The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 10 02CHA REG OCT~ Cha MEP Bri~ MEMI STAI PUBi REPI TWO FO0' NOR; INC Kat cal Emm cha for Tom yes' iSSL subr mis eng req~ roof Max.i pair the eXCE equ~ IHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ILAR MEETING IBER 2, 1991 rman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. :ERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings, n 8atzli. Jeff Farmakes arrived after the first item. IERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens 'F PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kathy Aanenson, Planner IC HEARING: AT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION INTO PARCELS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,000 SQUARE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT THE HWEST CORNER OF PARK PLACE AND PARK ROAD INTERSECTION, MAIL SOURCE, R.J. RYAN CONSTRUCTION. y Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings ed the public hearing to order. ngs: Is there someone here representing the applicant? Have you had a ce to review the staff report and the conditions that they've suggested approval? Ryan: Yes. I'm Tom Ryan. I represent R.J. Ryan Construction. I met erday with the engineering department and I believe we resolved any es regarding the grading and drainage and parking concerns. We will be itting revised grading plan but as much as anything there were some nterpretations of our plan. I'm confident the new plan will meet the neering department's request. We would like to ask you to consider not iring us to screen our rooftop equipment. These will be 3 and 4'ton top equipment. We have very small office areas we're going to develop. mum height on these units would be 42 inches high. We would certainly t them either to blend with the building or to blend with the roof if City would request but we found that we would certainly be the ~tion in that area rather than the rule if we did have screened rooftop :ment. We also agreed yesterday with Paul Krauss that we would submit a 1E ;ter saying that we intend to have inside trash storage only. The own~ r's operation doesn't generate trash and he doesn't want any outside tra h enclosures. Emmings: What business is it going to be? All it says in the packet was they're going to sort mail. Tom ~yan: That's really it. They're bulk mail processors. They get bulk mail in. They put labels on it and they ship it out the door. Although not like as t stac buil take ~ formal request I guess from the Planning Department, we would not to install any more windows on the east or west side of the building 3ey would interfere with the owner's operation as he's got mailbags ted near the ceiling on the perimeter walls of the building. We feel 9 aesthetically designed the building that fits in with the other dings in the area and would hope that you understand that it would just wall space away from him in his warehouse operation. Our final Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct .bet 2, 1991 - Page 2 reqlest would be that you consider levying the park and trail fees only on the developed portion of the property as money's a little tight and collect the rest of it if and when we develop it but that parcel may be sold. Emm ngs: Now let me understand. You only want to do it on Parcel A? Tom Ryan: We'd like you to consider that we're only developing slightly ore half of our parcel. Take half of it now and take half of it later. Aah .nson: Parcel A, a portion of Parcel A. Is that what you're saying? Tom Ryan: A portion of Parcel A. Emm rigs: Anything else? Tom Ryan: That's it. Ems .ngs: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody else here who You .d like to comment on this? Cot 'ad moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in fa~ ~r and the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed. Emm ngs: He said that they'd be the exception if they have to screen the roo"top equipment. My understanding is we require screening of rooftop equ. =ment on every building in town. There's a gap here between what I tho~.ght and what I'm hearing. Kra~.ss: It is an ordinance requirement to screen rooftop equipment. Now thele have been instances where if a rooftop is not visible because of part,et walls or. because of surrounding topography, in the use of low pro 'le units we've allowed them to go on and just paint them a flat color and UBS( yea' The' sid~ sur{ req[ EmmJ bec; Kral exp~ we enc You proF ele~ the you can't see them. The reference to having a number of buildings with reened equipment in the park, it's true. There is some but I think more due to the fact that the park's developed over the last 10 or 12 s and as the standards have been improved, we have required that. I k you've required it consistently on every building I can recall. e is a small parapet. I talked to Tom about this yesterday. There is all parapet on the front of the building but there's nothing on the s. This site is somewhat lower than surrounding sites and I'm pretty would be visible. I'm relunctant to recommend that you delete the irement. It is in the ordinance. ngs: ~lright. What about their request that we don't add windows use it will interfere with their operation of the building internally? ss: Well, to philosophize for a moment. We've been edging slowly into nding our architectural review of buildings and what kind of criteria ant to establish. The adding of windows is something that I know I've untered before when you have blank walls that face public right-of-way. do run into a problem when it does hinder the applicant's use of the erty. Now we didn't have an internal floorplan to know. If we have an ation of that side. We are concerned that it's a pretty spare side of building but I guess. Planning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 3 Emm ngs: Could they do something with landscaping that would help break it up they can't do something with windows? Kra, : That's a possible alternative. Sort of like McSlynn's approach on a ller ,scale. EmmJngs: Yeah. Aan~nson: Something to break up the look. Emm ngs: Okay, so the goal is anyway to break up that expanse. Whether it' windows or landscaping we don't care that much as long as it's hing. Aa n: Right. Emm get KTal ~gs: Okay. As far as his request on the park and trail fees, we don't into that here. : That's going to be the purview of the City Council. EmmJngs: Yeah, okay. Back to comments. Tim. Erh~rt: What is the lot split that we're doing here? Metes and bounds lot split. Is that Parcel A from B? f%anEnson: The parcel that he's going to build on is 2.653 acres. There's another piece behind it right in here. Another 1.3. He's building on this fir t portion. Erh. t: So that lot is all one lot today? Aa nson: Yes. Er : 3., almost 4 acres? Aa nson: Yes. Er rt: Okay I thought we didn't allow metes and bounds lot splits in the cit' here. Kra, : Oh yeah we do. If it's a very simple division that can be ibed easily we can do that. Er 't: How come when I had to go get a mortgage for my house I had to do a p t? KTaL ver~ We Erh, why : Your property probably couldn't be metes and bounds. Was it a 1 description. You've got what, a 100 some odd acres. I don't know. some properties though. : I was told that we don't do metes and bounds in the city. That's ,ou have to plat it. Came up here before the Planning Commission. Pla: Oct( Emm Kra Cha lot cra, and Erh~ KTaL ;I'm Erhe that proF wou] goiT Aan~ Erhe KraL litt Erh~ Krat bui] Erh~ entr KTaL proF sout One was Erh~ Anot Ells Cony can don Tha' wor~ only ning Commission Meeting bar 2, 1991 - Page 4 ngs: You were lied to by staff. ss: To be honest we don't do it very often. In fact usually in hassen I can unilaterally approve chipping off chunks of a residential and merging it with the adjoining property. As long as you're not ting a new parcel, you know if you're shifting 10 feet to your neighbor you're not creating a variance, I can authorize that. rt: Do you know if our building has rooftop screening? ss: I don't know. I'm pretty certain, we have somebody here from PMT. :ratty sure we made PMT do it on their new building. rt: But that's what we're making people do and we have to stick with I think our building has a big flat wall like this too and if it's erly landscaped it doesn't look so bad. $o I would say the choice be, looking at the landscaping plan here, is that adequate or are you to go back and look at that some more? nson: It's adequate. rt: It breaks up the wall? ss: If that's your option, we'd probably ask for it to be refined a le bit. rt: What happened to the Rome building? ss: Roman was u~able to secure tenants for it and he never got it t. rt: Is there anything, the entrance on that one. There was a west ance on that one wasn't there that we approved. ss: If you recall his original site plan, he had two buildings osed. One initial one and one future one. There was a curb cut to the h on Park Road. In fact he originally had two curb cuts on the south. on the corner and we recommended that that be deleted and it ultimately rt: Okay. Well there's no parking on this side so that doesn't. her mail company in our business park. on: They're clean. They don't make a lot of noise. ad: The rooftop, I think we need the screening unless the applicant :rove to staff that it's not obtrusive like it's neighbor. Windows, we ; need more windows but we do need something to break up that wall. 's absolutely critical so if the applicant doesn't need windows for the then landscaping to break that wall up. Guaranteed. Those are my , two comments. Emmi ngs: Annette. Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct bet 2, 1991 - Page 5 Ell: n: Nothing new. I agree with everybody so far. Emm ngs: Brian. Bat li: On the right hand turn out onto Park Place, is that a steep turn for ~emis? Tom n: Yes it is. It's going to be revised. Aan~ revj the Bat~ nson: I don't think it meets the radius requirements so that will be · There was a mention of the radius so that needs to be required in li: Is it one of the conditions? Er eta' Bat: t: The applicant should supply a revised parking plan consistent with li: Is that part of the parking plan provisions? Aan~ n: Yeah· I think it's mentioned what the radius needs to be. KraL : Yes it is. It's spoken of in the engineer's report. ii: Okay. As long as everybody catches that. The exterior trash. The' 'ye said that they're not going to have any external trash. Do you agr with something like that? What do they do on trash day? ~s: That's fine with us. E1 n: They lift up a garage door. : In the past though we did ask Tom for, or for the applicant to pr idea letter on this. In the past we've had people make ascertains th there would be no trash and then lo and behold there is. We're table that if we have a letter of understanding that the trash is to be )red inside and that will be in the file, then if we do find a problem 1 on, we have the ability to go back and enforce the approval. i: Two questions though· Should it be a condition of approval and two is it something that the fire inspector should be considering that the' 're going to be storing additional trash inside? Since they're going to a lot of paper in there to start with· Kr the ar may a ki : Well you raise a good point. Now the fire marshall reviews all lding permits and stamps off on them. If there is a trash storage to be labeled on the building print, he'll come across that. Now it appropriate to put a condition in there that the fire marshall the internal storage just so everybody, if we don't this is the of thing that might be overlooked. 89 was i: Okay. Previously did we do a, when we approved the old site plan, for the Rome Building, did we do some sort of subdivision for that or on the entire parcel? Plat Oct( KraL Bat2 KYaL it ~ Bat2 EmmJ cone wine east To k Bat2 the bloc EmmJ Bat~ KTaL Aah( Bat; Emm Bat: COnT EmmJ Tom Emm Tom aga, not roof mas¢ Neit hig~ par~ ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 6 ss: It was platted but he never filed it. li: It was platted and not filed. Okay. I don't know if we metes and bounds it then. I know we published ~ a subdivision but I think we ultimately did it the same way. li: Okay. That's all I have. ngs: Okay. I don't have anything additional. I think we need another ition that would state that the applicant shall provide plans for ows on the east and west side. A plan for additional windows on the or west side or additional landscaping to help break up the facade. e submitted to the staff for their approval. li: That reminds me. Is that, didn't they say something in here in elevation that they were going to put a different kind of brick or k. ngs: That's in here. l i: Is that one of the conditions? ss: Yes. nson: Which one? li: The glazed block. ngs: Is that in the conditions? li: No. · nson: Do you want to 3ust add it as part of 17 on: We don't have the window in here either. ad: Yeah, the window wasn't there either. ngs: okay, so we've got to have that. That should be added also. Ryan: Can I speak again? ngs: Sur e. Ryan: I'd like to address two things. Both the glazed block and once n the rooftop equipment. We'll take the rooftop equipment first. I am aware of another building in this community that has 3 and 5 ton top units that are screened with materials that are compatible with nry. I've had two buildings approved in this town in the last year. her one of which have screened rooftop equipment. These are 42 inch units. On the east side of the building I've got a 16 inch high :et wall. Why are we building $2,000.00 screens around them? lng Commission Meeting r 2, 1991 - Page 7 Emm ~s: Just to understand your point of view and to end the argument, we' got a requirement in our ordinances that requires that rooftop equ nt be screened. I guess if you can talk staff, what we're saying is we' going to enforce that. If you can talk staff out of it between now and ity Council, more power to you. : If I can answer that a little bit. One building that I know that we rked with Tom is the Dexter Magnetic building which is up high and set off n the trees and they used low profile units and you couldn't see it fr off site. Also the terminology, materials compatible with the bui lng, we would probably consider accepting metal panels. We would pro bly consider accepting dry, I mean there's a lot of ways of addressing tha We certainly know we don't want wood slats but apart from that, an r,9 t.l,~L'~ du.r~:ble ;';,,~:] fits in with the design of the building we'd · ~ ! ""ii:. ~, !,.:T' . '.' :.,',;..'{ th¢::n. Maybe'. >'¢:u c~',:', :-:,:.~ ~< ]o;,, ,,: Okay. Let's take the glazed block. I guess I have an architect who gned this building who was a graduate of Harvard Architecture Sch, 1. He didn't design the building with glazed block and he doesn't fee that glazed block is warranted on this band. Why? How can you tell me have to have glazed block on this building? I don't even know that it with the color scheme that we're going to pick out. Emm but KTal Do you want to comment on that? I know you didn't go to Harvard you can bring us up to. ;s: I only went to Syracuse. They were kicked out of the Ivy League. Tom n: I mean I don't know that a glazed block band would enhance the a rance of this building and it isn't even necessarily a cost co [deration. Kr : If I could address why we did it. Paint doesn't last. It becomes a intenance issue. The colors change. It's just not a durable material. In ct in some place in the ordinance I know we discussed at one time we wil not accept painted highlights on buildings. Now this is not an una orned block. It meets the criteria for building materials and I grant you hat we probably need to do some better definition in our ordinance but our dinance does give us architectural review. That doesn't mean just 100 abi str Tom was bro~ Tas~ yea1 the bloc at it and say okay, it's a building. It means that you have some [ty to influence it and I would not recommend going with a painted e. It's just not durable. : 12 years ago I was making brown buildings. Every building that It was brown. This year you don't, find anybody who wants to build a n building. Everybody wants to build a gray building. Times change. es change. We would have a dated building with a 1990 color on it 10 s from now. If you allow when the paint fades and we have to repaint lding, maybe we paint it a different color. You don't paint glazed k. Plan Octc Emmi Erha acce ~om~ talk I kn bloc Tom Erha Krau that have anyt Erh~ KYaL Aut¢ half rooc arc~ was Cou doe: bac Erh 3us the Tom two pa1 Erh4 Tom Kral bui up bui time Erhl Tom ~ing Commission Meeting )er 2, 1991 - Page 8 Okay, thank you. Anybody want to comment on the glazed blocks? t: I agree with the argument that painting a stripe is not an ,table way to do a trim. Maybe it's not glaze. Maybe it's metal or :hing. Are there other painted trim in the industrial park? Are you ng about painting on concrete blocks? Is that what you're proposing? ,w but are these painted or are these colors actually put into the k? ~yan: Painted. It's a painted building. rt: Is that how they make it? Concrete block exterior. ss: Sure there are. There are painted buildings. Although I do know , you know you can pick and choose your examples. You know when you an industrial park that's been built over a decade, you can do hing. rt: Our park. We've got a lot of conrete. Painted block buildings. ss: There are. I'm pretty sure there are but I know the Roberts matic building, which was approved by you about a year ago, year and a ago, originally came in with some painted highlights and we mmended that, at that time the City was not so as attuned to itectural stuff and we got our point across that we didn't think it I mean it was a functional building but it wasn't too hot. The City cil, in fact Ursula Dimler came down very strongly on this building not meet their image of what this city should be and they made them go and they added I think metal detailing to the building. Metal lights. rt: How did they do that? They built the conrete block and then they ~praye(~ the whole building? Or are the blocks that color when you put up? Ryan: No. You paint concrete block buildings and once again I have buildings here approved in the last year which are both two toned, ted decorative block buildings. rt: Where are they? Ryan: Dexter Magnetic...and Industrial Information Controls. ss: Well IIC is an old building and that was an addition to an old ding but Dexter does have painted trim. And to be honest, when it came hat way, you know 20/20 hindsight, I had some doubts about it but the ding was approved that way and we didn't make an issue of it at that rt: The IIC building is what, 10 years old? No. Not quite. 8? 5? Ryan: Merit Heating right on the highway. That's 2-3 years old. Erh~ rt: What is the feeling on that? P1 ng Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 9 ~s: Hell you know this is one of those issues where I don't have any way o judge. I don't know anything about painting concrete block and how lon it lasts and I don't know anything about comparative costs between doi that and having glazed block. Glazed block I take it the color is mcr permanent. Somehow it's made right in there. The color's right in the' . It sounds like a reasonable thing to do but I don't really have any way o evaluate it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm ~oin~; to go with the sta Bat i: But see I agree with the rationale that why staff wants it. I mea some sort of building accent. Breaking up that side with windows. I thi k their goal is what we're looking at and whether they do it with paint or thing else, I think that's something that they have to work out se as Steve said, I can't judge. I don't know what the cost dif ntial is in doing the two. I don't know what. You may achieve the sam thing with something else. E1 on: Hell the concern is something like Ursula's that it's good to pass it of the and thi don arc wan wan refl bet~ so i rig{ Cou Emm Bat. Pla tho Aah, Bat sub the at phr sro sto win alt bui long anyway. I agree with her that I don't want us to be just the run he mill painted stuff. People who occupy those things change over and first one might be real good about keeping that landscaping for example the next one might now and some might paint it and some might not. I k that's why we had talked about having some sort of a trial and I t know that it worked the greatest but trying to get some sort of an itectural upgrade when it comes into Chanhassen. He don't necessarily the Hardee's to be what it always is. Because we're Chanhassen we it to be better than everywhere else because we want it to look and ect better than the average and I think that's the idea behind being .er than the average painted block and I think we'd serve it better too like the idea but I don't believe it has to be the material of choice ,t now but just something that's agreed to. Maybe that should be cil's decision. ngs: Is there a motion? :]i: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Review ~91-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 16th, even gh mine wasn't dated. Was there a date on this? nson: It should be September 16th. Ii: Okay. Hell that were dated and that we're looking at tonight ect to the following conditions. Conditions 1 thru 10 as set forth in staff report. Condition 1 woule be amended so there would be a comma he end of the word building at the end of the paragraph and add the .se, alternatively the applicant may submit plans for internal trash 'age to City staff for approval, in which event no exterior trash age shall be allowed. A new condition 11. The applicant shall include ows and glazed block as set forth in the staff report or shall provide rnatives acceptable to city staff such as landscaping and other ding accents respectively. Erh rt: I'll second it. P1 Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 10 is: ~ny discussion? Co: d: Yeah. Where you tied the two together. Bat i: Well I dldn 't mean to. d: You tied landscaping and architecture together. Bat i: Well they were in the same condition. Erh t: Yeah, that staff has to approve. Con d: Do you believe that the landscaping on the west should be the same as n the east? The east is where you've got the exposure. The west, I'm not sure that we care about the west. That's where another building goes. It aces a neighbor. The east faces an exterior road. The motion just sai. additional landscaping period. $o it's back in staff's lap and I just wan!ed to know if we want to provide some direction on that. If we feel com ortable. Bat ii: I was assuming that actually what would kind of happen is they'd tal oth goi is eve' Con are t. el day loo you tha the thi it' sim but My to To bic The is ow~ in lit chz not between now and City Council and City Council would see it because .rwise, in my opinion it should come back and we should see what they're to do. Because really the only thing that's totally settled on this .pparently the, well not even the landscaping now. They need revised ything. ad: Well there seems to be a lot of things missing in this. Really We're not looking at anything that staff feels comfortable with, to you the truth. I surely would have like to have seen the applicant staff have all the things, rather than discussing it yesterday or the before and agreeing with the engineering department and again we're lng at stuff that we really don't know what it is. We're trusting that ve worked it out with staff. We don't have the expertise to evaluate anyway but again we want staff to review it to say it's a good plan. gree and then all of a sudden it's in never, never land between us and City Council and that makes me real uncomfortable. I don't like how was really handled. I really don't. It's not a big deal but again another plan that things are missing and they should be tight. It's a le plan. Maybe we're trying to get this in before the ground freezes it bothers me. $o again my points and we're in discussion item here. oints are, landscaping on the east is very important. It's really ugly that, I'm surprised you presented that to us to tell you the truth. e that an exterior wall facing a road? One window and no lng, at least from what I saw. That's just and then we're lng about screening a few rooftop deals. You know, I don't know. 's a little bit of a bother to me. I don't care how the accent block handled. I don't care if it's paint. I think a good landlord or a good ~r will take care of the paint. I a~ree with the applicant that putting a particular color dates it so again, the issue is the building has a ;le bit of character. All we're asking for is a little bit of character :his and Brian, if you think your motion covers a little bit of acter between and one, I'll ride with you on that. But again, I'm just real plea~ed with what I perceive a very simple plan is missing some pl ling Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 11 par where I would have liked to have seen the staff and the applicant in agreement befol'e you got in here on some simple stuff that is easy. Tom : Our differences are very minor· I think it's very minor. Con d: Hell I would have liked to have you both together on the rooftop. see like we're talking about a couple thousand dollars which doesn't seem lik a big deal to me but that's an issue. Bat Ii: Nell Ladd, if they put the windows in on that side, are you still? Con dri win we fix stu tha Bat see win~ Con' appl tru Emm Lad Bat : I don't want windows. I agree with the applicant. The business the building. The business doesn't need windows. I don't need · That's the owner of the businesses' problem but on the exterior, on't want just a concrete wall facing. We don't want a warehouse wall ng the street and that's what we've got. $o again, my concern is ng that with landscaping. It can be done real simply. This is simple f. So that's my point under discussion. If everybody feels that 's covered under Brian's motion, then I'll vote along with Brian. ii: I can certainly redo, revisit my condition 11. Would you rather that the applicant will provide additional landscaping in lieu of owe? ad: I think I got my point across. Staff heard my comments and the icant heard my comments· I don't care if we revise it to tell you the ,h. t ngs: I think we should leave the motion the way it 's intent statement. li: Okay, that sounds good. is and just adopt Emm.ngs: Because I agree with most of what Ladd said except I think the dif:erences 'are minor enough so I don't see any reason for it to come back. Con ad: I don't want it back, no. ngs: Alr'ight. Should we call the question? Does anybody else want to sa anything else about this? a li moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend of Site Plan Review #91-6 as shown on the site plan dated 16, 1991 subject to the following conditions: The applicant must provide detailed drawings of material to be used for screening rooftop equipment· This material must be compatible to the building material. The applicant must also submit a detailed drawing for the location of the trash enclosure, screened with materials compatible with the building, alternatively the applicant may submit plans for internal trash storage to City staff for approval, in which event no exterior trash storage shall be allowed. Pla lng Commission Meeting Oct. r 2, 1991 - Page 12 The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of the proposed sign. separate sign permit is required. · The applicant shall provide a revised parking plan consistent with staff's recommendation. The applicant will provide detailed drawinQs of the proposed liQhting plan. . The applicant shall submit a revised grading and utility plan including size, type and elevation of storm sewer and obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District Permit. Provide B-612 concrete curb and gutter around parking lots and driveway. Increase parking lot pavement to standards outlined in the report and incorporate city's typical industrial/commercial driveway detail. Add catch basins in driveway access to catch runoff before draining into Park Place. Fill existing ditch along Park Place with storm sewer extensions. . Install hay bales around catch basins until the bituminous is installed. 8. Seed or sod all disturbed areas. 9. Install fire hydrant north of the driveway on Park Place. Rescind approval for Site Plan ~89-9 Rome Office Building. ii The applicant shall include windows and glazed block as set forth in the staff report or shall provide alternatives acceptable to city staff such as landscaping and other building accents respectively. A1 voted in favor and the motion carried. EmIT the PUE ZOl~ Pul: Wi] ca] Wi] Ch~ This goes to the City Council on October 28th. You can follow it _IC HEARING: ING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING ACCESSORY .DWEkLINGS. ic Present: Name Address lard Johnson Chairman, Board of Adjustments and Appeals 1Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings led the public hearing to order. lard Johnson: I guess I was discussing something with Paul. I'm the irman of the Board· I wasn't there that night. I was out of town so I ss I've got a feeling I can find a million holes in the darn thing. 0( lng Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 13 Er t: In what, the ordinance? Wil d Johnson: In this proposed. I was just telling Paul, I'm going to co up next year when I want to put my motorhome up for the summer for my ki . He said you can't do it. I've lived in the city since 1958. I've Got motorhome that's 1964 so I qualify in that 10 year bracket. I know far s around here that have...particular case is in Watertown. Watertown tow p where they've got a chicken house made into a home and a grainer¥ and I guess there's a number of farmers in the city. I'm just looking for loo es. I had a 40 acre parcel here last year. I was on the other side of he table at the County. In order to qualify for selling the land, we had couple that wanted to buy 5 acres off the property and then the other 35 hey'd take Contract for Deed. Well we had to dismantle the existing bom on there so they could have it and if they had defaulted, well the dea. fell through but if they had defaulted on 35 acres I would have been out of a home. So I Guess there the County said no, you can't do it and I h~d 40 acres. I guess this is a little different situation but I just fee. now, hey I can bring my motorhome and I can request it. Paul says it' kind of an iffy situation but I'm just throwing loopholes at you. Or if GU own a piece of property and you've got an old shed sitting back the e for 15 years and say gee, I'd like my kids that are coming from out of :tate to spend the summer there. I'm totally against it. I don't konw how my comrades feel on the Board but I wasn't there that night and I hi.ven't discussed it with them but I'm heartedly against it. Bat::li: Why are you against it? What's wrong with having a little bunk Wil ard 3ohnson: I've been on this board a couple of years and, long yea s. Probably longer than most of you people have been in the city, and I'v seen so much stuff we've fought through the city. We've tried to keep a firly decent standard. Maybe we failed someplace in our variances but in Iranting a variance but this is leaving this wide open. Bat :li: Wide open for what? What's wrong with it? What's going to happen 's bad? Wi ard Johnson: You're going to come up and ask me a year from now I want a ~riance to add...and make that into a summer home. BatFli: No because I live in a PUD.' I can't put anything on it but that's anolher story. Wil~ard 3ohnson: Yeah, but say you're living in, I hope some of you people understand this. You're living in not a planned development. One of the old Ced of mem Bat do~ of .~r parts. We have trouble with Lake Riley. We have trouble with Red ~r Point and trouble at Carver Beach. Some Guy's going to develop one ~hem lots down there and say gee I want to keep this old cabin for )fy. ~li: I think of my in-laws place up in Annandale and everybody up and the lake has a little old cabin from one of the resorts that went out )usiness. I don't see anything wrong with it. P1 ling Commission Heeting 2, 1991 - Page 14 Nil ha d Johnson: You haven't been on this Boa'rd as long as I have and you 't fought the conditions. They'll haunt you. i: I know they'll haunt. I'm trying to get something that's actually bad I hear the horror story but I don't hear the horror. I mean what ha is that's bad? Do people actually, they convert chicken coups and tha s bad and we're trying to avoid that? Wil d Johnson: ...I can show you two .farms right now where they've got mul iple dwellinos on it. Bat Ii: Is there something inherently bad with multiple dwellings? Is tha what's bad? Ell on: Well one of the things they were talking about here is like people wil start renting it out and things like that. Bat ili: A]right, so we've got a carriage house in Minneapolis that's being ten ed out. Is that bad? I'm trying to find out what's bad about having ten .al property on your land. Kra .ss: Well Mr. Batzli, I think you're raising a point, which is one of the points that I have with this ordinance. This ordinance isn't dealing wit all those things that you're talking about. It's dealing with one lot Bat li: I agree. I'm just trying to find out what's wrong with it in pti lciple. Ell re Why do we say one house per lot? We have all kinds of good for saying that. ii: But we're not asking for a house. We're not asking for, I mean th is accessory. This is a bunk house. I could picture examples where t would be fine. Kr ss: Yeah, I could too if all properties were regulated equitably. ngs: This is getting real loose. Willard, we want to give you a c nce to make your comments on this and I think we've got them. Is there an' hing you'd like to add to that? Wi lard Johnson: I'll just give you a for instance .... there's about, the) we' e grandfathered in. There was about 4 or 5 illegal duplexes and tr plexes. We fought the City when we were young, the neighbors and I. Le's cut it down. The City didn't do nothing about it and now it's ge ting better and they're getting better clientele but in the years we used to have drug bunches in there and everything else and it got to be a so of a gun to clean it up. We had the Sheriff up there all the time. I ean there's things that just slip through the cracks that the City Hall an them can't control. I don't know why you people can't see it. I've gr, wn up with this city. I was in the township growing up and I guess I'm tr' lng to get my point across that you're going to cause a problem. Pl ling Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 15 Emm ~s: Thank you. Now we've got public hearing open and there's nobody els here. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Er t: I think there's two issues here. One is the issue of using an ordnance to be ,Jiroctod at one individual and I think there's a name for tha called spot ordinance. Spot zoning or spot ordinance. To me that is out ageous that we have spent city money in creating an ordinance at one par icular individual. I think it's ridiculous and I think it's out ageous. Okay, so that really upsets me because that's not what we're all about here. That's the first time that I can remember in what, I guess it'. almost 6 years I've been out here, I've seen us attempt to do that. The second issue is, the whole sub3ect of accessory dwellings and I, like Bric.n, don't know the merits or dismerits of that. Now if we want to turn thi around, if we're really serious about creating an ordinance to allow peol le to have accessory dwellings, then we should make it a well thought thr ,ugh ordinance and let's determine what the bad things and the good thi .ge and horror stories are because I could certainly envision, I have a far Willard and I can certainly envision. I thought it'd be pretty neat a cou times to have a guest house when family comes over and someplace outside the house. In fact I 3ust visited one in Eden Prairie this week whe'e they had a guest house. I don't know what the problems are and if we wan to take that on as an ordinance, then let's take that on as an ordnance but this to me I think is terrible that we're looking at one li .le place and then we're creating around that particular site. ngs: Without considering the range of problems. Er .rt: That's right. If we're going to take about an ordinance, then le s set our goals and our intentions. Let's do it right. ngs: Ladd. Co~ ad: I agree. Emi ngs: You're saving your comments again. Col ad: No, no. I think that's real valid. This is not acceptable and we d have to turn that down and we couldn't give it a positive. If we th. nk there is some merit to allowing a secondary living quarters on a pa' cel, then I think we should review it and give it more merit. Yet on th other, more time. The question is that the way we want to prioritize st ff time. This is the first time I've seen such a request. I don't kno~ if we have a lot of needs like that in the City so my gut feel is not to ad~lress it. Em~ ~ings: Okay. Annette. E1 son: I don't like it. I don't think we should address it. Em, ings: I think we know how Brian feels. Should we ask him anyway? P1 ~ing Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 16 C d: Yeah, let's ask him. EmmJ ~s: Brian, how do you feel about it? Ba li: I agree with Tim. EmmJngs: Jeff? Far akes: I'd agree with what's been said but the one reservations I'd hay is that in issues of lake homes and how they were developed. Many of the lakes here have had cabins on them or small dwellings. Much smaller thai would be sellable now and the question comes, if those are habitable and they've been in existence since World War II or there abouts where thi ~gs were a little looser out here. You see a lot of property say in Min etonka that they're 90 feet wide. Very small type cabin type dye lings. I'd like to address that as a separate issue and get into bre king out these dwellings because I think you may get into a situation whe e we allow for that dwelling now for the person to develop their pr ~erty in a modern way that is sellable or makes sense u. nder the present rea ty type situation. If they're going to have to tear those type of str .ctures down, they may be suffering a severe financial loss. I can see e this person wants to do this. ngs: What these people want to do this property, given their i vidual history on this property seems like kind of a reasonable thing to Io. I'm just kind of trying to weigh the fairness of this thing. It like kind of a reasonable thing for here but on the other hand, a d~ 's a deal and they said we won't use it and now they've got their hous~ they wanted and now they want to use it so that's real unfair. So on fairness side I think it's kind of a wash. I think this is a totally im oper way to accomplish what might be a reasonable goal for this family on s property. And I agree with Tim. We either look at it in general. I nk the horror or the danger here is I thought about having, liking to ha e a second structure on my lot. I've got a lakeshore lot. I'm 250 feet k from the shore. It'd be fun to have a little summer cabin type thing dc n there to spend some summer nights in. Maybe have people stay over in An~ we're in a single family residential area. We're going to wind up witl po' entially, you know having two houses on every lot and is that what you wa~ t? You're really asking what is our single family residential area? Ii it two? Now we've got a garage. I've got a separate garage. I've got a hol.se. Now I've got a separate building that I can let guests stay in or ca rent out. That's really a change of character for the single family ar a I think but those are part of the issues I think Tim's talking about to look at in a broader kind of way. I don't like this at all. You had so lething else to add Willard? lard Johnson: I was talking to the gentleman up on the end there, Jeff ye got people on Lake Riley coming in with cabins and they want to tear ~m down. I'll go to bat for them to get a decent home on there. I've ;bt many a times. In fact we've got one now that can't get under uction with the pollution. The State and the City stopped them but to bat for the guy so he could build a good value home on there and rid of the cabin. I feel comfortable, even though I fight the Pla ins Commission Meeting er 2, 1991 - Page 17 ord nce, city ordinances, to say you're bending them a little bit to get a d~ :ent home if they do away with the cabin. bi mar Is: On Minnetonka they're tearing down relatively new homes to build , newer homes. I just don't think the financial, I think the lace will take care of that stuff. Far kes: I think that's something though that's something valid to look at hen somebody's considering that. Emm rigs: And that clearly didn't happen here. Erh. rt: Well then the real question is, does anybody want us to look to mak no an ordinance for accessory dwellings? Emm.ngs: No. The first issue is right here. Does someone want to make a mot.on on this? Erh ~rt: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Zon ng Ordinance Amendment allowing accessory dwellings as written in the sta report. 1 i: Seco nd. rigs: Any discussion? Er t moved, Batzli seconded that t.h~ Planning Commission recommend denial of ng Ordinance Amendment concerning Accessory Structures as written in th, staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emrings: Now, does anybody want to look at this issue? The issue of ac(essory dwellings. Er art: How many requests have we had for these kinds of things? How of' en do we get these requests? Does anybody even ask? KY. uss: Well, see they're illegal in Chanhassen so when we find out about th, m we make them come in for some building. Er art: Most people what? They start building and then we catch them? KY[uss: Yes. Er art: How often? Kr uss: Well no. You know I went through this in Minnetonka where we were lvinced that in a city of 45,000 we had hundreds of illegal accessory a hts. Now that could be somebody in the garage. It could be ~ebody in the walkout basement. ings: Well now you can do that here. That's not illegal in Chanhassen. : Yes it is. P1 ng Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 18 Er t: Mother-in-law apartments are not legal? Emm ngs: As long as you have the same, as long as you don't have a sep te entrance. Kra ss: And a separate kitchen. Emm rigs: And separate utilities. Kra'.ss: Right. It functions as a single. We don't want to get involved in eople's living situations but if you want to have a separate entrance. If 'gu want to have, even combined utilities. The main problem with these acc ssory dwellings is a couple things. Sometimes they cause neighborhood pro!.lems because you find out, even look in the Sunday paper and I'm sure you 11 find some in your neighborhood. But these were built without per .its normally. A lot of them. Most of them. Well it had to be because we ;ouldn't authorize a permit and you find that you have basement dwe.lings without egress windows and no smoke alarms and no fire breaks and thi ~gs like that. Now Minnetonka is an aging community at this point and we lad a lot of, and Minneapolis went through this too. We had a lot of peg le who moved in, had their kids and became empty nesters but didn't wan to move from their homes. One of the ways you can make a home more afl rdable is to be able to rent out a portion of it. For that and for soE other reasons, public safety mainly, the City adopted standards for acc ssory dwellings and they regulated things like the amount of cars that could be parked. The size of the lot. The fact that a home couldn't be bui t this Nay because then it's built as a defacto duplex. But that the ho~9 had to be a few years old before you could apply for this and it was do~9 as a conditional use permit so it was open for public review. Emi Emi wa to in E1'¸ Emi Kr ings: Let me ask of Tim or 3elf seem to be maybe interested in looking this. Are we only talking first of ail about the single family zoning a as far as accessory structures are concerned or more broadly? art: Yeah, I would think if we're going to do this, you go RR. ings: But just looking at the single family for a minute, why would yo~ t to spend any time looking at an ordinance that would allow you either construct a duplex or a defacto duplex or two dwellings on the same lot the single family area? We have never allowed that. Why would we even t to bring it up? art: If there was a frequent desire to do that. ings: Well we've never seen one. art: Well no. That's not what I'm hearing. We haven't seen one :ause it's illegal here. It wouldn't come to us. ~uss: We haven't seen very many situations that they're not legal that have two free standing buildings which is the case here. We know we e guarantee you we have dozens and dozens of illegal ones built into an sting house. P1 ling Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 19 ,s: To me I don't know if it's compatible with the notion of the sin~ e family residential area but maybe that's an issue and that's what we ve to talk about. Er : My feeling is if we were to do something like this, one of the co tions I would set is a minimum lot size of 30,000 feet on a separate one In that case it would not be compatible in a neighborhood. In a typ 1 subdision that we've seen in the last 10 years and that is a 20,000 squ. e feet and under house. But let's say a guy, and I'm not suggesting t we do this but I'm just talking here. You know maybe if a guy had t 2 1/2 acre lots, maybe 1 acre. Ba Ii: Are we inviting trouble? E1 on: Yes. I think so. Fart akes: I saw that if there's an existing structure of a little str~ cture that's already in existence and there's something peculiar about tha piece of property. We're not talking about a chicken coop here, or I w dn't be. Making it habitable. We're talking about something in exi: tence that you basically would have to tear down to utilize the rest of the property. It may be an issue where that's not desireable. Emm rigs: You could see making exceptions. What if somebody had a piece of prol,erty with a real old log cabin that had been there forever and now they wan' to come'in and build a house but they want to keep the log cabin. Kra~ ss: But it's not habitable. Emm ngs: That's right. You don't care as long as it doesn't have els tricity or sewer. Aah .neon: Exactly. It can't become a rental property or something. ~ss: Now the situations that Jeff is referring to, the Board has been vet flexible in working with people who are trying to use grandfathered in no nforming structures on lake cabins on Lake Riley. In fact we changed t ordinance for variances because of it. To enable them to build upon t relics and make them current state-of-the-art homes. But most of t time these are non-conforming as to location and if you are truly going to ild a completely separate new home, in this case we have a house s ing 4 feet off the traveled right-of-way. In other cases you may have it itting off the beach or off the street or whatever. There's a reason wh non-conformities are supposed to ultimately, through the life cycle, be re and not perpetuated. I don't know that you'd really want to u -mind that. or ngs: Let's do this. Let's go down the line here and tell us whether you think that we ought to spend time looking at an ordinance or ought to spend time looking at an ordinance on accessory dwellings. Er : No. Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct bet 2, 1991 - Page 20 Emm ngs: Ladd. Con ad: No. EmmJ ngs: Annette. Ell on: No way, Emm ngs: Brian. Bat;Ii: It should go somewhere way down the list. Emm Farl ngs: Okay, 3elf. akes: Somewhere down the list. Emm ngs: Okay, and I'd say no. Why don't you run that straw vote by the Cit' Council and see if they want us to spend time or if they want you to spe Erh d time on it. Then we'll go from there. ard Johnson: Some gentleman mentioned 2 1/2 acres. .rt: That was no gentleman. That was me. Wil, of " Erh, ard Johnson: ...when we were granting variances to the southern part ,he city there for building...we pushed them to one side of the lot. rt: Not anymore. It used to be that way. Wil ard Johnson: We encouraged them to push to one side of the lot because som, day you're going to develop and can't afford to keep the property. Wel this guy can decide to put another place behind him and then he sells off the other and it could perpetuate a number of homes. Just a small dev~ lopment on 2 1/2 acres...so I just thought I'd throw that at you peol le. I've seen so much. Thank you. Emm ngs: Yeah, thank you. NG ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STRNDARDS. Pau Krauss presented the staff report. Ell on: I have a question. What's an over story tree? Kra~ss: It's a deciduous tree with a crown on it. Ell ;on: Oh! I thought it was big enough to reach the top story of the hou :e or something. Kra tss: Hopefully it will be. Erh~rt: Just throw these terms in once in a while to keep us jumping. Emm ngs: Yeah. What did we call those trees in our landscape' ordinance? Pla ng Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 21 K : Trees. Ba i: Trees from Catagory A? Er t: Canopy trees. It used to be canopy trees. Emm ,s: I wondered about that. Alt dec You can call them deciduous. I think we did call them deciduous. there are deciduous trees that are, I mean a birch tree is a tree. Ell n: Those little poplars that are narrow and tall and skinny and stuff wou n't be considered an over story one. Emm ngs: Alright. I'd like to ask you, in your Section I in A and also aga in another place. On page 3 at the bottom there and then in par. raph D. It says in no instance shall project density exceed com -ehensive plan guidelines. I know the answer to this but I just want to obv say Kra~ des use, thee unit Emro; say; Krat Elll Emm Ell: Con' Emm Con' tha' Emm Con Ell e if you do. What does that incorporate here? It incorporates 1y the comprehensive plan guidelines for density but what are we ng when we say that here? ss: For example the comprehensive plan designates the low density gnation as 0 to 4 units per acre. Maximum 4 units an acre. If you 9,000 square foot lots, and let me see if my math is 18, you can retically get more homes on a site than, you could bare more than 4 s per acre. ngs: Right, but you're not going to let them do that is what it's ng here. ss: Right. .on: Is that the answer you wanted to hear? ngs: Yeah. 'on: You passed. ad: I don't know. So the plan says 0 to 4 units. ngs: Is low density. ad: I guess my problem with A, as soon as you say 9,000 square feet, 's your standard. ngs: No. Down to a minimum of. ad: I know. ~on: You say we're just going to get a bunch of 9,000's. Plan Octc Conr pots star size feet hist Bat2 Conr Emm~ Con~ for rain com' a. ll¢ sta Bat' corot Corn and ning Commission Meeting ~er 2, 1991 - Page 22 ad: Well and they can't do it but it says to a developer that's the ~tial. That's our standard. Whereas there's a difference. Really our lard is bigger than that. So my problem, our standard is typically lot in a subdivision or whatever are coming in at 17,000-18,000 square . That's really what we're comfortable with in Chanhassen based on _ Dry ii: You mean in a regular subdivision? Yeah. ngs: In our subdivision ordinance. ad: Yeah. But even a PUD. You're coming in at, and I don't know that sure but most of them are above the 15,000 on an average. My problem ne way this is worded. It says our standard is 9,000. It says a hum and I understand that but I see no reason, you know I feel real )rtable allowing. I feel not real comfortable. I feel comfortable wing us to go down to 9,000 square foot lot sizes but that is not our dard. ii: Whereas I would agree with everything you said except I'm not ortable with 9,000. ad: Yeah, you don't like the 9 because that seems pretty small. See again it becomes a mix and I want to give developers the opportunity to build down to that 9,000 and have some open space but still the way, you kno~ you leave in with PUD and maybe you say minimum lot size 9,000 and thai com unc Ell,~ man~ Corn Kra~ Emm Con' Ell~, a 1 Con if com Emm, com becomes what they'll come in at 10 or 11, although Paul is saying rehensive plan guidelines says 0 to 4. I guess I'm still a little mfortable with that one. on: I think that thing is what's going to make sure we don't get too of those. ad: But 0 to 4, we're getting what, 1.8 units per acre? ss: 1.7 gross. ngs: That's gross? ad: That's kind of what we like and I don't see changing that. on: Unless you know you could, leave that huge area of wooded and push ttle more over here. ad: Right. So that's where I'm still comfortable with in that mix and .omebody wants to free up open space with that gross density, then I'm 'ortable going down to that 9,000. ngs: Well is that part of what's being incorporated by the saying ,rehensive plan guidelines? Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct. bet 2, 1991 - Page 23 Kra' ss: Well it is but I don't think it's achieving what Ladd wants it to ach . The comprehensive plan theoretically allows up to 4 units an act . What Ladd is saying is right. Our average single family project is 1.7 We're giving them additional latitude here to increase density. Tha's true. It could. On the other hand, the penalty or what you need to do o achieve it increases with the increase in density in terms of the a nt of open space you have to reserve and our expectations of what kind of project we're going to get out of it. PUD's also incorporate slightly gte ter setbacks around the perimeter of the PUD to help buffer it from ad. ining properties. Con~ad: Well I don't understand that Paul. I guess I don't mind where we' e going but I don't know how we're going to get there with this. So the ty for being in a PUD, and you come in with the 15,000 square foot lot size, you've got to dedicate 1,500 feet to open space. So in other wot s, if this is the same as having a 16,500 square foot lot, which we alt ady have bigger lot sizes in our Pun's and subdivisions already. So the e's not much of a, what we're doing, instead of having a 16,500 square foot lot coming in, we're going to say no. 15,000 over here and then let's stal t a little kitty over here of 1,500. Emm ngs: Where'd you get the 1,5007 Con' ad: 10~ of 15,000 square feet. Emro ngs: That's 15,000 though. That's not the 9,000. Erh .rt: Right. But that's my question too. Con ad: 1,500. 10~ of 15,000 is 1,500. Erh .rt: But ask the same question of the bottom one. Why isn't it, if it' 9,000 square feet average, why isn't for every lot, why isn't there 6,0 0 feet set aside for open space? Con'ad: Yeah, that's where. Erh~rt: I mean that's the big discrepancy. Why isn't it 40~ which would be ,,0007 Actually it's not the 15,000. It's the bottom one. 25~. Why isn t it 40~? $o if you take, you've got a 15,000 square foot. Kra, lss: You want to carry the same ratio throughout. Erh. rt: No, no, no. I'm just saying what are we trying to accomplish? If it' 9,000 square foot average. Isn't there a goal if we have 15,000 squ re foot lots. The guy wants to make a 9,000 square foot lot. Then doe: n't 6,000 go to some kind of open space? Con ad: See that rationale works for me. Emm ngs: Everybody here kind of likes the idea of clustering but every tim, something comes in that will allow to do it, everybody gets scared. Con' ad: Because we're trying to make sure we know. Pla ing Commission Meeting 0 er 2, 1991 - Page 24 Emm IS: Because it's scarey. Co : Well yeah but you've got to know how this looks. E1 n: But don't forget, we always get to approve these things. You're thi lng once it's written. Co d: Well you can change it but boy. But you kind of have a sense for wha this is going to feel like or look like once it comes in. And on the hand, do you want to encourage developers to do this? That's what our ast PUD ordinance didn't do. It was not encouraging. You've got to gi them something to get something that we want, yet most people here in to really aren't crazy about smaller lot sizes. If you went out and pol , you're going to find very few that want to go down smaller. Very few You're talking. Bat: i: Then raise our minimum lot size to a half acre. Keep the PUD 15, and you're set. You want them to use PUD, everybody will use PUD. Er t: Average net lot size, is that net of the open space? Kr : Excluding designated wetland. Er : And open space? KT ;s: No. Er -t: It includes the open space? : Yes. Keep in mind what qualifies as open space here is listed in I think. The idea with the PUD, I mean I went through what was it, the lebrook subdivision today. We had people from Moody's Investors Set ice here today. Erh rt: The guy's got to have 25~ open space. How can he possibly get to 9, 0 square feet? Kr ss: It's not the lot that has it. It's the pro3ect. Er rt: I know but if you've got 100~ and 25~ of it's open space, you've got less. If your minimum lot size is 9,000 and you've got to add anot 25A, you can't possibly get to an average net lot size of 9,000. KraL ss: Yeah you could. You're assuming that everything's going to be spl t up as it is in Saddlebrook in individual lots and there is no public or rivate open space in outlot designations or some other non-residential lot Erh~ rt: No, I'm saying you can't get down to 9,000. KraLss: Sure you could. If you have 100 acres, you can have 49,000 square foci lots and the rest of it open space. Plat Oct( Erh~ acr(~ KraL siz~ 5rhe thir KTaL Erh~ putt KTaL Erh~ Thai time squ~ ave¥ what KTaL entJ Erh~ KraL tha the the mea and May[ resJ Erh~ Bat; Erh~ feel squ~ thai Conl Erh~ Conl ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 25 rt: But I thought you said that open space was included in the age, included in the net. That's net of the open space? ss: No. The open space percentage, maybe we could clarify that. The age net lot size is, after we exclude wetlands, what is the average lot they're giving us. rt: Oh okay. That's average lot size. Okay. Alright. I was king that was the density figure. Okay. And the open space percentage applies on the entire project area. t: So then you have 9,000. Why aren't we just taking 6,000 and ing that in open space which would be 40~? ss: Well, I approached it differently I guess. 't: You're saying to go to a PUD there's going to be an inefficiency. inefficiency is that 15~. So in fact what we're getting is 9,000 1.3 so we're really getting 12,000. If you took then all 9,000 re foot lots, you add the 33~ which yeilds 25~ open space, then your age lot size, including the open space, is 12,000 square feet. That's you've got. ss: That's if you, so you're going back and you're aggregating the re area? rt: Yeah, I'm just trying to see what our average lot size is. ss: I think another way to get at this same issue and I think the one maybe Ladd was leading to, was when you go back into A where we say cap on this thing is the comp plan. What I'm hearing you say is that comp plan cap which, you know the comp plan just talks about density. I if you have a 100 acre tract, you can build Cedar Riverside on there still have the same density. Density that's consistent with that. e you want to look at lowering the allowable densities in single family dential PUD's. rt: No, but do you understand what I came up with? Brian? li: No. rt: I'm just trying to rationalize the 25~. If you take 9,000 square and have a whole development and your average lot size was 9,000 re feet, you'd be required to set aside 25~ of the good space. Now 's 25~ of the whole development though isn't it? ad: No. rt: It's 25~ of the net. ad: Of the average lot size. Emm ngs: No. 252 of the whole development. Plat Octc Krau Erh~ parc sti] 100% Emm~ cit> to $ Erh~ KTaL Emm Kra' 41~ Erh~ Con~ and do app Ell KTa size Bat; com~ Erh~ ide~ Emm. Erh~ fool Emm, Erh~ KYal Erh. the ning Commission Meeting Der 2, 1991 - Page 26 rt: Of the whole or net? Net of wetlands? ss: Of the whole. rt: That 25~ can mean a lot from one parcel to the next because one el might be 50~ wetland yet he has to provide, he gets a few lots and 1 has to provide 25~ of the whole parcel where the next guy may have developable land and he has to provide 25~. ngs: Well wait. It says wetlands and other water bodies protected by .ordinance and permanent easement. It can also be used to satisfy up 5~ of the standard. 25~ of the 25~ if we're looking at the 9,000 line? rt: It gets very complicated. ss: The idea is to crank out additional open space out of this thing. ngs: So we should be winding up with more than the 25~. ss: Well I think you did in the Lundgren/Lake Lucy when you went with rt: Yeah but some of that, anyway. ad: But how do you administer that Paul? You know the PUD comes in it's got some 9,000. Some 11,000. Some 12,000. Some 15,000 and how ou end up with an overall project open space amount? You've got to y a percentage times each parcel. on: No, the average. ss: You come in with 100 acres. You've got 33 lots. The average lot is 10,000 square feet. You owe us 22.5 acres of open space. Ii: So if he doesn't have that built into his lot already when he s in. He may have to reduce lots and then that number changes again. .rt: I think maybe I can explain what I was trying to get to. Take the 1 situation where 100~ of the land is developable. rigs: No wetlands. .rt: No wetlands. The guy just comes in with a bunch of 9,000 square lots. rigs: Only 9,000 square foot lots? ,rt: Only 9,000. [ss: The ordinance says you can't. rt: We can't. Then how can you get to the average? How can you get average net lot size to 9,000? Pla in9 Commission Meeting Oct er 2, 1991 - Page 27 : I supposed it could be thereotically. Ell n: It could be one. You never know. Emm gs: It can't because on an acre we can only have, what is the comp pl going to limit it to? Well the comp plan limits you to 4 so on an acre, that's 36. Emm is: Thousand out of 45,000 square feet. Erh. t: You could be a medium density area which allows what, 6 per acre? EmmJ Erh~ 9,0( rigs: Let's talk about. rt: Now you bring up a good point. Can't you get to the average of Kr ss: I don't know. I don't know that you theoretically can. Er rt: Then why even have this in the table? Ell on: We had that thing with the church over here and they wanted to put som thing in there and it was just one. It's a possibility. Erh~rt: Where does it say you can't get to 9,000. What's the role I'm mis~, ing here? KraL ss: A requires that you give us a mix of lot sizes so even if you come in ith 9,000, they're going to have to come in with something else. Emm ngs: They can't just come in with 9,000. Ell :on: It says right there. There are a mix of lot sizes. Erh ,rt: Which line? Ell ;on: A. Tho third line down. Erh ~rt: Okay, but we don't really define mix so if they came in with one 9,5,~0 then. Kra~ ss: But you can throw it out. You can do whatever you want to in a PUD Erh rt: Okay, let's assume they are all 9,000 100~ developable. Then what you get is on an average over that 100~ developable area a 12,000 square foo average lot size when you add back in the 25~ open space. Then the que ;ion is, does that seem right? That goes back to our old ordinance. I guess maybe the number where we got that number was the old ordinance all>wed us to go to 12,000 square foot minimum lot size right? Kra ss: I could lie and say that... Pla Oct. Erh, Kra,, Erh~ Emm seel tha' Erh~ mayl yei now K'ral tOU~ tha pub abi of kee Con Ell Cof~ aCT OT ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 28 rt: That you figured that all out right? ss: That's a lucky one there. rt: Well that's a...does that seem right to us? I don't know. ngs: That doesn't talk about roads or anything else. That doesn't like you're accomplishing any one thing to me. But I don't think 's what's going on here either. rt: Well what's going on here is you're not going to have 9,000 and e you're going to have 11,000 average but then you're only going to d 20~. So when you take 11,000 times 1.25 and your average lot size is 13,750 when you add that back in. ss: But I think one point we keep overlooking is the one that you bed on about the advantages of clustering. In a straight subdivision 's all roped off and fenced off into people's backyards. There's no ic good. There was no ability to preserve stands of trees. There's no ity to preserve promontory. This gives you flexibilty to rope off 22~. he site or whatever ratio it is and do good things with it. And still the densities relatively low. ad: But higher overall than what we've been used to. ~on: And that's the carrot that you get them .to use. We talked about >efore. ad: So you don't mind Annette, instead of coming in at 2 units per , which has been our standard. You don't mind coming in at 2 1/2 units units per acre? E1 but hay Co'r E1 ~a' Emi E1 in: th~ Co: of l~on: Well number one I'll be able to see it. Although probably not me the idea behind a PUD is they don't tell you I've met everything. You to take it no matter what we choose which is the problem with. ad: They're going to come in and say I met your standards. :on: But at the PUD, we're the ones who decide if we like it or not. don't have that choice in some other things. zli: But then they'll say fine. We'll do it under your regular inance and tough luck. ings: Then we say fine. son: Then we'll say fine. Then we'll get what we wanted possibly read but we have a chance to deny it if we think they're trying to rape system or use it in a way we don't like it. We get that shot. tad: I tell you Annette. I'll play the record. They'll look at the inance and say the ordinance allows it and you're within the guidelines the ordinance and we'll say go ahead. Pla Oct., Ell you Bat; Wo ' Con Bat Con nei Emm Bat: we ' the big! par Erh Bat Ell Bat ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 29 on: But Paul will be looking at it and he'll say, this isn't what we out PUD's. We wanted that nice wetland and that nice view. Why don't clear up that space and do whatever. He'll see it first and make that ~mendation. li: Let me make a general point here as a person who lives in a PUD. 9 talking about very lofty, fine goals here. ad: It doesn't give you any more credibility. ii: It doesn't but just let me express. ad: You're an outcast in that group anyway. I've talked to your hbors. ngs: I don't even want to sit next to him. Ii: Let me just express, we have very lofty goals here and we think e doing public good but I think if you wandered into a PUD and asked people in the PUD what do you want. They'd look at you and say, I want er lots so I can do the regular stuff that everybody else in the whole, on my french, damn city can do on their lot. ~rt: What don't you buy a different lot then? :Ii: Well but they don't know. :on: What about the people who say I want a 5 minute front lawn? :Ii: They don't know. People moving in to these lots are typically, and I'll gross over generalization and simplification. These lots are typ.call¥ cheaper. Maybe Lundgren Bros builds high priced lots but the other people can come in here and they guild starter homes on some of these things. In a lot of cases. They don't know any better. Even somebody suc as myself who probably should have known better didn't know any er. I didn't realize what the difference between a PUD and a regular 1 size was. They don't recognize the fact. You know you're looking at a 9, )0 square foot lot and if that's a corner lot, you've got about 2,000 e feet to do something on and that includes putting your house and dr and everything else on there which leaves barely any room on it at al And before you start talking about global good and wonderful open s and everything else, consider that the people that move in don't gi a rip if there's a park there because they expect a park there whether 'ye got a regular lot size or a small lot size. They don't care. They t want to hear that well we've got a park for you. They're going to sa yeah, and you gave me this dinky lot that I can't do anything on and should have given me a park anyway. If we keep on saying Chanhassen is su .osed to be good and wonderful, make them put in normal sized lots and the park in addition. That's my final amd only comment on this. I c~ t believe we're thinking of going down to any 9,000 square foot lots. Er t: Do you have 9,000 square foot lots in your PUD Brian? Ba ii: I don't know how big they are. P1 Oct ng Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 30 Is: Just his. i: Just mine. I got the corner lot. I got the corner lot and I'm s with it. No but seriously. I do think that if we do this, and you something's going to happen and I can see it coming down the tracks lik a train just about to run me over here. But I would like to propose tha at least we require the developers that are putting these in to tell pe le what they're getting. They have to tell them what the square ge of the lot is and what the setbacks are on the sides of the homes. Gi them a sheet. I don't care. Informed consent. I think we should do much for some of these people. Er rt: Let me ask you. Let me clarify what you said. Are you saying we ld never allow 9,000 square foot lots or an average of 9,000 square foo lots? Bat ii: I wouldn't allow any. Erh~ rt: Any at all. Con'ad: What's your minimum? What lot size would you go down to? Eli :on: He just said the half acre. Bat :ii: Whatever the smallest lot size is in the city now, there's a rea ;on for that. Emm ngs: Yeah, there's a reason. Bat '1i: Whatever the reason is that we've chosen that. Erh~rt: Throw a dart at a board. Bat:ii: Okay, then we should throw the same dart at the board for the PUD. My ecommendation is, if you want control over developments, you increase the minimum lot size and you put the minimum on that you would otherwise expected as the minimum in the PUD. Don't be compromising your ards to get a little bit of clustering and a park that you should have anyway. That irritates me. Em,m~,.ngs.:. If we did what Brian is proposing and raised this to our sum~PZvlslon standards of 15,000 square feet, would we ever see a PUD? Kr tss: You just did. ngs: Right. That's right. Lundgren Bros. Well maybe Brian's. I was ki of liking this until Brian. te t: We were sold on the 9,000 square foot lots because we got a few of up there in Near Mountain and I don't know. I guess I haven't ly gone and looked at them. You've got a few slides and you can't much from that but staff seemed to think they were okay. E1 in: And I really believe that the market is going to... Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct .bet 2, 1991 - Page 31 Erh. rt: There's a big difference between having a few 9,000 square foot lot: aT]d having a development where the average lot size is 11,000 square fcc' in my mind. Emm ngs: But if you say I've got 100 acres and I'm going to put 10 lots, ten 9,000 square foot lots and leave the rest empty, I take if you have no obj,~ction to that. Erh ~rt: No, but that's not what you're saying. Emm rigs: No, I know it's not but it isn't the lot size. It's the ratio to ope space per lot size. I can see, we all like clustering. ~t least we all talk about it. He don't really know what it is but. Erh irt: I'm not sure if you get 100 9,000 square foot lots all together a then you've got another 25 acres sitting or 50 acres sitting someplace o~ to the side. ngs: We'd never approve that though. Now you're painting a picture. E1 n: A worst case scenario. El ngs: No, not even a worst case scenario. It can't happen because it run afoul of our comprehensive plan and it would run afoul of the nt that we have in having a PUD ordinance. Ii: Okay, so make them all 11,000 square feet. Er : I just wonder if we shouldn't delete some of those lines down th, like 9 and 10 and maybe even 11 and give us another, raise our ba., ement line a little bit here. In other words, yeah you can have some 9, square foot lots but don't even think about coming in here with a 9, O0 average. Maybe we set a 12,000 average. See what I'm saying? Ne'r~ kid of inviting a lot of 9,000 square foot lots the way we have this tabl~ he~ e. Co tad: I'd sure try to do. ings: You'd never have an average 9,000 though. Ne keep coming back ar, und to that. It can't happen. Only if they came in with only 9,000 are foot lots could you ever have that. Cc tad: So let's take that worst case scenario because we will see it. Em~ ings: It isn't possible. Co tad: Why not? Okay, let's take it. Let's take the 10,000. Em ings: Do you agree? Kr uss: I agree that it's not possible. id: Then we shouldn't have it there. P1 Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 32 Kr s: But you know I keep going back to the fact that we had an ord nce on the books for years that said there's an average lot size of 12, 0 square feet. Nobody used it because. Con' : That was a minimum. That was a minimum lot size. Krat : No it was an average wasn't it? Con Emm Con' vet~, boy com Emm be you ord do sub spa dow Bat of lay o th~ a ad: No, minimum. ngs: That was a minimum. ad: We're talking here now. I get real concerned when we talk average us minimum· I am real comfortable allowing some smaller lot sizes but that's not the average. That's the average, I really don't want to romise the average. ngs: But again, maybe we're getting too specific here. Shouldn't we aying to people look. Here's our subdivision ordinance· Here's what can do. An option you've got is the PUD ordinance. Under the PUD .nance you've can do a whole bunch of things. One of the things you can .s have lots that are smaller than what is required under the ivision ordinance but if you come in under that, expect to have open e requirements that are going to go up as fast as your lot sizes go and don't really expect to bays a smaller or a greater gross density. 1i: Well you wouldn't be able to have a larger gross density because he comp plan right? ngs: Right. Well tell them right up front. Don't expect to get a er gross density· And if you're going to come in below what our ivision ordinance allows for lot sizes, then as that goes down, the space requirement's going to go up. And don't put the numbers in · Then let them figure out how they're going to cluster and bring us .an to look at. ss: So now put in new criteria? ngs: Yeah. Then if they want to go with zero lot line or if they want to IO with a small lots with detached houses or whatever they want to do, them figure that out. Bat li: We're going to be arbitrary and capricious. Em ings: Yeah but within the PUD I think you can. Er art: It sure helps the process to have some guidelines. E1 son: Yeah, I like Paul's thing. Plus people come and go reading this. Em ings: You don't really like it because you want to erase a lot of th ngs. Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct 2, 1991 - Page 33 Erh. rt: I just don't think we should think about less than 12. I don't knoL why I'm picking 12. I guess because it's the old number. I would never think about having average lot size of less than 12,000. Emm rigs: But this really stiffles. These charts to me kind of stiffle the cre. tivity that you might allow somebody to have. Why not let them figure it ut? Con ad: Let's just remember. I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth but that 12,500 minimum didn't encourage anything in our old PUD ordinance. It , id not motivate anybody so I think Paul's putting out a carrot here to say hey, let's motivate them to do this. I'm just wanting to make sure tha' we motivate them but we're not giving away the integrity of the com~ unity. And I can't understand what we are getting. I guess what I'd lik, to see is some sketches of what this does. I'd like to see somebody lay out how this would be applied and that doesn't mean we hire a designer but I need to see what this might look like if somebody came in. And we hay n't, you know Tim's point is still on the table. It's still valid. He' saying to go down to 9,000 square feet, we're giving up 6,000 square fee below a standard that we've set for a subdivision but we're only get lng 2,250 feet out of it in open space. Is that the lure? Is that 3,5 0 foot, the developer has a net gain on that one of 3,500 square feet. Is ;hat what it takes to get a PUD? And then the question is have we galled anything with that PUD? What have we really gotten. I'm throwing t things out but I guess I still have a tough time visualizing what thi formula does for us. I don't want to kick it out yet. I'd rather it in there because it might be a good guideline but on the other hand I nt to know what it does before I approve it. I want to know how it, I got to see it and feel it and I can't right here. : Well we can sure take a crack at doing that. I guess a couple th gs have happened too. I think we're talking about a couple different for the use of the PUD. I think in the Lundgren proposal we saw that t 'e was a rationale and a benefit to coming to using the PUD ordinance a subdivision whose lots averaged 31,000 square feet. Er rt= Hold it there. 31,000 square feet included a lot of water. KT, : Yeah. Well and that's why I threw in the language here excluding ignated wetlands because there was an issue with that in the average lot Er th~ Ba a co art: Average real lot size is dinky. uss: But that's normal. You look at subdivisions around Chanhassen, .y're all like that. Yeah, I know. That's what I was saying earlier. I don't like it. uss: I think one of the things I've been tossing over is maybe we need inimum net buildable standard for all lots in the city. I mean you Id have a 100,000 square foot lot if you can't accommodate a 5,000 foot are foot building area, it's no good. We might want to consider that as ordinance amendment in the bigger picture. I think it's certainly Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct 2, 1991 - Page 34 war anted. That's why we started giving you tables and we can't do any hing about it except give it to you but giving you tables now where we say here, it's a 18,000 square foot lot. 5,000 square foot of it is wet ands. In fact it was one of the things you requested in Lundgren but wes e starting to do that in everything. Far akes: If you did that though, wouldn't you eliminate about 3 of those lot~ that they were proposing there? Kra, ss: Well again, against what standards 3elf because the lots that are in here are bigger than we normally get and everywhere you go in Cha hassen we have wetlands. That's a very common situation. Farl akes: But what Tim said though, a majority of those lots, at least scm of those lots were wetland. Standing water and he made a point when he ,as here arguing that you had to look at the lot all the way out to the lot point in the middle of the skunk pond which I didn't understand. Why? Kra ss: Because you've done it in every other subdivision in the city. Bat li: So Paul says develop a new one that says you need at least a cer ain minimum area where you can put some building on it or something. Kr~ ss: And not come back, doesn't say it needs variances because you ca t put a house on it. Now we've tried to do that. We've gone through in he last couple years and we've tried to figure out what we think a buildable size is and tell the builder that that's not legitimate but we ha%~ no guidelines to do it. If it doesn't look right, we try to make them fix it. But I think it's appropriate to, I mean we can do some research if you WOL co Th, ha in al, out Er Fa' us, Er like and come back to you but I think an ordinance amendment and it Id apply to any lots created in the RSF, RR or A-2 and PUD have to rain a minimum buildable area regardless of how big they are. wakes: I think you would avoid what a person is designing that out. re would always be 2 or 3 lots and that many homes that you're going to e to force just as a matter of economics that you're going to try to get there on whatever's left over. When I look at that Lundgren, you can cst pick them out with looking at it for 10 minutes as to which ones e, what they had left over and what they were going to try to make a lot of. uss: Yeah I know what you're speaking to but every lot in there has a itimate building site to the extent that we know what legitimate lding sites are and we don't have a criteria. I know that the building es that are on those lots, even though some of them have quite extensive lands, are bigger than we find on a lot of other lots in regular RSF divisions. makes: Most of them did. There were a few that seemed to me as far as ~able space were on the bottom end of this list here. ~uss: They were tighter and will probably require designed home to fit. as far as this, I mean I have now become a believer that there's some P1 ng Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 35 use all PUD's, residential PUD's that don't lower our average lot size at Erh~ t: That was the question I had. Why, if a guy has a 15,000 square fog average, why are we making him set aside any open space? The only rea on would be if, yeah I mean why? Con ad' That's true. A subdivision we're penalizing so anything 15,000 and under however I think we should be getting something in return. That's whe' e we're bending our standards. Erh~rt: Yeah, I always thought that we were taking 15,000 square foot let s say, this idealized lot and if a guy wanted to make it 9, the city get 6 for open space and there's no inefficiency. Right now we've got a lot of inefficiency. Bat. ii: What's the developer's advantage to doing that rather than they mig t have shorter stubs? Con' ad: Clustering utilities. Erh~rt: Clustering. Make them more creative. You might want to get rid of like up here we let them use less than the standard setbacks. That was a m jot thing for that· I remember that presentation. That was a big deal t he wanted those houses 20 feet from the street. And so he got that. nos: Another flexibility. Kr ss: Well and we're working with Lundgren now on that 3ohnson-Delache p' between TH 41 and Galpin. There you're talking 90 or 100 acres. I do t know what it is and if we look to that. ngs: Would you do it as a PUD? K wi ha 1 : Yeah. Now maybe as a PUD in there, it's big enough that Lundgren probably try to market to different prices of homes. Maybe they will a bunch of 11,000 square foot lots. Further on where the land gets a le nicer and more rolling, they may have a bunch of 30,000 square foot · And your average lot size will probably still come out to be better 15,000. At that point you don't look at varying your standard at all. Y~ maintain your average lot size. Emrings: So then you don't get any. Er art: So that's why you're saying at 15 we should still take 10 because th, re's going to be bigger lots that's going to offset smaller. Okay, now I nderstand that. Ba zli: Would all the open space may be on the larger sized lot end of the development too and then you've clustered, for the sake of clustering the sm. ller homes· Emi ings: Yeah, do we want to do that? Should they have to have open. If th~,y're going to have 11,000 square foot lots, even though they've got a Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct. 2, 1991 -- Page 36 bun( of 30,000 to offset it, bring the average to 16 or 17. If they're goi g to have those ll's, do you want to have to create open space that isn t owned by another lot. Kra, ss: Well we said they were willing to accept. Keep in mind when we're say ng open space, the way this ordinance is structured, that's not soccer fie ds. I mean if the city wants a park, a percentage of that area can be use~ to qualify. Emm. ngs: What are we talking about when we say open space? Kra .ss: You may be talking about. Emm ngs: Places where there aren't houses. Kra ss: Yeah but it could be portions of somebody's lot. On the Lundgren dea that's going to Council in 2 weeks, the tree preservation areas where we'. e said there's no cutting and we're going to take a conservation e ;ment, that's all on what will be private property but it's protected by a p rmanent easement. We said that qualifies. ngs: Yeah, and you're going to have that same opportunity on the new one because that all butts up against a wetland too on the south side. Ba i: I just think it's small comfort for a person on an 11,000 square foo~: lot to know that a quarter of a mile away they preserved a stand of tre~s on somebody elses private property. Now that person may walk into tha~ knowing full well what they're purchasing Maybe they do maybe they don't. Maybe as a city we don't care. I'd li~e to take a little bit more pa rnalistic attitude. Kr : I don't know where you want to draw the line. I mean somebody wa into a Chevy dealer, they don't expect to walk out with an Oldsmobile know. Someplace people have to understand what the limitations are. C1 fly in the past. Ba Ii: We're looking at the ordinance and we don't understand it. Do you exl t somebody to come into tbs city buying a lot and say well, I'm pu basing a PUD. Explain to me all tbs rules and regs. Would you have th, time and effort to explain it. to Bat Kr4 th We PU~ wi' Lu No~ ings: No, but I think Paul is saying if you're buying a lot you ought know the size of it. zli: I understand that but. uss: Also in the past I think there's been almost total, I mean these ngs haven't been done. Nobody's done a residential PUD here in 5 years. still have one building built out but you have a very comprehensive ordinance now where a lot of things have to be demonstrated and filed h property and made clear and we're going the extra step like in the dgren thing where we're requiring monumentation of the wetland setback as and things like that. We can do a lot that puts the owner on notice. if the owner chooses not to read anything or not to call, then we have Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct,~ber 2, 1991 - Page 37 a c ncern. Now I know the issue Brian that you gave us the letter on the dec Under the ordinance now as this is written, that wouldn't have hap ened. Bat:li: Yeah, I understand that. I still have a problem with corner lots, the r ability to be 9,000 square feet and then you're looking at, like I sai , you're looking at 2,000 square feet potentially of space on the lot nth r than the setback. I guess I understand buyer beware but after having li ~d in the community now of 100 homes in my little PUD and talking to of them and it's their fault. They don't read the local paper. They t care. They don't know. They don't want to know but the minute they to do something with their property, then suddenly they get into it the question is, do you want to protect these people or not. Is the Ci getting something and is what the City's getting worth raising the e' of a lot of people moving into the community. Maybe they should have n better but I guarantee you less than 1~ will find out that they're ng on a substandard lot that the City things they got a tree preserved ter of a mile away in exchange for their substandard lot. That's my 1 Co ad: Those people are happy to move into a 10,000 square foot lot. E1 n: Who are we to tell them? Er art: I think if they don't like it they can always sell it and move to a igger lot. E1 son: They've got the choice going in. E1 th he ha Co Kr an un ur th Cc art: It's not like they don't have options and I realize it's fficient. son: If something has to be marked off for them or some sort of ification that a lot of people don't realize they're within the setback the wetland and all these other kinds of thin.ge and too many come forth say oh, I didn't know. That's why I filled it all in. That kind of ng. They'll ignore that anyway even though they'll still say they neve~ rd about it. If they want to do it, they're going to do it. And you ing easements on those protected things is mightly strong now versus a venant in the past which were worthless in protecting. ~uss: That happens on 2 acre lots too. I think you're going to have to er the fundamental question, because I'm not sure. Do you want, I meal ~hink we've demonstrated that the PUD has some validity beyond allowing Jersized lots. Now you may well want to allow some freedome for Jersized lots instead of minimum but require that the average is lsistent with other city neighborhoods. Is there a desire to grant xibility below the 15,000 square foot average or should we structure [s so that doesn't happen? ~rad: When you say average, the 15,000 square foot average. That's the ~imum so I'm not sure what you're saying Paul. Plal Oct( hav~ mini fle: req~ Erh Kra ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 38 ss: What I'm saying is you could change this around so that you might a 9,000 or a 10,000 or 11,000. Whatever you want to set as the mum lot area that you allow in a PUD. That will give a developer ibility to put in some smaller lots where those are appropriate. But ire that the average lot size meet or exceed 15,000 square feet. That's our old ordinance. .ss: Yeah and before we had the Lundgren thing come down, I wasn't too sur! that anybody, nobody had used the old ordinance. Now the old ordinance was a bad deal for everybody. It was a bad deal for the buyers. It ~as a bad deal for the city and the city never got what the developers pro lised which was more affordable housing. There were no guidelines and no :tandards. But in an area like this 3ohnson-Delache piece the fle ibility that the PUD may give a developer to take like the open cot .field area and do the smaller lots and preserve the larger wooded hil .tops for the larger lots and average it out, maybe that's a worthwhile exclange. I don't know. ad: Let me interrupt you. I know you've got a thought maybe. Bat Ii: Which is new. ad: But it's real easy to agree with Tim's comment. I can understand wh Tim is saying because it makes real good mathematical sense. If we a 15,000 square foot subdivision minimum, now we're going to break th rule for a PUD. You can go underneath that down to a minimum lot size of at we ever agree. Whatever Brian feels comfortable with but then you ta the difference between the 15,000 minimum and what they just went down to .nd you plop that into open space. ngs: Not on somebody else's lot. C ad: No. See all of a sudden, now I've solved my density. My concern t increased density for the overall deal because I've allocated that 15,000. It's either going to be there in a subdivision or a PUD but allowed the developer to go down and cluster some utilities and save s money but the difference is I've taken what he's saved landwise and I' put it in our little bank over to the side called open space. Now t one I can visualize and feel comfortable with. But I can't, I still a tough time with our formula that we've got because I can't tell w 's going to happen. I don't know if it's, I just don't know. Now Pa l's comment could be, hey that's not going to motivate the developer to do it and that's a valid. That would be a real valid. Er art: Yeah, because I think the incentive is still there because he get~ to ut some 9,000 square foot lots. Co : See I would too but I don't know that. Er art: I think it's very hard to get the average down below 14,000 or 13 000. I think it's more likely you're going to see the averages above 15 000, even despite the fact that you may have some 9's and 12's in there Pla Oct Con' and Emm the' Erh. way 10~ Kral Erh spa Ell Erh we ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 39 ad: See the word average bothers me. Again I'm talking about minimum going below a minimum. We're not talking about, well. ngs: That is a problem because if your average gets over 15,000, now e's no requirement to set aside any open space. rt: Well that's the question I've got. Now hang on. That's not the I read this. I read this as any time you go in a PUD you've got to put open space period. Is that what I'm reading? ss: Well, we just changed that to 15,000 square feet or above. rt: $o then anytime you have a PUD you have to put aside 10~ open :e. Is that what you're saying? Is that what we want? ~on: No. I want a lot more than that. ~rt: I mean if a guy comes in at 16,000 or 17,000 square foot, should 'equire them to set aside 10~? · ss: What are you requiring of the individual who does a straight ivision? E1 Don: You're getting at least. : No, unless the city wants a park there which is the 10~, they give ing. Er rt: You don't have to have park fees or parks with the PUD? Kr. ss: Yes you do. Er rt: Maybe I misunderstand your question. If a guy comes in with a PUD be, he wants to have some setbacks, special setbacks for something. Who k what but yet his average lot size is 20,000 square feet, we're still go to make him provide 10~ open space? Is that what we want? Ky. uss: I think that's the theory that we're getting to here but you've got to ask yourselves, what if Orrin Thompson wants to do a 1950 su~ division here and the city doesn't want a park on the property? He's no1 giving you a square inch. Bat zli: Giving you pretty good fees but you're right, no square inch of op~ n space. Er art: Do a 1950's what? E1 son: Cracker box, cracker box. Kr. uss: Yeah, your usual suburban subdivision. Straight subdivision. St"aight platting. Unless the park board says they need park space there, yo, don't have a single foot of open space. Er art: No, but they've got to pay a fee. , Pla' ning Commission Meeting Oct, bet 2, 1991 '° Page 40 Kra~lss: Right. Well so these people are paying fees too. They're paying idelltical fees. Bat :Ii: You know how these problems are solved? We just move the minimum lot size in RSF to 20,000 square feet. Done deal. Everybody just smirks whe I say that. I don't understand why it's such a sacred cow. Emm nQs.' Well, it isn't. Con ad: It costs a lot of money. Bat ii: People will come in and do PUD's then. If you want PUD's, that's the way to get them to do PUD's. But we can't even decide what we want the PUD to be. Con ad: This is not easy. Ell on: Where do we go from here? Er .rt: I'm still trying to understand why, if a guy comes in with an 18 )00 foot average. The big question is, why might he want a PUD? thr d : For the reason we found on the Lundgren proposal is that if you 30 foot front yards and 75 foot rear yards and 50 foot or 60 foot of-way at them, you have a very difficult time making a legitimate lopment out of that thing. He got the flexibility. Er .rt: The price you pay then for that is a 10~ of it goes to open space. : And in his case it's 40~ of open space. Ba Ii: Not under the new formula. ~ss: No, I haven't applied the formula. Of the 12. something acres of space, 8 of it's wetland. $o you would give them 2 acres of that. Ba ii: Get 2 acres, yeah. Em. lngs: I tell you, well. You guys are always arguing for specifics in o inances and I'm always arguing to keep them vague but all the problems ar created by trying to come up with a formula and I don't know why we ca 't just avoid it. I don't know why you would want to. E1 son: You're saying spell the intent out clear enough. Ba zli: But if we can't decide on what's fair now, how are we ever going to decide the minute a developer walks in unless you have at least an "acceptable range". You will be expected to provide within this range for op~ n space. 10~ to 20~. Emr ings: I could go along with that. Batzli: Yeah, I could go along with that. Pla Oct, Emm Bat: spa¢ Emm gte, exp~ Kra Emm Con1 Emm~ lan( lit~ Tho`< corn1 tho,< KraL lot som~ .Emm I g' nes cat lik Bat me the PUD min und, Con' Emm Bat: foo' ent Emm Bat Emm afl ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 41 ngs: A statement in a range I could live with very easily. 1i: The developer will be expected to provide between 10~ and 20~ open e. End of it. ngs: Another statement. If you go below 15,000 feet, expect to have a ter requirement. To the extent you have lots below 15,000 square feet, ct to have greater requirements for open space. ss: For individual lots or average density below that? ngs: See I tend to go to the individual lots. ad: Individual lots. ngs: Because otherwise I don't want to see, you know he's got prime over here and he's got 1 acre lots and he's got a whole bunch of le houses down here where Brian lives. Those are 10,000 square feet. e0people are getting screwed. To me. I agree with Brian. It's no oft. There may be a certain market for people who want to live in e houses. ss: Well but face it. These people probably paid $30,000.00 for the when the guy up on the hill paid $80,000.00. I mean you're getting thing different for a difference in price. ngs: Yeah, I don't know. I guess I don't find comfort in that but .ess I could be persuaded if there's a market. Maybe there are empty ers who want a small place and don't want to spend their time taking of a yard. We have people starting out who want to get into a house that. Ii: See but most people, and I'll say this and you don't have to give :ympathy but this is the reason. Most people move in and they expect community to have minimum standards. Most people don't understand what is. They don't understand that what they're getting is below the mum community standards-in other parts of the city. They don't ,rstand that. 'ad: But they know what they're getting. ngs: They know what they're getting. li: No they don't. Okay they know they're getting a 12,000 square lot. They don't know that the minimum throughout the rest of the re city is 15,000. ngs: Why do they care? 1i: Well the question is, why should the city relax the standard? ngs: To provide that person with something that he wants and can .rd. Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct. r 2, 1991 - Page 42 Ii: I don't buy that. that house is any cheaper than the 15,000 square lot. I don't buy that the PUD is necessarily providing that but 's just me. Emm ngs: I think that's the reason the person bought it. I mean they're dis: isfied with their house because they moved into a 12,000 square foot lot nd find out most other people in regular subdivisions have 15,000 'e foot lots? i: No, they are. Well, I don't know how to say this but they move in. It's a substandard size lot. It's not necessarily, and under this new st ivision things are changed a little bit but they still have setbacks and hings applied against them and they don't understand the nuances of the PUD. That's my only point that they're getting a smaller sized lot and the' 're not necessarily gaining any benefits from it and I'm not convinced nec rily that the city got anything so I'm looking at it from a lose los perspective. The people that are moving in. They don't understand tha they're going to have a strike against them the minute they try to do som hing on the lot. The City's really not gaining anything. My question is, who's getting something other than the developer who had relaxed the sta ards to do the development. Now if you can convince me that we're pro iding a different housing market and people are getting cheaper houses and that's why we're doing that, then that's a good enough rationale but I don t know that that's why we're doing it here tonight. Emm. ngs: Now presumably a builder won't build a house unless he can sell it. There's got to be a market or he's not going to sell the house. Bat; Ii: Right, but the question is, who's winning with this ordinance? Is the City winning? Are the people moving into the city winning, which is, you when we're looking at it I think we have to look at it from two poi ts of view. Is the City getting something like open space or a park or hel ing to preserve additional wetlands other than what our ordinance alt ady does. It does comfort me at all that kundgren preserved wetlands tha were already preserved. I mean that just really irritated me. That yea}, we get. to count the whole wetlands here as open space. Well you had to I o that anyway. I don't give a rip. You know, so the City doesn't real ly win under that scenario. The people if it's a, and again don't feel sympathy but people moving in I don't think feel they win. So you've got the le moving in. They're unhappy usually with the city because they go ) the city. The city says you can't do anything with your lot so the 're unhappy. The city didn't get anything. Who won? The developer. My uestion is, let's build an ordinance. Make sure we have an ordinance whe e the people moving in win. The City wins and the developer gets a fail shake and I don't think that's happening under this one. Emm rigs: You know one way maybe to avoid this problem of a developer put' lng up, having a bunch of big lots in one area and a bunch of little one: in another area which scares me about this. Would be to put something in ere that they're going to have to mix their lots to some extent. And wha are you going to do, set up a formula for that? I don't even know how you do it. Plat Oct¢ Conr pro~ ning Commission Meeting Der 2, 1991 - Page 43 ad: I go back to the overall. Just real simply, I don't have a les. Let's take a 100 acre parcel. Based on today's development patt~=rn, on a 100 acres. Somebody could probably put in 200 units on 100 acres. I don't have any problem taking those 200 units and putting on half of the property and leaving the other half open. Taking the minimum lot size down to 4 units, you know putting it up to 4 units per acre. That's fine because what I've done there is we've got open space and we've kept the ~tandard that we've been kind of floating along with. 2 units per acre, even though comprehensive plan says 0 to 4, practicality has dictated we're= coming in around 2. EmmJngs: Or 1.7. Conrad: Or 1.7 so that's why I want to be able to get. EmmJngs: I think everybody here would agree with that. Conrad: But I'm not sure I know how to get there. EmmJngs: Paul won't. He flexed his eyebrows. Kratss: No, I see...45 minutes ago. Conrad: Well we're missing things. Ems ngs: But what's the difference between what Ladd's saying and what we' e doing here? KraLss: Because what we're doing here would allow densities in excess of what we normally experience. Emm ngs: Does anybody want that? Ell: on: I think I could be won over if I looked at it. Erh~rt: In excess of what? EmmJgs: In excess of the 1.7. What we've historically done with sub,~'visions. That's' why I asked right off the bat, it says in no instance sha the project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines. I wonder if were incorporating that 1.7 right there. KraL Emm Kra, Con1' giv~ eve' T ove¥ ss: No. ngs: Well I wonder if we want to. ss: Well you might. ~d: That would make me feel comfortable. That one, and Paul mentioned ~fore, average consistent with other subdivisions. That one statement s me the leverage to talk to a developer and then I can throw /thing else out. But that one statement gives me something to say, hey n't like it because it's not meeting what we've seen in'the past in the all design of the subdivision. Pla~ Oct¢ EmmJ get Kra Con' Emm Con' Emm clu,, den,~ Con~ sub¢ Emm etd oka F'rhz foot EmmJ Erh~ numl- EmmJ Erha EmmJ ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 44 ngs: And then could you throw out this open space table? Couldn't you rid of all that? ss: You could, well. ad: I'd like to give them a way to. ngs: To what? ad: I'd like to force the open space. ngs: But if you've got your gross density set. If he wants to ter, you're going to wind up with open space· You've set the gross ity for the whole project. ad: Yeah. It could still end up looking like a PUD. Or like a ivision. End up looking like a subdivision though. ngs: But then if it is a subdivision, he goes under the subdivision nance. We don't care if he does because we think we have one that's · rt: You can cluster. You can still cluster and use the 9,000 square lots. Overall density is. ngs: Is 1.7. rt: For the low density is one number. Medium density is another er and high density is another number. ngs: Right. Here's the framework. You're stuck with. rt: That would really serve the same purpose as this'. ngs: Do what you want. Bring it in and we'll take a look at it. Bat cou] Emmi sub~ Bat: z li: But they wouldn't have to necessarily provide open space. They d just make bigger lots. ngs: But if they want that approach Brian, why wouldn't they do a ivision? 1i: No, if they could put a couple 9,000 square foot lots in there and just put 37,000 and end up with the right density. They wouldn't have pro%ided any open space that isn't privately owned. Emmings: Okay, would that bother anybody? Erha On 8 Batz Erha rt: That's what you've got here too. I mean this open space is based Jerage. [i: That's right. rt: So you can do the same thing with this. Plat Oct~ Bat: sit cit 37, the' Con' Ell.~ Bat~ oth~ Ell.~ diff Bat~ ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 45 1i: Right. I understand that. Well I don't like that aspect of this er. I mean that's why I'm viewing this as the developer wins. The loses. The people that move in lose except for the people on the O0 square foot lots and they didn't have to move into a PUD anyway if didn't want to. ad: I don't perceive it that way. on: I don't either. ii: I know but I'm just, somebody's got to argue against it because rwise this whole commission... on: Were you here the night they gave that presentation of all the stent ones? There were a lot of win situations there. 1i: I gave you Tootsie Pops to soften you up but it didn't work. EmmJngs: Order in the court. Jeff, you haven't said anything. Farnakes: I think it should be 1.7 and I think that that point was made quite a while ago. Conrad: The rest of us missed it. Far, akes: It's still going to become quite cloudy whether or not it's in, it seems to me that the advantage of a PUD is financial anyway. One way or the other for the developer. Why would a developer develop a piece of proFerty if it wasn't in their financial interest? EmmJngs: They wouldn't unless they're stupid. Farnakes: Soing on that basis, I think if 1.7 is the average size, if that's what it works out to, I think that still gives them the leverage. That still gives them the leverage to utilize pieces of property. Because of the terrain, will develop otherwise. Emmings: What would be the gross density on the Lundgren one that we just wen KTa Erh any Krae Ther t. hi~ sens we c t through here? L SS: 1.4 units an acre. art: Why don't we just ask them to go back and look at that. We've rt a lot of time discussing this. We're obviously not going to pass thing tonight. Look at that approach versus this approach. ~s: Would you like me to get, you only heard from one developer. 's a lot of them out there who have worked in this community. Should 9t a panel of them together? I mean we can get real assenteric and dig thing real deep and come up with an ordinance that makes absolutely no to somebody working out in the field. If they're not going to do it, Jght to know about it and just drop it. PI. Oct~ Emm, yoct ng Commiesi'on Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 46 ~s: But wouldn't they want, you know if I'm a developer and I come to I say, how can I develop and you show me a subdivision ordinance. okay, I don't like it. What alternatives do I have? You say okay wel you can develop it the same density but we can give you lots of fl bility in your road construction and your setbacks and your ability to clu er, you can develop your property any way you want to as long as you don exceed this number and as long as we like your plan. It makes sense for he property and we can protect some trees and things like that. Wou. 't a developer be interested in that? Ell n: Hou's that different than our own? IS: If it was that vague? Kr : A developer like Lundgren that's fairly perceptive and understands th~ and is design oriented, yeah they will. But you've got to realize whe you're going through a PUD you're asking a guy to go through a r 'ng which they really wouldn't have to do. It exposes them to any · They need a super majority to approve the rezoning. They only a simple majority to approve a plat. It's a lot more work for them to up with all this stuff· I don't know if it's worth it for them. I y don't. why pr ~s: Why don't you ask? Rather than getting a panel of them together, 't you just run the ideas past them some and tell us what they say. nk. I don't know, what do you think? You're talking about another ~ntation here otherwise? Kr ~s: No. You've had the presentation. I think come up with a version of 's ordinance or leave it the way it is and tell them what other things you e thinking about and say the Planning Commission would like to hear fr you. Your reaction to this· I mean clearly if the idea is just to is the motivation that we had with the earlier PUP's which was cr k ou~ more lots. People get less building space. The City gets utely nothing out of it and with a vague promise that it's going to 1 the price of housing when obviously it didn't, who cares. We don't to do anything· But I found going through that one with the Lake Lucy one, a rather unique experience because it really proved where the PUD was etely valid when it didn't in any way encourage undersized lots· EmmJ ts: Okay. We're going to table this· Erh~ t: There's some other things here though. I've got a question here, right along here. Your computer printed out some double sentences. Did notice that? Bottom of the page. (e), bottom of page I. You've got repeats of sentences and lines. Okay, then on (f). We go to 1, d plantings· Is this on top of our new ordinance for landscaping? I all of a sudden I'm reading this and all of a sudden we're required. KT a : No, it's not on top of it. Your new ordinance for landscaping es in subdivisions. It doesn't apply in PUD's. Er t: It doesn't apply in PUD's. So we're requiring. ing Commission Meeting 2, 1991 -- Page 47 : Wei1 I guess maybe it is redundant because you have to come ih with a plat with the PUD. Emm ~s: Well shouldn't it apply? : Well definitely it should. I put it in here to make sure, I was t double hitting. It was to make sure it applied. CO 't: You've got a lot of requirements here. Your rear yard shall in at least 2 over story trees. That's not even in our landscaping. Emm IS: Foundation plantings. I don't remember there being requirements for oundation plantings. Er : Where's this landscaping? Kra s: That's new. Bat i: We talked about this. Ell : We talked about this though. I remember. Bat i: Us PUD dwellers talked about it at, well it was meetings and ngs ago now but it seems like yesterday. Ell : I remember too a budget or something was going to come out but , we wanted it to apply to that sort of thing. 0 i: These were some of the things that we were going to get from a PUD in there. It wasn't going to be a one to one transference of space to 15,000 square feet. The kind of a deal like you were saying. e talking about amenities in the PUD. Emm oug goi ~s: Maybe this section Paul, the overall landscaping plan. Maybe you to incorporate our other landscaping plan and then add anything we're to add like foundation plantings. ~s: Yeah, keep in mind too that this was originally drafted in the spt and we've since gone on and the landscaping stuff has jumped ahead of his and we've finally got that figured out so there's a lack of co ncy for that. Er : I guess the whole thing hits me here is that the whole idea of the PUD to allow creativity and now all of a sudden, bam. We're going to 2 over story trees in the rear yard and we're going to have boom. We' going to have foundation plantings. We're going to have boulevard pla ings. All of a sudden we're getting real specific. Bat: ii: But we didn't get any creativity. We haven't got any. Er rt: Well we haven't done any. I don't know. ii: Yeah but nobody wants to do them. ~la Oct, Erh~ Bat sho sho~ Erh~ Bat~ and Erh~ must arc~ here rea.~ the~. mini Erh~ we'¥ the sud¢ wha~ KraL tal Emm som( Erh~ all gros does of F heic. wror Conr Erh~ Ell.~ Bat2 Erha it? ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 48 I'm just surprised. I was surprised when I read this· ii: I agree· I think it should be creative. I mean I think this id be win for people who move in. Win for the city. The developer.· It ld be attractive to them and I don't see that we're doing that yet. rt: And then beyond that. 1i: The only people that ever do them are Lundgren. I mean you know they do it for a different reason. rt: Maybe I missed the meeting on this. I was just really surprised. we get the architectural standards. I don't remember talking about· I have missed that meeting. Is that what we said at a meeting we want itectural standards, and again we don't even, we're talking about lots · We're not talking about site plans. on: These are the things that...remember this exactly. For this on they could have the street signs could be a tad different and all e...They were going to get bushes when they moved in. 3ust a bare mum. rt: Let rne go on here for a minute. Again, if this goes as a PUD e going to put guidelines on placement of air conditioners? Do you see contrast of how it jumps from what concept of creativity to all of a en marl we're dictating specifics. The whole thing just hit me like are we doing? ss: Yeah, but are we talking about 9,000 square foot lots or are we lng about 30,000 square foot lots? ngs: Right. And we're also talking about maybe some zero lot lines or , or even some 5,000 square foot lots. rt: But that's in another section which that also confused me. Now of a sudden we go to Section 20-507. Now we're back to the minimum 25~ s area· Am I reading this right? Plus those two pages don't, page 3 n't go to page, let's see. Bottom of page 2 does not fit with the top age 3. There's something. There's at least 6 inches at 4 feet in, ht can of the PUD, the plan should be developed. There's something Q here· A typo. Am I the only guy who saw this? ~d: Yeah, you're the only one. I read it and it sounded right. t: Well anyway, it's confusing to me. ~n: Brian's usually the one that finds those. Ii: I didn't get past A. rt: In Section 20-507 relates to these zero lot line things? Is that Krauss: Yes. Plat Oct¢ Erh~ gros teac KTaL Erh8 thoL stop Emm~ Conr Emmi Emm~ comff Krat to )' to ~ Emmi Con)' Emmi Krat Bat2 Erh6 Batz EmmJ foot Bat2 rest Emmi what Bat2 Emmi agai alri ning Commission Meeting Der 2, 1991 - Page 49 rt: Okay. And those you're suggesting that we maintain just this 25~ s area of the PUD to be set aside in these protected areas. Am I ing that? ss: Yes. We're talking about fairly intensive... rt: Oh, I understand. Well because the pages didn't meet, maybe I ght there was an extra page in there. I'm 3ust checking. Okay, I'll = ngs: Are we kind of worn out on this for tonight? ad.' Yeah. ngs: What can we do? on: I like his idea. Ask some of the developers. ngs: Do you think you can make anything out of the pages and pages of ~nts you're going to have in the Minutes? ss: I can make a lot out of it. The question is, will that bring it ~=solution the next time. I still don't understand if there's a desire llow individually or collectively lots below 15,000 square feet. ngs: Yeah. ad: Yes. ngs: I have no problem with that. ss: Brian you still do? ti: I don't if that's average. rt: If 15's average? l i: Yeah. ngs: Alright, if I have 100 acres and I'm putting on four 9,000 square lots, you're against that? li: That's it? That's all you're doing on 100 acres? What else, the an outlot? ng: My average lot size is 9,000 square feet so I don't think you mean you say is what I'm saying. li: Well that'd be wonderful I suppose if they did that. ngs: It's silly obviously but I don't think you mean that you're 1st an average of 9,000. Under certain circumstances it could be bt. It's not what we want. It's not what's going to happen but it's Pla Oct~ not: it t ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 50 we shouldn't just throw it out I don't think· I think we should leave ~ to the developer. I really do. Ell it. Bat2 cony Emm CoYl' size Bat~ Cony Emm Bat: .~ )n: Yep, I do too. Let us see it. We know what we like when we see l i: But under this current one. ~d: But that's unfair to the developer. ~gs: No it's not. ad: Yeah it is. If we say we like an average 9,000 square foot lot · li: He'll bring it in. ad: Nobody here would really like to see that. ngs: Don't say it. li: If for example they did a single road in.. They had a little cul it' The> the EmmJ Ell.~ Emm Bat: Lun¢ -de-sac in the middle, which would probably be against our rules because ¢ be over 1,500 feet or something, but they have a little cul-de-sac. 'ye got four 9,000 square foot lots and the rest of it is an outlot all way around it, would any of us really be that against it? rigs: No. on: Nice secluded little thing. ngs: That's clustering. ii: That'd be great. But who in the world is going to do that? Well gren could because each one of those 9,000 square foot lots would be wot Ell Farn Emm FaTI abo~ ret the Ell peo~ Emm th about $100K and they'd just say, well it's all fair· eon: The deer farm that's behind here. akes: Centex did that in Eden Prairie· They call them Village Homes. ngs: How did it work out? akes: Just what you described. They offered a variation in price of t 25~ from the smaller lot single family homes. Basically they're a rement house· You wouldn't have to mow more than about 5 feet around ~ouse. ~n: Yeah, and I think that's a viable option...Brian that there are le that don't want the bigger lot. ngs: Sounds great to me. Alright, now you asked a question. P1 ng Commission Heeting 2, 1991 - Page 51 Kra : I think you're saying that you are willing to consider lots below 15 O. E ~s: We'll consider anything. We'll consider zero lot lines. We'll con .der 5,000. 9,000. Kra ;s: But do you still want to put a ceiling in what you could see? E ~s: Yeah. Er t: In terms of density? KT : Yeah. Is: That's what I want to do. : Yeah. li: I would say, if you put density limitations on there, I would also li to see open space that isn't privately owned. I would like to see which I don't think is part of your density scenario. Emm Is: Who owns it? If it's not privately owned, who owns it? Bat: li: Outlot. Kr :s: But who's going to take care of...3 Emm ngs: Who's going to take care of it? Who's responsible for it? Bat: Ii: Well that's never bothered us before. Why are you going to start now' Do you really think these people in the Lundgren lots are going to be out here fixing their monuments? Get real. Grow up. Come on. Emm ngs: Brian, I want you to put both feet back on the floor. You 3umped fro~ outlot to monuments somehow and that was quite a leap. Bat li: That's what they u$ed to do. I mean basically my development has an tlot with a monument on it that's owned by some guy that lives in Cuba or ~omething. It's not going to be taken care of. So Lundgren comes in and we'll fix that. We'll make it part of this guy's lot and he's got a cf venant to fix the monument. Come on. We've done it in the past. Why are e worried about it all of a sudden right now? EmmJngs: Let's please not talk about monuments. That's a different p . Ba li: It's part of their open space. Kr ss: But if there's a need for public open space, shouldn't that have beel... EmmJngs: That's park. That's got nothing to do with what we're talking t here. That's separate. Plat Oct¢ Bat2 that Emro1 We'T Bat2 Ells Bat2 it a KTaL Bat2 Krag You EmmJ not Cony Bat~ and take the Erh~ aYe~ thi Bat: vis~ bec~ giv Emm Bat: a de the guy~ EmmJ Con, Ell~. ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 52 li: Okay, then make all the open space park. Then I'd be happy with ngs: And now it's the citizens responsibility to take care of it. Then not going to like that. 1 i: Why? on: What about that same...that was behind the people? li: Well all they do is, then don't grow any grass. Put some trees on nd let it grow. ss: That's not the way it works. li: Why? ss: You get demands for totlots. You get demands to cut the weeds. get demands to pick up the garbage. ngs: Right. No, I don't think we want. If it's not parkland and it's ~rivately owned in part of the lots, what then? ~d: I think it's the Emmings Foundation. ii: Then make it a requirement that there's a neighborhood association it's owned to all the units in the lots. Commonly owned. Let them care of it. But give them a vehicle to take care of it by requiring association. rt: I think the problem is when you've got this privately owned wooded that you're preserving, if it's privately owned the guy can post gs and nobody can walk in it. Ii: That's right. I mean what's the good of, well open space is good ally. Preserve it but it would be better I think if it was useable use they're basically and again you guys don't like this but they're ng up lot size to get it. ngs: They're not. li: Well I view it differently because I live in one. You view it as tached commissioner not living in one of them. I'm saying this is what ~eople in them view it as, and you can accept it or reject it. You all clearly reject it but that's how they view it. ngs: It sounds like a detached retina. ad: I like the detached chairman. on: I think another night with the Planning. Bat~li: I'd simmer down by then. Plan Octc Emmi Ells Emmi Conr Emmi thin Batz Emmi impc goir Krau Emmi Erha Krau VO1L EmmJ ConT wou] Plat EmmJ Cony APPI: Sept CIT' Emm Man, the' Com' actc Emm Fart KYaL ning Commission Meeting )er 2, 1991 - Page 53 3ge: Yeah, can we talk about this another night when Brian's not here? )n: Yeah, special meeting. Don't let him know. ~gs: Well. I don't know. ~d: They're really good comments. ngs: No, I think we're talking about a lot of important stuff but I ~ we've worn ourselves out for tonight. Ii: Thanks for making me feel good. ngs: Brian, you're responsible fo~ bringing up all of the most -tant things that we talked about. Not let's see. Minutes. Oh, we're to table this and you're going to figure out. ss: Exactly what you said. ngs: Do it. Just do it. rt: This is your commission. ss: Nell Steve, isn't this one of the places where you jump in and 3teer? 3ge: I'll rewrite the ordinance tomorrow afternoon. ad: You could make it pretty vague I have a feeling. But I think this d be a case where the Planning Director and the Chairman of the ning Commission might just get together. ngs: You never did. ~d: I know. )¥AL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated ember 4, 1991 were so noted as presented. COUNCIL UPDATE: ngs: Let's see now. Lundgren they put off deciding it. Surface Water gement. Is there any of these anybody wants to talk about? I'm glad 're going on the grandfathered recreational beachlots. And you see, ade Farmakes has been appointed to the sign ordinance task force. That ally exists at this point in time? ss: It will, yes. It does. ngs: They will be starting to meet. That's going to be tough. akes: New signs are going up I noticed. ss: Oh, on the building? Yeah, they are. Pla Oct, Bat2 EmmJ KraL lost Bat2 loo Emm, Bat2 EmmJ ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 1991 - Page 54 ii: They were putting them up today. ngs: Seven Forty One, there's a .liquor store going in there? ~s: Yes there is. That was on a split vote. The original developer it and the bank's got it now. Ii: They've got some nice cement in the windows though right there. It s nice. ngs: Say I'll tell you, I'm happy to Happy Garden II. li: Is that the Chinese Restaurant? ngs: Yeah. Ell Emm We' resJ the KraL way , thir lot goir get now thi ton grOI COnE for exp'r proc Uni~ vis not of it' bee Uni' the" Uni' stui amoL to of J star org~ eon: You know it's more expensive than the one in Mound. ngs: Okay. Thanks Paul for the report. I guess we're done on that. e got our ongoing items here. What, besides now working on the PUD dential component which looks like it will take quite a while, what's next thing we're going to take on here? ss: Well we went through this stuff at a staff level today. By the we're coming into a new year and I think I really need you all to k of what you want us to tackle coming up. I mean we've been making a of headway on things that have been on this list. Some of them are g to take a while to resolve but are there areas that you want us to involved in that aren't on here now? You don't have to answer that I can give you a quick rundown of what's happening on a couple gs. The Highway 5 Corridor Study is something I needed to raise ght because there's, the Council wanted to set up a task force, a work p, whatever to work with staff and the University and possibility a ~ltant. Figure out where are we right now. Set some goals. Parameters this program and figure out how to get there. I guess I frequently essed a concern that what we've done instead of going through the ~.ss that gave us the comprehensive plan, for several reasons the )rsity was contracted with the Urban Design Center there to do some oning studies and that's fine. It's an interesting exercise but that's going to result in the corridor study. It's going to result in a lot deas as not way to bring it to fruition. So I've been concern that kind of a leg but it's not the rest of the torso. And plus there's some questions about how the University's been working so far. The ersity's charging ahead with some things and I have no idea what 're working on but we came away, Don Ashworth and I went to the ersity on Friday and met with them and they're doing some interesting f and we want to bring them back into the fold here. So what it nts to is we need a couple of folks from the Planning Commission to with the HRA and City Council and become this nucleus of a work group igure out how best to get a handle on this TH 5 thing. There's a lot deas kicking around. Council's talked about moratoriums. Design dards. All sorts of things and this effort really needs to be nized. We'd like to have a meeting in the next couple of weeks. P Oct ng Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 55 it ,s: What kind of a time commitment are people that are interested in lng to have to be asked? Kra : Don't know honestly. I mean initially we're talking about 1 or 2 mee ngs to get our act together in effect but it's my guess that as we pro ed, these people will probably be the nucleus of the group that's wot ng on it, if not the group. Emm ,s: Alright, who's interested in that? In doing that? I am. Was tha 3elf? Far kes: Yes. is: Okay. doi : Let me quickly run you on down the list of things that we're TH 5 we're doing something. That doesn't, you know we have the · study area that we've never talked about but we have to do. ~s: What are you looking at? Are you looking at an item on here? Kr : Yeah. Er t: 2. He started with 1 and now he's on 2. Kr Ds: I do that somel~imes. Co id: If he's going too fast Steve· Emm Is: Wake me up when he gets to 3. Kra, : We're talking about going through, using just the in house with you the Planning Commission. Doing kind of a microcomprehensive plan on that south study area so we're tracking along with the north · That's something we can do during the year. Blending ordinance, can I ke that off? E1 n: Take it off. No can do. Erh~ 't: Study area south, you actually want to work on that this next yeal . : Well, we had a commitment. If you recall a lot of people were say ng well what do you mean by this? What does this mean to me as a prol owner out here? Your recommendation, the City Council's ndation was to proceed and lay out both study areas as soon as we're with the comprehensive plan. Now all our focus has been on TH 5 the Council and the HRA jumped on the TH 5 bandwagon as something the wanted to confront early on. But the south study area's been left in the t. Emm lgs: But there's another pressure out there too. You've got, I can't thi k of the name of the business that owns the corner. Pla ning Commission Meeting Oct. bet 2, 1991 - Page 56 Con"ad: Fleet Farm. Emm. rigs: You've got Fleet Farm saying you're tying our hands. · You're put,.ing restrictions on our property and they were rattling those kinds of sab~,rs. I think it's another thing that kind of got our attention. Kral.ss: Right, but when we had that meeting for the south neighborhood, we had people who lived in Sun Ridge Court on Audubon and Gale Degler, the farf,er, saying what does this mean? You're leaving us in the dark and all tha . So I think it was something that we should do to complete our task. Rez, ning BF to A-2. That's almost done. Bluff protection ordinance. You ye got a lot of crudoes from the Council for that. Sign ordinance. Kat~ 's going to be working, she's got some issue papers that she's doing rig t now and is going to organize the first meeting. We have Tom Workman, .the two of you and two people from the Chamber of Commerce on that. Tree pro' ection ordinance, 3o Ann's trying to light a fire under the DNR. Hope fully that will succeed. Rezoning 2 1/2 acre lots to RR. That's alm(st done. Surface Water Management Plan. We've got our kick off meeting on ~onday with the Task Force. Emm~ ngs: Now why is that on our chart? KraLss: Because there's a lot of this that's going to be coming back to you EmmJngs: There's nothing, well okay. KraL one Emm Kral goi to : You enforce the wetlands ordinance and you're going to get a new out of this. ngs: Yeah, yeah okay. : Shoreland ordinance. 3o Ann's got a meeting in two weeks to get on that. The State built a new ordinance and we have an obligation hange ours. Group home ordinance. I'm asking 3o Ann to get involved this. I have a concern and I've spoken to Roger about it. I might hav, mentioned it to you. First of all some Statute has changed relative to regulations on groups homes. What you can and can't do. The pr se I approach a lot of these things from is, I believe in the need to spt the wealth with group homes. That group homes should be located in all 'ties. Everybody should take their share. We can't 3ust pawn our oblems off on South Minneapolis or whatever but I'm concerned that our dinance doesn't give us a good handle on makiDg sure that group homes are right. And there's been a lot of work on this. There was some ti force set up on this through Hennepin County a few years ago. The Sta law changed relative to group homes because of that. That's the one tha mandates that you can't regulate them if they're licensed group homes u 12 people. But I think we need to have Roger sit down and tell us what you can and can't do. Have 3o Ann give you some ideas about what's som~ good ways of dealing with this are and then look at amending our ord nce so we got a better handle on it. You really want to do this now whe nobody's banging on your door. Rural area policies. Boy, the Metro Cou 1 should have approved this already. I'll check oD that. Well t~ s the one where we had the contract... Landscaping standards, the Planning Commission Meeting Oct, bet 2, 1991 - Page 57 Cou' sti on who pas,, SeC( doi kno, inp( wot 14 ton shol terl Win~ It' Squ ins! lik( els( thel ment otb( Blul appr I 'V,~ COOT out 8at stat slo~ som~ the) EmmJ alo' Kral icil really likes that one too. That's up for second reading. There's 1 some question I think on the number of trees· We have Richard Wing ,ne side pushing very heavily for it. We have Tom Workman on the other translates that into a dollar issue to the homeowner and it just gets :ed along. $o we're going to bring back some information to them at the nd reading just so we have an analysis of what other communities are .g. I'm pretty sure we're requiring more than any other community I of. PUD ordinance. Well, you know where we're at on that. Your t in the downtown pianning study. That's meandering along. We're ing with Strgar-Roscoe on that. Things are starting to happen. Number s something that Kate and Sharmin are going to be working on. I think ght you had a perfect example of we have an ordinance that says we ld be doing something but it doesn't say what we should be doing in s of architectural standards. This is something again that Councilman and other people in the Council have really been pushing heavily. really kind of an interesting phenomena. When we approved Market re. When that came through here 2 years ago, 3o Ann and I were sting that we wanted things like pitched roofs and we wanted things design parapet walls in the back and all the screening and everything · And we were able to do a lot. I think for the standard 2 years ago id a lot. Now the Council, some people on the Council look at that and said, oh my God. What did we do? How can we change it? The ality, the understanding has moved so radically that they're now on the r side of the issue. I think we have to address that in our ordinance. f Creek corridor greenway. I don't know where to go with that. You oved the ordinance. I think the Park Board needs to get involved now. talked with Todd Hoffman about that. There may be a role for dination with the Planning Commission. I guess I'd need to flush that I mean the Park Board may want you to work with them on that. Ii: From my talking with just one of the Park and Rec people, they ted out very negatively on the whole concept and they're warming to it ly but there's no money to for example purchase the corridor or thing. Unless other people get excited about it, I don't know that will. nos: But if you've got a long term plan though, as properties develop Q there you will be able to pick it up. ss: That's the thing. The Park Board I think has kind of tunnel vis Emm Erha terr lon~. Kra[ the Erh~ We 'r lon~ iDn. ings: It's called corridor vision. rt: I'll tell you, you're exactly right. They view everything in of doing it today with some dollars from the taxpayers. In terms of term planning and park. But what is there getting some grants going with the Arboretum and qature Conservancy. Ail those kinds of things. t: I never have, when we discuss this thing, I never conceive that talking about spending any dollars here. We're talking about the term plan when those properties develop· That we have identified this Pla lng Commission Meeting 2, 1991 - Page 58 cot dot so when they come in there's no question that that's going to be pub property. Kr : Well the Watershed District also wants to work with us on a Bluff plan that's more focused than our Surface Water Utility, or a lot of emp is. And one of the things, I went on a tour of Nine Mile Creek t h Bloomington where they had some similar problems in terms of sig ficant erosion and stuff and they went in and fixed it but they worked wit the city to fix it as a recreational amenity'and there's a beautiful tra system and bridges. That makes'sense in South Bloomington that as ly a designed a trail as that doesn't make sense here but something li that. Er t: If you go on a field trip like that, give me a holler. I would lik to go along. Kr : Okay. So I'll keep you informed on that because I think some thi is are starting to materialize. Modifications to beachlots, we're wot ng on that now. Emm. is.' I would like to have notice of meetings on that because I'm real i ested in that issue. KT Or tr I : We're going to notify the Planning Commission, City Council. :e amendment for non-conforming uses. This is something to work out with Roger. We don't deal with these things real well. I'll have to bring you the ordinance to see what we're talking is: Yeah, don't give us details now. Let's get done. KY thi I : Liquor stores. That's something the Council asked for. A couple things, I have some administrative items I'm going to work on. One too that's been kicking around that I've tried to stay clear of but n't know how much longer I can is this golf course deal. Er : Joan was. do so Erh, evo] Ell~. : Tom wanted me to set up a meeting amongst everybody. I tried to ...but it didn't pan out. To really see what to do and how to do it guess we're going to do that whenever we can. : I thought we had a work item to eliminate BH district and then it into... n: When you were gone. Er : To me that's two different things. i: We did a lot of that at the 19th meeting. That was the day you gone. ~s: Which, the BF? Piar Oct¢ Erh~ KTaL that Erh~ EmmJ quit Ella EmmJ the OVeT Erh~ EmmJ Erh~ EmmJ fror subr KTaL kinc Emm peOl KTaL ther SeC¥ Emm KTal Emm Bat: EmmJ Elis stac~ KYaL jum~ ~mm eve~ ning Commission Meeting bet 2, 199i - Page 59 rt: No, the one down on 212. ss: Yeah, the BF district. Number 2. I've got Jo Ann working on · We're going to be bringing that back to you again. rt: Yeah, that's it. ngs: Some administrative items here. Annette has retired. Or is ting I guess. However you wart to put it. on: I've had enough of you guys. ngs: And we also have Ladd, Tim, Steve and 3oan, their terms are up at end of the year· So basically we've got 5 potential spots turning rt: Who? Ladd, Tim and who? ngs: Ladd, Tim, Steve and Joan. rt: Oh you Steve. ngs: Good Tim. So do you want to know anything? Do you want to know the people who are up this year whether or not they're planning to it an application? ss: That would be good to know.- People often ask when they apply what of openings there are. ngs: Are you going to advertise five spots now and we'll interview le? ss: If the ad went out, we're going to put in an ad for Annette and I realized we were close to the end of the year anyway. I asked my etary to advertise for them all. ngs: So there, are 5 spots advertised? ns: Should be. lgs: Is the pay going to stay the same? li: Wait a minute. ngs: Oh, that's right. You're not getting any. on: It seems weird that they all come in two groups. Why aren't they gersd more? ss: Vicky tells me she thought they were at one time and something got led up and I think she's right. There's probably. ngs: I know what happened I think. I think they reinterviewed ybody. When it turned over from Tom Hamilton and that crew to our plalning Commission Meeting OctOber 2, 1991 - Page 60 the Ell Emm of Con two Krat Ell~ Kra~ Ell KTa Erh EmmJ F'rh~ Kral wou Emm Kral Ne' Emm :ent illustrious City Council, they reinterviewed everybody. Didn't ;on: I wasn't interviewed until last year. ngs: Either a whole bunch of people were up at that time or they kind einterviewed everybody. ad: I thought we had three different times. I didn't know it was just different dates. ss: Well it's evolved into two. on: With seven people that's a big chunk. ss: Nell the 3 year terms, and maybe the fairest way to do it is when et these 5 positions refilled. on: Some are 2 and some are 3? ss: Yeah. Two people draw out of a hat and they get one year terms. rt: Well I'd volunteer for that. 1 or 2 year terms. ngs: I would too. rt: I'd like to do one more year. Max two. ss: Yeah but that doesn't, oh yeah your term is up. Actually that d for both of you. ngs: Okay. What do you need from us? Anything on this issue? ss: No. We'll bring you back the names. We'll do the usual deal. 1 set up some interviews. ngs: We've got our attendance record here. Ellson: Jeff, have you really been here every time? Far,~kes: Well I was late today but I'll stay after school. Ell Emm on COnT Batz what Emmi e0n: You and Steve. /ngs: He gets a little 1. I was surprised. There are fewer absences k gte than I had expected to see. ad: I've had quite a few. Little bit of favortism here on the attendance sheet? Is that we're saying? qgs: You've got 2. Pla Oct Con' Emm tho~ tho~ tha~ Kra[ EmmJ Krat. Erh Ell Emm Erh, int~ Ell.~ peo~ Emm SUpl Bat; EmmJ Bat~ Emm~ don ' Krac Batz Octc Krau Emmi Krau Emmi Krau infc Emmi ning Commission Meeting ,bet 2, 1991 - Page 61 ad: I know I missed 2 in a row. ngs: Well that's all that's on here. It's not really as bad as I ght. You know we've been having trouble with forums here and I ght we were going to see something that was kind of different than · ss: Well the 3uly 17th and there were 3 that occurred. ngs: What's the standard? What's the percentage? ss: There's something in the enabling stuff. rt: How come you guys got that... on: You got it in your packet. ngs: It wasn't in the packet. It was laying on the table. Because this stuff you're supposed to take home and read and not rfere with your duties here· on: You're supposed to come early enough to catch up on any letters le have given since the packet was given out. ngs: What is the standard? What is the percentage that you're osed to have? li: 75~. ngs: Is it? li: Yep. ngs: Well it looks like almost everybody is there except maybe 3can. I t know· Moon Valley, there's a big. ss: Moon Valley applied for a permit. I rejected it. Ii: But did you meet with him? When did you send this letter? Oh Der. ss: Yesterday. ngs: And how is it going? ss: Not well. I think we have a court date for October 18th. Rgs: You're going to enforce whatever. ss: Well to insist that they apply for the permit and give us all the mation the ordinance requires. tgs: And they haven't done that? Pla[ning Commission Meeting Oct, bet 2, 1991 - Page 62 Kral Emm fai Kra Bat oth, Krat Bat; Plal Krat meel I'm bec4 unf( ove~ or it. Ell KTal Ell Kra Bat: KTa May¢ Emm~ toni Les: I don't think so. nos: This is everything you've gotten so far? Or everything they've ed to give you? ,ss: Yeah. li: So the two grading plans you've gotten. One is the crater and the r one is the 2 1/2 acre lots? ss: Right. 1i: And they're both submitted as part of the same plan? Kind of a A and Plan B? ss: Exactly that and they won't tell us which one it is. Now in ings with them they tell us if we're nice to them we can earn Plan 8. depending a lot on the City Attorney's advice on how to handle this one use I see it's fairly inevitable it's going to be litigated. It's rtunate because clearly the City, I think. You and the Council bent backwards to draft an ordinance that didn't attempt to shut them down ake their life to difficult. That's not the way they're dealing with on: Who is on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the Council? ss: Tom Workman. on: Just one? ss: Yeah. And it's on an annual basis so that will end soon. li: Who's on the Board of Adjustments? Who's everybody? ss: It's Willard, Carol Watson and Tom Workman. Now that night the r was sitting in for Willard. The Mayor's the alternate. ngs: Willard will probably quit after the way he was treated by Brian ght. KraLss: One last thing. Again we remain very convinced that because of the ~ay people are talking to us we're going to be getting a lot of applications as we get into the winter. Developers all know they're not goirg to get anything into the ground this year and they're shooting for spring. And we're working on some bigger projects to bring back to you and a lc t of you are going to be in meetings with us in the next few weeks. We don't have any applications submitted for the next October meeting and I've got [ickets for the World Series. Ells Farm tic ~n: Oh are you kidding. Let's have a lottery for those. akes: Now tell me, is it true you had to send in $800.00 for each k~t then as a deposit? Plan Octo, Krau offs Farm Krau, Elis and Subm Plan Prep ing Commission Meeting er 2, 1991 - Page 63 s: $640.00 for two. It's for everything though. That's the play kes: Are those good seats? s: Yeah. Right behind home plate. )n moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor ,he motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 Dim. tted by Paul Krauss lng Director red by Nann Opheim