of leading independent lives and do not The community remains physically attrac- _. Yet, many of today's older popula- want to be removed from their homes and tive and the value of its housing stock is tion of both homeowners and renters feel neighborhoods. enhanced. severe economic pressure and social isola- tion as a result of their housing situation. SHARED HOUSING ZONING FOR TODAY'S FAMILY More than eight million elder Americans Shared housing is one of a number of Reconsideration of the manner in (30%) live alone, including a majority of innovative uses communities across the which zoning ordinances allow our hour the oldest segment of the population(52% country are considering to make efficient ing stock to be used is critical if we are to of those over 85)and a majority of the poor use of the existing housing stock.A shared provide affordable and appropriate hour elderly (51%). And, the percentage of in- home can be either a"match-up p.14 ing for our aging population. A zoning come spent on housing is higher for older arrangement or a "shared residence. definition of"family" requiring a legal or households than it is for younger house- p. 14 biological relationship and limiting the holds.In addition,people are living longer Along with accessory apartments and number of unrelated individuals from and remaining healthier today than they elder cottages, the primary impetus for con sharing a single-family dwelling is often — ever have before. Without family, and sidering these options comes from the in used to prohibit the establishment of shared oftentimes friends,close by,many feel in- creasing need for community-based housing residences. For example, a zoning defini creasingly isolated from the traditional in- for older residents.' Among the benefits of continued on next page PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY' 1992 _ "Family"...Shared Housing... site plan review may be used in those continued from previous page communities wishing to maintain control over the establishment of shared housing. Glossary tion of"family" such as: While all these do impose some burdens, — Any number of individuals, re- they are far preferable to the complete ! •'Match-Up"home sharing is a lated by blood, marriage or adoption prohibition of shared housing. i- way for two or three people to share (or not more than 3 individuals who Obviously, shared housing will not t both the space and expense of one -- are not so related),living together as a appeal to all older residents. For some, 1 home.A "home-provider"with room to single housekeeping unit however,it will be a desirable alternative. spare in his or her home and a "home would prevent a household of four or five Relaxing restrictive family definitions is seeker"who wants to share a home are — unrelated elderly people from sharing a one small way that communities can make matched,usually through a third-party single family home—even though meals more affordable housing options available. agency. were eaten together and the group fungi—[ •"Shared residence" is a home in -- tioned as a single household.Yet,the same SUMMING UP: i which a group of unrelated people live definition of"family" would not prohibit New concepts about the use of the f together in a family-like atmosphere. an extended family of any size from living housing stock for the elderly,and for oth- The number of people in a shared resi- - in that same house.It is ironic that many of ers,offer several features which are impor- E dence varies depending upon the size of the new"shared'families have so much in tarn to communities today:they encourage I the house.Usually about five to eight common with traditional extended fami- intergenerational neighborhoods where 1 people live together in this new-style _ lies, yet fail to satisfy "family" definitions older people can"age-in-place;" they rely E "family."In many shared residences, in the zoning ordinance. on the efforts of families, neighbors, and residents have their own bedrooms. The enforcement of family zoning community organizations,and they make 7 Meals,chores,and sometimes the man- restrictions varies from community to efficient use of the existing housing stock agement of the house,are shared re- community. It is rare for a code enforce- to create appropriate and affordable hous- i esponsibilities. Shared residences are not ment officer to enforce a restrictive defini- ing at a fraction of the cost of new con- F• nursing homes,and do not provide tion to prevent an unmarried couple from struction. t medical care or assistance with the cohabiting, but several unrelated people Today's family has changed. Even f functions of daily living. A shared resi- living together seems to be a different mat- those of us who do live in a "traditional" t. dence can be set up privately or by a ter. family are likely to have relatives, neigh- non-profit organization. Zoning ordinances,however,can be bors, or friends who do not. Alternative changed when there is sufficient interest. uses of the existing single family housing F Some Change can come through locally initiated stock,including shared housing,have great : - revision or amendment to the zoning ordi- potential to enrich our communities. , /all Observations nance or as the result of a court mandate. Clearly their acceptance requires us to i On the ' p. 15 Communities should take the question whether the tradition of the I Enforcement of Family – initiative to re-examine their zoning code's nuclear family or the reality of today's fam- ' Zoning Regulations definition of family, and ask whether it ily is more important? Can we —and do unnecessarily limits housing options, es- we—want to support one at the cost of the By Ken Lerner,Assistant Editor - pecially for older residents. other? Enforcing zoning provisions that Shared housing can be accommo- I regulate family living situations is often dated without changing the character of Patricia Baron Pollak is an Associate Professor unworkable,or,at the very least,a head- _ existing residential neighborhoods. As al- in the Department of Consumer Economics and • ache for planning officials.Attempting ready noted, by allowing long-term resi- Housing at Cornell University. She received to sort out the personal relationships of dents to remain in their communities,and both the Master of Regional Planning and Ph.D. occupants is highly intrusive and can degrees from Syracuse University.Her primary become discriminatory.An unmarried - by making home maintenance more of fordable,shared housing can help stabilize interests focus on equity issues of housing policy; couple living together has become ac- and how housing policy decisions affect house- is table in most communities,as Pam neighborhoods.To alleviate neighborhood cep table She has written extensively on the level- 1 concerns, communities can require that z cia Pollak notes.Neighbors,however, opment of d housing options shared residences not be commercial op- for the elderly [see the "Resources" sidebar). ! can use family definitions in zoning erations.In addition,spacing requirements 1 fist,but not least,Patricia serves on the plan- ! ordinances to foster their own moral _ (such as limiting the number of shared ning board of the Village of Homer,New York, i attitudes,and bar from their neighbor- residences within a specified distance of a community of about 3,600. 1 hood a shared living arrangement that each other) may be appropriate in some they find personally offensive. situations.Similarly,special use permits or continued on next page PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 !JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 El Such enforcement and resulting upon the size of the dwelling and the Why Plan?... litigation can be time consuming and lot and the number of its occupants.... cantinuedJam back page expensive for the community.This This ordinance,by limiting occupancy leaves a dilemma for a jurisdiction:does of single-family homes to persons relat these "anti planners"have even right to be it have a definition of family that is ed by blood,marriage or adoption or to appointed to the planning board, if that's limited to blood and marriage relation- only two unrelated persons of a certain what their community wants. ships to protect against groups of indi- age,excludes many households who 6. Social Responsibility History has ` shown that capitalism is a superior eco- viduals overloading a neighborhood pose no threat to the goal of preserving with vehicles and noise,or should zon- the character of the traditional single- nomic system, and enables society to be highly productive and produce great wealth. ing not be involved in considering per- family neighborhood,...and thus fails But it has another face,too. History has also sonal relationships in limiting the rational relationship test." McMinn shown that laissez-faire capitalism puts al residential occupancy of a structure? If v Town of Oyster Bay,488 N.E.2d 1240 most no value on certain things, such as you have any thoughts or experiences (1985). on these matters,we would like to hear clean air,clean water,aesthetics,landscape, from you. k. or historic character (or a whole host of (Editor's Note: Ken Lerner has had 1social issues like affordable housing and � equal access to education).Same people get extensive experience in zoning administra- �' Rrc� involved in planning because of a desire to tion and enforcement,both in his current deal with these sorts of hard-to-quantify I. position as Assistant Director of the Burl Shared Living Residences:A Step by f• ington, Vermont,Planning Department, concerns. Step Development Guide and Community — t Matters(Cornell University 1985),and I am sure there are other motives for mtdpreviously with the Clackamas Court- tannin but these six explain a lot of the ty,Oregon,Planning Department]. the videotape Housing Options for Se- planning, xP — niors Today(Cornell Media Services behavior I've observed. Often, of course, 1989),byPatricia Pollak,can be or- these motives are mixed. They can also ..i.` The Judicial Response dered from Cornell Cooperative Exten- change over time, and may change from 2 to "Family" Definitions sion,Housing Policy Programs,Dept.of issue t4 issue. For example, in my case, I _ In 1974, the United States Supreme Consumer Economics&Housing, started out quite clearly to save the bio- t Court,in Village of Belle Terre v Boraas, Ithaca,NY 14853;(607) 255-2577. sphere from human intrusion.Although still 416 U.S. 1 (1974),upheld a definition Community-Based Housing for the concerned with that,wearing a bear suit and _ Elderly:A ZoningGuide for Pianners and shouting a lot just isn't my style. So, over of family that had been used to prohibit 1 a group of six college students from Municipal Officials(APA Planning Advi- time, I have also become concerned with ; living together in a single family district. wry Service Rept.No.420, 1989),also social responsibility.I also probably have to While courts in some states have fol- b}' Patricia Pollak,can be ordered from plead guilty to maneuvering in local politics lowed the Belle Terre decision,others the American Planning Association, once in a while, and I am not above wrap have not—rejecting zoning limitations (312)955-9100. ping myself in the mantle of public service. — # on occupancy of single-family housing Two useful publications available Come to think of it, about the only one I t to legal and/or biologically related per- at no charge from the American Associ don't subscribe to is anti-planning. Sk sons.Courts choosing not to follow ation of Retired Persons are: Housing what use is all this? Simple.If you can figure out what someone's motives are, -- i. Belle Terre have relied on either state Options for Older Americans(1984)and I constitutional guarantees of privacy and Key Issues for Shared Residences for the it makes it much easier to empathize with due process,or on the limitations of Older People(due out early 1992). their point of view.Understanding someone's 1;. their state's zoning enabling legislation. AARP Publications,601 ESL,NW, point of view is half the battle to effective r New York's highest court,for ex- Washington,DC 20049. communication.And effective communica ample,concluded that"restricting occu- tion is what makes planning work. pancy of single-family housing based Bruce D.Bender is the Executive Director of the — i generally on the biological or legal rela- Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Council,a regional tionships between its inhabitants bears planning commission with representatives from no reasonable relationship to the goals twenty-eight New Hampshire and four Vermont of reducing parking and traffic prob towns. Prior to this,Bruce worked as a consult- I ant controlling population density • ant in environmental planning throughout the northeastern states,He has also been a partner in and preventing noise and disturbance a small manufacturing business.Having worked Their achievement depends not upon in both the public and private sectors, he is s the biological or legal relations between fascinated with the "creative tension between ithe occupants of a house but generally capitalism and social responsibility'." — PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992 la i INSIGHTS • { Why PIan?-A Note from the Trenches by Bruce D. Bender hat motivates people to meritocracy that my education had led me nPss, planning is an important vehicle for to believe.I would hate to admit how old I advocating for the non-human portion of want to plan for their communi- was when I finally gave up on the idea. It the biosphere. . — ties.Put another way,what makes made me jaded and cynical practically 5. Anti-Planning - Society puts re- otherwise rational people join overnight.What we are,instead.is a favor- strictions on all of us.While our society is trading club. The way to get something to notable for the number of freedoms al- their local planning board so they can spend happen is by trading favors with someone lowed, there is still a sizable set of restric- - a couple of evenings each month getting else who has the appropriate power. In tions. We are not allowed to kill,hurt, or growled at by their fellow citizens for inter order to do that, you need to have some steal from our neighbors. We are not al- tering with private property—or for fail- — ing to do so? power yourself,in order to trade back. So lowed to drive unregistered vehicles on the there's an opening on the planning board, public roads.We must pay taxes.We can- Why plan? "Because if you don't, you get a big mess," is one quick answer. and, voila! This motive is usually mixed not swindle, or advertise falsely. And so But like most flip answers,it is susceptible with at least one other. forth. Yet when it comes to land - "real to snappy replies, like: "Yeah, but even if property" -a surprisingly large number of you do plan, you still end up with a big people feel that what they do on their land "WHEN IT COMES TO is nobodyelse's business,regardless of how — mess. It just costs more and takes longer." g Or: "You want to talk about a big mess? LAND -A SURPRISINGLY it might affect their neighbors,the commu- Look at the USSR: everything is planned. LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPI F nity", or the environment. From time to - They can't even keep food on the shelves!" }-LEL THAT WHAT THEYDO time I have seen people with this sort of Let me give you my "insights," de- attitude on planning boards. Of course, rived from watching folks become involved ON THEIR LAND IS NOBODY continued ona 15 _. in the planning process, mostly in small • ELSE'S BUSINESS" page and middle-sized towns. I'll do so by sug- gesting six different reasons why people • • PLANNING get involved in local planning. I've seen all COMMISSIONERS these reasons in play. I'll even bet that one 3.Public Service-This purest of I mo- or more of them apply to you. But if I've tives is used by those who believe they ourna missed your motivation,please accept my have a civic duty. They wish to perform apologies—and let me know what it is. some sort of public service to the commu- 1.Selfishness-Looking•out for num- nity, in order to be a "contributing mem In Coming Issues.« ber one ranks right up there among the all- ber." I trust that every one of you reading - time hits of basic human motives. It this shares this motivation—at least some •An introduction to mapping and the use of certainly seems to come naturally-anyone of the time! geographic information-a three-part series. in doubt should hang around with a group 4.Whole Earth Consciousness- Many •Zoning for family day care. — of toddlers for a few days. During the past human beings subscribe to ideologies that . Using mediation in the local permitting several thousand years we have built up a place human beings superior to and apart process. series of constraints on selfishness, ex- from everything else. Everything else on • Understanding the"economics"of — pressed as human society. Society presents the planet is thus viewed as a resource to be regulating aesthetics. a thin veneer, though, and selfish motives exploited by humans. In America, this fits are not buried very deep (for some folks in with our capitalism, most especially as •Lighting your community:some basic — they are not buried at all). Some people expressed by the"social darwinism"of the planning considerations. seem to get involved in the planning pro- nineteenth century.Others believe that all And more from our regular columnists! • cess for purely selfish reasons,simply as a living things have rights of their own;that means to further their own ends. human beings are not set apart;that we are 2. Political Power- It took me a long part of the biosphere continuum, For time to figure out that America isn't the people with a "whole earth" conscious- PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 2 JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1992