Loading...
PC 1995 06 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 7, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Ron Nutting, Bob Skubic, Mike Meyer, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 1.38 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON LOT 1~ BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION, PERKINS FAMILY RESTAURAN...N_TaT GUY PAYNE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Bob, have you had time to make a thorough review of this new plan? When did you receive it? Generous: Well he had tried to fax it today but I just got it when the applicant showed up for the public hearing. Mancino: Okay. So you have not gone through and done a thorough review? Generous: Right. Mancino: So that you could tell us whether it meets all the Highway 5. Generous: Well it appears to. There's some other architectural features that I spelled out in the Alternate 2 recommendation that I wasn't able to ascertain whether or not those had been incorporated also. But maybe the applicant would be able to answer some of those questions. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Did the commissioners have any questions of staff at this point? Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation please? Guy Payne: Sure. My name's Guy Payne. I'm the Manager of Architectural Services with Perkins. To start off I'll just show you a photograph of this architectural building, what we're Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 doing with that before we add the metal roof. That gives you really the two views of which we're pretty much...I guess you're going to...tell you where, how this evolved. We started out with that older building. It took us some, over 2 years ago. It's taken that long to ever get the project going. A lot has to do with the acquisition of the DOT property which is part of our's and all of that to get the project off the ground. In that meantime, that building we originally submitted, we're not building any longer and we've gone to what we felt a more exciting, particularly interior and exterior. A little more exciting and more intimate dining experience. So we went ahead and bid it out with the older building. The price came in quite a bit over budget so that's why we re-submitted with a different building since the other one was approved. So in order to make, just a little bit about this building. Some of the exterior, it's kind of obvious but something we've really worked on is to come one of our phototypical elements is this arched opening appears the same as on this. It's become a new standard for us, and we're even doing it all over Minneapolis in exterior remodels. Incorporating this same element so that's become a vital part of our exterior design that we're using. The interior of this building is also, that was one thing that, particularly our Chairman of the Board really wanted to get away from, the interior of our, the first building we presented was just, you came in and you had one large dining room where this, with the corner entry, you come in and it provides two different views. A lot of separate dining spaces and a lot more intimate dining space instead of just a big cafeteria type space. This is has not it exactly but it's similar interior that would go into that. A new interior scheme that we've come up with. I mean it's not that exact building but it will be all the same type decor. Same finishes. Going back to, but we felt this building, obviously those two sides are the most important views and the other two could be a little lax so in order to, if I had gotten the information sooner I probably would have had the information back to you all sooner but I was trying to redesign the building to incorporate as much of the changes as I could and still keep it somewhat within the budget. So I've got a handout I'll...and you can see it and hopefully it will clarify some questions. I've got...copies. In each it has a roof plan which you can see some new roof areas that we've added and then the elevations, revised elevations. So I'll give you each a copy. And the reason I'm showing this building is just for the, we've gone to this to replace, just to acquaint you all, we're using this stripe in it .... which is what we've gone... Mancino: Thank you. Mr. Payne, can you explain again what we're looking at here. Guy Payne: Okay. This is basically the same. It's the typical, we call it 9048 Prototype is the building we're proposing and those two sides are more aesthetically pleasing. Mancino: Architecturally pleasing? Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Guy Payne: Yeah. So and you really can't see the other two sides in this photograph. We can't ever get everything in there so on the elevations, you can see what we've added. I guess you can kind of compare what...We've come back and added a metal roof all the way around. You also have. Mancino: And what's this for? Guy Payne: That's just for the awnings. That's what the color of the stripes would be. So you'd have an idea. Nutting: Are they all in green or are some blue up here? Guy Payne: It's all green. Green. Green and white. Red and white stripes... Nutting: Are you going to put these awnings on this building? Guy Payne: Not, except the comers. That will go all over except for the two corners. The yellow... Nutting: The rest of them would be these? Guy Payne: Yeah. And I understand they say no back lit awnings and that's okay. We at least want to keep that awning... The reduction of the flag is okay. Last time we didn't even get a flag so I guess that's some improvement that we get an 80 square foot flag, because that's sort of important to us. His other comments concerning landscaping...incorporate that into the landscape plan...It'd be basically the same stucco as the other building so. I guess another comment, it's just a matter of evaluating the elevation we're proposing. All the other comments are pretty much acceptable as far as the other conditions site wise. This is the exactly same size that we took the diskette, the...diskette of the other building. Took it off and plopped this other one so we didn't change the site plan layout whatsoever. It has all the same features that were approved when it was first submitted. Any questions? Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners? Can you show me on the, on your...there, where the neon tubular lighting is? Guy Payne: Right there. Which would go all the way around the building. Mancino: So it would go along the top of the building. Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Guy Payne: Right. And then you have this accent band that wraps all the way around the building and then you have the two different colors so you can get a little punch out of that, similar to on the back elevation you also have a band that goes all the way around. So it did have some features beyond just a blank wall. And I think with the addition of the metal roof, it makes it pretty comparable to the front two views. Mancino: And is that on 24 hours a day? Guy Payne: You mean the neon one? Mancino: Yes. Guy Payne: No. I mean it's only the night hours. Mancino: Okay. Secondly, do you have any pieces of the sprayed... Guy Payne: All the same color materials that we proposed before. Mancino: Now is that a, is it a sprayed insulation which adheres to the structure? Guy Payne: No. Basically what it is, you put your stud wall up. You put the plywood backing. You come down, you attach styrofoam board like an inch and a half, an inch of styrofoam and then you come and put a plastic mesh over the styrofoam and then there's a couple of...and then you come back with a color finish and trawl so it's like stucco but a true stucco, you put over the styrofoam basically is the difference. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Conrad: I think Americana Community Bank has the same system. Mancino: The same, okay. Are there Perkins of this architectural style already in the Twin Cities? Guy Payne: We built a new one in Eagan and Lake Street and they're a little different. They have the same materials. I think probably the most comparable things you could see were the exterior remodels around town that have, as I mentioned, have the same exact stucco and artist detail and awnings. I think that probably would be the most similar about anything we really have going. Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting: Do you have a color representation of the old design with you at all? That was approved. Guy Payne: No, not with me. As I said, we're really not building it any longer. A lot of, it had the exact same colors in it. It had the same metal roof. The same green ceramic tile in it. So really there's no change at all with the coloring scheme. It's just the arrangements, configuration on the building itself. Nutting: But that was the style, the style that was proposed you said was a style that was in existence for a while and you were phasing out? Guy Payne: Yeah. Basically we're doing it more for interior purposes than anything. The interior just was one big open dining room and we tried to take it and incorporate more of a broken up dining spaces so you're not just one big dining area. Cafeteria type space. We wanted more intimate dining spaces so that's how these, how this and another prototype we're building evolved. The comer entry with broke up dining spaces so you get more interesting interior space out of it. The bakery is a big strong point as you come in. You have a real strong bakery area with signage and stuff, so I think overall it's just a lot more exciting building. Nutting: I'm just trying to visualize what you're saying. So without the comer entrance you're not able to create some of those interior enhancements? Guy Payne: Right. Interesting spaces. Nutting: But I'm not disagreeing with him. Just trying to clarify what he's saying. So it's that issue plus you said we're building that for a prototype that has been used before, it came in way over budget. Guy Payne: Right. If we had built it when we first started working on the project two years ago, we probably could have, it probably would have been in the budget. But in those two years the price of construction has gone up so much, that's why we had to go to a smaller building. And that's why we had to look at our smaller prototype to put in there. Nutting: So this is a smaller overall footprint? Guy Payne: Yeah. Nutting: What was the first footprint? Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Guy Payne: ...over 6,000. Nutting: So we're at 5,000. Guy Payne: Just under 4,500. Mancino: Oh! We're not at 5,000 anymore? Nutting: It says 5,000 in the staff report. Guy Payne: Yeah. It was actually 6,000. Nutting: No, but the revised plan that is 5,000 or 4,500? Guy Payne: It's really about under 4,500. I think on one of our site plans...and somebody had put...which is not accurate. It may affect... That one space... Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. Payne? Thank you very much. Guy Payne: Okay. Mancino: Appreciate it. Guy Payne: I guess just to finalize, we've been working with it for so long, we'd certainly like to move forward so. I know, I don't know the status of Taco Bell and the Boston Chicken, or whatever they're calling themselves now, but we'd like to make progress so we'd like to get a decision tonight if possible. See if we could negotiate something. Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to open for public hearing? Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to open the public heming. Ali voted in favor and the motion canied. The public heming was opened. Mancino: Does anyone wish to address the Planning Commission? The public hearing is open. Seeing that no one does, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied. The public heming was closed. Mancino: Discussion from commission members. Ron, Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting: I liked the first one better. I guess what I've, we're not going through the interior of the building to pick it apart and to come up with how to design the space layout to create some of those pockets for more intimate settings but I'm not, I don't know that I care for the neon along the top and the awning. Just to clarify, the original awnings on the first site were proposed to be the solid yellow? Okay. I think I prefer that better than the green, white, red and yellow stripe combination that I have here in front of me. Staff, the revisions you've made do, according to staff, seem to be moving in the direction of suggestions that they're looking for in terms of a proposal to make it acceptable but I'm not, I'm kind of hearing Bob saying that but I'm also hearing we didn't fully have enough time to address everything-and so I'm more inclined to want to see and or hear staff's full assessment of these revisions they just got before changing it. I need to feel real comfortable with that before I can move this one along because I think the changes that are, I think it's a much different project with the changes that are made. And so I guess I would be of the opinion to table it until next meeting and get staffs full report. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I agree with Ron. And with those 14 recommendations where Alternate 2...proposed here...information here and staff hasn't had time to review it. I agree. Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: I'm going with the status quo here. I am in agreement to that. I'd like to see the full, the plans. Have them have a chance to review it and get their comments and everything before we go ahead. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I think I'm okay with the direction. We don't have the old prototype to put in. We're going to put in a new product. They don't build the old one. What was given to me in the staff report was not acceptable and I think the recommendation and the alterations that were presented tonight are getting close. We have a key piece of property in Chanhassen that's visible from four sides. It's probably one of the few that's visible from four sides so we care about that. And I think we have to, we should in this in case make a good product. So I'm in agreement. I think it's going the right direction. I think staff needs time to review it. I'd like to see some of their recommendations incorporated into the applicant's proposal so we can forward on something that they've had time to review and is more complete. Mancino: Thank you. I also agree with the four other commissioners. I'll be a little more specific in some of my comments and that is that I think directionally what we see tonight is Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 going in the right direction. I do want to say that on the approved plan in some of the exterior elevations the back, which is really facing Highway 5, not only has the roof but has some columns or something architecturally there breaking up the back of it. And I think that we also need that on the east side too because people coming in from the west part of Chanhassen on Highway 5, that's what they're going to see. I have two other comments. I guess more or less questions for Bob and that is, if we are within the ordinance, there are no Highway 5 guidelines. One has to do with the pedestrian accessibility to this Perkins and as I look on page, Sheet No. C-1. One of the intent statements, purpose statements in the HC-1 District under the Highway 5 corridor. It says that ample consideration shall be given to the width of the interior drives. Interior traffic movement and flow. Separation of pedestrian, cycling, automobile and delivery traffic. How are we getting people, whether it's cyclists or pedestrians, to walk from Target or from into Perkins without going through a parking lot? Without going through a lot of automobile traffic. I don't see that. Generous: Well not into the interior specifically. Mancino: Well up to the front door so you can enter the restaurant so that people can actually walk from one place to another. Generous: There's nothing specifically on this plan that will, except for walking on the landscaping. We have that sidewalk that comes from Target Lane and that connects to West 78th Street which is another sidewalk. Mancino: I would like to see more consideration given to that then. How they're going to, how people will walk from Target Lane and be able to walk into the Perkins restaurant without going through automobile traffic. And whether that's on the north side of the parking lot, and you come around. Or just again, ample consideration because I don't think much has been given to that. It doesn't look like it. Aanenson: Well I guess we felt like we lost that argument when Target came in. Remember there was a lot of discussion and the Planning Commission felt strongly about putting a walkway through the middle of Target. As I recall, the Planning Commission was adamant about that. And as it went through the process the Council felt like, because there was a sidewalk on West 78th, that that accomplished that and Target was reluctant to do that because of the shopping cart issue. So I agree. I think the staff agrees. I think the Planning Commission felt strongly. It would have been nice to have a walkway through the parking lot so we didn't have that conflict. Unfortunately, you have to go either north, or as Bob indicated, south along the front. To try to, so the linkage, the only opportunity we have now, once you get west of the Target Lane to try to connect. We can certainly look at that. Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: I understand the issue and it's important, sure. And we felt bad when we didn't accomplish it with the Target site plan because that is a large parking lot. Conrad: You ought to see what the K-Marts in Naples, Florida are doing. Exactly what we wanted to do with Target. Exactly. Now they don't have snow removal problems. Aanenson: Right, and that was the big issue I think with Target. Conrad: But you know, it's just real fascinating to see what other communities are doing and we should have done it. We really blew that issue for no good reason, and that's too bad. That doesn't reflect. That's gone so we can't. Mancino: So let's not keep blowing it. Conrad: Well, because that's not there, then we don't have, I don't know what we can accomplish. But I think your connectivity is still a valid issue. I think we've got a sidewalk that probably doesn't lead anyplace other than to, well I'm not sure where it leads to but anyway, I think staff should look at that. Mancino: Well and even if there's a designated crosswalk, you know pavers or... Aanenson: Right. Which we did by Target. There's a stopping zone where you have to watch for pedestrians coming out of the store. I think we have the same situation at Byerly's where you've got that striped area and maybe that's a way to accomplish it. So people are more cognizant of watching for the conflicting movements. Mancino: We have cyclists all over on weekends, stopping and getting their cappucino from Perkins, etc. My other concern, having to do with this chapter on the Highway 5 corridor, is that it says that parking areas shall not be located within the required minimum front yard setback of any lot. And then there is a diagram that shows that there should be no parking in front yards. Now according to this document Perkins has two front yards. It has Highway 5 and the West 78th, is that correct? Generous: Or Target Lane. Mancino: Or Target Lane. Are we, Bob tell me. How come we have parking between Highway 5 and the actual building? I got the impression from reading this that there is to be no parking in the front yard area... Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: ...the existing one, we went with the underlying. Mancino: Yes. It starts at Powers and the other districts starts once you get west of Powers. Generous: Actually the only frontage this has is Target Lane. Because the city's outlot surrounds it. Then Lot 2. Mancino: Okay, so it doesn't sit on Highway 5. Aanenson: Yeah, the rest of the Highway 5 corridor starts when you get west of Powers. Generous: Yes, and the parking is a layout of staff criteria and what was established as a part of the PUD. Because they had to provide what would be, because of public safety issues, they had to revise the radius of the entryway that serves all three properties. And so they lost some parking on the east side of the project. And they made it up, they could make some of it up on the west side of the project. For that very reason that they're not actually fronting on public right-of-way on those other sides. They meet the setbacks. Aanenson: Yeah, what you're not seeing there is the landscaped area that the city will be doing between their property line, yeah the outlot. Mancino: And we will be landscaping that eastern end of the parking lot quite well? Generous: You mean the southeast corner? Oh yeah. Mancino: Thank you. Those are my concerns. Questions I wanted you to look at and otherwise, I would like to see this come back again and to have staff do a review of it for us. So with that, may I have a motion? Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table Site Plan//94-6 prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995 pending staff review and analysis for the Commission of the recent changes submitted by the applicant. That's it. Mancino: Do I have a second? Meyer: Second. Mancino: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussions? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #94-6 for Peddns Family Restaurant, p~ep,'ued by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995 pending staff ~eview and analysis for the Commission of the ~ecent changes submitted by the applicant All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied. Mancino: So it will be tabled and we'll see it again when? Aanenson: Our preference would be on the 26th because we don't have a meeting the first one in July because we decided we probably wouldn't have a quorum on July 5th. So if we can get it on in 2 weeks. Mancino: Okay, so Mr. Payne, in 2 weeks. June 26th it will come back. Aanenson: Sorry, it's the 21st. Mancino: 21st. June 21st. And I encourage you and staff to work out everything so it's complete and is final at that time. You don't come back to cold Minnesota too many more times. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 18 REGARDING PLATHNG PROCEDURES, DATE REQUIRED AND DESIGN STANDARDS AND CHAPTER 20 REGARDING DEFINITIONS; IDENTIFICATION OF ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS; STANDARDS FOR SALES TRAILERS, WETLAND PROTECTION AND SHORELAND REGULATIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS AND THE FOLLOWING ZONING DISTRICTS OF PUD, A2, RSF, R8, BN-NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, BH-HIGHWAY & BUSINESS, AND lOP-INDUSTRIAL OFFICE. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for Kate? Conrad: Questions or. Aanenson: Comments or editorials. Conrad: Sure. Page 3, where it says alleys. Does that apply to residential? It says alleys are prohibited except for. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: Correct. The way it's written right now, you cannot have an alley. Okay? Conrad: Anyplace? Aanenson: Right. Except in commercial/industrial, which is common. That's where you have your loading areas. Like in the back of the grocery store or the like. Those are permitted. What we're saying is as a part of a PUD, again this kind of goes through that new urbanism term where we've allowed PUD where you put the garage maybe in the back of the home. That may be something under a PUD we would look at, and that's why we put the inclusion that only as a part of a PUD. So you couldn't do it under a straight subdivision unless you came in as a PUD. Mancino: Excuse me, could we please have it quiet in the audience. Thank you. Aanenson: If you do that as part of a PUD, then that may be something that we would look at. An alley. Conrad: If you look for higher density, I think alleys may have a role. I don't know. But it's like, I don't know why I'm prohibiting an alley, to tell you the truth. That's sort of like, here we are. Aanenson: I think they were in vogue, and again that goes back to the new urbanism. And' then we went away from that. Everybody puts their garage, their 3 car garage in front. Okay. So we're saying, if we're going to look at some other type of housing units, maybe this is something we want to allow. But should we open it to say, it would be acceptable in residential? I don't know. We haven't seen any of that yet. Maybe it would be. Mancino: It would have to be subject to approval. Aanenson: Right. I guess that's why we put it in, well then we have to double the criterias... Conrad: But if it's in an ordinance, you know a project will come in and we'll reject it because it's got alleys. And I don't know that I have a valid reason... Aanenson: I guess that's why we're saying right now you can't do it unless it's commercial/ industrial. What we're saying is as a part of the PUD we would consider it. Then we'd have to establish some criteria under that PUD. It has to be so wide and the Fire Marshal's going to have it, and the public safety's going to have some input. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Conrad: But in the PUD ordinance, unless they have 50% open space, they couldn't do this anyway. Aanenson: That's if you choose. You could choose this without changing the other, sure. You don't have to do both. Even the way it is now, and when you have the attached. Conrad: We don't allow variances. Mancino: Yes we do. We just past one that had 3, 4 of them. Aanenson: And you do it in the medium or the high density, you could still allow, because you're right. Single family, you probably still wouldn't get them under that type of density that we have right now if we didn't change it. Mancino: I have a question or comment on that same page, if you don't mind. Driveway grades, and this is for again residential, private driveways. We're limiting it to a maximum of 10% grades? Aanenson: Let me explain how this is right now, because this problem came up in the last month. Currently in the, there is a section in the code about streets. Let me see if it's cited in here, but it's not in this section of the code. It says what you have to supply to get a building permit. It says you must show on there your driveway grade and it shall be this. But it doesn't say anywhere else in your developing a subdivision, that you should meet this standard. Okay, so when you come in to get your permit, you exceed the grade. Well, you never told me when I did my subdivision I had to meet it so, what we're saying is, it should be in the design criteria for a subdivision, that it shouldn't exceed 10%. Now certainly there's opportunities to get a variance. We're saying we need this as leverage to review when we're looking at a plat, we're looking at grades and we realize that gee, that's a 20% driveway grade. That's not going to work for the homeowner. We should reject that lot as non- buildable or try to redesign it. Maybe it needs to be bigger or something like that because right now there's no criteria in our subdivision regulations to review that. Although it's somewhere else hidden in a different section of the code. Mancino: But we have several driveways that are over 10%. Aanenson: Certainly. Mancino: Off of Lake Lucy on that south side. Aanenson: Right, and that's sometimes the only way... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: And I want to keep allowing that. I don't want to take that right away from homeowners. Aanenson: Right. We have some in the city that are up to 17%. Sure, there's some in Hesse Farms that are that way too. But what we're saying is we want to keep a general, like we do everywhere else, a general criteria that you try to aim for. And then if you don't, then we would look at that and is there another way to service it. You know when we looked at that whether they're south facing. Maybe there's some other issues there but to someone that's buying a lot, that doesn't realize and now they come in to get a permit and say, well now you've got to pay another when you get there. It gets too steep. That's certainly some reason that you would look at it as part of the subdivision. Maybe give them a variance to say there's no other way to service that area. But as a general rule, that's already in the code. It's just not in the subdivision ordinance. Mancino: Okay. Conrad: Rather than me dominating my issues, I think it wouldn't be bad if we all just went through it page by page. Not that we have to bring anything up but as we go through it, maybe we can just hit the issues. Mancino: Was there anybody who had something other on page 3? Page 4. Any questions? Page 5. Conrad: Yeah. Down under flags. Sign, flag. Corporation flags shall not exceed 12 square feet, 3 x 4 is what that is, and shall be flown, which means has to be flown in tandem with the State or National flag. So that says you cannot fly a corporate flag unless you're doing something else. Why is that? Aanenson: That's what's in place right now. That's currently in the ordinance right now. Conrad: No, it says may. May was the word we got rid of and may be. So now we're saying you have to fly, if you want to have a corporate flag, you have to fly a national flag. Aanenson: The intent on that one was developed, and the language got changed because we also left out the size of the square foot for a national flag because a lot of people use flags as signs. And so the intent was that you don't put a lot of corporation signs up, flags out there tending them to be signs. And the same goes for the State or National flag where people use very large ones as identity sort of things. So that was, the discussion that was through the sign ordinance and it got omitted as part of the final draft. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Conrad: And I agree with the National flag. 100 square feet, that's okay. Aanenson: I'm comfortable if you want to leave may and shall, that's fine. Conrad: But to force the two, I'm not sure why. And really, if you're not, yeah. A flag is not a sign. Yeah, it's a festive deal. I guess that's taking, boy. They can't do, if anybody thinks a 3 x 4 foot flag is really promoting a product, we've got a, that's strange. That's not. That's fun. That's some action and you know, if you've got 80 flags, that's a problem but if you have one corporate flag, that's your identity. That's where people go for their livelihood. I don't know. That seems like a strange rule. Aanenson: Well I don't know if the rule is strange but the sign is. The sign that the corporate is there and that's a location of one of their franchises right there and it is certainly corporate identity and it's certainly a sign or they wouldn't put it there. But whether it's good or bad, it's a... Conrad: Let's liken it to downtown Excelsior. They have a festive event, they put up flags. And that's promoting the whole city and so you know, maybe it's not the same thing but... Aanenson: Banners. Conrad: Yeah, the rigidity of saying we can't do something. 3 x 4 is nothing. I don't think any corporation would think that that's promoting a product. It takes a dead concrete wall and maybe makes something a little bit more fun out of it. And yeah, obviously they're not going to do it, they're not going to put a competitor's flag on there. There's some motivation. They're not stupid. But on the other hand, when you think about an employee driving into the company, there's some pride into it and there's some other things. It livens the thing up. So again my point is, geez. I don't want to get into their pockets and figure this thing out. This seems like this is not an issue. 20 flags would be an issue. 5 flags would be an issue but to have a corporate flag and say you've got to fly a national flag at the same time, I'm over with. I don't need to talk any more about that but it just seems real nit picky. Mancino: Any other comments on that? Page 6. Any questions. Sales trailer shall be open from 8:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Why is that such a late closing? I'm concerned about neighbors in the area having, is that usually in more of an RSF district? Aanenson: Yes. This would be residential, correct. Mancino: Okay. I would go until 6:00 p.m. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Brad Johnson: Do you want me to comment on that? Mancino: No thank you. Not at this time. Anybody else can give comment to that. Mike, you might have, being in the real estate business. Meyer: Well I can see where it might be a problem for parade promotions. I think they go until 8:00. 8:00 or 9:00. Something like that. Mancino: Nutting: Okay. Maybe the exception could read. This is only until permanent dwelling units are available. The sales office model. Mancino: Oh, so there wouldn't be anybody living in the neighborhood? Aanenson: No. The intent. Nutting: If it's there, you wouldn't have much of a neighborhood there. Not to say it's not immediately adjacent to another one but the longer it's open, the faster they might fill up the neighborhood. Mancino: Sure. Meyer: It also can be convenient for people. Mancino: After work hours. Meyer: For those that work during the day. Mancino: Do you think that's seasonal? That it should be open later in the summer and those hours, does it make any difference Mike? In the winter or seasonal at all. Meyer: I don't think so because you still have people working pretty much their same schedules. Mancino: Okay. Then let's leave it 9:00. I'm fine with that. I understand the rationale now. Nutting: Madam 'Chair if I could ask a question. We have a discussion on page 5. Are we going to be coming back and, this is a public hearing, correct? Mancino: No. Oh! It is. 16 Planning Commission Mooting - Juno 7, 1995 Aanenson; You haven't opened it yet. Mancino: We haven't opened it yet. Nutting: But are we going to be coming back and. I guess as part of the motion, whoever makes the motion is going to address whether or not we modify any of these. Mancino: Okay, yes. I will open the public hearing after we've had some discussion. Conrad: Madam Chairman screwed up, didn't she. Mancino: Let me take my glasses off and sink down. Yes. Why don't we go through and discuss some of these because I think that there may be people in the audience, after we've had our discussion, that would like to make some comments so I will open it up to the public hearing after we've made a few comments and we will have a public hearing and then we'll come back and discuss those points that people raise. If that is okay with the rest of the commissioners and the staff. Thank you. Thank you for bringing it up. Page 7. Any questions or comments? Kate, under recreational development. Under unsewered, riparian. The area and the width. Isn't that unsewered and sewered? Riparian. Aanenson: No, actually we have, yeah we have other areas of the code that addresses sewer. We left off unsewered. There is an area in the city that has recreational development lakes that have unsewered next to it. We went through, when we adopted the shoreland regs, there's one small area that is affected by this but we figured we didn't have any applications. Well lo and behold, somebody came in and we didn't have the appropriate shoreland district for that. So eventually when MUSA is extended into that area, it will go away but we need to have this in place until such time. But there is, I didn't put the whole section in there but there is another section that addresses that. Mancino: That addresses sewer, okay. Thank you. Page 8. Conrad: Sure. Not that I like our PUD ordinance, and not that we negotiate very well, and not that we know what we want to negotiate for, but we made a giant step to go the 50% open which seems like we're kind of, which I don't mind. I think that would be nice to have a PUD ordinance that would do that. It would cluster. It would do a lot of nifty things. It might even save some money someplace. Yet on the other hand I still have a perspective that our current PUD ordinance does negotiate some stuff. It gives staff some negotiating power. And I hate to cut that out. And as much as we complain about well did we get enough in exchange, it gives staff with our review, and the City Council review, some time to alter some very rigid ordinances. So I'm not comfortable with that. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: Well that's not what I'm hearing staff say. What you've just said is very theoretical but it's not working. Staff has said that we're not doing PUD's and the reason why we're not is that we're not, and maybe we're not negotiating well but we're not getting what we need out of those. So if we aren't, and we aren't using it, then why have it, in the present form? Conrad: I'm seeing things that we get that we couldn't demand I guess. At least that's my perspective. Mancino: In single family? Conrad: Yeah. Mancino: In what subdivision? Conrad: It'd be hard for me to argue with specifics but my perspective is that for 10 years staff has come in to me and said, we've negotiated this and now they're telling me, we're not negotiating anything. So for 10 years I've heard that. Mancino: But that's only because we've updated our ordinances? We've added to them. We keep making them better and anticipating things and our ordinances are more up to date? And so that the PUD isn't going any further than our present ordinances, which we've enacted new ones and have gone back and changed old ones. Conrad: You're going to cut out all PUD's, which our ordinances are really pretty good. That's your choice. Our ordinances are up to date, but really as a state of the art, staff can get everything they want down there. We, the city can get everything they want done by our ordinance and I don't believe that. I don't think our ordinances are that terrific. They're good but they're not terrific. I just hate cutting out an option to negotiate. Rules are hard and fast and they don't allow flexibility and I don't think we have any, I don't care what rule you have in our ordinances, there are always reasons that rule doesn't apply to specific projects. Mancino: But you can still negotiate in this PUD. The only thing is the 50% open space. Conrad: In 10 years I haven't seen anybody come in with that. I'd like, nobody's come in and said, I'd like to have 50% open space. What can you do? Mancino: In a single family? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: We don't allow it. In low residential. We don't allow it. You couldn't do it. Because the smallest lot size you can go to is 11,000 so you couldn't do it. You could do it in the medium or the high density district. Conrad: I'm not saying I don't like the 50% deal. I'm just saying, I don't know that I want to give up the flexibility to negotiate. Aanenson: I'm just, we threw it out. The discussion...again, since we were going through the code, we thought this was an opportunity to bring up the discussion again. Conrad: I think it's a big deal. I don't think it should be part of this packet. Aanenson: Maybe a separate whole. Conrad: It'd be fun to just talk about it but as far as, this is not maintenance Kate. This is a major deal. So when you put all this stuff together, it's like, well let's put 100 things and we really don't have time to talk about this, but I think that's a major deal. We spent a lot of time figuring out a PUD ordinance. And you know to cluster it in here. I think that should be eliminated from our discussion tonight and review it, you know if there's good reasons for it. If we all feel that our ordinances are so good then yeah, let's get rid of it and then figure out how we can affect a PUD that gets 50% open space because the motivation is great. I just don't see anybody coming in and doing it, you know. I really don't. Brad's here. He's in that business. I'd like to see if he could come in with a 50% but yeah. Mancino: Well they certainly are doing them in some areas. I don't know if that will happen here but I feel. Conrad: They're doing it out state. You're doing it where there's plenty of land. You're doing it where people have that, you know you're not doing it in a highly dense growing suburb like Chanhassen. You're not. I don't know of a case that's doing it. Give me a case. Anyplace. In Eden Prairie. Plymouth. Anyplace where they've done this. Mancino: No. I think it's a new concept... Conrad: And it won't be applied so we have in effect don't have a PUD ordinance. If it's not used, it's not an ordinance. If the tree falls in the forest and nobody. Mancino: Well, we're going to have to get our guns ready on this one I can tell. Any other commissioners want to make any comments on this? Or if you would like to see this on a separate agenda item. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting: I guess I would, in all honesty, I didn't think through this one that much before coming here tonight. Listening to the comments, I guess I would support separating this from the existing packet. Mancino: Bob or Mike, any comments on this? Meyer: Sounds reasonable. Mancino: Okay. Then let's do that. Any other comments on that page? Conditional uses, golf courses. On page 9. Conrad: Sure. It's probably not as specific but it's an issue that this city has to deal with. At the very bottom of the page. The following uses are permitted in R8 district. Single family. Okay. If we zone something for multi, for high density, and somebody comes in and down zones it less density, everybody in Chanhassen feels great, including the Planning Commission, staff, the neighborhood. There was a reason we zoned it high density. And sooner or later it's going to come back and bite us and we're going to put in high density right next to a low density area and we'll have to fight the neighbors for it. And it's you know, somehow we have to address the issue that when we down zone, we up zone someplace else. Or somebody says, we just don't want high density in Chanhassen because that's really what we're doing. You know, we all feel comfortable that we get out of the evening okay and nobody has really gotten hurt. The neighbors are happy. We're all happy because we had houses that looked just like...which our comprehensive plan says we do. We're not doing our job very well. So this issue brought that comment up. We're saying R8 can have single family. Well maybe that's okay. And maybe I don't want to make an issue on page 8, or page 9 in this report. The issue is, we can't do this anymore. If we want to, you know let's not zone for multi's. Let's have all single family and make the right definitions. That they're all attached or detached or whatever. So everybody knows what we're building here but I think that this issue, I don't know how to handle this one. I don't want to, it brought up a comment in my mind, but I think at a separate time, and Madam Chairman, I'd really appreciate it if you would have staff review this issue so that we can communicate with the City Council that you can't do this anymore and that there has to be a procedure for when we change zoning, or when we change. When we take a higher density area and put lower density units in some, there's another step to the process. Somebody has to say, we just lost so many units of high density and should we look for more, another location and should we identify it on the comprehensive plan? Should we identify it on our zoning ordinance? Mancino: Procedurally, how do we do that now? I mean I've only been on the commission for a few years and I've never seen any. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: We don't. We just all feel better if they drop the units off. Then we all feel like we've done our job, you know. I don't think that staff feels that way but it seems like, even at the single family, unless we get them to drop a few lots, then everybody feels like they've done their job. Even though they're under the density allocation. I think you know, I guess the way we looked at it, there isn't that many applications of the R8 district and so we were looking at, it kind of came out of the discussion on the R4. But I certainly concur with what you're saying Ladd. The staff certainly does and when you put a district in place and then now allow single family, I think everybody oh great. Now we have a better opportunity to get single family and all feel more comfortable but that wasn't the intent. The intent was to allow the different type mixes, yeah. Conrad: I understand, yeah. My problem is not with what you've written. Aanenson: No, I agree. No, I agree with what you're saying and that's fine. And the intent is to allow for a different type product, then we should take the single family out. Mancino: Well has it ever happened that, I mean this gives us more options for an R8. By putting single family in. Aanenson: Right, but Ladd's point is well taken and I agree with him. Mancino: And I understand that too. But has it ever come up before where we down zone something to single family like this? An R8 area. Aanenson: No, but what we always try to go underneath the density though. We always feel like we can never, nobody can ever come in at the density. We always feel like we have to be underneath the two. Conrad: I think my comment, when I say down zoning, that is a rezoning. Aanenson: Taking away density. Conrad: That was not an accurate statement on my part~ Yeah, it's really putting, taking a higher density, or you're just not filling it up. Aanenson: It's similar to Lake Susan area where we've got the higher density. They've come in with a product that's underneath the density but they're still concerned about density. Mancino: But that's just a maximum density. I mean it's still within the range of the density requirements for that zoning. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: But they could come in with a different product. Mancino: And it could be a higher density but they've come in in the range. It's just not on the high side of the range. Aanenson: Right. So the way I understand what Ladd is saying, if you put single family in there, then are people going to say, well gee you should go to the lower end. You know if single family's in there too, we should try to work our way down so everybody's more comfortable. Instead of saying no, this was always intended to be a minimum twin home, higher end so it kind of pushes it towards the other end. Isn't that what you were saying? Conrad: Right. Aanenson: Which I agree with, sure. I guess we didn't quite see it that way but that makes perfect sense. Mancino: So would your recommendation, would staff's recommendation be to take it out so that doesn't happen? Or to still allow that option. Conrad: What I want is a connect it. If we allow something, it forces another decision that says we just allowed. You know, I don't mind having the flexibility. If we identify something as R8, we kind of thought that's pretty high density and maybe that's affordable housing. And we just got rid of it. So now we don't have an affordable housing district. Not that I'm lobbying for that, because I'm probably not an advocate of that but I'm an advocate of zoning and what it's intended to do. Mancino: So you want something written that triggers. Conrad: I think there should be a review. If we start allowing less density, or feel good about less density in a district that obviously makes sense for high density because it was close to roads. It was close to the city services, and now it's not there. What are we going to do? So I think there's another step involved in that and I don't know how... Aanenson: Now you're saying there should be a linkage. If we feel like maybe that decision, single family here. Then we need to go back and say, well okay but it needs to be higher density over here. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: Exactly. Aanenson: Alright. Mancino: Triggers that review. Aanenson: And if we can't make that linkage, then we should eliminate the single family? Nutting: I guess I, I think it's okay. I agree with everything Ladd's saying but I think it's also okay in the fact that you should have it. They're separate issues but they can be related and it's just a matter of how we deal with it once we change. I guess I don't have a problem leaving it in there. We may come up with a reason that the single family does make sense but then, so leave that in there but it's really then, what's the trigger? Aanenson: Well I guess part of the thing that you could look at this too, if it does allow for a buffering in here too. If you do have single family, it does allow for, we got hung up on this too, a transition area. Maybe this is an opportunity to provide a row of single family and maybe do that transitioning in there too. I don't know. Mancino: Yes, okay. Aanenson: There's some variables there but then if you put the whole thing single family, we're back to Ladd's so somewhere there needs to be that balance and I think Ladd raises some points that we need to give some consideration to before it goes to Council. Mancino: Okay, we'll go ahead to page 10. Any comments, questions on page 10. Conrad: We don't, on page 10, we don't want automotive service in a neighborhood business district. And what is that? Aanenson: Well that's how it is right now but then it also says that you can have a car wash if you have an automotive service. Well how can you have an accessory use if the permitted isn't allowed so it's one of those things that didn't make any sense so. Mancino: Page 11. I don't understand why we have to have a 2 car attached garage to a single family structure. I don't agree with that. Aanenson: It's in the code right now. It's the way it's written. If you see, it's put in the bottom. There's a, b, c, giving different types of floor designs and then the last one it talks about a 2 story or split and it says plus a 2 car garage. Well what happens is a lot of people 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 come back in for variances because, in Minnesota not having a garage is considered a hardship for most people that own homes. That's the Board will give. Mancino: I just am not in favor of putting it in but. Nutting: What are (a) and (b)? Aanenson: (a) is if it's a single family rambler. Generous: Minimum 960 square feet. Aanenson: Even the square footages are kind of. Nutting: But do (a) and (b) say, plus a 2 car garage? Generous: No. Aanenson: No. Generous: We believe the intent that any single family detached has to have a garage but only the split foyer and 2 story had to have them. Nutting: And now you're changing it to all of them, including (a) and (b)? Aanenson: Well that's how we've always interpreted it. So we're saying we're making an interpretation. Nutting: Clarifying it. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: Yeah, I don't agree with making it stricter. I mean I think they have lots of homes that are fine without, with the garage in the back or architectural. Conrad: So then your problem is with attached? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: I don't have a problem, I don't care where the garage is. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: Take attached out? Conrad: Yeah, I think I'd take that out. Aanenson: They may have an alley. Mancino: Any others? Under Section 20-978. Occupations Permitted. Home occupations. We would like to see contractors yards and landscaping businesses excluded from the list because they are always a neighborhood nuisance. I agree with that, however I have two in my neighborhood and they each have a lot of acreage around them so they aren't a nuisance so I think it depends on the hours of operation and how much acreage they have. Aanenson: Right, your zoning is RR, which does allow...accessory. And this is for RSF. What it does is it gives a list of permitted uses. We want to add a list of excluded to make sure that it's clear because that's where we spend a lot of time on complaints of that in residential single family neighborhoods with people that run contractors yards, or lawn mowing businesses with the storing of vehicles and their employees come to the house and park and block other people's mailboxes. So what we're saying with this, we want to make these uses are explicitedly prohibited and so it's clear. Mancino: And those that are already grandmothered in, where you have an area like on Galpin which is getting into a lot of RSF districts, those are already grandmothered in and can stay? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: Because you can have, a lot of those have accessory buildings which are permitted in that district. Garages, which are a lot larger, which they have the storage capabilities where the residents of single family zone, you don't have the same ability to have a large garage or pole bam. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any others on that page? We're on page 12. I'm sure that someone who has... Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to open this to a public hearing? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to open the public heming. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public heming was opened. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: Would anyone like to come up and comment on the discussion of some of the changes in the ordinance. We would love to have you come up and give your thoughts at this time. Would you please come up. State your name and address. Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson,...Frontier Trail. I agree with, on this discussion of the PUD ordinance. 50% open space is just about an impossibility. If you think about how people are buying land and it's zoned for 8 units per acre, it's going to be 8 units per acre. If that's what it's for. The PUD will basically eliminate a lot of affordable housing, if that's what the intent is. I don't know what you guys are trying to do here. Aanenson: It'd still be 8 units per acre. You just have no minimum wall size. You could put all of them on whatever size lot you wanted. 2,000, 3,000 square foot lot. You just cluster them all and the rest is. Brad Johnson: Well I think you have to see how that works. Aanenson: Similar to Marine on the St. Croix. Brad Johnson: Look at reality. This is not Marine on the St. Croix. It's Chanhassen adjacent, you know it's supposed to high density homes...Marine on the St. Croix is so far away, no sewer, no water, right? I just think we should think that through. I don't know what it means. Mancino: That's what we're going to do. Brad Johnson: Is that for residential only? Mancino: No. Brad Johnson: Then it makes absolutely no sense. Mancino: Well no, the 50% would be down to 30% on high density. that we are going to. Brad Johnson: So it's residential... But that's something Mancino: Residential high density. Which is already the impervious surface is 70% anyway. Brad Johnson: So if you took...Centex. I mean you've approved some of these. They're all PUD's, right? So what you're doing is. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: This is for single family, okay. Single family residential, which is right now the smallest you can go in a PUD in a single family residential is 11,000 square feet. What this ordinance is saying is that there is no minimum. You can go as small you want with single family zoning. Brad Johnson: Okay. I just don't know how it would work. Aanenson: I don't think we've had any of Rottlund doing this type. Nobody's tried this. Brad Johnson: Yeah, I don't know. It may be a very... On the mixed density. Detached in the R8. Does that mean a permitted use in an RS, single family, you have to maintain the density. Can I do one single family in the R8 or do I have to stay at 7? Aanenson: Sure. Brad Johnson: And why would you ever permit that? Aanenson: The same with R4. You could do a row of single family. That was one of the options on the Lake Ann. You could have done a row of single family and the rest twin homes. You can do a mix and that's the intent of some of those is to provide a mix. Brad Johnson: Well, I understand that but aren't you trying to encourage density or are you trying to discourage? Are you trying to increase the cost of housing or lower the cost of housing? Mancino: We're trying to give options. Brad Johnson: I know but see to me, as a resident of the city, not a developer, you should be encouraging the best use of the property. The highest. Otherwise you're going to have services, we're going to have all kinds of problems later on and what this does is it allows somebody to build single family in an R8 zoning district without down zoning. Now maybe you have one house. Should that, I'm not saying it is or isn't. Should that be a permitted use or is the intent to encourage keeping it for 8? And that's, I mean I'm sort of what Ladd said. You walk away and say good. We discouraged all development...all development and we have open space. What does that do to the community in the long run? And you guys will all be gone 5 or 10 years from now. All that open space may come back and be filled because we'll have a different Planning Commission. A different zoning ordinances because your's, how long does it last? This 2 car attached garage stuff. Okay. Or detached. If you build a new subdivision in town and you're front loaded, what's the odds of that being, are you dealing with that issue there? No? If I'm going to build a 2 car, if ! build a house today 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 and I know I'm not required to have an attached garage on a new house in a subdivision, is that what you're trying to do? Mancino: We're saying you can have the option of either making it attached or detached. Brad Johnson: Yeah, I don't think that's a good idea. Conrad: Who cares? Why should we care? Brad Johnson: I don't know any community that allows detached garages. Now I sound like I'm reversing. On the front. I don't know how it would work with the setbacks and stuff over there. I don't know. Mancino: ...piece of property, I mean it could work. Generous: If they can meet the setbacks. Aanenson: If they meet the setbacks, put the garage behind. Brad Johnson: I just don't know. Conrad: Did you read Newsweek where they called, what is wrong with American cities? Brad Johnson: Probably not. Conrad: We'll get you a copy of it. Brad Johnson: I just don't know. I'm just sitting here, that's my first reaction to that is I've always been taught from the front end. Now the rear end, if you have an alley, I can see a detached garage. I just don't know how it works on the front end. I don't know what the street would look like. In a subdivision. I can see it around the lake. Aanenson: You'd have porches. Mancino: You'd have front porches and you would have, like Minneapolis. I mean there are a lot of Minneapolis that don't have alleys but do have detached garages. And again, we'd have to see it. It'd have to meet setbacks and everything else. Brad Johnson: I feel like I'm sort of an advocate of what you're saying but I don't know how it works. I don't, I've never seen that open. I do believe that you should have detached 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 garages. I do believe the ordinance goes to 62,500 square feet per lot. All that's very good. I'd service that off of an alley. Not off the front because I don't think you'd have a very good looking neighborhood, but maybe I'm wrong. And I would have the alleys be private and privately served but I think those are kinds of things that are still in the PUD stage. See your PUD doesn't allow this, right? I mean it isn't allowed within a PUD, right? This isn't allowed in any residential. Aanenson: Right now? Brad Johnson: Yeah. Aanenson: You have to have a 2 car attached garage, correct. Brad Johnson: Yeah. Would this allow a 2 attached deep, 2 car detached garage in any neighborhood? Aanenson: Correct. Brad Johnson: I'd have to think about that. Mancino: That's what we're doing. Brad Johnson: Yeah... I think it's a good idea to be allowed in a PUD where you have real control, because I don't know. What do they call it, the Country Club district of Edina basically has 50% detached garage and 50% attached. Homes sell for $300,000.00 to $400,000.00. They have done everything they can to make those garages be attached...and they could probably be better served...That was it. I think the intent of a lot of this stuff is kind of interesting. I haven't read it. Oh, the hours of a sales office. Generally people don't work, get home from work to buy a home until 6:00. So most sales offices are open 4:00 to 8:00. 4:00 to 9:00, during the week. And then regular hours during the day and that's what I was going to say. That seems to be normal and the reason is we're all working. There's no other time for them to come. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else have any comments? Please give them now. Okay. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Any other discussion from the commissioners? I think we've done it. I think we've gone through it. Do I have a motion? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Conrad: Sure. I'd like to move that the ordinance amendment proposed in the staff report dated May 25th are accepted and approved except for the following changes. And I'm kind of open to any input on this motion, or friendly amendments but I think what I'd like to see on page 5, under Signs, Flags. That the terminology of shall revert back to may. On page 8, that any change to the PUD, that the PUD changes be eliminated out of this particular approval. So anything on Section 20-505 not be approved tonight and that the Planning Commission reviews the PUD standards at some other time. Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification on that Ladd? There is one word. We do go by net, not gross. That is a glitch right there. The rest of it, if I could just do that one. Conrad: Okay, I'd buy that. So we're not eliminating the entire change to Section 20-505. Only the standards. Only. Aanenson: No, number 4. Where it says gross versus net. Nutting: Change (c)(4) but everything after that will be eliminated. Conrad: Okay. Mancino: Well you also have to do, don't you have to do 20-508? Aanenson: Yeah, we have to clarify that too but I thought we'd just... Conrad: Yeah, I'm just talking 505 right now. 508 is okay. Nutting: I think 508 should probably be eliminated too. Conrad: Should be what? Nutting: Eliminated to that. It kind of ties in to the same discussion and I'd pull it out. Aanenson: But there's ambiguity in the ordinance right now because it says you can go down to 5,000. However, there's no minimum so it's an ambiguity. Mancino: And this has to be the same. Aanenson: Right. Actually the first part should be struck out where it says minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be allowed. That should all be struck out. It should start, the sentence should start, there should be no minimum lot sizes. However, in no case 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 shall the net density exceed the guidelines. That's what we want to say. And that fits our North Bay concept that we're looking at. Conrad: Okay. So in 508, we're eliminating from the motion, in the staff report, the first line and a half. Mancino: First two sentences. Conrad: The first two sentences, okay. On page 9. I'll let the wordage, huh. On page 9. Mancino: Is there a way to add triggering the review of other. Nutting: You know I guess, maybe just to add. I guess now that I think about that, even more so now I'd say, I'd eliminate the single family and let it come back in through a variance request where we can look at all of the reasons for putting it in and that really can trigger the review of, you know in terms of if we're going to look at adding something else. Conrad: Yeah, I'd buy that Ron. Mancino: That's because it will never fly. Conrad: So therefore what I'm doing is eliminating Section, any changes to Section 20-652 but also making a recommendation that staff brings back to the Planning Commission a proposal so that any kind of, either down zoning or minimal density, in a high density area, somehow triggers a review process to find replacements, or at least we need a staff report that would identify how that would be accomplished. Mancino: Say that again? Conrad: It doesn't make sense to me. Aanenson: Oh, I think that'd be interesting though to show you when we do a project, to show how many units could have been put on there. So how many units we've actually taken away from that project so we should consider maybe somewhere else looking at. I think that's jnteresting. And we just be doing that on our reports when they come before you. If they're under the density. Conrad: I'm looking for a mechanism to say we can allow that lower density but it forces us to review something. To take action. That's what I need to know what triggers that and those are things Kate that don't hit our agenda. Because they're another thing. There are 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 plans in front of us so I need to know what's legal and what's timely to get us to do that. On page 11 of the staff report, under 2(d). Eliminate the word attached. And that is the extent of my motion. Mancino: Do I hear a second to that motion? Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion on the motion? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission ~ecommend approval to the amendment to the City Code as p~esented in the staff ~eport dated May 25, 1995 with the following changes: o Pane 5, Si~,n, Flao. Change the word "shall" to "may" be flown in tandem with the state or national flag. . Paoe 8, Section 20-505. Delete the portion from "Comment - This is not consistent.., to end of that section. 3. Pa~e 8, Section 20-508. Modify (b) by deleting the first sentence so it reads as follows: (b) Minimum lot sizes. There shall be no minimum lot size however, in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. 4. Pa~,e 9, Section 20-652. Delete the words "Single Family". 5. Pa~,e 11, Section 20-905: Item (2)(d), delete the word "attached". All voted in favor and the motion canied. Mancino: This goes on to City Council? Aanenson: Yes. It'd be the 26th. Mancino: 26th. And we can review the PUD and have discussions on it. If there are any articles, to kind of prep us for a discussion, I think that that would be helpful. And find out what's going on currently in areas like our's. Before we get into that, thank you. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Todd? Now we are going to restrict what movies are being played in the movie theater, right? Make sure that we follow Senator Bob Dole's request and we only have PG movies for this kind of a family city. Gerhardt: Well I don't think our ordinances highlight anything about first amendment rights but the way it sounds, you're re-writing the PUD. You might as well re-write the First Amendment too. Mancino: Well that would be fun. It'd only take us a little longer. No comments or questions at this point? Kate, is this a public hearing? Aanenson: I don't believe so. Mancino: Okay. And can give comments. Bob? Skubic: I have no comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: Nothing. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: No. Mancino: Mr. Nutting. Nutting: It's fine as is. Mancino: Okay. Me too. I mean I feel that way on the Planning Commission issues. When does this come in front of the HRA for approval of the funds? Gerhardt: The HRA will be negotiating with 3 separate individuals on redevelopment agreements. We do not anticipate to do that until they have an approved plan from both the 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Planning Commission and City Council. Once they've secured those approvals, then the HRA will consider it. That's been our process in the past. Mancino: And this is really not a Planning Commission purview but my only question was, as I read in this plan, was that one of the reasons for doing this is that anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment and within reasonable foreseeable future and yet, in something else we're going to see tonight, we're hearing that businesses want to come to Chanhassen and you're getting calls all over that businesses want to relocate here. So I put those two together and I say they don't, that doesn't make sense. Now sure everybody would like to get public funds. Gerhardt: Ms. Chairman, you're absolutely right. Perkins. Taco Bell. Boston Chicken. Byerly's. It was really easy for those individuals to come out to Chanhassen and take a raw piece of land and put a building on it. In this case you have existing buildings that are not being used to their maximum potential. Mr. Bloomberg has got a lease with a moving company that more than gives him a decent return on what that building can make for the value it's on. Taxes are low. Value's low. He's getting you know, $5.00-$8.00 a square foot. You know he's making his mortgage payment and also seeing a decent return. Without city assistance to encourage him to upgrade his building and to increase the value of that and pay the full taxes of what a Byerly's might pay or Market Square tenants might be paid, you have to provide that effort. You're not going to see him make a million dollars worth of improvements to the facade. You will not see him make improvements to a boardwalk and you will not see them add a marquee that would represent an older type element in the movie theater business. Mancino: Todd, how much is the private investor investing in it? How much of it is public? How much of it is private? Gerhardt: The public improvements that would be given to this would be all exterior improvements. Parking lot, boardwalk and facade. Pauly's, to renovate the old Filly's section, they're looking at sticking almost $900,000.00 into that. The movie theater people, right now you've just got a large warehouse space. To put movie theaters in, they're going to make capital costs in putting in the concession stand. Buying the seating. Sheet rocking the walls. Buying the screens. Buying the projectors. Sprinkling the building. Bathrooms. I don't know exactly what their budget is but it will be substantial. Mancino: And that's all being by private sector? Gerhardt: Private sector. And it is private sector that is paying for the facade, the boardwalk and the parking lot improvements and we are going to reimburse them their money for those 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 improvements over time based on the taxes that they would generate up and above of what's paying taxes today. Currently that site is paying approximately $129,000.00 a year in taxes. With the improvements that are being planned, we will add another $129,000.00 worth of taxes to that area based on improvements that would be completed with this. Mancino: The $129,000.00 that's being paid now, does that go into the TIF district or does that go into the public, into the Carver County and to schools and into Chanhassen, the city? Gerhardt: Currently these properties are in what we call TIF District No. 1. In creating this district we would have to decertify the 12 parcels that we're talking about. By decertifying those 12 parcels, you have to establish a new base value. That new base value would be what the base value that the County has on those properties as of today. So that $129,000.00 that they're paying today will be distributed back to the County, the School District and the City. Mancino: But all these years from 1979 it has not gone on the public tax rolls? Gerhardt: It has not. Mancino: It has not. It has gone into the TIF district. Gerhardt: It has gone into the TIF district. Mancino: Ever since 1979 to 1995. Gerhardt: Correct. Mancino: From how long was this TIF district going to run for? This new one. Gerhardt: The new one would run for, out to the year, we're proposing 2017. But it could go for another 5 years past that. Mancino: So, how many years is that? Gerhardt: It's a 25 year district. Mancino: So the next 25 years the money that is paid in property taxes from those appreciated properties will go back into the TIF district for 25 years? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Gerhardt: Half of it. $129,000.00 will go back onto the tax rolls. The other $129,000.00 will go to pay off the boardwalks, the facades and parking. Mancino: So $1.7 million will go back into paying the developer for all the expenses? Gerhardt: That he has upfronted for the boardwalk, the facade, and the parking lots. Mancino: So who owns all this at the end? Gerhardt: Who owns all? Mancino: Who owns the boardwalk, the building, etc? That's very interesting. Gerhardt: They would own the boardwalks, the facade and the parking lots. With the exception of the land that the city currently owns in that area. Mancino: Even though the city gave them back their property tax dollars to do it? Every year. Gerhardt: Correct. That's the incentive for them to take what looks like an industrial. Mancino: So it's 100% that we actually give back for the cost of all those capital outlays and administrative costs. Gerhardt: Just for the facade, the boardwalks and the parking lots. Not the $900,000.00 of interior improvements for Pauly's. The interior improvements for the 8,000 square feet of retail. The interior improvements for the bowling center. The interior improvements that would be done in the Frontier Center. Just for the facade, boardwalk and parking lots. Mancino: I don't know if that was educational to anyone else on how that happens. What goes on in the TIF district. Gerhardt: Well right now if we didn't do anything, the $129,000.00 would stay in place out to the year 2008 with the current district. So the School District, the County and the City will be benefitting right now, 13 years of receiving that $129,000.00. Mancino: So we're going from the TIF district into the public rolls and that's the difference and all these years it hasn't been going to help lower other people's property taxes? Okay. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Gerhardt: Plus you also rid yourself of the moving company and the large tilt up concrete wall that has been a mission of both the HRA, the Planning Commission and the City Council in redeveloping probably one of our most blighted areas in the community. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Next item, do we come to closure? Do we have to make a motion? Gerhardt: Yeah, you need to approve the attached resolution that says that you agree that the TIF plan is consistent with the zoning. Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion? Thank you. Nutting: I'll make a motion that Planning Commission approve the attached resolution declaring the program and plan for TIF District No. 4 consistent with plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole. Conrad: I second that. Mancino: Any discussion? I just have one last question for Todd. So does that mean that we are, if I vote yes, that I'm approving all these numbers and everything in here? Gerhardt: The role of the Planning Commission is that you are approving that the uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Conrad: Doesn't the Chairperson have to sign something? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: I'll co-sign on those general obligation bonds you know. Gerhardt: There are no bonds associated with this. That's the other thing that the City Council likes about it is that the redevelopers are upfronting all the cost and that it's a pay as you go. So whatever tax increment that they generate over the next 20 years is what they shall receive back, plus 8% interest. Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission app~,ove the ~esolution declining the program and plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 consistent with plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole. All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 AMEND PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff?. Any comments? Bob. Mike. Ladd. Ron. May I have a motion please? Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve amendment to it's By- laws, Section 7, Point 1 adding subpart (b). Matters which appear on the agenda as open discussion items will not be recorded as Minutes. Conrad: Second. Mancino: Any discussion on the motion that's on the floor? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve amendment to it's By-laws, Section 7.1 adding (b). Matters which appear on the agenda as open discussion items will not be recorded as Minutes. All voted in favor and the motion cmaied. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 3, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor, except Nutting who abstained, and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: On May 22nd, the Senior Housing was approved. The 3 stories. That was lowered to 3 stories and 65 units were put on the site. And lowering it, the building, it pushed it to the north, closer to those residents. There will be a tiered retaining wall. In addition it required variances that were set before the Board of Adjustment on June 5th and those variances included setbacks on Kerber and Santa Vera. I think the neighbors felt that they'd rather have, and the Council, that they'd rather have the variances on the setbacks as opposed to the taller building. So we'll have 65 units. Mancino: Did those variances carry at the Board of Adjustments? Aanenson: They were approved, correct. So at this point the site plan has been approved with variances. In addition the Lake Susan Townhouse project was also approved by the City Council on May 22nd. That's all I had. Excuse me. There is a joint session with the City Council and the Planning Commission and that's set for June 19th. And maybe during ongoing items, or open discussion items, I've gotten a list of the ongoing issues that we have 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 going, or maybe that's something we can use as a format to talk about with the Council. Maybe we want to talk about that towards the end of the meeting but it'd be June 19th and you will get an agenda for that. A notice of the meeting. I believe that starts at 6:00 and normally it's held in the courtyard. Nutting: Is that a Monday? Aanenson: Correct. It's an off Monday from the normal Council. Nutting: Is it a 6:00 to 7:00? Aanenson: Generally. Mancino: I would be in favor of moving a discussion on that agenda to the open discussion time that we have tonight. Do we have another Planning Commission meeting before the 19th also? Aanenson: No. The 21st would be your next meeting. Mancino: Okay, so this is it. Okay. Are other people in agreement with moving it to the open discussion tonight? Okay. Any other ongoing items, Kate? Aanenson: That's all I have. Mancino: Okay. Should we adjourn to the open discussion items? Aanenson: Sure. The Planning Commission meeting was closed to the open discussion portion. The meeting was adjourned after the open discussion. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 39