The URL can be used to link to this page

1992 05 20~55~N PL~NNXN~ CO~X55XO~ ~E6ULA~ ~EEYI~ 20, ~992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 'P.m.. HEHBERS PRESENT= Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmlngs, Hatt Ledvina, Brian Batzll, 3elf Farmakes and 3can Ahrens HEHBERSAB~ENT: Tim Erhart · ST~FF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Ka~e Aanenson; Planner II and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Hanager Public Present: Randy Smith A. Hiscox Larry ~. Anderson Ted H. deLancey Lenny K/skis 429 Pleasant View 7500 Erie 400 Cimarron Circle 7505 Frontier Trail 491 Big Horn Drive Kate Aanen$on presented the staffI report on this item. Batzli: I'd like you to comment on two things. On the little map that we got, it shows the dock. Can you show us on the map where the dock sits' In relation to their lot line? Aanenson: Okay, that dock that's on here, I Just put that In. They submitted that way back in 1981 and I don't believe it's in the same place. I defer that to the homeowners association to .show you where that is. I don't believe it's in the same spot. Batzli: And the second thing is, your comment that the swimming beach, we shouldn't have to discuss that. In your opinion, in staff's opinion, swimming beaches don't negatively impact neighbors? Aanenson: The recreational beachlot ordinance does allow swimming beaches. Whether or not they meet the frontage requirements or not. That memo was made in 1987 so really we don't need to discus~ that. Batzli: Say that again. Aanenson: In 1987 there was an amendment to that that said all beachlots, whether or not they were non-conforming or not' are allowed to maintain swimmi ng beach. Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant' like to address the commission? If you could QO up to the miorophone and give us your name and address. Planning Commission Heating Hay 20, 1992 - Page 2 Ted deLancey: I'm Ted deLancey and ! have been there prior, to 1981 8o ! would Just like to go back. As I said, as you said Kate, I think we're being very straight forward. We're not asking for anything differently. The one thing that I did want to bring up was last fall when we were here, when we saw when you had down on your check sheet. We made some changes to that and submitted that to you and I've got a copy from you .this past week on that. There are some discrepancies. I think they're small. Number one, it says that we did not have a picnic table, campfire grJlts, or seasonal docks and I'm saying yes, in 1981 we did. It gets kind of a sticky wicket. We have had in previous times', no consistency to this boat. Some boats were stored on the property. Some years there were. Some years there were not. Boats moored, occasionally. The swimming, beach is always, well since 1981 or prior to 1981 was there also. .But-you're allowing.the swimming beach is my understanding. Now one other thing. 'If I'm correct. If I heard you correctly. I think you said that the boat launch was not In the same position? Aanenson= No, the dock that was shown on the map-that you originally submitted. Ted deLancey: The dock. Okay. The launch is in the same position It always has been in. Batzll= Can you illustrate on the overhead where the dock is currently located? Aanenson: I've Just got a photograph from last summer. Ted deLancey= The dock Is approximately right here and the boat launch Is right here... Resident= Ted, I think maybe that Is not quite the location. The dock is approximately 25 feet to the left of the ramp. Emmings= Is that north? Resident: North of the ramp... Batzll: My concern on this point is that on the map that it's drawn, it looks like the dock somehow encroaches on the neighboring property. Ted deLancey: I couldn't hear you. I'm sorry. Batzli: The dock appears to encroach on the neighbor's property on the map that we have so I don't want us to approve or pass on a recommendation that the Council approve a dock that's somehow does encroach.' Resident: Do you have an overhead of the map? Batzll: No. Aanenson: That was part of the original application when they came before for a conditional use permit. I Just put that In there for Planning Commission Pleeting Play 20, 1992 - Page 3 edification. That is not where the boat, when ! went out there this summer, tt'e not where the dock is right now. Batzli: Okay. If I can summarize it. I don't know if you have any other issues to cover but It sounds like what you're disputing is perhaps that you would Like grills and pi.cn~c tables? Ted deLance¥= Ne have had that'before and we would L~ke that. And there has been acme discussion in reference to canoe racks also. At one time we had canoes stored down there but again, not on a consistent year to year basis. Batzll: So are you in fact requesting canoe racks? The Association. Ted detancey= If it's not a problem, t4e. don't want to create a problem, okay? I guess in effect what I think you're telling us is had we had canoe racks there, had we had boats there on a consistent basis, you would aLLow it. The fact that they have been sporadic, you may not. Is that correct? BatzLl: I think so. Nhat we're looking for is, we're trying to establish what your use was in 1981 from which time period forward you'd be grandfathered. [f you haven't had consitent useage, then to that extent you probably would not be grandfathered in for that type of use and that's what we're trying to do tonight. Ted deLancey: Yeah, we have not had consistent useage of a canoe rack. have not had consistent useage of boats moored on a .consistent basis. have had consistent use of dock. Ne have had consistent use of boat launch. And the parking. Batzl i: 0 kay. Ted deLancey: Now Larry, do you have any comment? Larry Anderson= No. ! think that's right as far as consistent. I think if you go back to 1939 and find that there were boats stored on the property. That there was a dock. That there was parking. AlL of those things... Resident: How many parking spots? Larry Anderson: They're reaLLy not designated parking spots so... Ted deLancey: Ne haven't drawn yellc~ lines. BatzLi: Do you have anything else? Ted deLancey: No, I don't unless Andrew', he's also. a member. Do you have any comments? Andrew Hlscox: The only comment I'd make la the map. It says...not be to scale but the generaL...but since I've been there I've owned the property 6 years now. There has always been a dock. There has always been a boat Launch. There has always been clean picnic tables .... Planning Commission Heating Hay 20, 1992 - Page 4 BatzlI= And your name for the record was? Andrew Htscox: Andrew Hiscox. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission at this time? Lenny Kiskis: Hy name is Lenny Ktskts and I live on 491 Big Horn which is on the west side of the lake. ! guess Z don't really have any real major problems with what they're doing here but ! Just would like to say a couple things. One of them is that ['m concerned about the milfo[l on the lake obviously and obviously the more or less restrictions on the lake and access to the lake in the form of boat launches, create more problems on the lake. Also the additional stress it puts on the lake In the form of additional boating activity going on. $o [ don't know [f that's part of the issue here that you're even contemplating at this point in time but ! would want to go on record that ! would be against the use of unattended and unrestricted boat launch. Batzll: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Eaaaings ~oved, Ahren~ seconded to close the ~ublic hearing. All voted in favor and the .orion carried. The public hearing ~a~ clo~ed. Conrad: I think this is a good recreational beachlot and I don't have, they're real close to being a conforming beachlot'and 'when 'you look at the situation, it is a real classic case of how a beachlot should be used. $o I don't have a, and I'm not sure how this affects other beachlots coming in but I really don't have a problem letting them having the picnic tables, the grills. That Just doesn't bother me In this situation at all. They haven't necessarily had them before but, or when we've inventoried but ! don't have a, it's a good beach[or. [n terms of the overland Launching. That's a real interesting point and [ ~ees Ted, ho~ do you, m[JfotJ Js a big deal. Rnd as a boat Launch on the Lake, they're talking to everybody that comes [n about m[lfo[l and we probably do have [t [n Lotus right now but the question La, how do you po[ice your members? HO~ ~ you keep others from going [n there because that ts boy', you talk ab~t expense Later on [f ~[[fo[[ really spreads. That [sa big deal. Ted deLancey: First'of all, tt is not an unrestricted. It Is restricted to Just the members who belong obviously to that boat. How would we police the entry of somebody who does not belong there? This has never been a problem but there are 3 of us who live right where the road goes down. We can visually see that... There's a gate. There's a gate. Larry Anderson: A chain and Iock. Lenny Kiskle: My point I'm making is, the people that live on the lake typically don't trailer their boats. They're go to other Lakes where there is milfoil and bring them back... In an environment like you have, my sense is you have people that use the lake and trailer their boats. Use other lakes and do bring those boats back into this lake. There is milfoIl [n the lake. We've identified lt. It can be a major problem-. Hopefully Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page $ it won't be. We'll be able to lrradtcate it but ! don't know If that's possible at this point in time. I guess the concern I have is that the more access points.., the more possibility that people can bring boats'into the lake, the more problem they're going to have with more possibility that you're going to have additional problems... And the very least ! think we can educate and provlde...tnformation concerning mllfoll. All your members. Make sure that they can identify it and ultimately the best thing to do would have the ability to have one access on this lake and police it. That's obtvously not going to happen... Resident: Why can't lb happen? . Batzlt: Excuse me sir · Lenny Klskis: ...legislative move to make it happen and ! certainly would support that. I don't see that happening in the very near future. Batzlt: Paul? As far as can we even put conditions on the things we'Ye looking at? There are non-conforming beachlots regarding conditions to post a sign, check your boat for milfoil. Can we even do these things or are we, is it Just something that we can't do at this point and we can Just talk about it? Krauss: We have raised that with the City Attorney and he believes that you're pretty well constrained looking at the issue here of a non-conformity and not, you don't have a lot of flexibility to add on additional conditions that are not related to that specific non-conformity request. You could certainly ask that it be done. Conrad= More than likely the group wouldn't mind posting a sign. I think they're sensitive to the issue. Ted deLancey= Yeah. We will do whatever is the standard practice when we're educated to what the problem is and what we should be doing· It's something w® didn't take up in 1981 because we weren't aware of it. And I don't think even the cities..'.a policy but whatever that policy would be, we would... The other thing I'd like to point out is, bY numbers you have a very sma1! amount of boats going in and out of that· Resident= Then why is it important? Why don't they Just use the public landing? I'm not being sarcastic. Ted deLancey: It's the parking. Resident: That's one of the bigger issues. I'd like to make a point here. Batzli: Excuse me. The public hearing has been closed. If you'd Ilks to make a point, please raise your hand and I'll try to get to you. Ladd has the floor right now. Conrad: Oh sure. Batzll: You do. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 6 Conrad= I don't know that I want it any more. ! have no more questions on this issue Brian. ! think Paul answered conditions on' the launch. ! think that is an important Issue. The folks do have the right and are grandfathered in on the launch. I think a sign has to be there and It's not a matter of a condition. ! would Just hope if the association would want a sign there reminding the residents that, or the members that mllfol! ts a problem. ! don't know beyond that ~hat to do. I don't ko~ that there is. When I compare it what the launch does do. The people at the house say, milfoll's a problem. Please check your boat and here's literature on how to do it. I guess there's not a real tough enforcement~ If you go through a launch and It's still left up to the Individual and ! would, trust that the people that live close or on the lake are as motivated, If not more motivated to check their boats than maybe somebody coming tn over through the public launch. So in my mind the i'ssue still is Just to make sure we remain people when they bring their boats in, that they look for mllfoil and maybe that we make sure that all residents tn the beachlot get the literature so you know what you're looking for. That's all ! have. Batzli: I'm sorry. Sir, did you have a comment to make? Resident= Yeah, he kind of summarized what I was going to. say. Ne live on the lake. We live near the lake. Ne have ownership in this thing. I think we're more motivated than the average person, certainly. · .boat launch for keeping this lake free of milfoil and loosestrife and other .kinds of noxious weeds. So I agree with what you're saying. I'd like to limit the access too but the public access for. 17 boats can park, I think maybe your attention might be better directed towards that and the enforcement there which I've talked to the DNR about personally in the last few years· Never really gotten much of a response or satisfaction. ·. And today it's pretty simple. It's around. It's going to get Into-lakes' if you're not careful. I think it might already have been spotted in Lotus. I thlnk...if the city will show the association how to 'acquire signs at maybe some kind of good rate, I don't think we'd have a problem trying...We wouldn't want a big one but a little one would be alrlght. Krauss: Well we don't know where signs, where you obtain them from but we have seen them and we'd be willing to check into that. Resident: Let us know. I mean ! don't think, we're very motivated to keep mllfoil out and do what we can to make... Batzlt: What ! guess I'd like you to do is after this hearing, If you could talk to Paul and get' each other's number or something and try to follow up after the meeting because I think it's an Important issue. Where were we? Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I think that the request t'hat's being made is very reasonable and I also have concerns about the mIlfoil issue and would like to see a follow up on that but beyond that I have no other questions or comments. Batzli: Steve? Emmtngs= I don't have anything to add. I-think It's a reasonable request. We're not again, we brought this up last week but we're not going tO get Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 7 into the business of approving picnic tables and grills and stuff like that. Aanenson: The ordinance does address that. Emmings: $o that isn't an issue. Okay. Batzl I: Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments other than the one that you mentioned about the dock crossing the lot line. That would be something to look at. Batzli: Okay. Can you Paul, also follow up with the association to make sure they're aware of the setback requirements for their dock? Thank you. Joan. Ahrens: I don't have anything. Satzli: ! don't have any questions either. Would somebody like to make a motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request of Frontier, what's the name of. It? Frontier Trail 8eachlot maintaining the 1981 status quo with one dock, 40 feet in length, no boats being moored, continued use of the motor vehicle access, parking for $. Well, for a maximum of 6 cars and a boat launch. And also approval of the swimming beach. Conrad: Second. Emmlnga moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Co~iaion reco~aend approval of ~ Fro~ler Trail ~n~onformi~ R~rea[ion. B~chio[ ~ith o~ ~k. 40 f~t In leith, m ~ts ~i~ ~r~. ~nti~ u. of t~ir ~tor v. hlcls acc~. pmrkl~ for m .x~-- of ~ cars. m ~t lmu~h (m~ f~t ,1~), a~ a ~lel~ b~ch. All ~ted In fair a~ t~ ~tion carri~. Batzli: When will this particular Item go in front of the City Council? Krauss: We don't have the thing up on top but we think It's June 8th. PUBLIC H~IN~: NON-C~Of~IN6 USE PERMZT FOR A RECREATIONAL ~OT FOR SUNRI~ HILLS HOME~ ASSOCIATION. Public Present: Craig Luehr 7226 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this Item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 8 Craig Luehr: My name is Craig Luehr. I'm at 7226 Frontier Trail and !'va been there about 2 years now. Actually 2 years almost to the day so haven't been there since 1981 but it's my understanding-that it's pretty much a status quo type thing, tde haven't changed it much. [n fact [ think it's about a 4 foot shorter dock than it'was several years ago but in terms of.the mtlfoll, I Just want to bring up that we do have a sign next to it and I don't know where it came from. It stipulates the fine for not checking for the mtIfot[. And so we have that. We have a locked gate that prevents anyb~y from Comtng thr~gh. ~nd Just like the o[he~ g~oup, [ think ~e ate and Z ~ou[d say ~e probably poZ[ce ourselves ~Te [~n the ge~a[. So Z don't ~htnk Z have anything else and Z Just ~an[ [o offer ny~jf for any quest[cna tf you have [n your ~uT[he~. Batzll'- We'll probably have some questions a little later. Thank you. Nould anyone else like to address the commission? Conrad moved, EmmXngs seconded to cXo~e the pubXXc hearXng. A11 voted favor and the ~otion carried. The public hearing ~aa cloaed. Ahrens: Any problem with the location of the dock on this one? Aanenson: No.. I didn't note it on there but in my site visit last fall, it didn't seem to be a problem. Ahrens: We're not going to get, ! noticed in 1901 there were two canoe racks with spaces for 12 boats but on the-survey it showed that there were no boats there. We're not going to get into that I don't assume. Aanenson: Well It just, the survey is vague. It just says there were two canoe racks. It didn't specifically say if there were any boats in it or not. I'm not sure if that was Just an oversight or if somebody. Ahrens: I don't have any problems with this. It looks pretty straight forward. It looks like they're asking exactly what they had in 1981. Batzlt: Pretty darn close it looks like. Ahrens: Batzl I: Two more spaces for canoes. 3eff. I don't have any problem with it. Farmakes: I have no comments in regards to thls. You may want to pass on the issue of the milfoil. They have a sign of some sort there. We might look at making these, looking at these signs for. these non-conforming. accesses to the lake. That's all. Krauss: It occurs to me that this is a lake water quality issue. If there's a reasonable source of signs, we probably can just get .the funds out of the swamp program and Just give them to the beachlots. Ahrens.' Yeah, I don't think we should to raima it on every single beachlot. The milfoil issue... Plannl'ng Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 9 Farmakes: I think the issue is when a boat launching for a substantial amounts of homes. Batzli: Yeah, do we have any brochures about milfotl or has that ever been covered? Krauss: They are available. We have not given them out. Well, I'll take that back. Our Public Safety Department does have ~ome acce~ to some of that. The mllfoil control really has been the problems of the DNR so far and it hasn't worked very well. But some of the stuff we've talked about on the swamp committee ts our ecologically sound ways to control mtlfoil. There's apparently a linkage between miifoll and water quality. The more nutrient r/ch the water is, the more likely you have that mtlfoil. Is gotng to root and take hold. And there's some evidence that the introduction of oxygenating plants will help to offset that or retard the growth somewhat. It's something that's being dealt with peripherally but it's dealt with by the swamp committee. Batzll: Yeah, I guess I'd like to, if we can, I'd like to see us somehow getting some brochures and signs and things to some of them. The beachlot homeowner groups. Steve? Emmings: It looks like a reasonable request to me. Batzll: Matt. Ledvina: I had a question regarding'the portable restroom that's at the site. They indicate that it didn't exist in 1981 and it does exist in 1991. Can you describe that in terms of ho~ it's maintained? Craig Luehr: This last year, last summer was the first time we had put that to my knowledge on, a portable restroom. It-was mainly for the convenience and the prevention of going behind our canoe racks with the little kids rather than walking all the way' home. And we have within our association we had some discussion around this. It's odors and what not and the important thing that we came to was, ~e as a committee or we as an association are going to demand a ~eekl¥ maintenance of that to keep that down because some of our members ever were somewhat concerned of that. And last year it was maybe not maintained quite;as nice as what we' would have liked it to and need corrections along those lines to keep it on a weekly basis maintained to minimize those problems. It is also situated Just behind a tree so you really don't see it from the' lake that much either. And last year it was even kind of green so. Ledvina= Okay, so it's a portable plastic? Craig Luehr: A little portable plastic, yes. Ledvtna= Like the Satellites or whatever? Craig Luehr: Yes. Exactly. Emmings: Do they have a permit for that? Did you have a permit for that? PLanning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 10. Craig Luehr: That I'm not sure.. Emmings: Is that a Satellite out there? Ra ne nso n: Yes · Emmings: Did they have a permit for it last year? Ranenson: I don't remember seeing it. Emmings: I only remember one coming in on Lake Minnewashta. · ~anenson: That's right. I have zero on the application. I remember seeing that, yeah. Batzll: It's on the survey but not on the application. Craig Luehr: Okay, so what should we do to correct that? ~anenson: It's a separate issue because they need a separate conditional USe SO. Emmings: But he should know that. ~anenson: We'll check on that· Craig Luehr: Okay, thank you. Ledvina: No, I think that was all. Conrad: Nothing. This is a real good beachlot. They. have their buoys up which leads to a point. ~ lot of the beachlots that we've Looked at tn the past, we've approved swimming but they don't have buoys. So the question is, did we hear that we couldn't demand the buoys given that the swimming was grandfathered in? That seems like a reasonable thing. Batzli: Well it seems to me, for health and safety, even the iuue of putting a lot of picnic tables and parking in the same location, you'd think that we would be able to at Least look at a map at what the hack we're grandfathering in or approving or something. But I don't see that kind of information in front of us either. So I don't kno~. Emmings: It might be issues beat left to the associations. Conrad: Did you hear what I just said? Not this 'particular beachlot. They have buoys up for their swimming beaches but there ~ere a couple in last week. Ranenson: The ordinance does say technically if you're to have a swimming beach, that you are supposed to have it marked with buoys. Conrad: So if they didn't? Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 11 Aanenson: We wouldn't enforce it. I'm sure the DNR may enforce that technically I think if you have a swimming beach, you are supposed-to have it "marked with buoys. I think that's up'to the association. Conrad: The buoys are not our issue? Aanenson: I'm not sure if we enforce them. Conrad: Even though we say you should have buoys? Batzll: Do we say that? Where does it .say that? Conrad: In our ordinance it does say swimming beaches have to be marked. Aanenson= They should be, yeah. Conrad: But Kate is saying that's really the DNR. Aanenson= But if they've been in place since then. If they've been in place. That's the ordinance I was talking about that in 1987 there was an amendment that says, you can have a swimming beach'whether or not you're .conforming or not but that should be buoyed. But some of these that were existed prior to that, didn't have buoys· -' Emmings: They may be grandfathered in. ~anenson: Exactly. Batzli: But this last one that said in 1987, we weren't going to talk about the swimming area. Did the last one have buoys? We said we didn't have to talk about it because of the 1987 ordinance. ~ell the marker buoys weren't requested but it seems to me we could race, ire them under the 1987 ordinance. If we're allowing it under the 1987 ordinance, w~ should be able to enforce the '87 ordinance. Aanenson: Yeah, but they also had the swimming beach prior to that though too so. Batzli: I thought they didn't in 19817 They didn't in '81 so ~e're allowing it because of the '$7 ordinance. ~anenson= Emmings: myself. Right. We probably should make them buoy it. Well more importantly, is it buoyed or moored? Just musing to Batzll: The question is whether this is an issue that we want to at least try and be consistent on. I think that if they're going to allow the- swimming beach due to the '87 ordinance, we should try to ~t them to mark .it in accordance with the ordinance. Rhrens: It's Just that it's not a big deal la it? I .mean not a big request · Planning Commission Meeting Hay 20, 1992 - Page 12 Conrad: No. Batzll: Well between now and City Council. Aanenson: Gotchya · Straighten that out. Batzli: Straighten that out with the homeowners association. That they should be buoying that. If they're going to have that beachlot. I got lost again. Did we listen to Ladd on that lsat one? Conrad: Batzll: Yeah. Sorry I brought that up. Ladd, are you done? I don't even like buoys. Conrad: Oh boy, I'm done. Batzli: Okay. We're having a good time now. I think I Just want to echo Jeff's comment that I would Just like to make sure that we're consistent with all these groups coming through. That they're aware of the setback requirements for the dock and I'd also like to, this particular one had the swimming beach prior to and it almo ham buoy~-mo that'm not. going to be, that's it. -. Emmings: Okay. To clarify or to follow up on what he's talking about. would assume that whether they're grandfathered-in or not, they're'still- subject to the dock setback requirements? Aanenson-' Roger maya they're not. That's why I haven't been raising that · issue. Emmings: Oh, they're not? Aanenson= Because if they've had the dock in the same place every year. Batzli: Yeah, but that lsat group didn't. Aanenson: That was just a rendering of how-they were going to develop their beachlot. That's why I put that in there. Batzll: Yeah but how to develop their beachlot. See that's the operative phrase. They are not, they've moved their dock so they're not grandfathered in in one location. Emmingm: Well, in any came, all we're approving here is the fact that they have a dock and how long it ia. We're not approving the site of it or anything else. Aaneneon= As long as it stays within the setback. But if they have one, I don't want to make this really complicated but the way the ordinance reads, you extend. There's been confusion on how you determine. Krauss: Why don't you put that thing up .and we-can illustrate. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 -- Page 13 Emmlngs: I~ell it's hard on both of these that we Just looked at because the lot lines, especially this one. Krauss: Well see, that's the thing. It's a matter of interpretation. interpret this by saying, I mean the whole thing's a little goofy anyway because it goes out beyond your natural property line. .But we've lnterpretted it that it ts the natural exl~ension of your pr<~erty line out into the lake. Emmt rigs: Krauss: Not at a right angle to the shoreline? No. Not perpendicular to the Shoreline. Batzli: $o we decided it was perpendicular to the shoreline. Krauss: The ordinance doesn't say that.. Aanenson: No someone, ! think Dick's al. ways believed it that's the way it reads but the ordinance doesn't read that way and I confirmed that with Roger Knutson. He thinks, Dick thinks they meet out in the middle of the lake. That's not it. You Just extend the lines out. $o the fact of the matter is, some of these beachlots who have their docks in place, okay if they go out 60 feet, they may cross that line but if they've been that way, they do have that grandfathering status. Okay? That's where some of the confusion comes in. Emmt rigs: Okay. Aanenson: Okay? That's why I haven't always been addressing it because some of them they do have some of that. Conrad: It doesn't make sense to follow the property line. Once you get to. Rhrens: . ..so you have a line drawn to the center o4 the lake with all these lot lines meeting at some point but sometimes they meet them like this. You meet them like this. Krauss: There's problems equally with either interpretation depending on how the lot line goes. Farmakes: If it's not a permanent structure, it's taken out and Put back in every year. ~anenson: No. It has to be out of the water for one year continuously. Then it would be non-conforming. ~%s long as they put it in every season. Batzli: But to be grandfathered in at a location, it would have to be in' the same spot? I mean they can't be going? Ranenson: Exactly. Batzli: But what I'm concerned about on this is you've given them an argument somehow when you put a dock on their map which crosses over a lot Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 14 line, regardless of whethet they're grandfathered in and we approve it, that somehow we're approving that location. -- Aanenson: ! 'm not approving that site plan. Maybe ! '11 take that out for the City Council. That was Just something for you. We're. not-approving that 'site plan at all. 1'11 take that out to make sure there's no. Batzll: Okay, we've seen in the past that_people bring in arguments whenever they can find them and ! don't want to cause problems for somebody 10 years-down the road that we somehow approved this-tonight. So, those were my only comments. Do we have a motion7 Conrad: I move that the Sunrise Hills non-conforming recreational beachlot permit or application be approved specifically allo~ing motor vehicle access, off street parking for 12, one boat launch, a dock of 60 feet, two canoe racks with 12 spaces, swimming beach, marker buoys, swimming raft. Farmakes: Second. Batzli= Discussion? I Just want to make it clear to the applicant that we're not approving right now the portable restroom and you do need to come in for a separate permit for that. If there's no more discussion, let's call the question. Conrad ~oved, Faraakee seconded that the Planning Co~luion recommend approval of the Non-Conforming Uae Permit for a 'recreational beachlot for Sunrise Hills Homeowners ~a~ociation with one dock, ~0 feet in length, no boats being moored or docked, continued u~e of their motor vehicle access, parking for 12 cars, t~o canoe rack~ with a~ace for 12 boat~, a~iming beach with a raft, marker buoy~ and a boat launch. &Il voted tn favor 'and the motion carried. ~PROV~ OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 6, 1992 as presented. CITY QXJNCIL UPO~TE. Batzll: There's nothing in the packet. Krauss: There was not an intervening Council meeting. 8atz!i: Wasn't there one last Monday? Krauss: This past Monday? Batzll: Yeah. Krauss: Yeah, but that. Batzll: But that wouldn't have been in the'packet? Krauss: No. Batzli: I'm on track now. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 15 Krauss= ...but theye's sow things I can verbally relate to you just to keep you updated. The swamp committee is continuing to meet. We're making progress on the wetlands ordinance. There's an initial draft of it out and we're hoping that another one or two meetings will finish that off. The water quality program is continuing. I think you all probably got copies of our newsletter at your homes. At least I hope you did. We had some folks out scuba diving around Lotus Lake 2 ~eeks ago. We had a bum tour of some of the wetlands and pondlng areas in the community. And we're suddenly getting a lot of good recognition for this program. I mean Kate got some calls today. I continue to get calls. People around the State, whenever they're having a meeting of water quality or ~etland. protection to figure out what they can do, they inevitably say, well why'don't you give Chanhassen a call and see what they're doing. Then they call us and we have nothing to give them because ~e're not done yet but we have a lot of good intent and I think we're making progress. I think you're aware of the Highway 5 program is now starting. We're still trying to put together that task force. I've met with the consultants. They're going to. start doing some, assemblying some base maps. What we plan on doing .ks sometime in June holding one or two meetings to define issues In the corridor-so we get it all on the table. I've worked with the consultant's to define what the corridor is initially and then It will be this group's determination. We'll probably have 8ill Morrish come and do his dog and pony show once to this group. And then what we want to do is before everybody's gone for the summer, is have a public meeting on corridor issues. Where again we'll have Bill trot on his stuff and Just try to get some feedback from SdSESG& to what they'd like to ~ee. Batzll: Would these be special meetings? Krauss= Yeah. mcr e · think they'll have to be. It's hard to 'find a night any Batzli= I think we need to get going on it so ! mean I wouldn't be opposed to doing it that way Just to make sure we get going on the corridor. Krauss: Well, as soon as we pull this committee together, we'll be asking folks when and if they're available. I was appointed to a new program on the Minnesota River managed by the Pollution Control Agency called Minnesota River Improvement Program which is ~koposed to deal with the 18sues of Minnesota River water quality ai1 the way to the Red River Valley or however far it goes· Serving on the wetland rules making committee for Bouser, I 'ye become relatively .disenchanted. with the ability of this State to deal with anything. So ! hope this committee does better but I've spent literally 28 hours with 23 people arguing about the definitton of farmland. It's-getting rather tedious. Apparently the ag interest want to define everything that the sun rises on in the morning Outside the 7 county area as farmland, therefore exempt from wetland protection measures. The environmentalists cut a deal with the farmers saying well, that's okay. We'll fix all these problems on the backs of the clties and the developers. So it's a real strange process so far and again I'm' not very optimistic that it's going to be resolved anytime soon. Or if it's going to be resolved, it's probably going to be resolved in' the courts. There's the inequities in the State law, which is unfortunate. It's a ground breaking' law but the tnequit.ities in the law are 8o blatant that I can'.t see that a Planning Commission Nesting ~ay 20, 1992 - Page ~6 court's going to uphold them and I've got to believe sooner or later, sooner rather than later, somebody's going to challenge them. A developer's that disenfranchised or whatever. Hoon Valley is ongoing. I spent the afternoon in court again today. I think [ updated you a while ago. We got the Judge's opinion where the Judge said, they are. Nhich we always agreed. They were grandfathered non-conformity on the south parcel where the pit is. On the north property, it's a ,hole new application. They wanted us to piggyback their application for the south property and the north property together and we refused to do that. And we weren't trying to be arbitrary. We ~ere trying to say, the north property is subject to the full extent of our ordinances and rules and you've got to give us a legitimate application. 3udge Kanning's told us we have to accept what our limits of our authority on the south half but that does not apply on the north .half. And apparently they tell us they're working diligently to bring us both applications. Right no~ you're scheduled to hear [ guess we're calling it the non-conforming earth work permit for the south gravel pit. That's supposed to come to you at Your next meeting. I'll have Roger there because I'm sure they're going to have their attorney there. We'ii give you ali the background on that too. It's rather lengthy but I had Roger write a synopsis but you'll have the Judge's opinion and everything else. Batzli: Get your gavel ready Joan, I' won't be here next meeting. Seriously. Okay. Did the Council look at the ordinance, the size lots in the residential area? Krauss: Yes they did. I guess I was saving that for when we got to that item. But do you want me to touch on that? Batzli: Oh we can wait. It's down there, open discussion. Okay, never mind. ON6OIN6 ITEI~: None · AOMINSTRATIVE APPROVALS: Krauss: We have one in the works but none to'report on. OPEN DISCUSSION: ROLE OF HRA ZN COI"IHI~XTY DEVEL~T/TODD Krauss: If ! could, over the years there's been some questions as to the relationship of the HRA...City Council because they are on an operative role in some of the tax increment districts relative to development. Who's in the driver's seat? How do things happen in this community and we're in a community that a lot of what we do is in tax increment district. And a lot of what happens out there involves some sort of city support. In my time with the city, I've found the relationship to be a real good one. Todd and I have worked at length on projects for literally months before anybody. really gets to chew them over and ! think that there's a good process outlined nowadays where things flow rather smoothly wherein boiled down, the HRA is a financing arm and the Planning Commission and City Council really are the development review arm ar~ I think it's worked rather well. Planning Commission Heat/rig Hay 20, 1992 - Page 17 There's been a certain realtor, who's name need not be mentioned who's initials are BJ who rune around a lot seeming to confuse the process but it really does work well. Batzli: I'm sure we don't know who you mean. Krauss= Oh, I couldn't imagine. But anyway, you know we heard that; We had a meeting about 3 weeks ago now on the Target proposal and the Target proposal meeting was one that I found real intriguing because we never tried this approach before. ~e thought of this meeting as one where In rather than Just wait, the tail wagging the dog for a developer to throw a plan on our table and we're in a position of either taking it or leaving it, or in the case of a Target being able to add some bushes to make-it look pretty but the developers presented us with a...we wanted to put the city somewhat in the drivers sea: on this and hence we had a meeting that involved members of the Planning Commission, HRA, City Council and the developers and some other folks. ! thought the process was a really unique one but coming out of that there were some questions again about that relationship between the HRA and Planning Commission. Growing out of that we've asked Todd to come to the meeting. Todd is, one of his hate is Assistant Director of the HRA and we thought he could help explain the process to you a little bit. Gerhardt: I think Paul sort of 1eld out the'ground work there. ! talked to Kate last week and there seems to be some concerns or it was brought up as a discussion or something regarding the Target development. She said well, why did the HRA go get Target and bring them to this community? ~hy are they here? The HRA has never, ever gone out and gotten anything that we have in the downtown or ~n the industrial park. ~e never solicit any type of businesses to this community. Everybody that has come to the community has contacted me to see if we have ava/labia land or whatever that ts zoned properly for these type of developments. And to take it a step back even farther, the downtown redevelopment started, oh I'm go/ng to say 20-25 years ago. And the reason for that development ts that ~ou had a lot of ~nappropr/ate uses tn your downtown area. You had a chrome company. Auto racer. Auto repa/r shop.- A boat repair shop. A lot of car maintenance facll~t/es, which aren't appropriate uses for a downtown. There's no real service or commercial aspect of any of those. And that was all m~xed in. You had a few ~n there. You had a bakery which was d~v/d~ng your chrome plat/ng company by a half trice piece of plywood. .! mean people knew what was bah/nd that door, they would be appalled. ! mean to see this facillty that was downtown was unbelteveable. The HRA spent close to $22,000.00 /n clean/rig up those chem/cals and dIspos~ng of them properly. The whole affect along downtown is a very comp1/cated process. You had an old gas stat/on that was converted ~nto a ba/t shop that..had contam/nated soils. Plumes of gasoline leak/ng from the tanks that needed to be corrected. You had an old gra/n m/Il that had burnt down that was bur/ed on s/ts that need soil-correction. You had a single family home, an elderly lady that lived ~n the back of a~l th~s that she Just wanted to get out of there you know. She wanted to be bought out. Ua bought her out early. You had the apartment building element that the HRA fought over years to figure out should this be /n the downtown. Shouldn't tt be. They really were sold on the /dee. It took them 3 years and that it was going to be a sentor houstng project, up until the very last 6 'months it got Planning Commission Heating Hay 20, 1992 - Page 18 converted into a subsidized, Iow to moderate ~ncome, regular housing. project. $o you know some of the developers we've worked wfth and some of the promises that were given to the HRA changed from minute to minute. But one of the processes that ! thought ! was always under the understanding La that they'd always bring in s~te .plans because they were always asking for money. $o they'd always show us the concept of what they were going to do. And the HRA says okay, if that's the concept but your process is one that they should take ~t to the Planning Commission. Heat all the rules and regulations that our Zoning Ordinance has la~d out and get City Council s~te plan approval process. And I can ~ee Brad Johnson coming-in and saying that you can't play too much with this development. That we're limited on some of these. Ns're l~mlted on revenues but ! mean, you are the ones that create the zoning ordinance. You're. the ones that provide the recommendations to the C~ty Council and the City Council f~nally adopts. The HRA has absolutely no say tn asking you to forgive any of those for any reason at ail and ! don't thank'It was ever their ~ntent to try to do any of that. They have architectural approval of buildings but ~t's very lfm[ted. It's color and'we stretch ~t to make sure, we tell everybody that you've got to pitch your roof. That you have to have a s~milar, you know they wanted wood shakes on everything but they're sa¥'ing- fire codes and everything else wouldn't all'ow something like that to happen. ~eil then we want something very s~mtlar and do a wood shake looking shingle or shangle. Nhatever they cal! them. That's about the extent...has taken th~s Into a site plan. They had qu~te a battle here a' while ago on Harket $quare. There were some members that felt that that should have been a pitched roof. ! don't know how.~any-meetings Paul and fought over that one trying tO f~gure out how this ~hlng could be pitched and what would It look Ifke if ~t was pitched. That would put a huge roof system on the thing and it would just, ! think Jump right out at you. Krauss= One thing that's important to know though Is the HR~ had set up some subsidy programs that were almost routine. If you were going to build In Chanhassen, there was a program where 3 years of.your Increment was used to pay down specials and I mean It's a standard program that we have. And ~t st~ll is a standard program. Okay? But the same way the Planning Commission's expectations over the last few years have raised, your expectations, demands for quality and development have been increased and the ordinances have been changed to back tt up. The H~A provides us some real dandy leverage to get better c~Jallty because we've been .taking the Stand for the last few years saying, you know. You want to be tn Chanhassen. Ne probably want to have you here and we're willing to throw some money In the k~tty to make tt a reality but if you're going to do that, you're going to do tt our ~ay. You're going to add some detailing. I mean some of the Issues with the Target stuff, I don't know tf we get into any detail on that but we're using some H~A funds. ~e're th~nk~ng of using some HRA funds to secure preservation of that stand Of trees between TH 5 and the site. Ne need to buy up some land to remove some ~nappropriate old rights-of-way that were allowed to stay. To induce them to build that, ~nstead of building Individual fast foods, to go w~th that courtyard concept. Things like that. $o the money or the Inducements are benign a lot of times. Yeah, we are, 'I mean the c~ty does ha~e an active subsidy program but it's not a one way street. Planning Commission Heating Hay 20, 1992 - Page 19 Gerhardt: And every time I go back, because Jim Bohn's going to get on me saying we haven't given this architectural approval yet. -I'm going to say, a lot of the other members because two of them sit on the Council have seen it. You know they've usually seen, they get'the Planning Commission packets and then they see It at the City Council. So I usually just grab the plans from Paul or somebody else and make photo copies of them and stick them in the HRA packet and ask for architectural approval based.on whatever the Planning Commission and CICy Council have approved. In some cases I'll just steal Paul's report that went to you and to the City Council and throw that in for architectural approval.for the HRA. So I think the HRA is sort of leaning on both the Planning Commission and the City Council to make sure that they see the developments the way the' community and the city want to see them. Batzli: Well Todd, let me stop you there b~cause I°m either not tracking or else I'm confused or I guess they mean the same thing. Whenever we seem to get a big project from the HRA, we're told that look. They spent a lot of money on it. There's been a lot of thought that goes into it. We can't change anything at this point. And what I Just heard you say I think is that you adopt architectural standard~ baaed on what we pass. So I mean we're not taking a look at it. Ne're not changing anything typically but you haven't approved anything before we look at it. Gerhardt: That's correct. Krauss: I think there's been occasions, I can recall sitting here where, since his name is on the floor, where Brad has played off one group against the other saying, and he's great at doing this. Well you .can't do this, the HRA already thought this was a dandy project. And then when he goes to the HRA, but the Planning Commission told-me to do it this way. You've got to give me more money. I mean ignore that because that's not the reality of how tt happens. Gerhardt: I didn't know he was doing that you know and then he brought it to my attention, Brad Johnson. I said well Brad, no wonder these people are upset. I mean they feel like they have absolutely no say in it and that you're a pawn in the whole game and that wasn't, I mean the intent. They meet once a month you know. They're very dependent' upon the Planning Commission and the City Council in reviewing these plane in more detail than what they're doing. I think what ~e've received through the downtown right now is some quality things. Staff has hammered on them before they get to the Planning Commission and that you know the HRA ~ould like to see pitched roofs and it seems to be the theme throughout the downtown. I think we've gotten some standards that are acceptable. But I . don't want the Planning Commission to feel as if you don't have, that you just pass this thing on. I mean you shouId give tt a thorough review. And If you want to see things changed or if 'you want to see something else, you know provide that recommendation. Then tf some developer'~ standing up here that this is a locked project and you can't Change anything, that's ridiculous because you can make any recommendations to City Council you want. ~nd that developer has every chance in the world to try to convince the City Council it should be the other way. And that's how-it's always worked. I mean when I was planning intern here, that's how it always has been when we did site plan reviews and.everything. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 20 Batzli: Yeah, I think the element that's missing from what you just said is the commercial reality of the project. I think, at least speaking for myself, there is a thought that it's kind of sexier, there,s more sizzle to be on the HRA because the project is done by the time we see it and that's, I think the feeling that for the most part, this is the way it's going to be or the project doesn't get done. That's the way it's typically presented to this g~oup. And so I think there was a feeling, at least from my perspective, that ~hat are we doing here? If the MRA wants it, that's the way it's going to be. That's the way we've seen a lot of projects come through. Is there a disagreement? Conrad: We've certainly had those cases were we felt, why. Helpless or that we really didn't have input. Krauss: Has that been recent though? Emmings: I'm trying to think of a specific project. Conrad: Yeah, I can't do it either. Farmakes: I can only think of one specific project since I've been on here, and that will be a year. That was this sign over here by the entrance· Market Street · Conrad: But nothing real recently. Ahrens: Well we haven't had any. Batzll: We haven't had anything in the last year really. Gerhardt: Well Market Square was approved back in October of 1990. Farmakes: Too, from what I've seen on some of this stuff, we rely a lot on vision of the developer for actually seeing a visualized development because we have a lot of empty area here. So it's, when we talk about architectural standards, people use the word but it becomes very Vague when you try to crystaltze it. And also I think that there maybe are different opinions as to, we talk about pitched roofs. Well, there are some buildings where a pitched roof is going to look pretty ridiculous. The end vision of Chanhassen of course has always been changing as the years go by. Conrad: See my impression, I 'm going to Jump on something, My impression is to grant, and this could be false. When you grant the tax increment status to a developer, and maybe it's a template type deal. You fit this, you get this. It's like that's when you have the leverage and you're the ones that are granting it and'by the time it gets to us, we don't have any leverage because you've had it all. Batzlt: Yeah· The commercial reality is that if we start changing things, they're saying well hey, we've already negotiated with one group. We've now negotiated with a second· ~e've still got to go to the City Council. Krauss: I've been here 3 years now and in every instance I can recall, but one, and it was one that Todd and I kind of scotched a little bit. This is Planning commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 21 when Brad 3ohnson was proposing Hardee's and he went to the HRA first and, [ mean [ think he wasn't even on the agenda. ! think he Just kind of showed up to one of their meetings and kind of coerced them into talking about it. But it was something that we managed to scotch. ! mean they never came to the Planning Commission either at that point. Gerhardt-' Well Americana Bank was a recent one that you had a review on that the HRR dealt with. The scenario I laid out fo~ you. I physically took the site plans that everybody approved and showed them to the HRA and they all sat there and said, they say the renderings and said yeah. That's a nice building. It's got a pitched roof. It's got some architectural style to it and will it have the cedar shake looking shingles? Oh yeah. It will have that. Okay. Well you can have your 3 year program. In some of the cases in the downtown, it tooks, I'm going to say, well ~4arket Square it took 3 years for that to get all the financing 'and everything put together on the thing. But all during that process they never looked at different renderings or played with their renderings of any sort. But tt took 3 years to physically figure out how you're goi~ to subsi'dize a grocery sto~e to operate in this community and over that 3 yeats, the market changed so the financial picture of aesistt~ that eto~e changed. And the whole aspect is changing f~om month to =onth. 'Same thing with the hotel. The public improvements aes~lated with that thing and tearing dow~ the building, relocating the watermain that went through there and some soil problems over there. I remember that one, that one didn't have a pitched roof at first. It had, it was one of these Budget 8 designs wi.th a mansard and it had a flat r~f. The HRA said no, or somebody said. I don't reme~er if it was the HRA, Planning Commission. S~ebody but ~ can't accept that. Z mean you're not going to come In with this big thing. Pitch it all the way to a peak and make it l~k, and you've ~ot a lO times 'better building today than what they first brought in with that ma~ard roof. As a matter of fact, they uae this as t~ir example to sell the franchises. They always bring everybo~ to Chan~ssen. They don't take them to Burnsville or Coons Rapids o~ wherever the other ones'are-. They bring them to Chanhaasen because this one really looks nice. Emmings: Maybe you've addressed this and I didn't get it but when somebody comes, do they go through the site plan process here before there's a commitment by the HRR? Gerhardt: I'm going to say in most cases they come here fib. st. If it's Just a simple 3 year deal where we write down ~koecials or we might write down some land, but the complicated ones. The housing project. The Market Square. I mean we're talking about 3 years. They went, Market Square went through here and got site plan approval before the HRR finally gave then full assistance. Emmings= Shouldn't they always withhold, even if they're working with the applicant, wouldn't it be a good idea for the HRR to say we .approve you subject to approval by the Planning Commission or just say, we think it's a good plan. Now you have to get approval from the Planning Commission and the City Counctl before we're going to put our name on the line. If that's not happening, why shouldn't it? Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 22 Gerhardt: In most cases developers won't take it that far. They won't invest the money into site plans and everything else if they don't know they're going to get the assistance from the HRS. £mmings: But how can the HRR tell them they're going to get the assistance before there is a site plan? That doesn't make any sense. Gerhardt: In most cases they don't, i mean they've, never given assistance upfront before they've come here. They'll give it their blessings, yeah. We'll look at it. Ns'Il consider your options. Go through the city approval process and then all through that entire process we'll negotiate and try to work it out type thing. ~hrens: The developer's think they're getting it at that point. Gerhardt: Right. Emmings: Rs long as there's no. Can you tell me that there's never a commitment by the HRR to a project and where they're obligated before there's site plan approval? Gerhardt: Well they should never be, maybe we've got to make it, between Paul and I make it clear to them that, and here's a perfect example. To Mr. Target here, my letter to him. The City will purchase 10 acres of land from Mr. Burdick for $4.00 per square foot and we sell it. Krauss: I think you've got to back up and tell them. We received a letter from the developer, from a potential developer, Ryan wherein, I mean the sense of the meeting that we had was that the Burdick site was the preferred site. The stuff the University folks did said that, showed us that that site was demonstratively better 'for downtown Chanhassen if 'it was done properly. So we got a letter back from Ryan saying, what are you going to do for me? I've got a list of 5, 6 demands, expectations. How are you going to meet them? ~nd it was addressed to Todd through, the HR~ because these are financial demands. He's not saying, and demands don't imply or don't in any way say, the'Planning Commission will look the other way and allow me to put a cinder block building up or something like that. Gerhardt: This is staff's interpretation. This is, he put 5 parameters together for the layout of Target to occur. This is from Ryan. To occur on the Burdick piece. Rnd he says the Target parcel, as laid out by Target, will be acquired and sold to Target for $3.00 a square foot. Well, you know I'don't care if Target lays out a plan but you know we're saying that you've got to get site plan approval and follow through with all the other things so I respond, the city will purchase 10 acres of land from Mr. Burdick for $4.00 per square foot and resell this property back to Target for $3.00 per square foot. This would ~ contingent upon Target entering into a redevelopment contract with the Housing and Redevelopment Ruthority, receiving City site plan approval, and other approvals consistent with the general principles as outlined in Scheme B which was presented to this group of individuals over here. Rnd it's Just the general principles of this scheme. This is what was presented at that goal session. Batzli: Why did we decide B and not C? Planning Commission Heeting May 20, 1992 - Page 23 Ahrens: I thought C was the one. Krauss: Yeah. ! thought C was the operative one. This letter hasn't gone out yet. Ne can correct it. Ahrens= C was the one that everybody thought was good because it's the building at the angle. Krauss: Oh, ! know what it was. It was C with the food court. Gerhardt= No it was e. Emmings: No. It's C. Ahrens: No, it's C. Yeah but.you know what else people liked this about 8. Krauss: That's the thing. That's what. I'm saying.. The C alignment and going with the B food court. Ahren~: Yeah. Gerhardt: I'm saying that they approved Scheme B with the general principles. That means you can lay out the building, and everything else but I thought it was. Batzli: But the roads were better on C I thought too. Gerhardt: No, they're the exact same. Batzli: Are they? I thought they had, the one ~as offset because we had a retail versus an office. ~ Gerhardt: They also liked just the two buildings up here instead of this big, long parking lot type thing here and it provided more green space there and that the building was brought away from the street here. Batzli: I thought we didn't like the fact that it was the back of retail. Gerhardt: Well in both schemes you're going to get that. But this one. Ahrens: But this was the office building/retail which is what people I i ked. Gerhardt: You guys need to rezone the property because it's zoned retail. Ahrens: Okay, we can do that tonight. Batzli: Let's rezone the little piece where it says office. Krauss: I should also add that in a lot of ~ays, ~ell one thing, two things you should understand. The HRA is not the only operative redevelopment authority in Chanhassen. The HRA is in charge of the downtown redevelopment district but the tax increment districts that have Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 24 been created in the industrial parks and-new districts that have been created in the industrial parks and new districts that we're going to' create are operated by the City Council. The City Council handles it in pretty much the same manner but. What do you mean they're operated by the City Council? Gerhardt: Downtown is a redevelopment district and what I°ll say is the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park area and that's within our redevelopment district and the redevelopment district is in the controls of a housing and redevelopment authority. And in somebody's wisdom'back in 1977 they made a very large district in Chanhassen that encompassed a lot of the industrial lands. You really don't take a farmland and call it blighted and redevelop it. But in that case it was what the legislators call pre-'79 district and if you didn't have that, you wouldn't have a downtown like you have now because with the economic development district and the restrictions against it, you just can't create enough increment and money that you can come i~ and buy the big building with all the, and appropriate uses in it. The' chrome plating and everything like that. Because it's an 8 year district and they're controlled when you create an economic development district to create an £DA which is an Economic Development Authority. And in this city the Economic Development Authority is the City Council unless the City Council pushes that authority onto the HRA or another agency. Krauss: So when new districts are established, like for the Ryan Industrial Park, that's wholly under the arm of the City Council. But also like to say too that a lot of stuff the .HRA does is pretty benign and I think you'd basically be supportive of it. I got the HRA to build us the Senior Center. That's where the money's coming from for that. The HRA is paying for the Highway 5 Corridor study. Ahrens: They're the only ones with the money. Krauss: True. Gerhardt: But I mean, they don't sit around and scheme up these things. I mean our meetings, we're out of there by 9:30. We.meet once a month. mean we're not even going to be able to meet this month because we don:t have anything on the agenda. Emmings: How do we get on it? Ahrens: Yeah. Gerhardt: If somebody has an idea, you know the Senior Center was an idea that...the¥ approve it so the money source is there. A lot of it stems off of ideas that the Planning Commission, City Council or some other commission comes up with. Emmings: Well there shouldn't'be any way a developer feels he can come here and play off the HRA against the Planning Commission. They should be told by the HRA that they have to go through all these other steps and they should be told when they're here that they have'to pay attention to the HRA. Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 1992 - Page 25 Krauss: And that's one of the reasons, I kno~ Matt hasn't been getting his agendas but that's one of the reasons why there is a liason person from the Planning Commission. It's also one of the reasons why I go to .probably a third of the HRA meetings because there's a planning item that needs to be carried forward or represented to them. Gerhardt: And the HRA can't take any projects on. I mean I come here once a year and we do an update and ! give the list of things that they're looking into doing. One was the senior housing project and the park out in front of .City Hall. Some of the other p~.oJects. Krauss: Well all the downtown streetscapi~g. All the stuff that we' want to do along TH 5. The City contribution to building a bridge, rather than a culvert over eluff Creek. The landscaping. The entrance monumentations that's going to go into downtown. The reconstruction of TH 101. That's all HRA. Emmings: ...the monumentation and so forth. Did we ever see that? Conrad: We talked about it. Emmings: But was there any kind of,. now there's-a. Krauss: I don't think it has come before you. Of course they haven't been able to make up their minds anyway. Emmings: But now why ~ould or would it not? Should it? Gerhardt: Those are little amenities I guess you know. Like the clock tower. The little gazebo in front of the Dinner Theatre. Those things. Those are decorative entry monuments in the downtown. I don't know how you'd do a site plan wi th this kind of stuff. Emmings: We do a lot of things where the city's the applicant. You know. we're planning to do this and so ~e're coming through the. The reason [ thought about it is, years ago they. brought up some monument signs for entry signs for Chanhassen and they were Just awful. They looked like' 'a cheap subdivision. Gerhardt= I remember. Emmings: And they sho~ed them to us but not to get any approvals or anything. Just kind of keep us apprised of what was going on. Now the new ones that we've seen the plans for ! think were nice and everything like that. Batzli: Actually we didn't like the style of lettering I thought. Emmings: That's right. Farmakes: ! had more to say to it than that but ! agree. ! thought it was pretty much a forgone conclusion we didn't, they were Just waiting to get our comment. PLanning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 26 Emminos: But if we're sittino here and talkino about standards and talktno about what Chanhassen Is going to be and what it's ooino to look Like and all those things, I don't know why we wouldn't have input on an issue like 'the monument. Krauss: it. not a problem to run tt past. Ne can make sure that you get Gerhardt.' Nhen! did show you that concept, ! think once we get some construction drawings put together, we'll bring it in and have the review on it. ! think It's a good idea. Emmings= Did anybody follow up on 3elf's suggestion for lettering? Gerhardt= I went to the HRA and.they're going to look at changing the lettering. They agreed. Farmakes= Yeah, I guess I would have had more to say if' I thought, the point I was making, I would have more t-o say specifically about the sion [f I had thought that [t was still [n development. I'd rather Just make that comment. I wasn't expecting to show the draw£ng and I Just free formed the comments on the spot so. Batzli: The issue ! think ts, ~['ve never felt that the HRA was scheming behind our backs. Nhat :l: felt though is, ]: didn't know.what .they were doing until It came before us and then ! always have had a feeling that we didn't really the ability to change it. Either because of t-he way it- was presented or because of the developer standing there saying, Look. Ns'ye already negotiated with one group. You're trying to get two, second,. thtrd bites on the apple and so I think personally [he issue ts, how can we find out what it ts that the HRA La going because I c~n't think any of us want to do that job. Ne're all kind of busy enough doing this. But how do Ne find out what they're and how can He work together so Chanhassen gets better development? That's really what we need. I don't think any one of us wants to set here and play God over what the HRA decides. Farmakes= It's not only that but the communication between these different Levels gets back to that original think. Crystalizino that idea. 'Nhat exactly it is we want this city to look like rather than just have the developers bring in what we're going to get. Ahrens: I think what we're most concerned with at this point too is the Target project. I mean that's why you're, here. Gerhardt= Right · ' . ..- Krauss: Nell and that's why we asked, we broke the mold on how to handle that project wlt-h that meeting. [ mean that did br£.ng toast-her, or supposed to bT/no together. ]: don't, th/nk we had any HRA members there. [4ell the two Council members that are on ~.he HRA but basically we had Planning Commission and City Council representattori there. Ahrens: And we don't-want it to come to us and have It be a done deal. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 27 Gerhardt: It won't be and this Is again another one that, you can see that they're already making representation to-the HRA prior to going through this because they don't want to commit to Chanhassen until they know what their costs are. That they can tie up a piece of property that the City will potentially come in and condemn Charlie James' piece and that if they don't do that, will they have the righ-in/right-out off-the Burdick piece? Those are some things that the city has no control over. We don't have control over the right-in/right-out. That's a County road. They're the ones that pass the resolution limiting the number of cars that can travel on it. But the HR~, and it Just really bothers me that it came across as if these were slam dunk things that came to you. If I have to follow every project here and stay here and listen to the .developer, that you have every say in changing something if you want, I'll do that. Because that's not the intent of the HRA and if they Here all here, they'd say that. Because they expect a thorough site plan review with all the rules and regulations that we pass through ordinances. ~nd it just bothers me-that there was that feeling out of this and it wasn't the intent of the HRA or staff or anybody to give you that indication. And Target is a perfect example. I'm trying to find things that we can make sure that this is a nice building and that it does meet some of the architectural styles of what we want to see a 116,000 square foot facility like. And they come out and say, we1! it's going to have brick on it. tdell, do you even want brick? You know our brick buildings are the bank, you know what I'll say is .the public facilities. There's very few other buildings in the downtown area that have brick. The school, post office, the bank and city hall are the only brick buildings in the downtown. Krauss: But still, that along with site plan review are decisions that you'll be making when you get it in front of you. Our discussions with Target have in no way predetermined those kinds of issues. The only thing that we're trying to push it towards are those kind of gross issues that we got some concurrence on from that last meeting about how access Should be mai ntai ned. Batzli: There was concurrence? Farmakes: How realistic is it commercially to ask a discount realtor to build a Kasoda Stone edifice? I mean how, where do.you? Krauss: I don't know if that's the right building material or not. Gerhardt: They'll walk from it. They won't do it. They ~re in litigation with the facility over in St. Louis Park for 3 years in putting that kind of brick on that facility. If they ~ant to be here bad enough, they'll give some other places but Kasoda Stone, they'll Just walk from the deal you know if that's going to be the criteria for everybody. But you can only implement the ordinances that you have in place you know and you're limited to some effect because we don't have a brick or better ordinance. Well, to some extent. Krauss: We have architectural review. But this' is one of the' places where the leverage of having an HRA that's partially funding a project comes in real handy. You can go, ordinances deal with-minimums. Here's the minimum Planning Commission Heeting May 20, ~992 - Page 28 crlterta the ordinance has. But, if we're gotng to give you $600,000.00, here's our expectations from you. Conrad: Yeah but that's exactly the point Paul. That's where I feel, I don't have any problem with the HRA. I think it's, and ! don't think anybody here does in terms of feeling that you're trying to do something without our involvement. Todd, I don't have any problem with that but it's exactly what Paul just said. If we felt we could thro~ some stuff into the negotiating pool, because I do feel that our hands are tied pretty much by ordinances. In fact that's the way I want It. The ordinance should be out there to lead the way so the developers know what the standards are. -But, if we are contributing to their project, sometimes we may want to go beyond what that ordinance is but we can't do it because we felt the deal's been cut. You've negotiated the trade off before it got in here and we didn't have a chance to go beyond. All we can do is implement with what we have control over and typically those aren't. Gerhardt: When the HRA's hit up from the developer's side saying boy, we'd like to build this project in Chanhassen but the market isn't there yet and we need your assistance to build this thing. We're limited on resources and the market can't really support a full service grocery store and blah, blah, blah. So that's the end the HRA hears. There's .not a housing project being built anywhere in the Twin City area without some type' of public assistance. Just the architectural style 'Of that apartment building. When they first brought it in. I don't knc~ if you remember Ladd or not but the concept that they brought in to the HRA. This thing had bends and angles and decks and they all had their special little peaks and was all brick and everything else. Well all you've got now if Just an L shape building with a deck sticking out the side and some brick up there. That's it. I mean far different than the first concept that they brought in to the HRA. This was supposed to be a glamorous a~et to the downtown. So I mean we were all taken for a ride on this one. Emmings: Now how did that happen? I mean if' they present you with one thing and you commit funds to it. Gerhardt: They never committed to that. Krauss: Yeah, what they built is what was ultimately .approved by the City but, and that's before my time but I think that the initial renderings were of a much more grandiose project. Emmings: Yeah, they were. Krauss: And then when they ran numbers on it they saw that it didn't work even with assistance and they started throttling it back. Emmings: Did they give HRA assistance on that? Gerhardt: It's a very complicated. Emmings: Oh, you can't say yes or no? Planning Commission Heating Hay 20, 1992 - Page 29 Gerhardt: Yes, we did. Yeah, but...I've got to deal with lt.' right now. It's a very complicated formula on how they get this assistance and then the HRA is also supposed to get money back from it. It's just, but yes. They did get assistance to locate there. And It goes out for several years. Earnings: The other thing I guess is, you know we eat here a little blt last time and said well, just as an 'idea, If Target doesn't want to have. If they want to say we're going to bring in our building and you can take it or leave it. Are we comfortable saying, waving good-bye to them as they leave our community. I think everybody was pretty comfortable with that. And then that raises another question you know. Is It possible for an HRA to go out. If we decide we don't want Target and tf there are things that we would like to have, can you go out there and solicit? Can you go out and seek the kinds of development or developers that you'd like to have to work with? Gerhardt= I tried it. I asked the HRA would you like me to go solicit Red Lobster Into this community and they told me', no. We shouldn't go out looking for specific users. We'll deal-with people as they come' In. I really got read the riot act in trying to go look for this Red Lobster and I wasn't going to touch it again you know type thing. Emmings: What's the thinking there? Gerhardt: They just don't want to go out looking for spectftc users. They don't want to cater to. Krauss= This ts one property that the HRA ts actively marketing. There's ads in the paper and what not but Todd's just not going door to door to specific doors and asking. -. Ahrens: Why wouldn't they want him to do that? Krauss: I don't know. I mean Todd and I talked about that and we'd both like to be more proactive. Batzli: It's stunning to me that you don't choose people that you want in your downtown so that you have the right mix. I mean why wouldn't you want that? Farmakes: I would think if you had two competitive restaurants that were discount developers, that you would get, you'd be in a better negotiating position. , Gerhardt: Well, to get a Red Lobster out here you would have to get into the subsidy aspect of it because most of the times they locate somewhere along the 494 strip or somewhere where they've got populouses surrounding them by 6 to 7 miles on each side of them. Where we don't have the populous to the west of us as of yet. - Emmings= Is this a restaurant that you particularly like? Gerhardt= No. Planning Commission Heating May 20, 1992 - Page 30 Emmings: How did you pick-Red Lobster? I've never been inside one. Gerhardt: It was one that was brought up by one IHRA member. There was interest by one HRA member to see this thing but it didn't need to be a Red Lobster. An Olive Garden or a Ciatti's or anything of that sort. Some type of nicety that you don't have in Chanhassen. Not a Hardee's'. If we're going to have a restaurant, ~e didn't want to see a Hardee's or-we've got a McDonald's but a fast food thing. And I think the site down on West 79th Street is a restaurant/banking facility type setting.' It's got enough depth that tt aZIows for some nice Iandscaping and parking a~ociated with some of these. And it's not big enough for a T&rget. It's not big enough for, I was going to say a Walgreen's or a bigger type facility. It's a 10 to 12,000 square foot building pad area down there. For two buildings to exist. And they didn't want us going out looking for Spec/ftc things. We went out and I think Fred did talk to several different type users for the. property and the market lsn't there for some of tho~e things to come to Chanhassen. Of the sit down restaurant types. Batzlt: It would seem to me for example though, if we had determined that we wanted a large retailer in that particular site that that Target is iooktng at, tt would make sense to me to go to WalmaFt and Target and K-Mart and whoever else and say look. We want a retailer. Give us your best shot and you're going to get a hack of a lot better development doing that if we can decide what we want on a' spot than lett£ng someone come tn and. Gerhardt: Target...! mean Charlte 3ames who owns the piece on the north side has built, I'm going to say, at least 12 to 15 Walmart stores and he's already been contacted by the K-Hart people so t.hat's why Target has. Ahrens: For that site? Gerhardt: For his site. Ahrens: There's a K-Mart right down on TH 101. Why would they do that? . Batzll: And a Walmart going in across from Flagship. We're going to be innundated. Gerhardt: To add to the fear, K-Hart also has what is' called a Pace store. This is a Sam's Club type thing. They have the K-Hart-over there but they don't have the Pace so you bring in your Pace and your Builders Square type thing and they call it a po~er center. You br~.ng in all these uses all together on one center. Farmakes: The Sams Club is in an industrial, area in St. Louis Park. Gerhardt: But it is a retail use. Krauss: It's also in a shopping center in Inver Grove Heights. Ahrens: How about Northwest Health Club? Nice site for it. Farmakes: ...pretty iow buck warehouse operation. Planning Commission Heeting May 20, [992 - Page 3[ Ahrens: Low buck warehouse? Farmakes= Yeah, you bet. BatzlI: Let me tf I can try and do something with this ~o ~e're actually going somewhere and that is, do we expect to get something .out of this item tonight? Are we looking for improvement in communication? Are we looking for more input from us? Are ~e looking for, to get a [Iason attending the HRA meetings so we know what's going on? And the second issue that we need to decide, so we can move along here is, ho~ do we work aIth the Target development down on the west end? ' Gerhardt'- Well right now, I mean you've already started some of the negotiations with these people. ! mean you have two choices. Do you want to see the Target on the Charlie 3ames piece or do you want to see It on the Burdick piece? Right now Target's playing one off the other. They'd like to go on the BurdIck piece but there's a lot of problems that go along with the Burdick piece. You've got storm water ponding. You've got the trees. You've got a lot of grading that needs to be done on .that. Ahrens: I think we made it clear ~e didn't want 'it on that piece of property. Right? Emmings: On what piece? Ahrens: The Burdick piece. Krauss: No, no. That's the south piece. Ahrens: Or.. Emmings: Charlie James is across the street. Gerhardt: The James. Okay, well, Target picks up on that kind of stuff. They said, well if you don't want me on the Charlte James piece, .you're going to have to give-in on some of this stuff. On grading you know' Ne might need some help on the fixing and grading. That type of thing. Batzli: I think looking at. the thing that we got here, you mentioned that we're not zoned properly for the office and I think that after looking at the development plans by the University p~ople, that that above our West 78th Street should be zoned office and so ! think we should start doing that right now. Ahrens: ! agree. BatzlI: Let's do it. We don't want retail up there. Ahrens: With delivery trucks-and everything else on .that side. Gerhardt: Well there's such a glut of office. That piece of property's going to be vacant for the next, I'm going to say 15 to 20 years at least. Planning Commission Heeting May 20, 1992 - Page 32 Ahrens: Yeah but because there's a glut of office does that mean that we settle for something we don't want there? Krauss= No, I would never advocate that you dictate your decisions based upon the market because the market changes all the time and it's really irrelevant. The issue of down zoning or changing the zoning of the property I think it's something that you can initiate. I'm not sure if the Council would back it up or not but it's a different-set of issues. Can ~e bring together something for you on that? Emmings: What's that? Krauss: Are you really all directing us to bring.an action before you to down zone that property to office? Emmings: I wouldn't support that just as an initial reaction because we've always been concerned about running out of retail space in the central business district and there's no demand for office. And doing it Just to frustrate Target doesn't make any sense to me. Ahrens: Well it wasn't to frustrate Target. Emmings: Well, that's what it sounds like to me. I think I don't care so much where Target goes as bo~ they do it if they're going to do' it. I'm less worried about where it is. We're talking about whether it's going to be on one side of the street or the other. I guess I'm less worried about which side of the street it's on as to how it's.going to look when it's done. So that is my feelings on it. Conrad: I agree with Steve. I'm more concerned, I don't care if it goes north or south. Until an argument is made not to put it north. I do care how they fit in. I do care how a parking lot as big as theY're going to create works in downtown Chanhassen. Ahrens: You know at that meeting it was, the north part was discussed at length and I think the bio concerns ~ere that we didn't want delivery trucks pulling into, on what's the street that runs? Krauss: Kerber. Ahrens: On Kerber Blvd. where the city park is. Where City Hall is. Where there's a lot of kids and everything else on that side of the street and there would be no way to develop a Target on that site and not use either, not have a lot of unwanted truck traffic and delivery traffic in areas where we don't want it. ! mean ! think that ~as the big thing. Emmings: Well can Kerber, ~hat kind of a street is Kerber? Can you put truck traffic on it? Krauss: Well Kerber can handle the traffic but it was also that, the plan that was developed by the developer for that sho~ed Target facing ~ith the door on the west side which gave us two 30 to 40 foot high dead walls. One on 78th Street and one on Kerber facing our park which really fundamentally was the end of downtown if you did that that way. Planning Commission Heating Hay 20, 1992 - Page 33 Ahrens= And that was the only way that they felt they could put the Target on that site. Emmlngs= Then they can't do it. Krauss= Well but see, that's the thing. They can do it.. They can fit one by ordinance right now and it's a real alternative, for them. We might not like it and what we're trying to do is theoretically use the leverage that we have through the HRA to do it where and how we think Is the more appropriate way of putting it In. Gerhardt: Right. I mean the HRA is saying, we're not going to give you any ass[stance if you locate on the Charlie James piece. Based on this community meeting, it was decided that the Burdick piece would be the preferred site. We would look at providing the dollar square foot write down. Writing down the specials down there similar to our 3 year program and however you've got to go through city site plan approval process and all that and enter into this contract. That you have a minimum market value so we can generate a certain amount of taxes to pay all this off over the years. ' The key, ! mean the negotiations have already started and I think Target wants to be down there but again, they like this Cottage Grove effect where they've signed petitions. Say come to our community. Come to our community. And It's not the feeling like that [n Chanhassen. it's not come to our community and if you are going to come to our community., we want to see a quality project, we ~ant to see'you preserve the'trees. We want to tuck you back into those trees so we don't see theme 20 to 30 foot high walls and that you do come In and landscape the'area.. You turn your building so we get some type of visual effect that's pleasing. Not big old walls and a few trees scattered along aide. And [hat's what Paul's Job and my Job is to express that to Target. That they come in with a site plan to the Planning Commission and City Council and HRA that is acceptable to everybody. Emmings: That piece on Kerber across the street from the park, for what ~lll be the park, seems to me, that might be worth looking at as a separate item for some kind of special treatment that's compatible with being next to City Hall and across from the park and everything else. Krauss: Yeah, and see we really. Ahrens: Isn't that what we were talking about? Emmings: Well we're talking about everything north of West 79th Street at one time. I guess I'd be concerned about the corner. Ahrens: I think that's what I was talking about. Krauss: The process that we went through on this site-was really kind of neat because for the first time. One of the. primary goals of the Highway 5 corridor study I think is to be able to do this sort of work so that we're not playing catch up when a developer comes to town. I think you saw that with one. I mean Bill Morrish Just said academically we know that Fleet Farm bought the corner out on TH 41. Nobody's saying, committing to a Fleet Farm going there but if you're going to set the academic design Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 34 exercise, how could you put a Fleet Farm in there reasonably and'he came up with some pretty good Ideas for that. And if In fact this corridor study says that's a commercial corner, we would adopt a couple of possibly alternative concepts in the plan which is an appendix to our Comprehensive Plan. Ns're going to say look it. You want to rezone this site-to commercial. You're going to have to meet our guidelines and here's our guidelines. We did that for the Target. It's the first time we ever did it. I don't see why we couldn't do it for other sites in town possibly including the Charlte James piece, Now the down side of the Charlie 3ames piece honestly is a legal one in that he's already properly zoned to do lots of stuff so our leverage there is not one of zoning but rather what, the only leverage we have is really what we can leverage through the HRA. subsidy. We cannot play the game if we don't want to but somebody could still go ahead and put something else in there. Conrad= Without HRA assistance, what's the extra cost to Target to go into the James property? Ie it something that's possible? Krauss: I don't think we know yet. Conrad: Might they? Gerhardt: Go to the Charlie James piece? Conrad: CouId they do It? Gerhardt: Oh yeah. Paul and I saw site plans 2 days ago that showed that it could fit and meet our zoning requirements on the Charlie James site. Conrad: And financially they might do it simply because of getting .position in this marketplace? Krauss: You know a half a million dollar subsidy. Gerhardt: Charlie James...with the city assistance, ! mean it's $700,000.00 worth of assistance that would be generated off of' this facility over 3 years. So I mean Charlie would like to work with us so he could get that $700,000.00 worth of assistance. His site isn't perfect either. There's a lot of grading that needs to occur over there so. Conrad: Does Target see any financial loss or gain? Krauss: ! don't know. When you talk about a $700,000.00 subsidy for a store that cashflows how many million dollars a year. Ahrens: They make that on a sunday. Krauss: Yeah, I don't think it's a big deal you know. It's a bigger deal to the developer and the landowners who are massaging the do[tars on the front end. I really don't think it matters to Target that much. I mean they're going to cut, their business, people will cut ithe best deal they can and they're real big, they seem to be real adept at playing off different properties against one another and the city's position, as articulated by the City Manager is, guys we're not going to play the game. We think we Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 35 know where it should be. We will do what we can to put it there but you put this package together and come back to us and we'll work with you. Otherwise, don't ask us to play. Emmings= And are you telling me that if they decided for whatever reason to back that store up to the park and the City Hall with their loading docks and everything else, that they could do that and there'd be nothing we could do about it? Something's terribly wrong if that's possible. Conrad: I guess the question is, is there something we should do a~out that right now? Ahrens: Yeah right. Emmings: Well that corner sounds like it needs some protection that it doesn't have. Just on the corner. I don't know'about the rest of it but at least on the corner. Krauss: Well Target, this is not a two parcel deal. Target also has an option in on the American Legion site. If you think the site plan for Charlie James' piece was bad, you should have seen that one. Gerhardt: I think you've got to get a rezoning for that one. because it's not an appropriate use. ...grant it Ahrens: Back to Steve's question. How do we do that? with that dilemma? How can we deal Krauss: Theoretically you could change the zoning. I say theoretically because I'm not sure what the exposure we would have. Ne might have bought the site. In fact frankly, we've been using the HRA to buy up sites so we get control over it. We bought up the outiot in Market Square. We've been doing that. Gerhardt: Well yeah, right across th~ street. The parcel out in front of -- City Hall. The HRA is buying it. If the HRA did not buy that, you could see a Super 8 built there today. As long as they made all the zoning requirements, they could build a Super I in front of City Hall and you'd never see City Hall anytime into the future off of West 78th Street. Krauss: We could initiate, we being you as the City Council or Planning Commission, have the ability to initiate rezonings without the property owner asking it. We clearly have the-right to do that. Whether or not a court would find that in so doing you took the guy's property and you bought it. Conrad: Is there another mechansim? Is there something tn an ordinance that we could do that would prevent a 30 foot wall being built? Krauss: Gerhardt: One thing we could, we're thinking of doing is. Pushing the building farther back. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 36 Krauss: Well, when I laid out the Highway 5 corridor with the. consultants, we included that parcel in the Highway S corridor so if this sits a~ound long enough for us to finish this, it's going to be under an overlay district that gives us some additional control' and we may be able to' leverage things like mandating that you do a PUD and establishing fi-tm design guidelines that I'm not sure what the legal standing of that is but I think we may have a fair shot at it. Again, the problem is we're dealing with underlying zoning. Underlying zoning canveys a package of property rights. And if we take too many .of them, we bought it. Emmings= And is that true, can you Justify it.by virtue of the fact that you've got a park across the street from it or on some other grounds where you don't wind up? Krauss: No. I mean a taking isn't mitigated, by the' fact that it's a good idea. Emmings: It would seem to me even that that site shouldn't have a building that's, now that's zoned commercial right now? Krauss: Yes. Emmings: How tall of a building can you build on a commercial 'piece? Krauss= Where do we have that? General business. Gerhardt: I think the bank at one point was 35 feet tail. Emmings: It seems to me on that corner you wouldn't want anything over 2 stories. Just to keep the park, keep everything real open. Krauss: Well a two story building tops out at 30 feet. Emminge: I can't think of how that would look. If you were looking from the other way, that would appear'smaller than City Hall? Krauss: Well no. It's actually'on a site that's lo,er down than City Hall so from the west. Gerhardt: I think it's about 25 feet. city Hall's about 25 feet. Emmings: But it sits up higher. Gerhardt: Right. You get this tuck in thing here. If you stood right out in front, it's 25 feet from the ground to the very top. About 12 feet. 12 1/2 feet for each floor. For a 2 story counting the basement. Emmings: Maybe it's something you can think about how we could. We're not talking about all of Charlie's property but just' the corner I think. I don't know how far back but. Krauss: Well again, I like to think that our beet abenue ia to use a resource that we have that almost no other city has which is that pile of cash that the HRA is willing and able to use to influence things. PlannLng Comm£ss£on Neeting Nay 20, 1992 - Page 37 Emmtngs: But you seem to be saying that that's chicke.n, feed to Target if they decide to get ornery. Krauss: I think it's chicken feed to Target in terms of cashflow but it means a lot to the upfront developer and the-underIying property owner. So once you get the ball rolling, then it's chicken feed but getting i't going is the thing and we're priming the pump with that. Conrad: Target's not going to want the James' property just because of visibility. That's a big deal. Krauss: It depends on when you ask them. Ns'va heard both sides. Yeah, [ mean Target is very good and professional at playing that game. I mean one day we hear fr'om Target that their store criteria mandates that they must be on a highway. The next day we hear .that they're looking at the Charlie 3ames piece and that the problem with the Burdick-piece is that the City's insisting the trees stay Up so you can't see it. Nhich one is it? Nhich day do we believe? Gerhardt: And that's why Don is taking the.approach, we're not getting involved in this. You pick your own site you know type thing. Ns're saying we prefer you on the Burdick piece and that we would give some- assistance if you locate on the Burdick piece. If you locate on the Charlie James piece, you're waving your hands of $700,000.00 and that's a lot to Charlie James because Charlie's going to have to make up that $700,000.00. Because if he goes down onto the Burdick piece, he could get $700,000.00 and Target knows that and he's goi-ng to say wel! Charlie, if you don't go get the $700,000.00 from the city, I 'm going to go down to the Burdick piece. So he's playing both of the landowners off of each other. These guys play games all the time and that's why' it'.s nice In this one that we can just sit back and say this is the way the community group that met would like to see tt laid out. Ne'd also like to' have some architectural styles for the building and how it's laid out on the site. And that we want to preserve the trees and if it means, we'll even take an ownership position in the trees-. That the HRA would come in and buy the trees so they don't have to sit and own them. Because in our ordinance right now, if they had ownership in the trees, year, two, three years later they can come in there and clear cut them and there's nothing we can do... Batzll: Todd, is the community group going to continue to meet or was that a one time deal or how are we going to work from this point on? Is it going to be Target and the HRA going back and forth until they put a site plan-together and then we'll see it? Gerhardt: No. No. This letter commits to what the HRA's Lntent te for subsidy. It's a 3 year deal. Ns'Il enter Into a redevelopment contract. I'll bring in the site plans once you've approved them. City Council's approved them and this one will be played through exactly like Americana Bank was. There won't be anything taken to the. HRA. I'll keep them updated. It will be on the agenda so whoever gets the packet, they'I1 see an update on Target and that will Just be the progress of how they're going through the City process. But right now Scheme B or C is the intent of how that land's going to lay out in it. And that'the HRA is going to provide the assistance to make sure that we buy the Charlie-James piece and add the Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 38 Burdick piece to get that food court area down off of CR 17. And that between Paul and I hammering on Ryan 'to come up with a site plan that seems to be acceptable tucked i'n behind' the trees. Batzll= Okay. Sounds good. I think we need to also get our liason starting to attend so we do have some communication back and forth also. Gerhardt: And I don't know who gets the HRA packet but there's not a lot of detail to those packets... Krauss: So even though you haven't been getting them, there's nothing in it anyway. Gerhardt: You haven't been getting them? Ledvina: No, I haven't. Gerhardt: Well, we'll make sure you get them. There isn't one for this month because there's nothing on the agenda for them. Conrad: You know the Planning Commission's never done a good.job' of attending HRA so if we're concerned, ! think well Matt, you don't have responsibility yet but after the first packet, you're accountable. Gerhardt: And there's also agendas in the newaloaper the week'prior to the meeting so it is in there too. So that's something new that's been added. Conrad: But I guess Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of how you want to, if we care about the issue and we spent an hour and something on it, does Matt give us some reports? Do we-expect that? Or 'are we just going to keep it informal? Batzli: Todd just said that HRA [s out of it now and the site plan comes to us next. Krauss: You mean in the normal chain of events will there be? Batzli: Or are you meaning in the future on other projects? Conrad: In the future on other projects. Gerhardt: Yes. Batzli: What I would actually like to see more t'han that is if Todd could come in. Ledvina: You mean a written report? Conrad: No. Oh no. Batzli: I think it's fine that Matt's going to do that to the extent he can and he has the time but I would prefer to see Todd come in here from time to time and let us know what's going on. Planning Commission Heating May 20, 1992 - Page 39 Gerhardt: I'm going to follow each of the site plans that the I-IRA has any say in. You know Tom Zwinkel, Mail Source, you reviewed that one. Again, you approved site plan approval before they even approved a development contract for that. That mill be the process from now on and ! will follow each of the projects. If they come in to explain to you that what the HRA has talked about to date on each of those projects to make sure that there is no m[scommunication from developer to Paul to Planning Commission. Conrad: So when are you going to do that? Gar her dt: into. Whenever a site plan comes in where the HRA might.be entering Conrad: And you haven't cut a deal at that time? Gerhardt: No, we never. We never wilI from now on. If there was anything. Emmings: Now you Just said whenever a site plan comes in. Are you talking about a site plan, because do sometimes site plans come into the'HRA before we see them? Gerhardt: No. Emmings: Okay. !'m not sure what you mean then. Gerhardt: Somebody will come in and say, you know this it the kind of buildings we build for housing projects. Would you give us assistance in doing something like this and the HRA says yes. Ns'Il consider, it. It was done over here on the apartment buildings. It's mostly apartment buildings where people, come into the HRA prior to that. Because they don't want to move ahead if the HRA isn't going to gi~e them money. Because it's really contingent upon apartments getting some tax increment assistance. There's not too many that have ever been built where they haven't gotten it. So those are the cases where they might come to the HRA with some type of concept. And if that person comes to you and says, this has already been approved by the HRA, you don't have any say in it. That's when I'll'be here to say, that's not correct. The HRA has conceptually given authority to look at providing assistance but they have to go through the city site plan approval process first. Emmtngs: Or just a short thing from Todd in our packet on that site plan. Just like we get things from the Fire Department and the Public Safety and everything. We could have a letter from the HRA saying here's our understanding with them to date. Then-he wouldn't have to be'here. Gerhardt: I might have a racquetball game. Emmings: Ne all know that's primary in your life. Batzli: What I'd also like to see though Paul is if we can have Just copy of their agenda put in our packet. So that if we have a question what the hack are they doing with this or that or the other, we can at least be advised. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 40 Ahrens: It is in the paper. Batzll: Yeah, if you catch the right day. Gerhardt: It's small print. That's not a problem for us to throw an agenda in. Batzli: I don't want a copy of the Minutes or anything big. Cut down a bunch of trees for us but that way if something catches your eye and you want to know something about it, we can follow up. And if we don't follow up, then who's fault is it? Emmings: Yours, Mr. Chairman. 8atzli: Okay, good. LOT SIZE R~JIR~T, That's settled. Okay, thank you Todd. - Krauss: Before I mention that. The tree protection easements, Tim Erhart asked to have on and he's not here tonight. He asked if you'd mind if that got continued. Batzli: Tree protection? Krauss: Yeah. Batzll: Is that the former conservation easement? Krauss: Yeah. Batzli: Yeah, we can continue that. Krauss: And the' architectural design guidelines. I mean that was Just kind of a general discussion item. It's getting late for general discussions but that's up to you. The lot size requirement. Boy, I felt like I got my soapbox down and was preaching to the City Council. Do you want me to summarize what I said or do I need to do that? Batzli: Well, I think like I told Kate, I couldn't tell which way you were leaning. Why don't you Just come right out and tell us. Krauss: Well, yeah. I do have an opinion on that one. And I' think the Council largely agreed. Now it's tough to define the intent of-the Council sometimes but in terms of a move to increase lot sizes, there was none. After going through and reviewing my memo with them, there was no-move to do that. There was also some desire to see the idea of the PUD be brought to a head. Now as to what minimum lot size would be acceptable on a PUD, there was no comment. Emmings: No comment? Ahrens: No comment? Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 41 Krauss: Well no, they didn't decline to comment. They just never got quite around to it. Batzli: No consent. Krauss: Well they didn't even, I continue tolbelteve. It's hard to define what people are thinking. I continue to believe the Mayor's got a concern over smaller lot sizes. We did discuss the PUD at. some length. discussed it. In the context of the belief that the design flexibility would really be useful and that in the Hans Hagen Home development we have a perfect example of even if we kept the 15,000 square foot minimum average lot size, that we could have done a pretty decent Job or better Job with that and responded positively to some of the concerns that Ne heard raised by the residents, yourselves or the City Council. And the Council didn't disagree with that. 8ut again I don't know if it's the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size that they're willing to accept or if in fact they're willing to accept any kind of diminishment of lot sizes. What I would propose. Emmings: What about the idea that we don't specify minimum lot size? Are they willing to? Krauss: I really don't think, my sense is I don't think they'd buy that. It's throws open the door. Emmings: To what? Krauss: Nobody knew. Emmings: To 5 foot, square foot lots? Krauss: One of the things that they really did accept and I think'had a lot of interest in is the idea in PUD's and out of PUD'S to establish a minimum developable area which is something we attempted to do in the last draft of the PUD ordinance. Where we said even if we allow 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes, you"ye got to demonstrate to us that you've got a, let's see here. I don't know if I can 'find it on the spur of the moment but it's a, I think it was a 60 x 40 building pad, room for a 10 x i2 deck and room for a 30 foot rear yard. Exclusive of easements and wetlands 'and everything else. Batzli: $o how do we do zero lot'lines with those requirements? Krauss: -That doesn't apply to zero lot lines. That's single family detached. Batzli: $o that's Just single family detached PUD? Krauss: Yeah. What I've done, what I did in Hinnetonka and what I would. think that you might want to consider here is when you're talking about single family, zero lot line or cluster housing. Z housing or whatever you're going to call it, it's a very valid housing style. It's a valid concept but my own personal belief is it may not belong'in a single family' district. And where I proposed it earlier to you and where we ultimately Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2992 - Page 42 did it in Minnetonka, we said that's fine. It's a good style of housing but the density of it is such that it belongs in areas that are guided for medium density housing. Batzll: We can argue'about PUD for as long as the Council can and what would propose we do is, first of all I -wa~t Paul to tell me at least one good thing about a larger lot before we move on. one good thing. You didn't say one good thing in your paper. Give me one good reason. Krauss: The guy at the hardware store who sells fertilizer, really likes them. . Batzli: I knew you could come up with something if' you tried hard enough. I think we need to move. Pass it onto the Council. If they don't like what we do, fine but they have given us no guidance up to this point. It's clear they're' not going to tell us what the magic number is. We just need to get, if we want a PUD for detached RSF, kind of single family environment. Let's do it.. Let's pass it up there and let them wrestle with it. We've wrestled with it for however long I've been shouting about it. Farmakes: Dick, is there any feeling on your part that tt's somewhere between 10 and 157 Or is it commercially viable to go ahead and stick it with 157 Are they going to do anything with it? Krauss: Well 3elf, I don't know what the Council's going .to do. I honestly don't. But ! think when you ask the question, do we even need a minimum lot size, I think you need a minimum for the sense of security it provides if nothing else. That nothing will ever be smaller than blank. Batzli: Do we have a minimum right now? I don't even remember. Emmings: Why do you need that for security? Krauss: [ personally don't. Emmings: Your security is that you have to do a rezoning and you don't have to rezone it if you don't like the plan. Ahrens: He's saying for security for people who are worried about minimum lot sizes. Batzlt: I mean we're doing an ordinance now to protect the Current Emmings: I'm a current resident, ! don't .need protection. I really strongly feel that way. Batzli: Well then you can end up voting against whatever we do. But let's decide one way or another what we would like, at least 3 or 4 of us would like to see in a draft so we-can vote it up or down and pass it onto the Cou nc i I. Planning Commission Meeting Hay 20, 1992 - Page 43 Krauss: I'm sure not going to read it now but this is the last draft that we looked at. Farmakes: I'm assuming they would support 15 wouldn't they? I mean I've taken that for granted. Or am I? Emmingm: Well why would a developer want to go a PUD with 15,0007 Farmakes: You're absolutely right. Batzli: That was the whole point of why I asked him to look into it. Krauss: I'm comfortable with the fact that if we're demanding that you accommodate a 60 x 40 home, a deck and a back yard, there are very few instances where you'll be under 10,000 square feet anyway. I mean because remember, you've got a 30 foot setback on the front and then you've got the house and then you've got the deck and then you've got the back yard. Yor lot's starting to stretch out right there. Batzli: Okay, but what I would like to see, Just as a conceptual and l know that you've got the average lot sizes must meet or exceed 15 and that's in bold here so we can decide whether to keep it or strike it. ~nd the 10,000 square foot minimum. We also have the applicant must demonstrate the 60 x 40 building pad. I don't recall that there was a lot of other debate left on this. Krauss: Mo. It.really did boil down to that. Batzli: But you and I talked the other day and maybe you can repeat for everybody else. Ladd's concept of having a density rather than, you know putting a fairly low minimum in there to give people comfort if they need comfort. 10,000. 9,000 feet. Whatever that is. Make it low enough so that you basically couldn't get any lower and still have a 60 x 40 foot building pad. Whatever it is. How does density help us or hurt us? Having a minimum density figure in there. Or maximum density or whatever we're going to use. Krauss= sure. I'm trying to recall exactly what I said. Fairly profound I'm Batzli: It was. It was very profound. Conrad: ~nybody remember it? Batzli: I'll get you started here. -~s I recall, we were talking about how that ties into the Comprehensive Plan and do our ordinances in general do that? Should we be doing that in this particular instance and is it helpful from the standpoint of will we be getting better developments out of it? I think your opinion at the time at least was that, well you didn't commit but I think you indicated that it would be ~orth looking at. The question is, is it worth looking at and do you think it would.be helpful Just off? Planning Commission Heating Hay 20, 1992 - Page 44 Krauss: ! think to tie it back into the density though raises the same doubts and concerns that eliminating the minimum lot area has for people. I mean theoretically it's a good theoretical construct. ! don't have a problem with it as long as we get decently utilizable lots. But at this point I'm not going for philosophical purity.- I think that the ordinance, the way it's structured right now, it doesn't give the development community probably exactly what they would want which is somebody coming in on a parcel of ground saying Z want this in it's entirety to be 10,000 square foot lots. But it does give a good builder like a Hans Hagen the flexibility to do the Job that he felt, and [ agreed, should have been done on that property. Batzli: Can we then direct instead, do something that Steve talked about earlier and that is saying we'll go down to 10,000 square feet and then instead of saying, average lot.sizes for the project must meet or exceed' 15,000 square feet. Why can't we say, and this Is I hope, I think Steve said this at some point or another in the last 3 years talking about this, was why can't we say, look our average lot size out of a PUD is 15,000. If you start going below these lot sizes, ~e're going to look at it carefully. [ mean put in an intent statement that tells the developer the smaller you get, average lot sizes and minimum lot sizes, the closer it is we're going to look at it. Put everybody on notice and why can't we do it that way? Krauss= We sure could. gives. I mean I ~ould love to have the flexibility that Ahrens= Ne'll allow them to have smaller lot-sizes. Batzli: They could have smaller lot sizes but at' least it. ~ould put them on notice right up front so they don.'t come in here and say well gee, we've got this and that and now we got to go through the expense of another site plan. At least we'd be able to say look right at our ordinance you know. We told you up front. When you start going to these small lots, we're going to look at it and if we slam dunked you, sorry. Ahrens: I like that wording. Krauss: If you're comfortable doing it that way. ! mean that gOeS back to more original and pure intent of what a PUD is supposed to do. Batzli: Yeah. Well that's what I think we have to pass up to the Council because I think that's what the Planning Commission. I mean we've been wrestling with it and my crusade to keep the 15,000 and make it attractive by doing something else has died a glorious death so let's move it along. That's my motto. Would people like to see that kind of language or with a minimum in there of 10,000 square fast'like we have it right now? Would you feel uncomfortable backing it up with 10,000 square foot minimum plus language talking about kind of the intent?. If you get smaller, we're going to look at it closer. Anybody? Farmakes: The point is, if they wanted to change that figure, they would. At least they'd commit to what the" difference would be between 15 and 10, if there is any. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 45 8atzli: I'm sorry, who would commit? Farmakes: City Council to give us direction as to what they want to do wi th that Batzli: Well we may never see it again. I mean they change the number. Farmakes: I understand that but it's still the problem is sort of we've got this boat dead in the water. 8atzli: Yeah. Yeah. Well I think we have to pass it up. I'm trying to find something that we can at least have 4 people vote on and send it up. Emmings: I would be interested in the density approach. I"m kind of interested in the idea that you've got to have a minimum size of a building pad, deck, and stuff exclusive of easements. I don't mind that idea. don't want the 15,000 in there and I don't particularly ~ant the 10,000. It sounds like a good, strong intent statement. Here's what we're doing. Here's what we're looking for. Batzli: Well I think we already have the intent section in there in our PUD. The question is whether you want 'another intent section in RSF. Emmings: Yes. Krauss: It's probably appropriate to do that. That's not difficult. Emmings: It's always smart to put the intent in there. Ahrens: On those 9,000 foot lots in Near Mountain, are those 60 x 40 building pads? Krauss: I honestly don't know Joan. I mean I think they've got fairly good sized homes on them. Ahrens: Yeah they do. And deck. Krauss: And to the best of my knowledge, we haven't had a lot of variances or any variance situations up there. Batzli: I hope they meet sideyard setbacks. Krauss: Well, I think the sideward setbacks were relaxed for the entire PUD. Batzli: So what concept would you like to see Joan? Let's take a straw poll here. Ahrens: I'm still thinking. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I like the minimum building pad. I'd just split the difference between 10 and 15. I think we have to go on with this thing. What is this Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 46 the fifth time it's come back? Split the difference. Other than that, your intent statement is fine. I Just think we're talking about a difference between 20 x lO0. Batzli: We're talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a man. Farms kes: Batzl i: We're talking about a very small piece of property. Okay. Matt, what do you think? Ledvina: The history on this goes back way before me but I think, I' Can see the argument for both sides. The security issue of having the numbers in there. ! can see the purity of i~ you're going to have a PUD, why don't you Just, if you've got the control in other forms within the ordinance, why do you need to identify the numbers. So '! don't know but ! think generally a minimum of lO,O00 in terms 'of keeping the thing moving and giving the developer something to work with. ! would support a minimum of 10,000 square foot. Batzli: How about building pad'?. Do you_ want to see that .in there? Ledvina: Yeah, I think those are reasonable things. I added it up and I don't know, maybe I didn't look at this exactly but I got about 6,200 square feet looking at my calculations on the setbacks. So that doesn't make 10,000 square feet but no. I like the idea of having the setbacks. Ahrens: If you have the building pad and the setback,'but you could put. that on a 6,200 square foot lot. Nhat's the point of having that in there? If you want to go along with a 10,000 square foot lot? I mean what's the point of saying it has to meet these minimums? Batzli: Nell because you could have wetland. You could have a lot of things. You could do the deal like they had over on the Ersbo property. Ahrens: Yeah but if we're saying that the lot must demonstrate it has 60 x 40 building pad, 12 x 12 deck. .. Krauss: If you provided those things, you have a 30 foot frontyard setback. The house is 40 feet deep. You have a 12 foot deck and a 30 foot yard, that's Just depth right now. You've got 112 feet of depth. To maintain a 60 foot wide building pad, you need 80 feet for l0 on the sideyards. So you've got Just under 9,000 square feet would be the absolute minimum that somebody could do. You've got ll2 so if yoU'add 112 time 80. Batzli: Okay. So what do you think of the intent statement? Do you want' to see an intent, an overall intent statement? Krauss: Wait, wait. I've got to take that back. We did relax the front yard setback in a PUD to 20 feet so you could knock off. Emmtngs: You've got 102 x 80. So now we're down to almost 8,000. 8,160. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 47 Ledvina= I think there should be a.n intent statement in there Just to. 8atzli: Overall or we're going to look at it more closely if you start getting smaller? Ledvtna: I don't know what you mean by overall? Batzli: Well, Steve wants an overall intent statement of here's'what the PUD is. Emmings: I want the other part too. The smaller you get, the harder we look. Batzli: Oh, you want that? Emmings: Oh yeah. Batzli: Oh: I thought you chided me and didn't like that at all. You said you didn't like that at all. Emmings: No, no. When I said intent statement', I meant. Batzll: Let's take a vote. Who thought Steve said that I was. Ahrens: He Just changed his mind. Emmings: I'd like to go home. Batzli: Okay, so we want intent statement. Okay, Ladd what do you want to vote for here? Conrad: Are we going to do something tonight? Batzll: We're going to tell Paul to put something together so we can vote on it next time. Conrad: Ah, okay. I still like the overall density direction and getting rid of feet. I'm not sure what the number is .but something that's comparable to development today that we feel comfortable with. And if we don't have the votes for that here. Batzlt: We don't so far. .. You and Steve. Maybe me. Emmings: Joan's still thinking· Batzli: Yeah, Joan's still thinking but I'm Just, the people that spoke. - Conrad: I'm also trying to think of what's going to make the City Council comfortable too. Batzli: Density's not going to make them feel comfy. Farmakes: That's it. We'll get it back a sixth time here. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 48 Earnings: No, because then they'll make a decision to do' it another way. They won't send it back to us. Batzli: They won't see it for another 3 years if. they send it back to us. Emmings: I think we shouldn't try to anticipate what City Council's going to do. What we should do is the best job we can and then give it to them. Conrad: But my perception is they might not settle on a solution and if we can give them a solution that they can buy into, we've got a good chance of getting something through. But if it's not palatable, I don't think they're going to come up with one. Batzli: So your contingent choices are? Conrad: I can go along with the lO,O00 feet in here but I do need, some of' the wording is Just not comfortable yet. Like I really do want to communicate to that developer that it's not Just a mix but, every time a mix of lot sizes. I'm not real thrilled about going under 15,000 feet period. And I want them to know that and I don't want it to be a standard. I don't want to set, what we basically said is 15,000 feet is the standard here and that, all of a sudden that's exactly the number that they're going to come in at on average. Basically 15,000 feet is the minimum for a single family subdivision. And so I'm not sure what we're communicating in this. Rnd words are real important and so far I'm not sold that we've communicated to the developers what we want. Rnd I know that that's not much direction for staff to word it but I'm Just not there yet. But I can accept some of the numbers that are in here. Batzli: Do you want to see a building pad in there? Conrad: That's okay. Yeah, I don't have a problem with that and i don't have a problem going down to 10,000. I really don't have a problem going down to 9,000. I guess my problem is, if I saw' more than a few that were down that small, I'm not going to approve it. I can see one or two and 100 or 3 just because it may be the right thing to do. ! also can say, from a philosophical standpoint, if there are, the reason Near Mountain works on a 10,000 square foot basis is because there are a lot of trees. That's the only reason and it's got' some elevation here and there and therefore it looks good. Well, a developer comes in here and they're going to put some 9,000, 10,000 square foot lots in th-e middle of a farm field, that doesn't look good. I 'm not going to approve it. But I want to communicate that as much front end as possible so I don't ~aste his time, or her time. Batzli: But I think if you, not to you and him fight, but I think that what we're proposing with the PUD's is if we had a farm field going up into trees, we'd put the larger stuff up in the trees to save the trees and the stuff down in the corn field would come in as. 9,000 square foot lots. think that's the direction staff would push on. Conrad: Probably so and I might have a disagreement with that. Because I'm taking a practical example of something that I, I guess'we'll preserve the trees by putting the large lots up there and I understand that. But in terms of quality development, the reason Near Mountain looks good at the Planning Commission Heating May 20, 1992 - Page 49 9,000 square foot in their PUD is because they had a lot of, they tucked those houses in. Variety of styles, I don't know if I could say variety of . styles. Not a variety but a fairly attractive housing types in trees in a terrain that was kind of rolling and not flat. I'd like it. I might not like a 9.000 square foot development in another situation. ! don't know. So I'm not sure what we're communicating. I don't want to communicate to a developer the potential of doing something w~n I don't ~ve,'~ ~on't ~nt to mislead them I guess is my bottom line too. Batzli: Joan. Ahrens: I think that we should go with, I don't have any problem with the language in here. The average lot size is. 15,000'. ! think we should have an intent statement. Building pad thing should be, wording should be included. Batzli: Ahrens: Do you want to go density or no? No. Batzli: And the minimum? Ahrens: I knew that was coming. Minimum. I think we should have a minimum of, actually I feel uncomfortable having a minimum square foot in there. Batzlt: So you'd just leave it as we need an average and a building pad size? Ahrens: Yes. With an intent statement. 8atzli: I don't like the average because I think you're going to end up with the PUD that has 4 or 5 huge lots and everything else is small. That would meet it. Granted it may not meet the intent section but I think it's, I don't think it accomplishes what we want it to do so I don't really like the average other than as part of an intent"section which basically . says, our minimum lot size in other districts is 15,000 and so to the extent you're going below those kinds of numbers, then we start lookinQ at it more and more carefully. If it's included in the intent section. You don't even have to put the number in there. I mean you could basically just say, we're going to look at it related to lot sizes in other districts or whatever. Then we can look at it how we want to look at it. So I don't know if the 15,000 even needs to be in there in that regard. I 'd be interested in looking at density but it doesn't sound to me like Paul' is gung ho about the whole thing and I don"t .know how it would work. I think we're going to end up with like, I think ~e'r~ going to end up looking at the density anyway during the development process. That's typically something that when the lot sizes start getting small, we end up asking those questions. 'What is the density of this project? 5o I don't know how much that adds. It's an interesting concept though because it allows both us and the developer I think some flexibility. And I think that's what the intent of the PUD should be. And so I don't know whether we're giving the developer enough flexibility to make it worthwhile to them and yet have not only a pleasing resource for the city but a nice place for the people' who Planning Commission Heeting May 20, i992 - Page 50 move in to 1lye. And those two things'I think are what we need to be worried about. Unless we make it economically attractive, the developers aren't going to do it anyway. And so we'll find out right away once we pass this thing, I th£nk whether It's economically realistic-or not. And maybe we'll make a mistake. Maybe we'll have 'to come back and address it but we're going to flnd out right away when we start seeing plans coming tn, one way or another. If we don't see any for the next 3 years because the City Council puts a minimum of 15,000 square feet, we'll know. Conrad: Well it didn't work at 12,500. Batzli: Yeah. Conrad: · bJe got no takers at 12,500. 15 down to that number. .. Showing the flexibility coming from .. Batzli: Well we had very few. Krauss: Yeah the only one really was Lake Susan Hills which was a big one but arguably the City didn't achieve any of the goals that we think you should be in a PUO. Ahrens: Practically speaking, I don't think developers are going to come in though. If we're working' with average lot sizes, come in and fill this 200 unit housing development and put 4 large lots in or half a dozen large lots and everything else small Just to meet the minimum. Krauss: If you're really concerned about it, you can put a statement in there that lots larger than 40,000 square feet will only' be counted as 40,000 square feet. So you artifically juggle the average. Ahrens: Who's going to come in and buy. I mean practically speaking, somebody with the money to buy an acre, and acre and a half lot is not going to buy it in a subdivision of 9,000 square foot lots. Krauss: It doesn't make sense., right. Ahrens: They're not going to do that and a developers not going to attempt to sell expensive lots that way. I just don't see it happening. Conrad: Okay, correct me if I'm wrong. You can, if you've got a wetland there, the wetland will count for your lot size. Krauss: But we can define that too. Conrad: And that's important. So you could end up having4 way, you can divide up your wetland and end up with 4 large lots of x number of feet, huge and then every other property comesin at 10,000 square feet. Emmings: I get screwed up on this but why do we let them count wetlands? I don't understand that. Of course if we're going on density, we avoid that problem. Another good reason to go on density folks. Conrad: That's right, if you go on lot size. Planning Commissi6n Heating May 20, 1992 - Page 51 Emmings: But even if we're going on lot sizes.-.It seems to me they shouldn't be allowed. I didn't think Lundgren Bros. on the Ersbo thing should have been allowed to count what was under water on their lot sizes and [ think we should get rid .of that. Krauss= Well, and that's a problem throughout our-subdivision code too but the Lundgren development, ! don't want to open up old wounds but the Lundgren development had an average lot size exclusive of wetlands of 18,000 square feet. Emmings= Yeah. ! didn't mind the development. ! didn't .tike them drawing the lot lines out into the wetlands and saying this is part of this lot. That I didn't care about. Rhrens: Is that what TF said? Krauss: TF? Oh yeah. 3900 Wayzata Blvd.. We actually make them though draw those lines to the middle of the wetland for a different reason. We prefer not to go outiot status on the wetland. Emm/ngs= Yeah, you want it in ownership? Krauss= Yeah. Emmings: Yeah ! guess that's okay but when you tell us, maybe it gets back to using the buildable area. I like that idea much better. It seems much more honest to me. Farmakes: I think that's ho~ he did it in his cha~t. He used the total figures when he was charting them. Krauss: No ~e actually made up, the last.time this came through we. 8atzli: The last time. Farmakes: The first time we saw it here, .he used the total. Krauss: Yes, but we presented 'charts that. Farmakes: He was asked about the question when he was up here and he said, yeah. It should be out to the middle of the lake. Conrad: I think density has it.. Emmings= [ agree. Batzli: Well, the density, I mean even if something is zoned PUD and it's developed PUD, the comprehensive plan densities still apply do they not? Krauss= Yes. Batzli: So the only thing that that does is give. us mote leeway. It doesn't. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 5'2 Krauss: Well I don't think It does much of anything for you since It allows up to 4 units an acre on the low density category.and that's 10,000. Well, actually maybe it does. [0,000 square 'foot lots. We're right in that ballpark. $o you can't ever exceed that anyNay. Although, once you knock out roads. Emmings: Right. You're down to your 2.8 whatever. Maybe less. Batzli: [ think the things that have at least the votes to pass here are building pad, intent statements and ~'he minimum .lot size. ! don't know how Tim would vote. Zf he'd go density or not. 'Ahrens: T think he'd go average lot size. Emmings: I do too. That sounds like Tim to me. .We'll find out next ~eek. Batzli: But I don't thank average carried the day other than Joan and perhaps Tim. So give us a lO,O00 square foot mifiimum, intent statement and building pad. Krauss: So we eliminate the 15,000 square foot average? Batzli: I think so. There was a minority of people ~ho liked that. Krauss: I'd be happy to do it that way. ! mean that's the way I would have preferred to have done it. Batzli: Oh, sure no~ he says. Krauss: No. ! mean Hans Hagen came in and was able to do it with a 25,000 square foot average and when I saw that, I said ~ell maybe [ can salvage something out of this and if ~e can get a PUD that at least does that much, maybe I can get enough flexibility.. 8ut this I think gives us more. Batzli: So unless Tim comes in and is really gung ho with density, then we'll go this route. Emmings: I have a question. Farmakes: ...convinced that they can still turn this do~n If they don't like what they see? Batzli: The City Council? Farmakes: City Council, yeah. They're hung up on the minimum pad. That's the numbers. That's the hang up correct? Emmings: Oh no, but then he tried to get some direction on that and it doesn't sound like he got any. Farmakes: No, I understand that but the original problem was the lO,O00 square foot figure. That's ~hat the original problem Emmings: It's still-the problem. Planning Commission Heating May 20, 1992 ' Page 53 Farmakes-' The understanding is that that's not a zone requirement; you could still can the ~hole project correct? BatzIi: You could can it because you ~ouIdn't rezone it. Krauss: Well that's right and that's a critical thing. R PUD is, I forget what they call it. Legislative-action. I mean it's a rezon[ng. You don't have to, well you have a lot more latitude 'to turn 'it do~n. Farmakes: I think it's an important point Nhen it's being brought formard because if that's what is frightening to the Council, that's their lever to flush it down the toilet and say they don't like it.' Batzli: Okay, that's a wrap. Steve? Emmtngs: I remember some time ago, and this feels llke 'it was a long time ago, when ~e used to see Jo Ann. 3o Ann once said we have to do the shoreland zoning. Krauss: It's in process. Emmings: That's a long time it's been in process. I kno~ she said we don't have to do it right away. Krauss: We have 2 years. Emmings: And I remember I t~ought, but if you've got it right there in your hand, why don't me do it? Krauss: Well because I'm arguing mith the DNA. Emmings: About what? Krauss: About their model ordinance. Batzli: Yeah but didn't we Just see something on our last packet as an informational thing? Krauss: In fact the swamp committee asked that we put it on their agenda. I don't see why we couldn't do the same for you. What as'ye done is. we taken what we have and taken what they would like us to do and we've laid out, we agreed that this makes sense. We don't think th'is makes sense. Aanenson: Or ho~ we've already addressed it on our ordinance. Emmings: We certainly have an opportunity. We can make, our standards can be more strict than their's. Are you talking about? Krauss: Yeah. Some of the things they do like., a shoreland district is' anyplace mithin 1,000 feet of a 'mater body. Emmings: That's every place in Chanhassen. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 54 Krauss: Within 1,000 feet of a water body, you have to have larger lot sizes. 20,000 square feet. You have to, ther®'a all sorts of other things that it trips and I 'ye long maintained that that's ridiculous. ! mean are you telling me that everything within 4 block, 5 blocks of Lake Harriet is in a shoreland district and should be 20,000 square feet. That's what the law says. It's a stupid. It's made for every lake in Minnesota and up to 14,000 we have, maybe it works for most of them but it doesn't ~ork very w~il in the metro area. Emmlngs: There's no distinction between what's within municipal limits and what's not? Krauss: Not a bit. Emmings: That doesn't seem reasonable. Krauss: And there's no distinction between what's in the 'metro area. Emminga: What's sewered and what's not. Krauss: Well they do have a.sewered and non-~ewered. Aanenaon: And it's classification of a lake. Krauss: But why don't we throw it in your packet because we h~ave it written up. We can show you ~here we're at. Emmings: I Just happened to think of it. Emming~ moved. Ahrena ~econded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carrt:ed. The meeting .as adjourned at 10:15 p.m..1 Submitted by Paul Krausa Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim