The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 04 03CHANHI REGUL/ APRIL Chair MEMBE Brian STAFF Plann, OPEN PLANNI RESIDI Emmin! order feels minut, we're here. Conra, Steve, Emmin( Ahren~ Emmi n( estab] this. suggee throu.< have. for r( wrote Ellso~ Emmim Kraus: Emm i n! spend as bat ConTa( Emm i n! to reall ,SSEN PLANNIN6 COMMISSION ,R MEETING 3, 1991 an Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. S PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings, Batzli, 3elf Farmakes, and 3gan Ahrens PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior r; and Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I ISCUSSION: UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS/DISCUSSION OF PUn'S FOR NTIAL DISTRICTS. s: I guess what I'm going to propose that we do here is take them in and spend no more than 45 minutes per topic unless someone really a burning urge to talk after that. Or maybe we'll spend 45-50 s on each one maximum and then come back to any one that people feel not done with. So let's try to just focus and do that and get out of I don't know exactly. : ...good job but you just told us we'd get out of here by 11:00 I can see through the screen. s: No, I'm looking at the clock. : Do we have limits on how long each person can talk? s: Let's not talk about it otherwise we'll burn up our 45 minutes ishing a procedure. I guess I don't think Paul needs to introduce I don't know what the best way is to go through this. I'm open to tions but otherwise I think maybe we ought to go section by section h the stuff that Paul's written and then see what comments people The other thing I wanted to ask Paul, as far as what you've drafted visions to the PUD ordinance, do you think that what's here is, you this before we heard the presentations by Shardlow and Terry Forbord. : They did a good job by the way. s: Yeah. Did someone get them a letter and thank them? : I haven't but I could. s: Yeah, I think it would be a good idea. It was nice of them to their time. And I thought it was kind of useful although it was good kground. : As primer. I wish we had more time to talk real issues. s: Yeah. Or to talk about how we can put language in our ordinance to what he's talking about because what he's talking about sounded good but I was going to ask you if you thought that what you've Plann 4pril writt~ ordin~ use t} Kraus.~ the m( revol thing staten rev i e~ docum~ do PUD w~ OUT e) unsatj for sJ Forbo~ belie, appro~ right experJ flexi~ rewrit desigT in ex don't would have look Terry the pi and e% heard Emmin~ wi th at son think on thc Kraus~ shots prese kinds can. Ellso Kraus: famil' lands, single reside ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 2 n here and the direction that you're heading in revising the nce is going in that direction or is going to get'us to where we can e PUD ordinance in the ways they were talking about? : Yeah. I think basically what we have drafted is consistent with del ordinance that 3ohn gave out. I mean the model's not tionary. We've been, in professional circle~ we've been ~eeing the~e' circulating for some time. In terms of his intent or the intent ents about achieving the kind of goals that were outlined when you ed the different types of developments, I also think that's in his nt. One area though of the draft that I think warrants change has to h single family development. Since the single family chapter of the s so new and since the experience in Chanhassen, or what we thought 3erience in Chanhassen largely was with PUD's, appeared to be so sfactory, I didn't propose any changes to our current PUD standards ngle family. But I think that growing out of particularly Terry d's comments or his illustration of what things can look like, I e there's a 9,800 square foot lot, I think we may want to rethink our ch to those districts. The way our single family section is handled now, it's basically designed to prevent all the abuses that we ence but it doesn't give anybody any design guidelines or ility. Hence it will never be used. I think that that can be ten to allow much reduced lot sizes in exchange for architectural and standards in exchange for different but regimented setbacks. That hange for guarantees that plans will come in with decks on them so we have the variance problem. A variety of things that we can do. It 't be too hard to tinker with that along those lines and I didn't chance to do it before tonight but I really think that you should t rethinking the single family section. I found Forbord's comment, on that pretty persuasive. And I think you're all aware that we in arming department have been stung repeatedly with abuses of the PUD en we didn't want to touch it until we rethought the issue having what Forbord was saying so I think you can consider that. s: Let me ask you this. Terry showed us pictures of very small lots ouses with very small front ward setbacks. Do you think by looking eone's plan for a PUD that had those kinds of characteristics, do you you could look at the plan and tell how it wound up looking so nice slide? Do you know what I mean? : Yeah, and I don't think you can because the shots, what makes the very pretty are the background of the mature trees that were ved. The high end architecture. The high end landscaping and those of things are sort of market driven. Well actually, some of that you : Well tree preservation would certainly be a good trade off. : Right. When you think about it, the PUD ordinance for single can mandate those sorts of things. One of the issues I raise in the aping paper is that all our landscaping standards completely ignore family development which I think is wrong. But certainly in a ntial PUD you can demand a landscaping budget for each house. You Plann Apr i 1 can d, you dc archit what ¢ coven~ would this. That never we ' ve there setba~ restr rewor flexi was . Emmin the s, that ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 3 mand higher level of tree preservation and those sorts of things so have that authority. You do have the architectural ability to have ectural control. One of the things that would happen in the PUD and idn't happen in our old PUD's was that there would be a set of nts or development contract would be filed against the property that nave very specific guidelines that every buyer would know going into Any buyer that uses an attorney which should be anybody these days. my out exactly what the flexibility and responsibilities are. We had that with Pheasant Hill. I mean the developer just said okay, got 10,000 square foot lots. Go do whatever you're going to do and was a little bit of flexibility on some of the setbacks, side yard ks but they just went off without any limitations or direction or ctions at all and I think we saw the result. But we can easily this section to outline what we want in exchange for this ility. And I'd be happy to tackle that if the Planning Commission s: Well as long as we're on this subject why don't we, page 13 is ngle family detached PUD ordinance. Maybe we ought to just look at irst. I guess my concern is this. I wonder if it's possible to writelan ordinance so we wind up with something that's going to be as effectlively done as what we saw in those slides. I don't know if it's the stand~ the bt Ellsol like can t have have one s Kraus: loose ExactJ stand~ type buy i peram you d( Ellso~ they KYaus Emmin~ deviat of al Kraus: want rds you write in that give you that or if it's just the quality of ilder. : He's basically saying that you can ask for more quality it sounds o me. Let's say they're not that caliber but they want a PUD. We en impose to make them a higher standard. Maybe all his developments men low end kind of siding or whatever. We can now say because you he PUD, you can't do what you did in Brooklyn Park. You've got to do ep better. We'd have more flexibility that way. : I think that's quite accurate. We don't want to have an ordinance enough that's dependent upon the whim of the individual developer. y what we'd want to do is be sure that we have a set of minimum rds that say, you want this flexibility. You want to achieve this f thing, you're going to have to basically buy it. Here's how 'you · You give us the architectural standards. You give us the design term. You give us the landscaping and tree preservation otherwise n't get it. Go build your 15,000 square foot lots. : And hopefully the trade off is good enough on their side too so an have more units in a smaller area or something like that. : Save on streets and save on utilities. s: With what's written here under (a) regarding all the minimums and ions from the minimum lot sizes and so forth, would you just get rid of that? : You'd have to completely rework that, yes. I think you'd still minimum lot size possibly. There's another thing you should Plaon, April consi~ housi Emmin: Kraus,~ housl on th, Emmim Kraus.~ and I that s perta you p' consi< lot ar lands< pictu¥ wa ntt But ye Ellsor Ahren:! with n Ellso KYaus: desig other shoul, PUD y~ ng Commission.Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 4 er. When I wrote this I raised the potential of zero lot line g which is a different animal. s: Well this is the detached section though. I know but that's where it gets confusing because zero lot line is often detached. It just has one wall of the building that sits property line. s: So then this is real incomplete for what we're talking about now. : Yeah. Now I have drafted ordinances dealing with zero lot lines eluded to that in this thing but I didn't give it to you. I can do ery quickly but yes, we completely have to drop or redo the standards ning to single family. Now for strict single family neighborhoods, obably still want to have a minimum lot size. You might well er that 5,000 square feet is just absurd because that's a Minneapolis d no matter what you do to the building, no matter what you do to aping, it's going to look like a Minneapolis lot. But we saw in the e that something under 10,000 square feet seemed to work so maybe you o establish the minimum at 9,000. We can research that a little bit. u very clearly want to state what the trade offs are. : Now he didn't have a whole lot of 9's though. : He just had a few and he was positioned with a pond behind them ature trees. That makes a big difference rather. : Right, versus the whole thing turning into a cul-de-sac. : You give them the flexibility and then they come to you with the so we don't have to do that. We just have to critique it. One thing that we've never done in PUD's that this ordinance does and we do in single family is, I've always firmly believed that within a u give lots of flexibility. Where that PUD bumps into traditional development, you're very careful to insure that that outside blends That alonglthe perimeter you've established sufficient setbacks that loo~s like the dC lopment next door. Emmin~ : Sounds like a blending ordinance. Have we been here before? Ellso : We threw that away a long time ago. Don't bring that up again. Emmin : Well are people, I think this needs a lot of revision. Are people in zero lot lines? Erhar : How do you maintain the wall that's adjacent to the next guy? KT : Covenants. Erhar : Doesn't the roof have to cover both of them? Plann April Kraus~ lines attac lined one e adjac, have ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 5 : No. Most zero lot lines, there's different kinds Of zero lot A townhouse could be zero lot line but that's zero lot line · Physically the walls are attached. They have, they call them z zero lot line where they have relatively small building area and ior wall of that detached home is shoved onto or virtually nt to one of the property lines and then the open space that they generally courtyard type concepts. Very highly landscaped. Intense utili' Lzation of relatively small areas and usually enclosed by privacy fence hedges or something like that. : So the buildings aren't next to each other? : No. They could be one over here and then one over there. Just 'ed. Ahre Aren't those houses on Mtnnetonka Boulevard zero lot lines? : Yep. Exactly. Ahren~ : They're across just west of City Hall on the south side of Minnet nka Boulevard. Kraus~: I haven't been over there to see how that turned out but the ordinance I wrote for Minnetonka for zero lot line homes was written speci' ically to allow that project to go ahead. Ahre : They're almost all built. Kraus~: But there are additional trade offs that you want to insure with zero t lines that you don't normally do with small lot single family. Becau~ e what happens with zero lot line is you're so close to the other party that you have to have strict.architectural controls to make sure that the throom window of this house doesn't look into the living room window of t next house or that the air conditioner compressor isn't under the kitc n window of the next house. You know...location of utilities is real import nt. Ahrens: And there's obviously no decks. r the b~ space but tf that ~ up ont pieced : They actually put their design in from the outset because I er going through some models over there that they do have decks in ck. In fact zero lot line traditionally, what they use for open is you have very small private open spaces adjacent to the building ey open up onto common spaces that they have landscaped greenways un down kind of a central court behind these units and that they open o it and you restrict fencing that would .cut that up into little so it becomes an amenity. It's a different animal though again than small lot single family. Ellso : The benefit is what? It's giving people affordable housing? Kraus: : What you find, yeah. Terry made a lot of comments about building for secific markets. Demographers will have oodles of information showing April you tt looki tradi virtu he's middl Ellso Kraus~ quite to dj1 requil maint~ coopel 1 ct ot You m~ Emmin! secti it wo Kraus~ Emmin~ Kraus: I sup~ could thing~ Emmin,, ordin, Kraus,, of re,, of de~ Emminl take Batzl! commu Emmi n Farma Emmin, Batzl ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 6 aging of the baby boom, the aging of society and what not. People to get out of traditional single family homes have often ionally looked to get into townhomes. Tom Workman's neighborhood is lly entirely seniors at this point because of the housing style that n. Zero lot line homes typically are kind of move out housing for and older aged folks. : Empty nesters? : Yeah, exactly. Because it's not cheap housing· It's oftentimes expensive. There's economies in doing it that way but you can build ferent market segments but there's very little private maintenance ed. Because of the close proximity that you have, you have nance, cooperative maintenance for building exteriors. You have ative maintenance for landscaping areas and private streets. $o a that stuff as in the townhouse is taken care of by an association· y have tennis courts, pools, those sort of things too. s: So where are we? As far as the single family detached, that n has to be rewritten and anything to do with zero lot lines I take ld always be a PUD? : Yes. s: We wouldn't treat that under any other. : Well there's really no other way of effectively doing it. I mean ose if you had, well even that, there's no standards district that accommodate it because you basically have condominium lots on those · It doesn't fit in any district· s: Right. So that would be part of this section or part of this nce? : And if, it sounds like you're somewhat interested, I've got a lot earch information. Planning magazine articles and stuff on that type elopment. s: Let's ask if people are interested in having him move that up to look at it. Is anybody not interested? : I think it'd be fun. I don't know if there's a market in this ity for that yet. s: We can get ahead of that maybe. .es: There's a lot of seniors. You're the one who's always talking about being proactive. : Okay, let's be proactive. Ellso : Proactive. Go for it. Plann April Erhar' Emmin~ somet~ Erhart quest prefe' and w~ have t Emmin~ Kraus~ to pul tremel Emm i n! Erbar are y Kraus~ somet} ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 7 : You're asking about the zero lot line? s: Well yeah. Reworking this section and including having him draft lng up so we can look at it. : I guess given the list of work items we've got and the onabilit¥ of whether there's a market for that here, I guess I would the approach that Minnetonka had and that is, if someone comes in nts to do a development, then develop an ordinance around that. To hem work on this is taking something else. s: Is this something that you've essentially got? : Yeah. It's something that, I don't want to mislead you. I'm going 1 it off the shelf and revise it to fit this context so it's not a dous amount of work. s: Does that change your mind? : Do you think you're inviting, by putting it into the ordinance, u inviting that kind of development? : I honestly don't believe a city has the ability to invite lng. If the market's not there, it's not going to happen. And if it's ~one in a manner that makes sure that if it happens it's done to a stand~rd that the community finds acceptable. Emmin! devel Batzl Ahren Ellso' COUTS~ Emmi n~ like gO. Kraus the d zero mediut yOU ' r ¢ anybo< amount Emmin~ s: You know what it sounds like? It sounds like a great kind of :ment to do around a golf course. It does. : Yeah it does. Truthfully you're right. That is how they back up to a golf . s: They've all got their own little golf cart right in their garage ou see in those places down south and they just drive right over and : One of the things Minnetonka did too which helps to avoid some of rect impacts in single family neighborhoods is that they restricted ct line type development only to those areas that were guided for to high density housing. When you're developing at that intensity, no longer within the 0 to 4 density range and we shouldn't mislead w to think they can get that in there unless there's a tremendous of open space. Okay. Let's maybe go back to the intent section then. 20-501. Ellso : Where are you? I'm sorry. Plann April Emmin~ KT aus,, Emmin~ Ellso Batzl Emmin peopl= from his i peopl origi Batzl goals Emmi n means Batzl. it ac' Emmin! Ellso' in th, So I Emmi n 8atzl secti conte mot e think we ha~ with ~ thougl the f~ not. Kraus~ that devel Batzl South, reall' ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 8 We're on page 3 in the stuff that Paul gave us. : If you work your packet from the back. Yeah, I'm looking at that. : It's page 3 if you work from the back? : What are we doing? s: I thought we'd just go through this section by section, unless want to do something else...but maybe we could just, if you look he back and go into the packet to page 3, that's what Paul's written tent statement. He's redrafted Section 20-501. I don't know if have any comments on that. It's very similar to what we had ally. : That's a lot of stuff. To me it looks like our comprehensive plan I read this and I thought, Mom's Apple Pie Part II. s: Yeah, it's hard to comment on it when you don't know what it It's vague. I don't know what else you can do. : I'd rather hold off on the intent until we go through the rest of ually. s: Anybody else want to comment on the intent section? : I like it and I was the one who was all for the Mom and Apple Pie comprehensive plan in case people are coming from the other side. ike it. It spells it out. s: Alright, let's go on to 20-502 then. The proposed 20-502. : You know, I guess if, let me make one comment on the intent n. I remember, unfortunately, that we were talking about this in the t of residential and Paul kept saying, you know we want to do this n an industrial setting. I don't know. When I read this, all I of is residential. And whenever we talk about it and even the people here didn't, they talked about it a little bit, integrating office aybe some higher density uses but they really didn't talk about it I t in the context that you were trying to push the PUD. I mean that's eling I get. I don't know if I'm misreading where you were going or : I asked them to touch on the range of things and some of the stuff ohn showed in his slides were like industrial office parks that were ped as PUD's. : I went by one the other day. I checked it out. The one over by ale. I think there was one that they had showed. That was done nicely. I think it was $outhdale. It was on the northwest. It's Plann ng Commission Meeting April 3, 1991 - Page 9 on th, west side of it I think. I was confused because I was coming at it from orth to south. Conra : They did the Eden Prairie one. I wasn't sure what was PUDish about that. Kr : Well ones that I'm directly familiar with. The Carlson Center in Minnelonka is a PUD. Minnetonka Corporate Center on the Crosstown is a PUD. In Edina, the whole Edinborough complex is a PUD. Coincidentally, I think may recall that the 137 acre area outside of Timberwood was left reside 3tial but there were some guidelines put in there that is somebody wantet to do non-residential, the City may consider it. If it was done as PUD s~ bject to some very strict guidelines as to quality of development and lng and preservation and school site and everything else. It took about well a month and we already have a major Twin Cities industrial devel who's talking to us about coming in under those guidelines, and is ye comfortable with the PUD. In fact, prefers to do it that way. Ellso~ A good one? Kraus~ : Yeah. Erbar : Develop what? Kraus : Basically an office park. Office/industrial park. But they under tand the requirements for high end architecture and for buffering and for p eservation of natural features and it's fine with them so far. $o I don't know if that antidotally gets to your issue but that's probably one of th, handiest places to use it. Now when we get onto this page 5 with my comme' ts on allowed uses, we get to one of the things that 3ohn was talking about and that I'd like to see in here is that our PUD ordinance is very specific. Right now if you have an area that's guided for high density housi g, you can have a high density PUD. Nothing else. It's not allowing that ix of flexibility that's real important as part of a trade off and to get a effective large scale development. What we've proposed is that a smallm~ercentage,i 25~ of the PUD could be used for non-district designated uses it's consistent with the plan. Now if somebody's looking at devel, ping 137 acres or some portion of that, they may want to have high densil There may wa here Emm i n you g, Batzl Emmin~ Batzl I don compr, y residential. They may want to have a small service commercial. s a lot of varieties of things that they may want to consider and you nt to give them that flexibility. The way the ordinance is reworded ives that flexibility that doesn't presently exist. Does anyone have other comments on either the, are you satisfied your question answered? : No but we'll come back to it though. s: Okay. On 20-502. Any comments there? : Does it have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan? I mean t understand. In (a) it says if it's not designated in the hensive plan if the City Council finds that use, during that process Plann April do we KYau$: signi you ' 1 is my got a it is relat~ inten' shoul that. then your Keep says we di Emmin Kraus: Ellso consi: Emmin~ Kr aus,, the w~ coord! nothil stand~ Emmin~ Kraus: Emm i n~ look looki How d~ Kraus~ like t Jo Ani Emmi ni Jo subdil Kraus., ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 10 have to change the comprehensive plan then? : It actually depends. It's one of those things. If it's a icant amount of deviation that it trips a Metro Council review, have to change the comprehensive plan. But what this is doing, this opinion and this is how I've done it in the past is that, if you've hundred thousand square foot of development and 75,000 square foot of exactly what you said it was going to be and 25,000 square foot is d, although somewhat different, you're being consistent with the of the plan and that's what the premise of this is and that you n't have to go through a comprehensive plan amendment to achieve Now if you're talking about mega-million square foot development, he Metro Council's going to ask you to go through a review because mpact on roads and what not and the sewers are going to be different. n mind too we don't need to put in a specific statement here that evelopment has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan because that for the entire zoning ordinance. s: It's in another place in this proposed ordinance too isn't it? : That may have been redundant. : I think it's in the intent thing that development which is tent with the comprehensive plan. Under intent number 11. s: Anyone else have comments on 502? How about 503? : I think if I may. 503 gets to the point where we start throwing tar out with the bath water. We say that you've got to be nated with subdivision regulations and that's fine but it says g that you have to coordinate with wetland or shoreland or parking rds or site plan review or anything else. s: Well that's in 504. : We get into that later but the issue is raised there. s: Well I'm going through looking at the proposed. I don't want to .t the old one, or at least for a format for getting through here I'm .g at what you proposed. The 5 net acres, minimum area 5 net acres. you arrive at a figure of that 5? : I will let Jo Ann explain gross and net. I don't particularly he way we do it. Olsen: The 5 acres? s: The 5 net. Olsen: We've just always, that came in with the wetlands and other isions where we'd always, are you talking about net versus gross? : Uh-huh. Plann April Jo An net a, Emmin~ Jo An Emmin Kraus,~ Batzl Emmin~ Kraus,~ ordin~ premix. if it can be for ht PUD ' s there' the w~ get i ~ with t singl~ job t~ Ellsol singl quest that liked smal~ coul on la~ Kraus~ that minim you h~ surrol only of la deter a var you c PUD, stree one ti that' with ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 11 Olsen: Where one part of the zoning ordinance it referred to it as res and then the comprehensive plan referred to gross. s: No, I know what the net means. I think I do. Olean: You're talking about why 5? Yeah. : 5 in particular? : Tag. s: Yeah. If it's a word she does it. If it's a number he does it. : I wish I had a great reason for you but I don't know. Older nces used to have much larger minimum lot areas for PUD's and the e was that PUn's are something to be feared. That this flexibility, backfires so you've got to make it big enough so that your problems buried in the middle someplace. But there's something to be said ving a minimum lot size I believe for a PUD. Our current thinking in is that, here you have this envelope where you've approved and s a big blank space and anything goes within that. I think that's cng impression to give that you have to define what you're going to there but you are giving a lot of flexibility and I have difficulty he premise that you can take a 1 1/2 acre parcel in-the middle of a family neighborhood, designate it a PUD and do an adequate design at not only meets that PUD but blends into the surroundings. : But you know, I got that out of his presentation that even a subdivision could be done creatively and that's exactly why I had a on. And he was talking about that exact thing. About you could save rove of trees and let the person move it all to one side, therefore I the idea of either taking off the restrictions or making it really so it sounded like you could be as creative on a single lot as you 5 acres and I question the numbers. Well more from what he sold me t time. : I remember his comments and I honestly think he oversold it at oint. And there's some flexibility in here too. It's 5 acres m but there's 3 options here that may allow something different. If ye unusual topographic conditions. Maybe you have a peninsula nded by a wetland and it's got a very small buildable area and the hing you can do is unique and interesting and complex on that finger d. Then you can determine, you and the City Council can make a ination that it fits that criteria and you don't even need to give it ance. Basically you just ascertain that it meets that criteria and n go wiCh a 3 acre PUD or 2 acre PUD. If it's adjacent to another ou may find that a small one is consistent with what's across the so it's okay and that's another option. And the third one, and it's at I've used periodically is that you may have a very tough site in the transition area and you really want to'do something special t. Something that's on the fringe of the downtown commercial area or Plann April somet came you r ~ a powet out h~ I was diffi¢ ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 12 lng that backs up to, well I've got a good for instance. In fact it ut of the discussions with the developer on that 137 acre tract. Do call that there's a very difficult hillside east of Timberwood where r line runs just west of where the creek is that nobody can figure w to get to, much less develop. This particular developer, you know talking about trying to buffer Timberwood and I said, this parcel's ult to get to, especially from Audubon Road. It's going to be d. iffi~ult to serve. It's going to need bridges. There's some environmental zmpacms and you're not going to be able to do a whole beck of a lot when you ge you s west. PUD a bit o trane So I minim in th4 belon Batzl creat as PUl Kraus= Conrac Emmin! I gue~ and f( consi take Other Kraus Emmin! wonde' and Ul off-s1 City and I other have You k about ordin~ and i of ordin~ ordin~ t up there anyway because we have homes over the ridge. That I think ould leave that residential and we'll access it somehow from the Behind Timberwood. That might be an ideal candidate for residential d I don't know how large that is because remember, it's just a little buildable ground and then it drops off into the creek. That's a tion area. So you could designate a 3 acre PUD up on that hillside. hink you've got some flexibility built in but by establishing a m you avoid somebody real schlocky trying to push through something middle of a single family neighborhood where it really doesn't : By making it smaller would you open yourself up to having builders otherwise unbuildable lots and then trying to have them designated : I wouldn't put it past them. : I like 5 acres. s: Okay. Anyone else have comments on that section? Well and s what I hear you saying is for the developer to get what he wants r the City to get something out of it and to also take into eration what's surrounding it, it takes some, usually it's going to fair amount of ground. It's not going to be a single lot. ise somebody's going to get short changed. : Right. s: That makes sense to me I guess. Then on the proposed 504. I' was ing why, and if you look over at, on page 11. It's the new 20-505 der (j), it says requirements contained in Supplement Regulations, feet parking, landscaping and those others all may be applied by the s it deems appropriate. Then (i) it says, signs shall be restricted m wondering why in 504 when we're talking about coordination with zoning regulations we don't have those over there and why we don't broad statement that it has to be coordinated with essentially all. ow all of those specific ordinances because I guess what I'm thinking is if this is going to apply to office and commercial, the sign nce is always going to apply at least as a minimum kind of standard they want to deviate from it, they're going to have to win some kind cial approval. And if after this is passed we pass the bluff nce, we want to be sure that was caught here or the landscaping nce. Plann April KTaus: thing~ other PUD t appli, time. but w to fi' have J buildl shoul< contr~ you ' v~ that that For e draft, windo, Emmin~ this. piece this J And y~ as wh~ reasol Kraus~ Emmin~ ordin~ liste< I don all ti the Ol Kraus~ wouldl distrl Emm i n~ Kraus~ Emm i n,, Kraus: stati< don't PUD. to apl that you'v ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 13 : A couple things. I think we possibly can combine some of these so they read better but when we're asking for coordination with zoning regulations, right now it was never clear that once you had a at you had to have a site plan approval. I mean even a separate ation, a separate process. In a PUD you may do it all at the same Market Square is the building at the same time you're doing a PUD en we have a large scale PUD over 90 acres or 100 acres, you're going st approve the plan and then over a 5 year or 7 year period they will ndividual buildings that come in. Each one of those individual ngs should be required to be subjected to a site plan review and be, you know under the parameters established by that development ct which may deviate from the ordinance but that's okay because laid it out. Then what we're trying to get into, I don't know if ibes all that well with what's on page il but that's basically saying e have standards that are in these sections. There's no other place. ample, when we approve Market Square, the way the ordinance is d right now, every other section Of the ordinance went out of the · There were no parking standards to review Market Square against. s: Well, maybe I'm looking at this wrong. The way I look at this is If somebody comes in and says they're interested in doing a PUD on a of ground, we say look at all of our other zoning ordinances because s what we regard as, I don't know, normal or desireable or whatever· u can propose what you want but be aware that this is what we regard t we like in the city and you can deviate from that if you've got a or you give us something else. : Right. s: So I don't know why that wouldn't be true of virtually our whole nce or certainly more sections than, I don't know why these are here. I'd be happy if there was just some kind of a catch all and t care if these are listed but there ought to be some kind of a catch at would catch not only other parts of the ordinance but new parts of dinance as they come on line in the future. : I'll take a look at that. There's some parts of the ordinance you 't want to trip occasionally like if something is a CUP in the BH ct but you've permitted it under. s: ...jargon so I won't know what the hell he's talking about. : Well a conditional use permit. s: That much I got. : In the business highway district. If something is like a gas n. If it's a conditional use permit in a commercial district, you want to then automatically make it a conditional use permit in the You've already approved it in the PUD. You don't want to be forced ly that section. You should make it go through a site plan review so s a specific plan for that gas'station inside the PUP's developed, reviewed it and you've confirmed to your satisfaction that it met Plann April the d, may m~ somet that Emmin them I Kraus~ Emmim Kraus Emmin Kraus contr of ap proce~ Emmin~ Conra( you h~ 12,00( Emmin Conra, Batzl Kraus ordim Conra< Emmin did y, Conra, ordin, last PUD's 15,00( Emmin~ Ellsol Emmin~ In th~ .rig Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 14 ,sign standards you approved in the development contract. Now that ,an it met the parking standards in the site plan ordinance or it met ,lng that you found more suitable. But at least we can refer back to :ection and get some parameters to deal with. is: Is our procedure written now to do what you just said? To get .ack for a site plan on each individual buildins that oome~ in? : No. s: Is that going to be redrafted along with this revision? : That's why I call out the site plan review section under 20-504. s: Okay. Okay. : And when you do a development contract, if we do a development ct on a lO0 acre site, the development contract will as a condition ,royal state each building shall be subject to a site plan review lure. ~s: Okay. Does anyone else have anything on 504? : Well what are we saying about the standards? What direction have ard about some of the standards that we have in there? Slipping to or 13,000 or 9,000. Have we commented on that? s: You mean on the single family? The 506? I'm looking at 504, required standards. 505 will be his new required standards. The 504 we're just talking about now is the 504 in the rewritten nce. The 504 you're referring to is the old ordinance. Confusing. : We're not at, okay. s: Let's go onto the proposed 505. Now what was your comment? What u want to ask Paul there? I didn't understand it. : Whether we believe in the standards that we set in the previous nce. Whether they were, and that's what we really didn't get from eek or the previous week's meeting. Whether we were encouraging with what we could offer which was we do see lot sizes below the square foot standard. s: I'm not tracking that. : I don't either. s: I thought, first of all I thought that issue was covered in 506. proposed 506. And I thought we talked earlier about the fact Plann April that, somet Conra, Emmin~ under nothiT See i devel¢ numbe~ Kraus-~ Hard in ea roughl of i n~ prima~ meet but a have with hard they Ellso pictul yet I Kraus,, Ellso~ Kraus~, acres Emmin~ maybe Krau$~ Emmin~ requi' Kraus: devel, know. i and might It ti, and hl floor know ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 15 Paul's going to rewrite that and he might be cutting it down to lng else. : Yeah I guess, okay. Let's wait until we get to 506. s: Okay. I guess as far as 505 is concerned, I don't understand (e) hard surface coverage and floor area ratio. Those things mean g to me. I don't know where they come from or what it would wind up. 's like I said before, I don't know when I read these things what the ~ment's going to wind up looking like if it's this number or another : Well that's where there's an educational process that's required. urface coverage you're familiar with I think. We have that standard h district right now. The hard surface coverages in here I think are y comparable to what we have in individual districts and that's kind eresting because again, going back to Market Square. One of the y premises for Market Square going as a PUD was because they couldn't ard surface coverage requirements. I think that's okay to a degree ain, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You don't want to 99~ hard surface coverage site. You can't do that and be compatible he PUP's. So this is now putting in some minimal hard surface, max urface coverage requirements that would apply to PUD's as well as ~ply to non or regular district development. : But where'd the number come from? I agree with Steve. It doesn't e anything to me that, you know we're putting a stake in the ground don't see that's where the stake should be anymore than. : What, the percentage? : Yeah. : Well if you have 50~ hard surface coverage on a 10 acre site, 5 of it can be paved or buildings. s: I don't know what that makes the place look like but I guess you don't know that until you have a plan. : This isn't that different from what you have right now. s: I'm not as uncomfortable with the impervious surface ements. Floor area ratio. What does that mean? : Yeah, floor area ratio becomes important if you get multi story ~ment. Primarily. And maybe it's premature in Chanhassen, I don't Basically what floor area ratio is if you have a floor area ratio of ,ou have a 1 acre site, you can have a I acre building. Well that be a 10 story building with each floor is 4,300 square feet. Okay? s into the gross site area. It's a ratio between the gross site area w much building you can have on it. If downtown Minneapolis has area ratios of 30 or 40. You know the IDS building you have, I don't ow many acres of building on a relatively small site. It's a Plann ng Commission Meeting April 3, 1991 - Page 16 guide ina for intensity of development basically. Ellso : What's an example of a 1.8 building or 1.57 Is that usually like a 2 s cry building? Kraus: : No, you'd have to have more. First of all, if you have a 10 acre site, you can only develop 8 i/2 acres of it so and then you have surface parki to, I Batzl hard exclu Kraus: to ex, g and what not. That might be a 4 story office building. If we want can probably give you some real examples. : Is the floor area ratio calculated on the net though? Because the urface coverage is calculated on the gross isn't it? Or net? Do you e wetlands on the hard surface coverage? I don't remember anymore. : Well I guess the way the ordinance is written right now, we'd have it yeah. Conra< : Should exclude it. Batzl : Okay. $o that's on the net. And the floor area ratio then is also n the net? Kraus : If we go back to the earlier section of the ordinance I would say yes. We can clarify that but yes. Emmin., s: I think we need some examples of' what we're talking about there. Numbe' one, do we need it at all? And number two, what does it mean? I don't know how you're going to give us a feel for that but I think we need it. Kraus~ : I've got some books that give illustrations of what it relates to. I can give you that. Again, it may be premature in Chanhassen. I don't know hen we're going to see. Where it really comes into play is if you've got a high end office park with towers. Primarily. Then it really comes into lay. Because it gets to building massing. You know, do you want a block of buildings that block out the sun or do you want, I mean if you're going up, then it's got to be narrow because the building can only occupy so mu<h space. There's a trade off that the designer has to go through. So it may be premature in Chanhassen. Conra< : Currently Paul the low density hard surface coverage, I'm skipping from loot area ratio, I don't really know how important that is but we haven t had that standard. We have had the hard surface coverage standards right; Let me bounce back to that. The low density hard surface coverage under a subdivision. That was like 30~? Kraus.~ : That's current? Conra, : Yeah current. Kraus.~ : I don't know. Plann April Conra, bumpi you bi indust Krause Olsen Conra, sayin( like t Emmin~ Conra: you g,: it Io¢ a pro~ we li terms Krausl devel them examp somet} this. ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 17 : I think it's like 30~ so basically what Paul is suggesting is g it up to 50~. And I think, high density's probably the same. Have mped up the other numbers here too? The office, commercial, rial? Have those gone up a little bit? : I'd have to check Commissioner. They're usually 60~, 65~; and 70~. : Yeah, so I think you bounced them up. I guess what Steve is is let us, and it may make sense. We just have to see what it looks o make sure that that's what we want. s: And maybe tell us what the pros and cons are. : Yeah. When you go from, in your residential neighborhood, when from a 30~ coverage to a 50~, that's a lot of coverage. Again, if ks okay and it makes sense, we should do it but so far we haven't had lam in the residential areas with that. If it encourages something e, it should do it. It's sort of tough to deal with right now in of ratios. : Well I must admit, I've used these ratios before but I never had a 3ment come close to them so they probably sat somewhat high and give oma flexibility. On the other hand, it's a minimum and we've had es of people trying to push the minimum and you may want to have lng that you can fall back on and say you've got to have at least Batzli: It seems that our numbers are usually used against us. Your ordinance allows this. Why won't you give it to me? Kraus,~ Emm i n= we ' ve Batzl mediul prettl had a Kraus~ Batzl kind Olean Batzl Kraus estab : Well we'll get you some more information on both of those. s: Well and see how they compare to what we've already got and what been doing in the past. : I guess I'm just kind of stunned by the floor area ratio of the density residential as being 0.5. If you had a townhouse on a small lot, I would think that would be more of a problem. If you 2 story townhouse or something. : Well if you have a 2 story townhouse. : What's the minimum square footage for a townhome for a lot? What f a lot do you need? Is there any minimum? 20,000. : Is it 20,000? Okay. : Well currently there is but if you go with a PUD, you'd have to ish a new minimum. But if you had a 10,000 square foot lot and there Plann~ April was a squaw, you'd Batzl Emmi n, Batzl Emmin Batzl Emmi n with Conra me Emmin~ Conrac Basic~ we'll the s' take it ju don't a loo looki addit r ememl on th, hills, easill had s~ Ellso~ ones Emmin( Ellso~ Ahren~ 9 , 000 Kraus: apply 15,00, build~ anal y., ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 18 FAR of 0.5 and you had 2 story building, you'd only have 2,500 foot of the lot on two floors and that's a pretty big unit. But only have a quarter of the lot occupied. : True. I take it all back. Strike that from the record. s: .Any other. : Inane comments? s: Thoughtless comments on section 505? : I'm sure I'll have some if you give me a minute. s: We're reaching our time limit here. 506? Ladd's got something 06. : For the last two sections I've had something with 506. Just tell ch section we're talking about. s: Well 506. It's time Ladd. : Will you play back the tape that I had a few seconds ago Nann? lly it's just, I'm interested in what Paul feels are standards that be encouraging. It's obvious that we haven't done a great deal with andards to date. I haven't seen too many coming in saying I want to dvantage of that. It's so attractive. I want to apply for a PUD so t tells me that we haven't been right for a PUD ow the standards encourage. I guess I'm tempted to go down to 9,000 and have us take at that even though, when I say those things it means I'm really g for something in return and the 9,000 is just not to pack in onal lots. I think 9,000 can be handled effectively but again, er what Lundgren had when they were playing with when they put them 9,000 square foot lots. They had a lot of trees. They had a de. They had some variety already built it. You can't do that real on a flat piece of land. We wouldn't be happy with that so Lundgren me advantages. : Plus, he had some...a certain percentage were the really small ut it wasn't across the board. s: It wasn't really very many. : Right. : I wonder if we should talk about putting a certain percentage of square foot lots? I don't know if that's even workable. : There's one item you might want to consider and it doesn't only here but it applies probably in regular subdivisions too. We have a square foot standard lot requirement. There's nothing that says how ble that 15,000 square feet has to be. I mean we try to make an is of fitting a normal house on a lot when we approve, a subdivision Plann April but t could T hey ' if grou Real the 9 ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 19 's nothing that says 9,000 or 6,000 has to be buildable or it ,e all wetland or whatever as far as the ordinance is concerned. covered by setbacks. You may want to at least establish, you know 're going to a 9,000 square foot lot, that it has to be $0~ useable or some standard like that to make sure that you're getting space. ce and not fictional space that causes us problems. I guess too, sticks in my mind because we saw an example of that being used. Right ow we have an average requirement that you've got to be at 13,500. I mea why go through this for a net density increase of 1,500 square feet a lot' If we get it down to 10 or 9, we're giving a 30~ reduction in lot size nd that's a pretty hefty number and you ought to be able demand something in return for that. Conrac' So let's take that further. We're decreasing the lot requirement by a t~ird and based on costs, based on development costs, how many dollars does hat equate to out in Chanhassen? Is that a $5,000.00 benefit to the build. '? Kra It's tough to guess. If you're just going on a square footage per doll or dollar per square footage requirement and a lot's $45,000.00 or $50, 0.00, you know a 30~ reduction in lot area is pretty hefty. But a signi icant percentage, if you've got a $50,000.00 lot, maybe $15,000.00 of it is utilities and streets. Now that percentage reduction doesn't equate dir ly to that but still. If you have a $50,000.00 lot and you're being able o knock off $10,000.00 of it or a fifth of the cost or a fourth of the c st, that's a pretty significant reduction. Conrac: So what would the Planning Commission like to see done with that money that the builder just saved? 8rick exterior? Ellsol : Yeah. And give more landscaping per lot. Conrac : We could have gotten that maybe in the first... Emmin~ s: It's the quality of building and the landscaping. Aren't those the t~ o keys? Ellso : Open space. Conra, : Open space is something else, yeah. We'd want. what was the numbel we might have saved? $5,000.00. Kraus~ : Probably. Conrai : When you negotiate, is that how you think as a planner? Ah, we just ave him $5,000.00 worth of value. Should I try to get that? Agai I don't care if we're going dollar for dollar. That's really insigl i foui o kay ~ Kraus: comme .ificant in my mind as long as, if we're searching for our goals and goals only cost a buck and the developer makes $4,999.00, that's ~ith me but how do you negotiate Paul? What is it that guides you? :: Well we usually, and speaking for myself and maybe Jo Ann has a ,t on this too. I don't normally, I mean the developers will always Plann April throw becau'. to ma know your ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 20 ,ers at you. This is going to cost so much and you can't do it of that. Our reaction typically is, we don't care. We're not here you a profit or to guarantee you that you're going to do this. I 's why you're in business but we're here to insure that certain are met and you're going to do that. I think it's useful for inking though, however, in this kind of a forum to say if this guy's going Io save $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 on a lot, then at a minimum he should be ing in $2,000.00 or $3,000.00 to make sure we've got a premium build ng exterior and another couple thousand dollars so that we have premi, landscaping and maybe another thousand dollars so the common spaces in th~ development are dressed up ala Lundgren with entrance monumenting and b( levard landscaping and those sorts of things. You know the deve is still getting something back here. These are not dollars he's throwJ into a pot that the City's going to go buy a fire truck with. These are dollars that he's getting a premium development with that will help ~im sell it. Emmin~s: Is anybody, going back to 3gan's, I think the point that 3gan raise(. What if we saw someone come in with a big development of all 9,000 squat foot? Ellso : Yeah, that's the big scare right there. Emmin!s: Would we even want to look at something like that? Erhar densi Conra Erhar Kraus : Would they meet the density standards? We're not giving in on the standards. : Well yeah. : I'm under the impression that that's not a. : You don't have to. Keep in mind our low density standards though are z~ro to four and the traditional density we develop at, we found in the Comp lan is 1.7. I mean that's an acre so there's a lot of flexibility in there to get more homes in without busting through our density cap. Conra, : So the zoning density or the guide plan density would still apply? Emmin:s: So if you had a development like that, you'd wind up with some big c unk of open space. Conra. : That's what you're hoping to do. Kraus~ : You also get more homes. I mean between that 1.7 and 4 there's clear y a lot of flexibility but you may well wind up with a lot of open space too. That's the intent and we can write that into the intent. Erbar' : In low density you say we can go to 4 units per acre with a 10,000 squar~ feet average? Kraus: : But you never get to that. The reason being that you've got to put r~ads in and wetlands and there's inefficiencies. Plann, April Erhar what' KTau$~ EThaTI KTaus~ Batzl. But s, the s KTaus squat EThaT KTaU$ up wi EThar while 9,000 squat Ellso Emm i n! KYaus: Ellso~ Emmin( Erharl ConTa~ Batzl EThar ConTa maybe sometl KTaus~ tTadi Emmin ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 21 : So the net is, what do you think the number is? If it's not 4, the net? If you did grid streets and that kind of stuff? Well what we'd normally see. Well yeah, what we'd normally see is 1.7. And engineer, I love it. A slide rule would have been better. e, they don't own the whole lot because the City's going to own all feets and so if you're trying to figure out what their lot size is. : That's the gross amount of space required to create a 15,000 foot lot. : 1.7 gross, so I was asking what was net? : I guess the net is, 15,000 square foot lot. That's what you wind h. : I guess what I've always been thinking all along here is that someone may come in with a big development and have some lots at square feet, when on the average they've still got to be 15,000 feet. I guess that's the way the old ordinance reads. : That's up for debate in a PUD. We're allowing. s: The average was 13,500 wasn't it? : Yes. : In the PUD. s: In the PUD. : Could be. : Minimum average. But let's back up one step for just for a minute. : Including open spaces, we actually let the average fall. : $o right now the average development, subdivision in Chan. Well I'm mixing what Lundgren said. What's the average density? 2 point lng? : 1.7. Outside of Lundgren. I mean we reviewed about 12 or 15 ional plats that you've approved. s: Those are subdivisions, not PUD's? Plann · April Krau$,, Conra< go up still Kraus~ units ineff close: Conrac will ~ Ellso; Conrac but we EllsoT don't Emmin! mean tell Paul Batzl all I Emmi n it loI Batz 1 them, Kraus~ plat I But wi stand~ outlil going Emmi n~ as , al got t( night there besid. but y, well we ap ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 22 : Right. : Right. So there's 1.7 and what we're saying right now is we can to 4 because that's the extent of our regulations. Basically it can be low density at 4 units per acre. I always thought it was 3.7. : If we establish a minimum lot size of 9,000, you'll never get 4 an acre because of park requirements, street requirements, because of ciencies. You never lay out a grid. It's not efficient. The t you're probably going to get is 2.7-2.8. Something like that. : So we're making it more dense. Basically what we're saying is we llow a more dense PUD in exchange for brick exterior. : Open space and maybe man made ponds. : We didn't get the open space because, we clustered the open space 're not getting more of it. : We're not guaranteeing. I mean we can look at it and say, we like it. We haven't given it up yet. s: The problem is, you don't know what it's going to look like. I hat's why I asked when we start out with. Looking at a plan, can you f you're going to look as nice as what they showed us on the slides. aid no. : If you looked at different streets in that development, they don't ok as nice as the one in the northeast corner that he showed us. s: Well no and when you take the picture you stand in a place where ks nice from. : But those particular lots are very small and when you walk around I mean you don't have a yard in those lots. : If I could clarify my comment earlier. If somebody brings to me a old can I tell them I'm going to get the quality. The answer is no. en I take them through the development process and we develop rds, or in this case PUD contract standards and conditions and e all this stuff, when we're done I can tell you exactly what we're to get because we'll have it on a piece of paper. s: Okay. You just raised another point and something that struck me d this is totally unrelated and I know we're over our time but I've bring it up before I forget it. When I drove down TH'5 the other and I was looking at all the buildings out in the industrial area out and what struck me is that there are a whole bunch of tall structures s the buildings. Big tanks of things. I don't know what's in them u know what I'm talking about? And I would bet a million dollars, 900,000.00, that when they showed us elevations of those building and roved those plans, there was not one of those tanks on there. Plann Apri) Erhar' Emmin,, talle' When belie and i' that every probak have an ar. there what visib Kraus: Emmin~ Kraus,~ heatil top ol inter, eleme to pu' going you ' r, City. build. time that ' year went can d Emm i n~ rememl Olsen Emmin~ down' on pl~ Ellen' Emmin~ Ahren~ Emmi n! you ge ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 23 : Which building are you referring to? s: I don't know. There are several. There's tanks that go up than the buildings and it seems to me we're getting hosed on this. hey give us elevations, that elevation of the building, I naively ed in the past that we were seeing what that was going to look like 's a joke. We've got to do something. I'd like you to make a note omething has to be changed so when we see an elevation, we see hing that's going to be on that site. Now I don't think they ly, I don't know whether they intended to deceive us or not and I o comment on that but maybe it's just naivety on my part. Maybe when hitect thinks of an elevation, it's just the building. But if s going to be big tanks, you know because we talked to them about hey're going to put on top of the building and where it's going to be e from but they don't show us those great big tall tanks. : Well we attacked that issue probably about a year ago I think. s: Oh. Where was I? : What we started doing is when, I mean they would come in for g and ventilation permits to put bright, shiny chrome ventilators on a building that you can see from 6 miles away and we started ening in the building permits saying that's exterior architectural ts and you're not going to be allowed to do that. If you are going something up there, you're going to have to do it flat. You're to have to screen it. You're going to have to be compatible because busting the integrity of the site plan that was approved by the And we've managed to do that several times. Two additions to ngs that were afterthoughts because they didn't know about it at the hough is one that's on the Press building and then Instant Webb and pollution control equipment that they were required to install last nd I think I brought in some stuff to show you the screening that n one building and then at Instant Webb there's virtually nothing you over there. We have trees being planted around it. s: But I know Rosemount has big tanks out there too and I don't er seeing those. That was shown. s: That one I wasn't sure about but there's another building further hat way with big, tall green tanks and I never saw anything like that ns and I remember when that building was in here. : I can't picture what you're talking about. Tanks? s: Well it's like. : Are they in Chanhassen? s: Yeah. It's on the other side of the railroad tracks. Right as down, well I don't know. Plann ng Commission Meeting April 3, 1991 - Page 24 Kraus: : Oh, you know where it is. It's the plastics company. Empak. Erharl : Those tanks were on the plan. Emmin~ Batzl shown Emmin~ Olsen just Emmin that s: Do you remember that? Okay. : I don't think they were on the elevations. I think they were on the other. s: They weren't on the elevations. I don't remember them. They're not on the elevation. They were on the site plan. It has little circle there. s: Yeah, you're looking down at a circle there. Well you know if ircel's 50 feet tall, I think we ought to know about it. Anyway, let's go back to 506. You're going to rework that. Is there any other direclion from the commission to Paul on that one? This is a critical one. I'm n(t sold on 9,000 square foot lots. I don't think it's impossible. I think I'd want to limit it maybe to a percentage but I'm not sure, because I don't know what it would mean to have a big development. Ellsol : Yeah, I'm leaning toward that kind of thing too. I'd hate to see a big one come in. Kraus.. : Let us take a crack at it and bring it back to you. Batzl : My comment is potentially if there's not enough difference between 15,00, and 13,500, our only option isn't necessarily to lower the 13,500 but i Emmin Batzl that Emmin batzl 9,000 Emmin may be to raise the other end. s: What? Say more. : I'm saying that maybe 15,000 is too low. Maybe you want to raise nstead. s: In the subdivision ordinance too? : Yeah, raise that one. If we're not comfortable with dropping to but we want to encourage people to go PUD. s: Oh. So in the subdivision ordinance raise the minimum? Batzl Emm i n Conra and w~ the ol have this : Yeah. Just a thought. s: To encourage people to use the PUD. : If I've got 40 acres of land and each acre can have 3 houses on it use density transfer to free up 20 acres. Move 60 houses over to 20 acres. Basically is it still a low density development or moved it into a high, because now I have 6 unit per acre, how is ~tegorized? Plann April Kraus~ Conra, you c, Kraus: paTam, on same rezon to hal Conra< 1 nye, as lo neigh ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 25 : It's figured on that gross site and subtracting the wetland. : If they look like apartments, is it still low density? And maybe n't do it. I don't know what I'm designing but. : Could theoretically be. When you're talking just about a density ter, I mean if you have a 40 acre site you can either have 1 building h acre or you could have a 10 story high building and still have the ensity. But I think Annette pointed out a very good point. As a ng option, you've got a lot of latitude not to buy it and we're going e parameters in here that limit those kinds of abuses. : See you're reading me the wrong way. I don't mind that. I just if we have a situation of opening up space, I don't mind what they do g as the neighborhood doesn't. As long as it fits into the ,oring community, I don't care if they're stacked 2, 3 or whatever. That larticular situation does free open space and can protect a lot of the stufflso where I'm coming from on that one Paul is I like it. I like to do that_! I want to encourage that. I think developers should have, if they could~build a house over here and they can cluster them, they can stack them, Boy, Ellen you c Conra just I KYausl of a under where look squee basic~ flexil Emmint that 1 Kraus~ for ql Emm i n! out. Propol been , occup~ Krausl they can make a higher density and as long as we feel comfortable. .hat to me is a good PUD. : Like his first example when he kept showing all the different ways uld do that one. : Right. And I was worried about some of our guidelines. Maybe it icks into a different zoning category or a different guide plan. ~: Well that transfer of density is fundamental to the whole concept UP. And the higher the lot size, minimum lot size, the more you mind that ability, that flexibility. And right now we're at the point the development that's allowed under the residential PUD is going to ,xactly the same as the development that's traditional. Maybe they'll :e in the odd lot here or there that's a little different but .lly you won't tell the differences. There's just not enough ,ility. ~s: And how are you going to get that? How ate you going to change .o get that? : By lowering the minimum lot size and putting specific requirements ality of product. ~s: Okay. Alright, we're an hour and 10 minutes. My plan is totally Let's get through this. 20-507. I have a question on that one. :ed 20-507. In (b) it says after the certificate of occupancy has ssued and I was wondering why it would be after the certificate of .ncy and not after the development plan is approved. : I'm sorry Steve. Where are we at? Emmin s: 20-507 on page 14. Your proposed (b). Plann. April Kraus Emmin it wo Kraus, Emm i n.~ thing last is th~ has t~ someb~ do ne it's we hal and df asses~ any e' Kraus-~ devial Emm i n! KTaUS= fact admin appro~ signi 8atzl Kraus~ Batzl Kraus build, evalu~ Batzl alumi Olsen Emmin~ Batzlt Kraus~ Sharm knows ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 26 : Oh[ Why is it worded that way? Why is it after the certificate of occupancy? I don't know why ldn't be after the plan is approved you can't make changes. : That's a good point. I think it should be changed. s: Does anyone else have anything else on that one? Then the last I've got is this. When Terry and John Shardlow, when they were here eek, they were talking about the fact that one of the big advantages t you plan the whole property and then as each property comes in, it meet those overall goals and restrictions. My question is, what if dy doesn't? What enforcement tool do we have, (a) to make sure it's n conformity with the plan in the first place? And (b), to make sure ct modified later? Outside of being in conformity with the plan. Do e an enforcement mechanism where we say either you straighten it out it right or we're going to come in and do it and we're going to it to either that property or to the whole development? Do we have fective tools to do that? : As to the first part of the question, what do you do if something es from the plan? That's easy. Reject it. s: No. I'm talking about let's say we've got the thing in place. : Oh, after the fact. I thought it was two phased. But after the ou get back to the issue that we've been trying to address stratively because it applies to any building that has a site plan al. If something deviates from that site plan in any kind of icant way. : Who checks it? : We do. : So you three go out and check? : Well, no. It's easier than that. When somebody applies for a ng permit, the building permits are cycled over to us and we make an tion. : Okay, so in the plan it says redwood siding and they're putting um siding up. Who would catch it? Who would look? The building department would usually catch that. s: Inspectors. : So it's up to the inspectors and you guys don't look at it? : No, we do. Sharmin really handles our permit review program and n goes and digs out the development contracts where necessary. She most of them by now and the conditions that were specific to it. Plann April Kraus: Emmi n! it wo~ KTaUS~ Emmin~ thing last I is thl has t< someb~ done it's we ha' and d asses: any e' Kr aus,, deviat Emmin! Kraus~ fact adminl appro, signi Batzl Kraus Batzl; Krausl build. evalu~ Batzl alumi Olsen Emminl Batzl, Krausi Share, knows ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 26 : Oh! Why is it worded that way? s: Why is it after the certificate of occupancy? I don't know why ldn't be after the plan is approved you can't make changes. : That's a good point. I think it should be changed. s: Does anyone else have anything else on that one? Then the last I've got is this. When Terry and John Shardlow, when they were here eek, they were talking about the fact that one of the big advantages t you plan the whole property and then as each property comes in, it meet those overall goals and restrictions. My question is, what if dy doesn't? What enforcement tool do we have, (a) to make sure it's n conformity with the plan in the first place? And (b), to make sure ~ot modified later? Outside of being in conformity with the plan. Do e an enforcement mechanism where we say either you straighten it out it right or we're going to come in and do it and we're going to it to either that property or to the whole development? Do we have fective tools to do that? : As to the first part of the question, what do you do if something es from the plan? That's easy. Reject it. No. I'm talking about let's say we've got the thing in place. : Oh, after the fact. I thought it was two phased. But after the ou get back to the issue that we've been trying to address stratively because it applies to any building that has a site plan 'al. If something deviates from that site plan in any kind of 'icant way. : Who checks it? : We do. : So you three go out and check? : Well, no. It's easier than that. When somebody applies for a ng permit, the building permits are cycled over to us and we make an ,tion. : Okay, so in the plan it says redwood siding and they're putting um siding up. Who would catch it? Who would look? The building department would usually catch that. s: Inspectors. : So it's up to the inspectors and you guys don't look at it? : No, we do. Sharmin really handles our permit review program and n goes and digs out the development contracts where necessary. She most of them by now and the conditions that were specific to it. Plann April Emmin: in co than inspe¢ Batzl KYaus,, T he bL a one Olsen Kraus~ Emmim about Krausl someb( to it Emm i n! ar e y, that J Kraus.~ Emmin~ Batzli Ellso~ ordin~ it's Batzl place Emm i n~ caugh' Olsen: befor, Emmi n~ Kraus~, stree' again: in th~ ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 27 s: $o she looks at the plan and then she can see whether the plan's formance but if they go out and do something different on the site hey have on the plan, then you expect the inspector, building tot to catch it? : So the inspector knows the entire development? : Well we approve a set of plans. We sign off on the set of plans· ilding inspector knows that and if a two story building appears where story building was approved. But they're talking about like. : More minor things. s: Well I don't know if they're minor. I guess when you're talking landscaping. When you're talking about, I don't know. Whatever. : I can't tell you it's a perfect process. I mean if a tree dies and dy doesn't replace it, we're not going to have our attention called but if a massive amount. s: I'm not asking how you're going to catch that. I'm asking what u going to do when you catch them? Do we have the tools in place so f we do catch them, we can do something about it? : Yeah. s: Okay. : I'd rather know how we catch them? : It's no different than any other subdivision or any other nce or any other landscaping thing. This is maybe more strict but ct to be enforced the same way as the other ones. , : That's the point. It's more strict and we don't have a method in to catch it. s: But it's easier caught by an inspector and if it's not, then it's by a complaint of a neighbor. Otherwise it's not. Well we do inspect, for commercial sites we do inspect those sites we sign off on the CO. s: Then what you do about it is what? : If they deviate from, well one that did. The hotel across the · They relocated their trash dumpster. It's supposed to be up t the building and all of a sudden it's an 8 foot monster that's out parking lot made out of tacky siding. Olsen There was actually nothing we could do. Let's not get into this. Plann ng Commission Meeting ApriI 3, 1991 - Page 28 Kraus.. : Yeah, unfortunately there was nothing we couid do about putting it back to where it should be but what we made them do is, we said if you're going to keep it on the parking lot, you're going to design it to our standzrds or we're going to take you back in front of the Planning Commission and Council. Ahren.~ : Why wasn't there anything you could do about it? Kraus., : Well this is really, it gets fairly complex but the City was invol~ed in installing utilities in there because it's a tax increment project. It was the coordination, or lack of coordination between the devel~ ~er building the building, the City putting in the utilities and the site lan being approved that some watermains got put right where the dumpst ~r was supposed to be or the shut off valve so they just arbitrarily moved it without telling anybody. So that was the developer's problem, l mean they just went and unilaterally did it. We caught it and sent them some to mo' somet in si. aroun( wash ' Olsen credit that Kraus: then. Emmi n! or thl the Vi there the f or SOl this ~n? in an bring Kraus~ Roger alway= approt have condi you f compaT dory find you ' V etters and said if it's going to have to stay. First we asked them e it back. They said they couldn't. We said alright, let's work out lng and working it out was to cut it down to a 6 foot height, side it lng that's the same siding the hotel's made out of and landscape it. $o we did catch something as minor as a dumpster. The solution identical to the approved plan but it was acceptable. But if they had refused to do that, we didn't have a letter of to cover. The CO had already been signed so it was one of those e didn't have. : It was an older project. We've done things differently since s: Let me ask you another example. Let's say that we do a lot of, t we're very concerned about landscaping on a site. Let's say like 1voline site but let's say it's a PUD and we've got standards in for landscaping the entire PUD. Let's say that they do it right in rst place and that weather conditions caused a whole bunch of trees, ething like that and they die. Can we go back and tell them, now ear it isn't, it doesn't look like it's supposed to. Can we go back t's 5 or 10 years after the whole thing's developed. Can we go back say this isn't looking like what was in the PUD and we want you to it back up to the standard? : Yeah. And it's always been, it's frankly something, I'll sound Knutson out on it because I want his confirmation on this but I've gone after people, no matter how long. As long as they have an ed site plan and it's of record, I've always treated it that they permanent obligation to maintain the property at least in that ion as a minimum and if they don't, we go after them. Occasionally nd things coming back like when a building transfers and the mortgage y wants you to sign off on something that says everything is hunky nd the City's approved the building. You go out and inspect it and ome trees have died, I'm not going to sign off on this thing until reinstalled this stuff. There's lots of ways we catch these things. Plann April Olsen Kraus: the ob ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 29 The site plan too. : Okay, 3o Ann's quoting 20-120. Maintenance of Site. It shall be ligation of the owner to maintain the site in the manner consistent with are i the c< Emmi n.< that ' KTaUSE Emmim, have ConTac Batzli Conra,: BatzlJ like. Conrac can't Ellso~ givin! Corlra~ say t~ not sL that ] PUD? with ~ quali~ get m) at. Kraus~ beef Emmi n do. appro Ellso~ Emmim yOU ' V, other the approved site plans and building plans. Unapproved alterations r violation of this division so it's a violation, direct violation of de. s: And every developed lot or site in the PUD will have a site plan separately approved? : It will now, yes. s: From now on? Okay. I don't have anything else. Does anyone nything else on this one? Brian mentioned intent. He wanted to get back to that. I don't know. I have a problem with the intent section. : I don't like the intent section but I don't know what I don't : I have a real problem with the intent myself and I sat here and I fix it. It's sort of like we want nice things but it's not. : But we'll let you know when they come through. It's basically us that latitude. : It's a real general type of intent and as a developer, you could ey're looking for a better quality house. And you know, I guess I'm re, we have building codes and I'm not sure that that's the priority have and I'm just picking that out as one thing. Why do I grant a It's for all of these reasons but for some reason I'm not comfortable ow they're worded. I want to encourage certain things. Better y and I'm willing to give up some things but I haven't been able to arms around how we do that to make it real clear what we're looking I think we can be more emphatic about the trade-off. That we can the language. s: Well but you know, that's just what Shardlow said we shouldn't e shouldn't say what are we going to get out of this. We shouldn't ch it that way even though. : I say leave it open so it is flexible. s: Maybe we do want to say that but you know, what he's saying is got a subdivision ordinance. If the developer wants to do something than the subdivision ordinance, then be ought to come into the City Plann April and h~ negot subdi Batzl Emmin alter Chanh. const' it go Conra, Kraus: flipp, intenl Emmin~ Kraus: Emmin. well Ellso one o' Emmin~ to do Ellso Conra, words and y< Staff Emmin~ Conral we'll Ahren~ enoug~ vague Emmin~ have hope Ahren~ of Chi ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 30 ought to say I 'ye got a different kind of idea and enter into ations with the City to do something that's other than what the 'ision ordinance already allows. : But see I'd rather have an intent statement that says that. s: Well maybe what we're saying is, is just that. As an ative, and here are some of the things that we in the City of ssen value. We value open space. We value high quality uction. We value landscaping of a certain kind of whatever and let at that. I don't know. : Well that's getting closer to what I'm comfortable with. : We'll be happy to take a shot at that. I just feel kind of, I d through his model ordinance though just to see what they had for s: It's just like this. : But it's briefer. s: Yeah. No, I compared the two and I was surprised at that because I was surprised. : So we're basically saying, don't bother unless you can justify on these grounds, at least one? s: Except that's an aggressive statement and I don't think we want that. : Well not in so many words, you're right. : But you also want to tell the developer something. In other to leave it foggy doesn't help anybody because then it gets in here u're going to be saying that's not a PUD and that's fair either. has to know what we're talking about. s: It's easy to say, why the hell didn't you tell me? : Absolutely and we'll be down, we'll have a couple of meetings and say, well we're not getting anything out of this. : I don't think the intent statement though will ever be specific to really address all those. I mean we're just going to make it in a different kind of way. s: It could be more focused I think. This is what we would hope to n any subdivision. These things. Even a straight subdivision you'd o have these things. : Right. I know. I know that but if we just say we have a vision nhassen that we have nice architecture and good. Plann April Emm i Ahren~, Emmim I thil Ahren~ subst~ Emmin~ let t agend. calls. Erhart Krausl under Erhar Kraus MUSA MUSA under Erhar Kraus Erhar you h Kraus~ now? Emmin Ahren Emminl Kraus~ LANDS Emmin~ guess Is th bluff get i' yOU ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 31 s: I don't think you'd want to say nice architecture. : Well I mean, I was paraphrasing what you were saying. s: Well quality construction is saying something a little different k. I think that means something to a developer. I don't know. : 8ut I think most developers would come in and say I'm putting in ndard quality construction. s: You've right. Unless somebody else has something burning, let's em take another crack at it. Paul tells me by the way that our s are going to get busier on real projects. He's getting a lot of on people wanting to develop. : A lot of these things are in the extended MUSA line... ;: No, people are starting to make requests in the new MUSA line ;tanding that it's contingent upon the Metropolitan Council approval. : You've going to handle those anyway? : Yeah. We might as well because had we not proposed to move the ine, they would have come in with a request to concurrently move the ine and do their subdivision anyway. We've already got that process lay. We could end up with a lot of these things contingent upon that. : Well, hopefully the window is not that large. : Are you feeling good about the MUSA line expansion today? Have ard anything? : Yeah. I do have some new information on it. Do you want that s: No. You've only got 5 minutes left out of the landscape. : Yeah, let's go. s: We'll get to that. : I've got some update items. :APING ISSUES PAPER. s: Okay, let's shift gears into the landscape ordinance then. I this one is not even, it doesn't seem to me anyway. Wait a minute. ,s the one where you asked us some specific questions or was that the one? Or there's the bluff one. Okay. What can we do on this one to going? It's a little hard to know. I guess one of the major things nted us to look at was the goal section huh? Plann Apr i 1 Kraus ordin, that ordin, ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 32 : Yeah. This is more of an issue paper. Before trying to draft an nce I think we need to know what we're trying to achieve. And for o happen, I tried to pull together all the various sections in the nces that we have that pertain to landscaping and there's a'lot of bits lnd pieces here and there and you really need to look at it in an integrated way. Emmin. and a Kraus: that ~ that. Emmin~ Kraus.` the z~ Emmi nf that',, Not sc thing,, under~. contrl under: devel. not n~ don't Emmin~ Counc The f, requil me 1 a: on th, sound.' appli¢ of si the C gener. Kraus: 0il. Emmin~ Kraus: examp of mean 's: Is the thought here that there will be one landscape ordinance 1 the other sections will reference it? : That would ideal. The structure of the ordinance is probably such ou have to have a separate one. Subdivision code if you go with s: Why? : It's in a whole different section of the ordinance. It's not in ning ordinance. s: Well you could do it by reference. Should that be the goal? Is omething that would be desireable? : Well I think it is. You want a legible understandable ordinance. mething that the three of us understand because we work with this for years and we've finally figured it out but nobody else tands it because it's in all different sections and it's dictory or whatever. Ideally it will be in one spot and tandable. One of the comments I have is that the standards that we ~ have to be understandable by reasonably intelligent people who are :essarily professionals. I made the point about percent opacity. I know what it is. s: Well and there's another. I know I've been at a couple of City 1 meetings where they've said, and we've talked about it here too. ct that we've got now in the subdivision ordinance one tree per lot ement. I know that Dick Wing on the City Council, in fact he called t night and again just said, he wants and thinks he has support for City Council an ordinance that would call for 3 trees per lot. That good to me but we have other things in here that say, or on some ations it's 1 tree per 40 feet and I think he thought that was kind ly. Those are some of the things that I know have been motivating t¥ Council is just the part that applies to subdivisions and just lly wanting heavier landscaping. : You know I think the review of the Jiffy Lube or whatever. Rapid Valvoline : Valvoline. Focused in on what kind of standards we have. For e, the landscaping standards we have for large parking lots in terms cent that have to be landscaped and all of that are quite good. I hat's a good section of the ordinance but then when we get to the Plann. April perim 40 misin we're doesn the o~ parkif obnoxJ the i¢ but ye that, or ot Batzl the. Kraus Batzl break Kraus~ EllsoT Kraus~ Batzl plant you r Conra Batzl you ' r Kraus looki The i CaTS suppo looki aspha St. L( of, t~ all t up is have there ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 33 ter of the parking lot and we get, well you have to have 1 tree every t. Well what does that do? And we basically have to find ways to erpret or reinterpret the ordinance to get what we want because if held strictly to the minimum requirements as true minimums, it t work. I think more of what you wanted to do was establish goals in dinance saying that you want to establish landscaping inside the g lot. You want to establish buffer screenings around the more ous sections. You want to establish perimeter landscaping and I like ea of saying the minimum you'll spend is tied to the building costs u're going to achieve these goals and if it's going to cost more than that's fine because those were only minimum numbers. One tree per 40 er ratios in my mind don't get at the real issue and that's the goal. : But maybe the goal isn't to screen the parking lot but to break up : Right. : So maybe that meets the goal. One tree per 40 feet could easily up the monotony of looking at a parking lot. : I'm not sure that it does. : 40 feet inbetween? : You have a 2 1/2 inch wide tree every 40 feet. : Well they won't be 2 1/2 inches. I mean granted when you first them but eventually they're going to grow. The question is, what can quire and when they do get big, what's it going to look like? : Not in your lifetime it won't be screened. · : No, but that's my point. If the intent isn't to screen when to plant a tree that's going to get to be 40 feet tall in 25 years. : That's where you've got to focus your goals. Brian, if you're g at the perimeter of a parking lot, the Market Square parking lot. tent of that is not to screen it so that nobody knows there's any n there and there's no life in there. It's a retail center. It's ed to be a busseling hub type of activity. If it's not, it's not g right. But on the other hand, it's a tremendous expanse of t. One of the most hideous examples I know of is on TH 12 in uis Park behind Fuddruckers or whatever it is where they just kind ere's an office building with just a big slab and from the highway e way to that thing it's just black. The only thing that breaks it white lines. You really want to avoid that kind of, you actually icro climates you develop in these places. The winds whip around in and you get dust devils and it's hotter in the summer and colder in the w~nter. You want to avoid that. $o on the perimeter of those parking lots ~ou want asethetic plantings. You're not looking to obscure the stuffls that in there but you're looking to break up the monotony and set apart that this is a public street. Here's a boulevard and here's a Plann April priva rolli story a tow: conif So th, get. Erhart Emmin! Erhar Kraus: Erhar now i they Emm i n, tall : Erhart Emmin! Ahren: Emmin! Ahren: Emmin! the c~ requi Kraus I didT about Emm i n! Kraus= propo.· stand~ pTOpO.~ OUT m, that long cost that ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 34 e parking lot and want to obtain that. You do that typically through g berms. Through lower scale plantings. Through scattering of over trees. Then if you've got something you really want to screen, like r or garage doors or something else, that's when you do the heavy rs or you require that they bring a wing wall out and other things. t's why I'm trying to get you-to focus in on, what do you want to : So are you able to write that ordinance? s: I hope so. : To screen commercial and...in a better way than we've got now? : Oh yeah. That's not hard. : Yeah because I think the 40 feet, while yeah maybe 50 years from might be good. The other approach to that is make it 20 feet or nme up with an alternative. s: Why do you want to talk about trees? Why don't we talk about the hrubs and everything else? : I think that's been said? s: Well it isn't though. Right now all we've got are trees. : ...minimum standards? Is that what we're trying to talk about? s: Yeah. : Well, how do you even set those? s: I guess Paul wants to say do it with cash and then see how far sh carries you and see if that does the job. And if it doesn't, you e more. : More because you're required to meet the goals. By the way, again 't develop that cash ratio but it's one I've worked with for probably 12 years. s: Does it work? : Yeah, it works very well. I've only had one building that was ed in Opus, but not by Opus on property that had been sold. The rds appeared not to work. It was a 10 story office building they're ing. The landscaping was hideous and they claimed that it exceeded nimum expenditures and I couldn't make them spend anymore because rdinance didn't have goals in there to compare it to. Well to make a tory short, I found out the developer was lying about the building nd when you actually put in the true cost of the building and got atio up to where it should be, it worked. Plann, April Erhar got t Emmin count~ Erhar' Emmim Erhar Emm i n Kraus= place4 could there Erhar indus of re, becau: Ellso' Kraus,~ the P~ decenl is vel Farma Kraus: I'll consi you long your Emmi n,, adequ. the c, Erhar' now? Emm i n: Erhar' is th~ put 3 ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 35 : What would happen if the lot was completely wooded? All you've do is preserve. s: No, it says that in here. That counts. What exists on the site toward the requirements. : In this dollar approach it counts? s: Well I don't know but there's a provision in here that says that. : In the dollar approach? s: Well how do you figure that out then? Yeah. : I don't know. There's not a direct trade off. There's no value on a 30 inch oak over a 4 inch birch or anything like that. We clarify that because I know it's in here but it's not directly in either. : One of the things, if you're buying a wooded lot, this applies to rial/commercial. He's paying for the wood already and it seems kind undant to have to put in another $50,000.00 worth of landscaping e it's wooded. : It would look nice though wouldn't it? : But even on a wooded lot, I mean what's the machine shop? Behind ess. That's on a very nicely wooded lot and they did a halfway job of preserving a lot of the trees, except the front end of that y intensively landscaped around their parking lot. es: Ver-Sa-Til? : Ver-$a-Til. And I could take a look and see if it conforms but et you that that's pretty, what they put in front was pretty tent. If we have some flexibility to make a value judgment, say well red 30 oak trees out back and that's worth something so therefore, as s you've achieved tbs goals up front, we'll let the minimum dollars :end slide. That's the flexibility you have too. s: Right. You can say this is what you have to do unless, that it's te. Then they may just have to focus on the areas that disturbed by nstruction. : Back to the Dick Wing thing here. Are we discussing that right The idea of having. s: Anything you want? : We're just open here? Great. What about football. His proposal t what? We require that the builder in at the time of development trees on every lot instead of 17 Plann, April Emmi n~ ordin~ Erhar going we Ellsol Kraus.~ for ht requi Anyth Batzlt Ahren.~ Krau$.~ for tt Ahren~, BatzlJ Ellsol Kraus= anywal in th~ build requi) versil the b~ lost more we're $250. Emm i n isn't Kraus: give, buy t~ suppo~ enoug} Emm i n~ Kraus: trees ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 36 s: He's talking there specifically I think about the subdivision nce that now requires 1 tree. : So he thinks that we should put in 3 not knowing where the guy's to put his driveway and really what the general landscaping is? Do w where those 3, are those 3 going to be right at the curb? : Oh, we're not designating where I don't think. : Dick's talked to me about it quite a bit. I don't want to speak m but I think I know where he's coming from. Right now all we e for landscaping is that you seed or sod any disturbed area. ng you've graded on the property needs to be seeded or sodded. : Since when? : That's not true. : Yes. Well, it's been true for 10 years but it's only been enforced e last 2. : It hasn't been enforced for 2 years. : Be that as it may, continue· : Start calling. : Yes. Tell Sharmin about it. We've been taking escrow...but · So it requires that plus it requires the installation of one tree front yard area if there's not already trees present. $o if you in a wooded lot and you have a tree in your front yard, there's no ement. Now what Dick was asking for, he came through a couple of ns of this was that you have maybe two trees in the front and one in ck and a couple would be hardwoods at the very least because we've o much of the hardwood forest. Dick actually started out wanting hah that and I said well, tie this into cost a little bit too because assuming for our escrowing of funds, that each tree has a value of 0 so 3 trees, you're adding a cost of $750·00 to the lot. s: Well, but now a developer is buying large quantities of trees going to pay that kind of money for them is he? : Well often times what happens with the larger developers is they they cut deals with the nursery and they give them certificates to is stuff over there. $o yes, there's other ways of doing it. I t Dick's suggestion but I guess in my opinion it doesn't go far s: That won't make him unhappy. : Yeah. Well I'm not sure that you want a regimented 1 tree here, 2 there. Plann Apr i 1 Ellso' Farma built does that ' all t budge~ the h~ Kraus: erosi issue lands, or wh~ rathe~ here clear you g has s, go wi' setti And w Iands~ iands~ RiIey ordin~ to ha~ you h~ plantJ requi you ' v you w~ year ~ Emmin~ in thc his y~ thing~, BatzlJ Emmin~ BatzlJ eithe~ stark Ahren~ are v~ trees. compl~ ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 37 : Exactly. es: Why can't you take an amount or percentage? I mean when we our house they also, I mean you've got that in here but the builder hat. They sit down and they say, they take a percentage of the home being built and that's always ate into it at the end. When you get e overhead costs and then you start chopping into that landscaping at the end. That's why a lot of people have dirt out in the back of use. : Well the reason for the seed or sod is not only aesthetic, it's n control. There's a valid reason for that beyond the aesthetic I guess my own personal belief is that yeah, a lot of people have aping budgets built into the thing so you've got $5,000.00 to spend tever it is with your home. A lot of builders don't do that. I'd not see the City in a position of approving a mulberry bush over nd hackberry bush over there and that kind of thing. I mean we have an interest in over story type trees because that's the view as you're going down the neighborhood. Is this a cornfield that me houses plopped into it or is this a boulevard? The thing when you h just limiting yourself to the three trees or however many trees you on, what that doesn't address is what is the overall plat look like. at we don't have in our subdivision code now is an overall aping plan requirement. Now 3o Ann required Klingelhutz to put in a ape berm along the highway and in a couple of other places with Lake Hills. Strictly speaking we exceeded, if you strictly interpret the nce, we exceeded the bounds of what the ordinance says. But we want e that legitimized and we'd like to be able to do that more. Then if ve that overall landscaping scheme where you can have boulevard ngs. You have the more obnoxious things screened off, then if you're ing additional 1 or 2 trees per lot in a~ appropriate place and then got a pretty nice package. Then the icing on the cake Jeff is what uld do with your landscaper. Maybe the first year, maybe the third hen you can afford it. s: But any homeowner, I think it's real important to get those trees re by the developer because any homeowner is going to take care of rd and he's going to take care of foundation plantings and shrubs and 1 i ke that. : No. No. s: No? : No. Walk through my neighborhood and you get some people who are transitory or single for one reason or another and their home is as as the day they bought it 6 years ago. : I think 3 trees is a good idea. I mean it's a good idea. There ry few lots, very few houses that are built on lots that don't need 3 I mean maybe in the very expensive areas where the lots are tely wooded but that's not the majority of lots in Chanhassen. I Plann April don ' t that. Farma perce' ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 38 think 3 is unreasonable at all. In fact most need a lot more than es: My point, rather than taking a number was if you took a tage of what they were spending on the house. Whether it's commercial development or residential and they brought in a plan as to how they could best ~tilize that money in that particular lot. Let's say the lot could only ~eally accommodate 2 trees? Then they could put it into other areas of shlubberies or hedge or whatever. Kraus: famil about Singl has s looki right sure terms prope~ mean now . than Emmin regul~ Batzl. Emmin! Ahren; 1. Emmin! or don't it in that Erhar into Anoth : That's essentially what we do for everything except single · There's a philosophical question I think you might want to think and I've got some personal beliefs but that's irrelevant here. family home, I mean the home is your castle type of thing. The City me certain vested rights. I think we have a right to have acceptable g boulevards· Attractive looking boulevards. I think we have a to not destroying whatever natural forest we have left and making hat things are put back. But I really tend to trend very lightly in of going beyond what an individual homeowner can do on their ty. If you asked us to do landscaping plans like that per house, I e can certainly administer that. We do it for everything else right It's a lot of work because we have more single family development nything else. I'd personally be relunctant to do it. s: I don't think we should. I don't think we should get into ting foundation planning. : I don't think so either. For example, when we talk about trees, I think we should. : I don't foundation plantings either but trees. We already require don't know where 1 came up. s: And Jeff I think too, if you've got a smaller lot where 2 trees, re it's a requirement to have 3 trees and 2 were going to fit, you have to think of it all in terms of maples and oaks. You can think of terms of maybe they plant 2 crab apples or a hawthorne or something : Let me offer another idea here. I'm adamantly opposed to getting utting trees, being involved in putting trees on people's lots. r approach to this, I know what Dick's trying to get to and I think we al~ want to get to, and I think Paul's saying it without really getting himself clear· What you really want is boulevard trees. And instead of looki as, 1 feet withi about with g at it as per lot, let's go back to what we've got and let's view it t's require the developer to put in boulevard trees every x amount of ~d they have to be this kind of a tree. And the tree has to be so many feet of the curb because I'll tell you, anything beyond feet is, to me that's the homeowner's property and we don't screw hat. Piann April Batzl not i it's Erhar almos' is. many Batzl Erhar aren' probl wide in bo into Batzl Emmin Erhar Emm i n Ahren: along there Erhar Ahren could Kraus~ taken Ellsol Krause have isn't the t but o occas their for u stuff Ellso ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 39 : Well that's the interesting thing is they put the boulevard trees the boulevard right-of-way. I mean they require boulevard trees but learly in the homeowner's lot. : It is but really, I mean there is a certain area there that is pseudo public, the first few feet and I don't know what that number ake an approach to require the developer to put in boulevard trees so eet apart and so far. : Basically within the right-of-way. : Yeah, I guess it could be within the right-of-way. Then you messing around with those lots and see therefore you avoid the m with some guy's lot is 150 feet wide and the next guy is 30 feet nd where do you put the trees? You avoid all that and you just put levard trees. I think it accomplishes what we want without getting his individual. : They'd better be salt hardy. s: But it sounds like you're going to see a tree. : But isn't that what you want? s: Well I don't know. I don't know. : Tim, I live on Lake Lucy Road where there's a 20 foot easement th~ side of the road. Where would you put the trees? I mean if s a trail easement. : Why wouldn't you put the tree between the trail and the street? : Because there's an easement there for utilities. I mean they come and dig it up I imagine anytime. : The first 10 feet. There's a problem. I think your point is well That what you want is boulevard trees. : Not necessarily. : Well part of what you want to achieve is streets that ultimately tee lined streets. I think the idea of having a tree in the back yard a bad one if there isn't any back there but there's a problem putting ee in the boulevard itself. I know you call it a boulevard planting r maintenance folks, first of all they plow snow up and they onally go up on the curb. The cable TV company comes in and puts stuff in. The first 10 feet back from the right-of-way is often used ilitw work plus you do have salt intolerate trees and that kind of But I don't know, do you really want it regimented up and down? : No. I think that's what we want to get away from. Plann, ~pril Kraus: it's . whate~ Ellso that Emm i n want Kraus, Batzl Emmin we're Farma by Ne Kraus~ Farmal bit. have Olsen: Krause Farma Up in KTausE maint~ but m~ Er hat t refer l years ~ Ellso) that t Emmin~ the be down. Ahrens boule~ ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 40 : The way we've done it now, granted it's only 1 tree but we said n the front yard and they can integrate it into a landscaping plan in er way it fits for them. : I prefer variety of trees also. I don't think we should regulate hat should be a sugar maple or whatever. s: What if someone wants a swimming pool or tennis court and they t completely out in the sun? : That would be in their back yard anyway. : But once they move in, they could cut it down I suppose. s: That's another issue just like we were talking about before. If going to require them up front, do they have to be there later on? es: The trees that are on CR 17, those that were planted over there Horizon over there. : The ones that are dead? es: Yes. The intent of those boulevard trees I guess worry me a I believe if people put the stuff on their own property, that they better chance of reaching maturity. That was on private property. That's not a boulevard tree. : But they don't perceive it that way. es: It sure looks like the intent, I mean the way they're all lined a row. : Typically, if you get a tree in your front yard, you're going to in it. I mean somebody might decide to chop it down or let it die st people would take care of it. : Those things aren't boulevard trees, that's a screen. I'm lng to a boulevard tree that the object is to shade, ultimately in 40 shade the street. : I don't feel that I need boulevard trees so I don't agree with t has to be a boulevard tree. s: That's the kind of street I grew up on. There'd be the sidewalk, ulevard and the trees and the street. There were elms all up and : I thinkk that looks real nice but I'm just wondering where the ards are. Erhar : We have to define that but I guess. Plann April Ahren: At les Emmi n~ to sel but g, Conra~ sense that ' lands subdi here. entry ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 41 : There are easements that are constantly being torn up by the City. st out where I live they are. s: Somehow, I think everybody agrees we want more trees or we'd like more trees. You may not want to see more trees on every single lot nerally want more trees and I don't know how you're going to. : I like a couple of things that have been said and they all make I think we need a minmum for lots in new subdivisions and whether 1, 2 or 3, we've got to figure that out. I think we need an overall aping plan for, and that's what Paul and 3o Ann have said. So for a ision that makes sense. And I really agree, I'm on everybody's side I really agree with what Tim said. I care about boulevards and ays to Chanhassen. I care about the major arteries. I guess I reall~~don't~ care what somebody does to their own property. That's their busin s. I do believe that there should be minimums. Otherwise we could, I thi we have to reforest what was taken down. Was farmed. So I think there but I highw~ about TH 5 Could compr about that anymo think but f. right had s, about Chanh~ about you k' grow. we, y( take and i maybe Emmin: when plan Conra( Emmin~ Conral are minimums. I don't care if it's 1, 2 or 3. We'll figure that out do like things like some standards. Like when we have the new 212 coming through. Do we care about the entryway? Do we care Yare' we an entryway to the Arboretum? Do we care? Do we care how s landscaped all the way down from Chanhassen to the Arboretum? be pretty if we really planned it. On the other hand, maybe it's too hensive. Too complex. Maybe we can't do that. You know, I do care an entry way to a new development. I do care about the boulevards in nce you get off into some of the feeder streets, I don't care e. All of a sudden you're back into individual properties. $o I I've taken a little bit of everybody's approach in residential areas r Chanhassen I think. Do we care how TH 5 is landscaped? It stinks now. Just absolutely stinks and we're talking about, you know we've me opportunity to work on one property but do we care? Do we care sugar maples? Annette said no. Sugar maples is not a big deal in ssen. Do we care about greenery? In the wintertime. Do we care is that just something that, do we only care about greenery in the, ow we've got 8 months of bad weather here where trees don't really Do we really care what it looks like those other 8 months? I think u know I'm talking some very philosophical things and maybe we can't are of TH 5 and maybe we don't care how the Arboretum really fits in we should reinforce it as a major theme. But on the other hand, there is an opportunity to look at some of those. s: I think it's a great idea and I never thought of it. Because e do the corridor study on TH 5, why don't we develop a landscape nd each property as it comes in is going to have to conform to that. See that makes sense to me. s: Why don't we do that? : I don't know. Erhar : Well we are doing a landscape as part of the TH 5. April Ahren: ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 42 : Isn't the State contributing? Emmin., : Yeah, but are they doing it the way we want to do it? Who's doing ? Kraus~ : We're doing it. It's an HRA project. As TH 5 comes through dow n Chanhassen, there are paving treatments, there are landscaped mo at each interchange. I think there's even possibly going to be some ial lighting. Ahre : He means all the way down. Emmin~ : Yeah. What I see Ladd talking about is really a lot more global than that. And maybe it's clumps of evergreens with here and there with apple trees going down that bloom in the spring or something like that. EllsoT : I think that Lake Drive...on the Klingelhutz development there. It's ust greak with all that pine and stuff like that. That sort of thing Emmin<. Arbors our i ~ Conrac we. s: You know what? I wonder if we couldn't, there are people at the tum with expertise to landscape. Why wouldn't they do that for us in terest? : Well Peter Olin, if you'll recall, came in here and suggested that Erbar1 with Very avail~ : I'll go beyond that. Dave Headla and Barb Dacy and I had lunch eter Olin one time...at the direction of the Planning Commission... ice lunch and he made it quite clear to us that Mr. Olin was ble on a consulting basis and the City of Chanhassen... Emmin~ s: Yeah. He told us we-were stupid but he didn't tell us how to do thing:. Erharl : ...but that was the way it ended upi Emmin~s: Okay. We can do it ourselves. He's not that important. Ahren~: We just have to go out to the Arboretum and look around. There's lot gl trees out there. Batzl : Just go out there with a shovel. Conra, : That's real tacky. You know Peter was in here complaining about how w. 're doing the comprehensive plan because we didn't care about the Arbor, tum. How we're going to divide 41 and some properties that abutted to hi].dand didn't want to sell and wanted to turn it into green space for him a I'm real surprised that we couldn't get some interest. Emmin. ls: What can we do to get Paul going to take into account the things that ave been said here tonight? Plann April Kraus: did T that Conrac invest ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 43 : I don't know. When I laid out the goals i thru 7, page 1 and 2, say anything that people don't agree with? Did I overlook something hould have been incorporated? : Well you've got the words there. I think under point 5, to be igated. Absolutely and that probably interests me a great deal. When at TH can hi on pe think that greene broad Emmin 7 and disti there real <. I thi ~ subdi~ take J set mJ they } want t thoroL Kraus, would~ so t hl Emmin( going gOeS , it gel Kraus~ to wa inter some prope to do that don't plan Conra, befor, Kraus: place )gu use the word boulevard, I'm really looking at TH 101. I'm looking 5. I'm looking at major entrances and exits. Major places where we vea very definite impact on, visual impact on our own residents and nle that are driving through. I think that's really critical. I ,e can do something more significant than the architectural standards e've been talking about. This is a really positive thing in terms of ry and what we can do both for winter and summer. That number 5 is r for me and I like that one. I think that's really significant. s: An example of what you're maybe talking about is TH 41 between TH TH 5. It has a very, especially on the TH 5 side, has a very ctive feel of it's own from all the pine trees planted in there and s no reason we couldn't do that on a lot of the major roads. That's a god idea. So one goal would be, well I don't know if this is a goal. k one thing I hear everybody saying is we want an over, in the ision ordinance we want an overall plan for the subdivision that will nrc account the boulevard and things like that and then we'd want to nimums for each lot. We've already got it covered in the PUD because ave to have a landscape plan so that's a separate item I guess. We o take account of major entrances into the City and the major ghfares. : That is something that is'valid and needs to be done but it 't be in the ordinance because these are public improvement projects way we instigate. s: Do they have to be? If we have an overall plan for what TH 5's to look like, at least as far as the landscaping along the highway then when that property is developed. It's sort of like, that's when s done by the developer. : There are two things to that. When TH 5 is expanded, we're going t to have a landscaping plan within the right-of-way at major ections of what we do. Then beyond that you're going to want to have crt of a landscaping theme ideally in a corridor whereby adjacent ties, when they're developed, reflect that theme. I'm not prepared that part of it in a landscaping plan yet until we've gone through orridor analysis and we've developed some specific standards. But I think that should stop us from going ahead and getting a landscaping n place that deals with development throughout the city right now. : What did you just say Paul? You want the standards in place first we do the plan? : Well, we need the general standards that apply to everything every in the city. Plann April Conra~ Kraus~ devel( then gets of va do it Emmi n~ COrri, Conra( about talki looki ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 44 : Like on the individual lots? : Yeah. As we go through a corridor study on TH 5, you may well specific standards for properties adjacent to the TH 5 corridor and specific requirements built into the ordinance someplace that what you're looking for. But I'm not prepared to make those kinds judgments as to what you want to see in a corridor study until we : No. We don't want to do that until we do the, that's part of the study as I see it. : What I see, what I need to know from Paul is what are we talking 'e? I'm throwing some things out and I really don't know what I'm about in terms of the overall Chanhassen plan. Again, we're at TH 41 and we're looking at TH 212 and we're looking at TH 101. The m. jot arteries. What is it that we could do and how do we do it? I need some idance. Do we have a chance to do something there? Is it something that i so costly that we can't do it? Emmin~ : I think you're talking about something different here. To me whatFaul brought in front of us is an ordinance that says, what do people do w n they develop property and what you're talking about is, what does Chan n do, number one in it's own, in the right-of-way to make the City look he way we want it to? And number two, maybe to require developments ad nt to that. Conr : That's the key right there. If we have the plan in place when the new lopment comes in and they know what they have to do because we've got a n that says for TH 5 corridor this is what you've got to fit into. Kraus~: I think that's going to come. We're Just not prepared to do that until we develop those standards as a part of the study. Now the only corridor we committed to studying specifically is TH 5 and I don't know that e can devote a specific amount of study to each one. However, the TH 10 relocation study, when Fred Hoisington did that, has a landscaping desig element embodied into it. So we do these things as the projects come long. 8atzl : 8ut it seems to me he really toned that down due to constraints impos d by MnDot based on curves in the road. Kr : MnDot makes it very tough. Emmin!s: You've got to keep the trees away so the cars don't hit them. Kraus:: Well basically with the landscaping we were doing on TH 5, MnDot won't let anything happen in their right-of-way but paving treatments and any ol the landscaping and the monumenting we're doing, we're doing on land we ei own or buying just outside the MnDot right-of-way. Batzl So realistically then, how much landscaping can we do on a project like hat? ...sumac on the slopes. Plann April Erhar Kraus Emmin! every' ordin~ Yequi anoth gener~ Find ¢ Conra( relat some persp think ng Commission Heeting 3, 1991 - Page 45 : Does the right-of-way include the side slopes or doesn't it? : It depends. Some places yes. s: Right now should Paul's focus be on number one, pulling hing that relates to landscaping into a landscaping section in the nce? Number two, dealing with the general requirements? Landscaping ements for developers in the city and maybe this other thing is r step. Is that the way you see it? So the first step is to get the 1 stuff all pulled together in one place and find out what it is. ut what the requirements are. I see this step as being relatively, you know we can make this a rely simple step. Whether we're talking one tree or 3, and there's ther things. Obviously I'm simplifying that. I guess my only ctive is if we really talk about what Dick Wing is saying, I don't trees in a lot is going to make a difference. Emminss: Well and I don't think that's what Dick is saying either. He's gott~e step. ConTac : Right. He's saying, that's a real easy, we can change a number from to 3 and we're going the right direction but I think the overall city lanning is really what can make a difference in landscaping and the soone we get to it, the more chance we have of getting something done as we develop because there will be, as soon as the MUSA starts going in, we're going to have some pressure to develop. Batzl : But I think we disagree from the standpoint of I think 3 trees is an eh, rmous step forward for a lot of us living in cornfields and don't under estimate allowing people to put a couple of trees in their mortgage rathe~ than going out and purchasing them later. Farmal Batzl! Ahren.~ devel< Lake. es: A lot of that land is cornfields. : Yeah. I agree. I don't understand... That where most of the nt is. I mean we're not going in and developing much around Lotus Emmin~ s: Do something. Kraus: : Okay. Erharl : I've got just one small item. On page 6. 20-1179, item (3) down there I've always felt that the City had too much...replacing. If you just dd a statement that said, where existing tree cover is minimal, the City ay require the replacement of removed trees. Emmin s: Which number? Oh I see. Plann April Erhar' in an~ littl~ it's Kraus~ tree F thing.~ is th, but t intac' Erhart lot ar EllsoT Erhart discr~ direc make got t There' Olsen impro~ Krau$~ prese do bu to Erhart givin~ know Batzl someb going anythJ were the 1( Olsen: once couldT Batzl. the c, to buJ regul ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 46 : (3). Where there's a few trees but it's not a forest, you can go require them to replace cut down trees. That at least gives us a bit of guidance when you can apply that and when not. Right now ~sentially at your discretion. Jo Ann and I were just talking that we need to look at the whole reservation program. Tree replacement program with this. One of the that hopefully we'll have real shortly but I'm not counting on it, DNR reforestation thing where, I'm not sure how I'll bring that in ey may designate a stand of trees of being particularly important so there maybe more value placed on that. : I understand but I'm just saying, if you get a completely wooded d he's got. : It says may. : I understand it says may but it leaves it entirely up to the tion of the city and I'm just saying we can put a little bit of ton into it by saying where existing tree cover is minimal, we can hem replace trees but right now could .we just say, well gee. You've take out trees because you're going to put a house pad there. ore, I want you to put. We can put in wording that allows for the housepad and driveway ements but beyond that. : Eden Prairie which has received some acclaim for their tree ration ordinance. I don't like it because it's so severe that if you ld on a forested lot and you have to remove trees, you've obligated lace it and you may have no place to put it. : That's not right and that's what I'm trying to avoid by just a little bit, by adding a phrase to give direction here because I hat's not our intent. : Jo Ann? I recall this year then too, it seems to me we had dy subdivide a lot not too long ago and he sold it to some guy who's to build a house and then clear cut the lot and we couldn't do ng about it. Is that still possible under, I don't remember what we oing to do about that to fix that loophole where a person subdivided t and then they sold the lots to someone else to build. I think that gets to, it's their private property. What they do t gets to that point. That might have been, is that why I said we 't do anything? : I don't think so. But it wasn't really, they hadn't gone through nstruction process yet but they still were able to clear cut the lot lda house. It seemed like a mighty simple way to avoid all of our tions on doing this type of thing. Plann~ Commission Meeting April , 1991 - Page 47 Emmin~ : But if you have an overall plan for the subdivision that would emcom~ both tree preservation and planting and you Get all the people. Batzl How do you tie that into the contractor that's Going to build a house ~hat might maybe buys it as a spec lot and he's Going to, you know. You ,e somebody comes in and he's got a piece of property. He divides it into lots and sells it to contactor A, B and C. Kr there used : You record a development contract against the property. If specific conditions, that will Go along with the title which we not do very effectively but we have been for the last year. Olsen And if there is a significant amount of trees, there would have been tree removal plan required. When the building permit comes in, they show hat trees will be preserved and how they'll be preserved. So then, and t~ 's happened since then. When we've been better at this, where they'll still cut down more trees than that. We've been able to go back out t~ere and say no. This is the plan. It shows this and you have to repla¢ those. Again, you're just getting little trees instead of a big huge k but we've been able to have them replace them. Emmin~s: It sounds like the abuses have come in the subdivisions and I Guess that's where we need that. Kraus: : I don't think we'll ever be'able to stop individual abuses. Except that 5~ of the time common sense is going to dictate that they're Going to prese ye what Gives them some visual pleasure. What adds value to the lot and dl velopers aren't as dumb as they used to be. Emmin~s: No. They come in lie. On that very one I think Brian's talking about the Guy stood right there and said, do you think I'm stupid. I would' 't cut down these trees because I can Get more for the lots with trees on them and then he went and cut down every damn tree. Olsen: Like Triple Crown. That's the one right on Kerber. North of Chan Vista Used to be covered with vegetation. Emmin~s: 8ut I know he stood there and said. We said, are you Going to prese]ve these trees and he said do you think I'm crazy. I'm Going to preselve every tree I can because people will pay more for that. It made sense to us so we didn't put any restrictions on it and he just took a bulldozer and made it flat. Ellso : Maybe we should have a hate list for those kinds of people and just ass them around. And then just say, make sure he's Got a lot of lands Emmin Batzl aping restrictions and penalties. s: That 45 minutes was an hour long. : We're getting better. Plann April BLUFFI Emmin~ report Kraus~ Emmin~ ought Erhart Emmi talk ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 48 INE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. s: Paul had some specific questions on the summary on page 6 of his here. Or Jo Ann. I'm sorry. Do you want to start this now given the time? : I have a feeling this one won't take that long. to do it. : Yeah. I've got some issues on it. s: The only one I've got, since I've got the floor, was when you bout the bluff impact zone within 20 feet of the top of the bluff. Yeah, I think we just about Erbar1 Emmin~ Ellso Erhar' Emmin: Olsen bluff out, usual level bluff out f Batzl was O Olsen So yo consi Erhar Olsen The D~ Emmin! bluff struc' Erhar bring ~onder why it isn't a bigger number. The bluff impact zone talks page 2 is, I don't know why it's not 100 feet? : What line are you on? s: Page 2. Bluff Impact Zone. : Second major paragraph. : Under item 17 s: No above there where it's defined. Actually they're finding the opposite. That the definition of is where it has to be 30~ for a certain amount and then if it levels hen the steep slope or it's not a bluff so actually, the way bluffs y are, is that there will be a steep slope and then you'll have it ng out but that still, the top of this is still, or the top of the so you actually already have a pretty decent amount of area leveling om the bluff before you do take that 20 feet. : I thought the bluff, the only part of the bluff was the part that er 30~. That's where I was confused. But the top of the bluff is a higher point .... segment with 18~. 'ye got 30~ and then you could have anything with 18~. That's still ered part of the bluff. : 50 foot? In fact, I don't know that you need more is what I'm getting at. R finds that the 20~ might even be... s: Let me tell you, well okay. But you've got restrictions on the impact zone but a building only needs to be set back 30 feet. A ute only, what? : You're getting into the broader question but I want to comment, to up here and that is. My impression of this, I guess I've been Plann April pushi comme by thJ peopl react who w~ you ct and si applyJ which to do from My co you ' r Emmin Erhar' value it. Emmin~ ought Erhart not o the c Batzl Erhar' out o' ordin, to nut above numbe' I thi thing thing of hi Emmin Erhar Emmi n do yol Erhart Emmin~ ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 49 g to try to preserve this bluff and everything like that from cial development· On the other hand, I guess I'm a little awestruck s whole thing is that one of the things I'm trying to preserve is so can build houses on top of the bluff and overlook it and I guess my on is, I'm concerned we're being too restrictive in terms of the guy nts to build his house and have a deck that is up essentially to what 11 the top of the bluff and have it essentially overlook the valley uff. A lot of which those existing houses are there. You're ng standards which really are, there's ail kinds of houses there now would not meet this standard and I really question why we're trying that when I thought what we were trying to do was protect the bluff evelopment right essentially down in the valley and that area there. cern is now, that's one concern. It kind of goes against what s: Yeah, because I'm including the top of the bluff. : Yeah, I just don't understand it. To me that's part of the big of the bluff is that someone can build on it and take advantage of s: I don't mind them building houses on top of it but I think they to be set back a ways. : Second concern of the whole thing is the way this reads it will ly just apply to bluffs but I'll tell you. There's a lot of hills in ty of Chanhassen that this thing will make practically unbuildable. : We can limit it to the BF Districts. : Because I'll tell you, and the reason I ask. You're taking this the DNR shoreland ordinance and you talk about 25 feet above the ry high water and then you're just taking that number and applying it bet one. And you're saying that a slope rising at least 25 feet the toe of the slope, not the high water mark and I think that 's too small. I like the overall thing. I really like it but ~k where it's getting too broad and we're going to be applying this to hills. As a result, you're going to have a major impact on how will get done and I don't think that was our intent. I have a lot ls on my property that are over 25 feet tall. With slopes like these? : Oh yeah. s: But you don't want to build at the top of a steep slope like that · think that's what's valuable about the land. s: Right up to the edge of it though? Erhar : Well the deck. Plann April Emm i n: where Ahr mn,, ng Commission Heeting 3, 1991 - Page 50 And you don't worry about having a deal like in California here go sliding away down the hill. : Oh in Eden Prairie. EllsoT : Or Eden Prairie just during that 100 year storm there were some of those, . . Erhart: In the first place you've got 50 feet of an 18 foot slope and then you got another 30 feet of the setback. You're talking about restricting a lot of land from use by lot owners. Emmin~s: That's what I thought this was all about. EllsoT : It was for impact wasn't it? It wasn't to save a bunch of decks on to of the bluff. You're preserving how nice it looks. Ahren : I thought this will all about protecting bluffs, not protecting them or the development of houses on the top of them. Erbar : I understand that but there has to be a point where you draw a line. I mean if people want to build houses, why don't we just say you can't build houses on lakes because I don't want to drive by in my boat and see a house and you wouldn't have a house. $o there's a practical limit and I think we've gone, what scares me is apparently some of these numbers are already incorporated into the DNR ordinance. Olsen We're going to be having to adopt these with our Shoreland Ordin~ nce. Erhar : 25 feet is, that's nothing. That's a hill here in Chanhassen. There s a lot of places that are hills that have nothing to do with what we're talking about bluffs that will fall into this regulation. Emmin~ s: They did say, somewhere in here they told us what you thought would ly be protected here. I don't know. I can't get too excited about hill. I don't know exactly what a hill is I guess. Olsen devel It's steep slopes was what maybe you,'re picturing and you do allow of that. Erhar going Olsen Emmin~ cour$~ out o' Both it di me in : That's what I'm saying but I think with this ordinance we're not to anymore. Yeah. s: Remember Tim when we talked about the land that went by the golf and somebody wanted to build a house that was kind of going to hang er the bluff almost and I think we were all real opposed to that. ecause it imposed on the creek there, the valley that was there and n't, well I don't know. I remember thinking it didn't sound safe to addition. Plann Apr i 1 Erhar' 18~. s Emmi n, Erhart Emmin! Erhar feet 80 fe Emmi n! Erhar Emm i n Tim. Erhar Ellso Emmin~ Erharl the h! Conra, Erhar' Olsen: Emmi n~ Erharl Emmin~ slope~ Olsen Ceil have. Emm i n, Erhar drops then ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 51 : But Steve, there's a difference between 80 foot setback. You have ope. s: Why are you saying 80? : Because you have 50 feet of i8~. s: You've got 50 feet going what direction? : 8ack from essentially where the 30~ slope is. Then you have 50 f 18x slope and then you've got another 30 feet of setback. That's t. s: From what? : From what I would consider really where the bluff starts. s: I don't agree with that. Look at this diagram. Look at this one : The top of the bluff means. : There's a picture of it. It's described here. s: A picture's worth a thousand words. : I've got it. Let me read it for you. The top of the bluff means gher point of a 50 foot setgment with an average slope exceeding 18~. : Okay, and that's this part. : No, that's the 30~. I'm reading the ordinance to you. The top of the bluff is where it levels out... s: Put this one up. : I' know but that doesn't agree with what it says here. I think you're reading steep slopes. Isn't that the steep ? The steep slope is kind of between these areas and that's where as saying that either 20 feet...and then in the area of 15~, then you This would be the top and then you'd have 20 feet setback from here. s: I like that better. : It's where your 30~ is. Then you have another 50 feet where it down to 18~. I'm just saying, so then you finally get to the top and 'ou've got another 30 feet so your house is 80 feet back from where. Plann, April Emmin! no 18 Erhar in fa. just looks to ge' it di Emmi n to do don't river devel Ellso Emmi n! mind? Erhar devel me. I there I gue~ decks valle house and i Emmin doesn Erhar valle agree sound., built Emmin~ Conra( Erharl there Conra( erosi: Olsen: Again ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 52 s: In that peculiar case yeah but what about here where you've got at all? It goes up 30 and then it starts to level off. : If you go walk those Minnesota River bluffs, it's far more common, t you have variations all the way up like this. It doesn't go up and top like that picture. That's not the way that Minnesota Valley In fact I'm not even sure, well. I quite frankly think it's going a hard time. It's going to get so restrictive because the fact that s back down. It's pretty idealistic. s: Maybe we ought to step back because I thought what we were trying here was keep development off the top. The edge of the slope. We want to see development on the slope itself and basically from the to the top of the slope a little ways back we didn't want to see any nment. That's where I thought we were coming from. : So nature wise it just looked like 100 years... s: Well you're the one who proposed this so what did you have in : I never had in mind that. I was trying to get rid of the nment actually down by the highway. This is all kind of shocking to ~ not opposed to me because I think it will work but I'm just saying., s got to be really, we really need to define what our goals are here. s I don't have any problem with the houses way up there that have that come right to the edge because they like to look over the · I really have no problem with that. It's no different than other around. Housing on lakes. It's an amenity that those people want 's really not that intrusive. s: And residential development like that at the top of the bluff t bother you but you wouldn't want to see any other kind? : I don't want to see commercial/industrial development in the or situations. We don't want houses on 30~ slope. I absolutely with that because of the erosion problem. And the thing is, that good here but there's a lot of places in the world where houses are on 30~ slope as a rule. · s: And they wash out into the lake. : They shouldn't be there. : Well you wouldn't build a house in Puerto Rico. Nobody would live in Puerto Rico if you couldn't build a house on a 30~ slope. : Let me follow up. The reason for the setbacks Jo Ann would be for n? When we had that 20? The DNR's big thing is more visual. They want to keep things. this ordinance is for the shoreland ordinance so it's bluffs along Plann April the 1, the he ConTa( edge ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 53 keg so they don't want it cleared completely right up so you can see ne. The setback is for visual but also for erosion. : I just kept thinking that Tim, if you put a house right on the f the bluff, you've got a lot of water coming off your roof and it just seemed, you know for a rain storm, it just seems like you're acceni uating the erosion. That's how I interpretted the ordinance. If you keep our house back a little bit, you're reducing the erosion. Maybe that's not a big deal but that was my interpretation of the reason. Mine wasn't visual. Ellso Ahren: Erhar hills KTausE toget River and t valid peopl look Erhar Kraus who g~ wouid BIuff going condu~ invit, But ti Redmo~ Bluff requi~ it's trees spect~ these here ' there They way? troub Erhart want prote Lotus : Plus not all the decks are good looking and things like that. : It's too windy to have a deck up there anyway. : This can be applied, unless I'm reading it wrong, to a lot of in the City that have nothing to do with bluffs. 25~ rise. : That's a question we have when we looked at starting to put er a map of where these things occur. It's not only the Minnesota 3luff lines. It's around Lotus Lake. It's in some different areas ere are more than I think we would have thought. You're raising a ooint. On the other hand, I think there's a problem with allowing to clear cut 30 foot openings in tree cover because they want to t the Minnesota River. : I have no problem with that. : We've been talking to a couple of guys who are amateur naturalist ew up in this area and have been walking Bluff Creek for 20 years and like the City to be more active in preserving the natural areas of Creek around the golf course. And they've offered, I think we're to probably try to schedule this for May sometime. They're going to t a tour, a walking tour of the area down there and I was going to you and the Park Board and whoever wanted to go on the City Council. ey pointed out, there's a new home being built and it's by one of the d son-in-law's on an 80 acre tract of ground past the golf course on Creek Drive. You can go to see it. Where they met our setback ement from Bluff Creek. The creek itself but they chopped, I mean very steep bluff where they built and they chopped, clear cut the so that their home could be hung very dramatically. It's a cular home. Hung dramatically out over this pristine valley. And guys said they were horrified. They were walking through there and this area that no intrusion has ever been in and now you walk up and you see this thing over hanging the valley. Now they may own it. o own part of it but should they have been allowed to intrude in that I haven't seen that aspect of it but the specter of it I find ing. : I agree and maybe what we have to do is find out what areas we o protect in this manner. Where you don't want to see anything and t those areas. On the other hand you've got a guy who owns a lot on Lake and you've got 1,000 houses that are parked right up to the edge Planni Apr i 1 of th~ years furthe Emm i n! yOU ' r so yoc Olsen we ca' Krause we of fcc ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 54 cliff, and now this guy just because he hasn't built on it for 30 now wants to build houses, his house has got to be 80 feet back r than ali the existing houses? s: No he doesn't because isn't there a regulation that says if coming into an established neighborhood you can vary, or you build 're building up at the level of where the existing homes are? That's in the Shoreland Ordinance itself but that's something that apply to this ordinance. : Also, it should not apply. I mean if you've got rolling terrain, in matin country here. The glacier stopped here and dumped out piles ks all over the place and now some of them have trees on it or they' lands< autom~ Emmim Conra( There care steep going Erharl Conra( Erhar Conra don't ,e steep. Those kinds of things are sort of abberations on the ape and just because they're steep, you're right. They shouldn't tically trip this regulation necessarily. s: I don't think that's our intent. : What you just said about building on a lake and steep slope. s just no way it should be done. Just absolutely no way so I don't hat the previous residents did. There should be no building on a slope going to the lake. There's no way they can prevent erosion in there. There's absolutely no way. : Are you talking about steep slopes? 30~ or 18~7 : Well 30~. : I'm not disagreeing with that Ladd. But what we've got here. : But Steve was making a point and I was making a counter point. I believe that that should be done. Erhari : Again, my concern is that you've got 80 feet of 18~ that we're also lestricting and again while it may be appropriate for the, you know the B~uff Creek thing by the golf course is the classic case. It's level and m~ n it drops but most other areas don't quite fit the classic case. I think Emmin~ start. Ellso Emmin. Kraus Tanadl Emmin There we'v got to put some more thought into this. ' s: I don't think anybody sitting up here had hills in mind when we d all this. : No. In fact I'm only looking at one place in all of Chanhassen. s: I was thinking Minnesota River Valley. : You know but it's across Lake Minnewashta from you. It's off that cna where those homes are perched up on that bank. is: Well there's two places by the lake. There's Minnewashta. s around in that little bay where there's some houses high on the Planni Apr i 1 hill in th menti¢ call Conrac bluff. Emmin! Conra~ Emmi n~ Erhar ConTa Erhar' and I that we're Conra, Erbar' Emmin.. Shore got t, me th: Valle] specil Kraus= can desig Olsen sayin meets bl f Emmin Olsen Emminl Olsen that ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 55 nd then there's that old Governor's mansion that probably would fit s. There's a real steep hill there, which I think is the one you're ning. It's right on the Tanadoona property. Or Tuna Noodle as we t. That's right on that property. : But if we're looking at bluffs, I guess we've got to be looking at regardless. s: We don't have to. : Don ' t we? s: We don't have to do anything. : We don't have to. Define our goals of what. : $o the goal is to preserve the bluffs. : Well initially the goal was to preserve the Minnesota River Valley think we should include 8luff Creek and some of those other ravines eed into the Minnesota River· I think we've got to decide whether trying to preserve bluffs on Lotus Lake and Minnewashta. : Well if it applies, I think we should. : Maybe rewrite it so it doesn't apply. s: See on Minnewashta and Lotus I would expect that the and Ordinance will apply and take.care of that. I don't think we've worry about that. We've already got something that covers that. To s was, and I agree with Tim. The idea was the Minnesota River · The creek beds that come down to it and I don't know, maybe we can y where it applies. : Well you could. You could do this as an overlay district. If we 'ee on where those things should be found or are found, we can ~ate that. It's going to be tough. We know certain bluff areas like you're where you want to protect them but there might be a bluff area that the 30~ slope that we don't know about but should still be protected· .e hard to determine, how do you know what's a bluff and what's not a is: Aren't there topographic maps that you can look at? I started to have one of our engineering technicians try to. ~s: I suppose you go crazy looking at them· He goes crazy because like you say, it's bluffs but the same, until levelopment comes in, then they would be required to show us what's Plann April bluff would KTaUS p¥oba~ of bo) Erhar Kraus ordinl slope Batzl. prote~ ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 56 and what's steep slope when they come in with their plan. Then we know. : I guess I don't think, yeah I agree with 30 Ann. We can't in all ility exactly delineate where this happens but what we can do is sort in areas where this ordinance applies. : Is that what Eden Prairie does? : I don't think they do. I think they just have a standing nce that applies wherever it occurs. In fact it's called the steep ordinance. It's not the bluffline. : I agree with Tim. I think the original intent of this was to t something that, I mean we have a major thoroughfare through the city ~nd we were trying to avoid having it all commercialized and ruin the bluff$in the meantime but I guess I'm not adverse to where it's going a littl someb Yeaso' don't Conra, we're like I'd 1 that Olsen that too. Erhar consi( Kraus,~ Olsen: Farmal Park, overl~ Kraus: Farma Olsen We'd Krau$= folloL bit. I don't know that somebody, I guess I would rather see dy have to have a setback off the top of the bluff. I think that's a able requirement I guess. I like the direction of it and I guess I mind applying it to other places in the city. : So far I agree with that until I can get a better feeling of what talking about and how it would restrict development or hurt people. I he general direction. I don't think we're talking hills. As much as ke to preserve hills, I don't want to bulldoze them but I don't know his, that that's the point of this ordinance. I think...definition of bluff. It might be steep slope but again, llows alteration with certain conditions which would be nice to have : Maybe what I can do is show you some areas of where I would er were the areas of concern. Maybe I misunderstand. : Let's go out someday and see if it applies. Or come in and look at the topos and figure out where it is. es: Would the area inbetween Lake Ann Park and Greenwood Shores there's a steep slope area there off of the Eckankar property. It oks Lake Ann. : There's actually a little bit of a bluff there. es: Would that be considered a bluff? It seems to make this grade. It might not have enough distance though to meet this definition. ave to look at the topo. : Why don't we come back to you with some more information. We'll up on some of these things. Plann! Commission Meeting ApT i 1 , 1991 - Page 57 Emmin! : Well the definition of bluff includes a hill so you're going to have so you're going to have to. Ell that. Call it a steep slope ordinance. Now you know why they went with Emmin.c Olsen: be a.~ : You can call it a bluff but maybe you don't want it a hill. It gives you the specifics that it has to be... Maybe that could hill. : I think the number that really hit me was the...in Chanhassen is just ing. If we had picked enough. It could be just a hill and where you development, you may have one street on the top of the hill and up there and then another level of the street. That's real common throu., hout our city. The number I would bare picked for that was 50. I think 25 re, diffe] 8O thoug they" appl tryi we Id have then defined it more as a really big change in elevation. in Chanhassen is nothing. This room is 10 feet high. The nce between different neighborhoods is 25 feet. You're chewing up potentially of making land unuseable. That's where I was going. I the number ought to be 50. What's concerning me is that apparently already adopting 25 in the shoreland ordinance. However, it only to shoreland areas so if we want to pick that number, I'm just to point out that it's going to be applied to a lot of places that n't considered. Emmin!s: Alright. Paul's got I think the next thing we ought to do is Paul': got some news about various things. Oh, I have to go back to the 1 ape ordinance for one minute. Here's a folder I'm going to give to Paul. It's from the Minnesota Native Plants Society. It's about native plant enthusiasm and it's called Ethics and Consideration. I know we've got al ordinance that says you can't let areas grow wild and have weeds and all t}at and I also know that there's, it's getting to be more and more commol and it's promoted by this Minnesota Native Plant Society and other privaie concerns to landscape using natural prairie grasses and other thin! that are not mowed. I even saw a booklet out at the Arboretum when was out there one day that had a proposed ordinance in it which I meant to copy and forgot about but I'll get a copy and get that in. But I think we ought to, basically this thing said if people want to try and convi ce the City and their neighbors that what they're doing isn't just letti g their yard go, they've got to do things like keep track of the expen¢iture and the effort that went into landscaping with natural plants. Make ute they're keeping just common weeds out of it and making an effort to ma ntain it, even though that doesn't include mowing. I don't know. I like hat idea. I think it's appropriate. I thought about doing it in my own y rd. Letting some areas go natural. Erhart: Do we have a mowing ordinance here that if you don't mow the City comes out? Emmin~ s: Yeah, you can be tagged. Plann April Kraus= narrob be ab but I actua Emmin.. forec OUT O' I '11 ~ Kraus= Emmin Ahren: grass~ Emmin! Ahren: buildt Emmin~ Ahren: lands( grass( in th~ seeds Emmin( deals Erharl Build Batzl Emmin~ Kraus: repre~ you ti Count~ i ay ot weste] know I or toe her tl here lunch She st Commission Meeting 1991 - Page 58 : We have a noxious weed ordinance. But the weeds have to meet the definition of being noxious and there's a defined list. So you may e to get away with doing this right now. You may get complaints m not sure the City could do anything about it assuming that you're 1y achieving that type of a yard. s: Okay. Well I would just hate to see that kind of landscaping >sed because I think it's kind of interesting. If you don't think inance does that, then I'm not going to worry about it. Otherwise ring in that ordinance that I saw. : I'd be interested in taking a look at it. s: Okay, I'll do that. : It's landscaped around the University of Minnesota with prairie S. s: Where? : Around, it's been so many years I can't remember the name of the ngs. s: Which campus? Which State? : Yeah. It's around Northrup Auditorium and around the, they've aped these beautiful areas and they have planters wi~h.natural s around the architecture building. Around all the older buildings re and it's just beautiful. But you know those are hard to find. The and stuff are. s: There's a private, Prairie Restoration is a private company that in these kinds of seeds. : It sounds like you're trying to screen the Electrical Engineering ng. I can understand that. : Well they built a new one you know. s: It's 10: 20 and it's time for Paul's News. : Now for something really different. We have a new Metro Council entative. Bonnie Featherstone who resides in Burnsville. I can tell at that raised a few eyebrows amongst a number of people that, Dakota has three representatives because of a quirk of how the districts t. And there was concern that if somebody isn't truly from the n suburban area, is he or she going to be representative. I don't ow that's going to turn out but I got in contact with her yesterday, ay. I can't recall, and we had a 45 minute conversation and I found be very receptive to having an open mind and she's going to come out nd meet with us. The Mayor and the City Manager will take her to and show her the community and fill her in on the Comprehensive Plan. ys that she's not territorial. She doesn't have a political agenda. Plann April That gover open that going since I haw their var i OL any b refin, Monso of hi~ He ap~ redoi that Now t know whack ng Commission Meeting 3, 1991 - Page 59 ~e's receptive to making the Metro Council more responsive to local r nent and that's one of her issues which is great. So we're trying to L ~ the lines of communication with a new person and we're very hopeful t ~at will be successful and I'll keep you posted as to how that's The other thing with the Metro Council is they have had our plan February 28th or whenever it was, and they have set up a meeting that to go to tomorrow morning where they're going to have about 6 of staff people who reviewed our plan and who have questions about s aspects of it. What I'm hearing is that nobody's coming up with g bombshells at this point. That basically they're looking for ments and some additional information. I understand that Michael agrees that his population projections were wrong. I guess i~'s big to finally agree to that but he still won't agree to what's right. arently feels that we should wait a year until he gets around to g his numbers which is a position I find ludicrous. But I believe he rest of the Metro Council staff is going to find a way around it. is has been one of the key issues since the get go on this. I don't nat else we could have done. I mean Mike's numbers are so far out of that I don't understand why he has any credibility left at all, but he apFarently does. I will also keep you posted on that. I'm taking Mark ~oegler down there. We also retained the firm of Bonestroo, Anderlik and RCsene to assist us in representing some comprehensive plans, sanitary sewer issues before the Metro Council. The reason for that is we don't have City Engineer and the fellow that we're using at Bonestroo, Bob Schun cbt was the project engineer, consulting project engineer for the Metro Waste on the Lake Ann Interceptor so he's very familiar with this area. But again, I'll keep you posted. Eastern Carver County Trane ortation Study. The City basically adopted this because we stuck it in th Comprehensive Plan which was approved and I think you're somewhat famil ar with it. We've never had a chance to get a specific discussion on what' in it and what are the implications and what else needs to be done. There was a meeting held in late December, early 3anuary in Carver County that e couldn't go to because we had a City Council meeting that night but what e had decided to do was the same thing that Chaska did which was to have oger Gustafson, the County Engineer and Larry Dallam, who is the consu tant project manager, give us a talk about it and respond to quest one. And through scheduling conflicts of one sort of another, we haven t been able to arrange it until recently. We're going to be holding that iscussion at the City Council meeting on Monday. We'll be giving you and t e HRA agendas. If you could make it, that would be great. We don't have ~ real big Council agenda so I don't think it's the kind of thing that anybo4y's going to have to sit around until midnight to hear this. But z ii t ink the ct and b. would monum, bands somet there is it Denta et you the agendas out and it should be an informative discussion I Medical Arts Building or Ridgeview Medical Arts Building I guess is trent name. I met with them after the Planning Commission meeting sically, you outlined some parameters for an alternative plan that achieve some additional tenant signage. Basically leaving that nt sign out front the way it was approved and tinkering with the sign as a part of an overall sign package. Well, they've submitted lng that we think is consistent with what you wanted to see. Now may be some detailed questions but basically you can see what it does wipes out that middle sign band that was the temporary sign. It says Office and instead replaces it with larger, 4 foot wide instead o~ 2 Plann ng Commission Meeting April 3, 1991 - Page 60 foot ide sign band. And in that sign band would allow multi-colored signs with 10gos. All the other signage on the building is supposed to be the white letters that are up there now. The Goldstar Mortgage, there's a provision in the sign covenants that when that tenant changes, they'll have to bring their sign into compliance. As I said, the monument sign out front is back to what it's supposed to be. I guess 10 square feet or 10 feet ~ide or whatever it was. Emmin~ Kraus: Emmin~ Conra, Kraus~ plastJ Olson: Kraus~ Olsen Emmin! Batzl Kraus Farma the d, Kraus~ FaYma Kraus: Farmal Kraus= Farmal Krausl They 'I long ~ provil allow, It's windo s: What does it say? : It just says the building name. s: Okay. : Made out of what? Did they do any, is it a simple? : I think it's an internally lit, it's a ground mounted sign with c cut out... Lexan cut out type of thing. There's additional wall signs if you want to point that out. : Yeah, there's basically two new tenant signs. So they added the... s: All in the middle? Yeah. : Is this on both sides of the building or just the one side? : No. The back stays the same as it was. es: So there's one additional sign on top of the two? The one was ntist sign? Is that correct? : Yeah. What they did is, I don't think they showed that. es: I see three in the middle there. : This one now says Chan Dentist. :es: And what's the one on your left? : It says... :es: So there is an additional sign then? : Right. There's a total of two more tenant signs with this. e given us a set of comprehensive covenants which I think are okay as .s they're relying to this kind of package. There are some additional :ions on what I've written in there like this building should not be ~d to have any portable trailer mounted signs out front or banners. :till an office building. It shouldn't have any paper signs in the is or anything else. This should be a sign package. PlannJ Commission Heeting April , 1991 - Page 61 Emmin: : Well, but when we say this is what you get, do we also have to say y~ don't get anything else? Er I think you do. Olsen You already said that. Kraus: Well, we now have it in a covenant package that we file with the pr . Now what we've done thus far is we've written it up to the City Cour 1 and said that the Planning Commission denied their application but that seem to indicate that this was along the lines of what you wanted to . We told the City Council that you have two options. You can ei interpret what the Planning Commission said and approve this or you can a it in concept and send it back to the Planning Commission for detai ~d review and approval. I guess I'd like your feedback on what you'd prefe' . Getting it back here for your final review. Is this really cons' .ent with what you were thinking? Co : Did you say that was a 4 foot strip in the middle versus a 2? : Right. Emmim. s: It looks smaller, not bigger on this drawing. Ahren~, : That's done on purpose. Krausl: Well no, I think what they're showing is you're going with your corpolate logos and they tend to be a little more compact and dense and built around that. They've got the width so they don't need the length for that ong stream of letters. Batzl : All I can say is when we get the stuff, make sure there's one set of pl with one date and all the dimensions on the plans are the same scale ~s what they say. You know this is just incredible. Conr : Do we like the two different size of bands? I guess I'm having a littl~ bit of a problem. I didn't think it was going to come back that way and I know some of us said we liked taller. Ahren~ : I didn't think it was going to come back multi-colored. I guess I'm a little confused Paul when you said the next tenant who replaces the G, ldstar Mortgage sign is going to have to bring the sign into compl ance because it's not in compliance now because it's not white lette' ing but we're going to allow colored signs in the middle. That doesnt make any sense to me. Kraus~ : That's where it gets, that's where it becomes subjective and a littl~ different. I wasn't sure whether that met the criteria that you were alking about or not. But what they're talking about is the white lette lng on the outside wings and on the portico's. The only other varia ce to that would be the colored signs with logos in the middle. Farma es: These are backlit after hours right? After business hours? Plann Commission Meeting April , 1991 - Page 62 Ahr I don't like that. Conrad Ahren~ most I don't like it. I think it should all look the same. I mean I hate conformity time but I think on this building it needs it. It's not that ire a building. Co Yeah. Kr Well, I can convey those comments to the City Council. But in princ le, is this concept, whether or not you agree with the actual signa , is the concept particular with the sign bands? Emmin : Oh yeah. That's fine. Conr I think them having that middle sign band. They can put three names )ut there. I just don't feel, from what I see, that it's cally what I thought we were trying to encourage. KT conce make : Why don't I try to encourage the City Council to accept the and we'll bring it back to you for final action. That way you can final decision on that. Emmin,, : We don't make final decisions. Kraus~ : You would if the Council allows you to. Emmin. s: Oh really? That's real power man. Conra. : Just so you're communicating at least what I thought we were going to do is give them a 2 foot band just like the rest and it was going to look similar to the balance. I really didn't care if they had 3 names in re or 2, I just was going to give them a band in the middle. Emmin~s: And you were pro color. Conra, : I made that speech but I don't know that I made it. Batzl : You're renigging now. Conra : I don't know that I made it for that building. I like it on other devel( ,nts. I think Tim made the speech for color and logo. He liked the 1¢ ~o stuff. Erhart : I do but that's, I mean you've got some of it color and then some of it white. It doesn't make any sense at all. Conra. : I guess against the wood exterior, I just don't think that this is an ef' ective design. I like the practicality. What we're doing is letter peopl, know that they're there. It's a quasi advertising deal but it's more f a, in my mind it's more of just saying, hey they're here and Planni g Commission Meeting April , 1991 - Page 63 helpi sign. citizens find where they're located more than a glaring advertising 8atzl is t So if they made all three of them the same as the outbound ones, going to be okay? Conrad Emming Then I'm comfortable with that. : And the 2 foot band. We don't have to go to 4 feet· KY jam i on a exact I'll convey that. Interestingly enough I was stuck in a traffic x last week and I looked up and I saw the American Family sign ngle story office service building and the sign, the logo looked like that but it was white. Emmin<. : Okay. Did you take a picture of that? Kraus~ No. Batzl But, would you allow white with the logo if it was the same color as other signs? Would you let them put their logo up there? I will try to convey your comments to the City Council. Er I still think they should take the signs off the porticos. Co Off of where? Erhar port back! Off the porticos. To me that's what kills the building. Those should have remained undecorated and the signs could be in the · See to me that's the whole pountinance of this. Krau I'll try to convey the sentiment I think I hear to the Council but you want to contact them individually. Theoretically they could 3ust appr it this way and that's the end of it. So all I can do at this point s convey...thoughts and I'd be happy to do that. Last couple thin! Briefly. The surface water utility district. We've sent out r .s for qualifications on about 17 firms. Emmin~ : You also sent out bills and I got one. Kraus:: We've gone through a whole billing cycle. We've had some compl nts. We've had some questions and some were valid and we've made some 'ustments in the billing. Emmin~ : I didn't mean what I said. Kraus: : Oh, we didn't ad3ust yours. But by and large the concern that, we sent 5,000 bills and we maybe had 20 people call up about it so it wash' a great number and I think we've been able to resolve any issues assoc )d with that. Anyway, by Friday afternoon we will have gotten back initi. 1 proposals from consultant teams on doing the three phased study for us, wetlands, the storm water and water quality. What we are proposing Planni ApT i 1 to do house and cc prepar Commission Meeting 1991 - Page 64 that point is, I've talked to the Mayor about this, is with an in- ~ommittee is review those things, those 17 or however many we get, up with a short list of maybe 5. Then ask those 5 firms to detailed responses. Now I've asked the Mayor to set up a task force,loT to set up people to sit with us and interview the 5 because we don't ~ant to make that decision. This is a long term relationship. We think~t warrants having some Council representation and some Planning CommisSion representation on that review committee. I'd also like this commi to work on setting up a task force to work with whoever we pick over next probably, it's about a 2 year program to develop this stuff it means some changed ordinances. It affects properties. There's a lot policy things. I honestly don't specifically see it as a sole P1 Commission responsibility. I like the idea of having some Council repr on. Some Planning Commission representation and some Lake tions. Some interested individuals working together on this so we get e of a cross section of people. Possibly a developer if that's appr late. But we'll keep you tracking on this and I'll let you know when s is coming up. I'm asking the Council to think about this on Monda so they can give us some names to work with. The last thing we have is we ave another request for proposals out on doing a comprehensive sewer and plan in the new MUSA area. We've had some significant interest rai on different properties in the new MUSh area and the first question is al where do you want us to hook up to water and sewer? Where shoul th~ City trunk lines be and the answer is, we don't know. We've only ot vague ideas but never laid them out so we took some initiative and we pu out proposals to get some folks to work with us and work up that plan. I'll be taking that to the City Council in a couple weeks. Hopefully we cat get somebody on board and get that study out by early summer so peopl have better information to work with. But there is a lot of inter Emmin Batzl. and ti Submi Plann Prepa' out there. I think that does it for me. s: Okay. Does anybody got anything else? moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor .e motion carried. The meeting Nas adjour~d at 10:37 p.m.. ted by Paul Krauss ng Director ed by Nann Opheim