Loading...
CC Minutes 6-27-05 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: I would move that the City Council approve Variance 05-17 for a 5 foot variance for a minimum 10 foot side yard setback to build a storage shed on a riparian lot zoned Single Family RSF with conditions 1 as published in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? If there is none, I will proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Variance #05-17 for a 5 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard setback to build a storage shed on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following condition: 1. Construction of the shed shall match the principal structure by using vertical siding on the exterior of the shed and painting the shed the same color as the principal structure. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. SAND COMPANIES. INC.: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND REALIGNED 101: PLANNING CASE 05-10: A. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE F AMIL Y TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. MIXED USE. B. CONSIDER LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR TAX CREDIT APPLICATION. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Sorry, I've got a big board here. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on June 7th. Part of that, you had reviewed this under a conceptual PUD, as did the Planning Commission. Again they wanted to get a read from the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding acquisition of the property. The Sand Companies now has acquired the property. Again the location of the property is, this is the widened, proposed widened Lyman Boulevard and then the new 101. Current location right here and the new 101 moving to the west. So obviously development of these two parcels is predicated on the relocation of the infrastructure and improvements to the property. Again 212 divides this property. The northern piece which would have access via Lake Susan Drive, and the south portion access via 101 and tied through to Lyman Boulevard. The purpose of the meeting tonight is just to review the PUD development standards. They will have to come back for specific site plan review on each project, so again that's kind oftied into a little bit more ofthe 212. So with that, I'm going to really kind of focus on the PUD design standards themselves. The PUD that we put in place is pretty similar to the one that we actually put over on the Park and Ride facility. Just kind of want to go through that. In the comprehensive plan this is guided for mixed use development so it does allow for neighborhood commercial as stated in the comprehensive plan, and for residential up to 16 units an acre. The plan contemplates, if you go 15 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 to page 8 of the staff report, the design standards, the intent is that this be a mixed use PUD. Neighborhood commercial and office residential. Again the purpose of the mixed neighborhood as we build, this is an appropriate scale based on existing residential in the area. Making sure we've got good transition. Again we're calling out specific uses. For example office in this location provided a good buffer for noise attenuation from the neighbors. Because we have a 600 deck, or 600 parking deck. 600 cars in this parking deck, there's an opportunity for some of the commercial support here as well as the residential that combines with that, so again we wanted the commercial to be such a scale that it provides for those immediate neighbors. So if you look at the permitted uses that we put in here, small to medium restaurant or no single use to exceed 8,000 square feet. A drive thru bank would be the only one that we'd want to see a drive thru window, and that's not necessarily bad because sometimes those speakers are loud. Daycare. Again the goal there was to be a commercial that would be support a neighborhood use. Not one large user from a regional draw but more again to support what's going on in the neighborhood. And again the maximum number of units, we capped at 150. Again that would go to the site plan and I think they're pretty close on what they're looking at for specifically C, which would be the northern half looking at that, if our townhouses and then the apartment building there, and then the other apartment building would be at this location but then the rest of this would be either strip retail or office in that area. We did in the PUD provide setbacks. Because it is a PUD there is transitional and buffering requirements. Again we did cap the commercial so it's all residential, if they decided to go all commercial in the PUD, again this PUD spells out what that balance should be so we have some residential and some commercial again to protect ourselves if something, one big box user wanted to proceed. And that again was the intent with not any single user greater than 8,000 square feet, and that's pretty typical of what we've done in neighborhood commercial, and that would be similar to what we have on Highway 5 or the two intersections. Mayor Furlong: If I can interrupt. Is it 8,000 or 5,000? Kate Aanenson: 8,000. Mayor Furlong: In the neighborhood commercial? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: This says 8,000. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: I guess I had 5,000 in my mind but you're saying 8 is what we've done? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, for any single use. Yeah. I typically, when we have uses that are a lot smaller than that. Even restaurants. You can get some, a drive, not a drive thru but a walk in restaurant that could be 1,500. Again that's to stay... a less desirable use. That doesn't meet the daily needs. Again we put standards in place for residential and materials and for the commercial too. What our expectations are for design and the developer has agreed with those. Again we try to call all the things that we believe and would meet to make the project. .. Again 16 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 as specific projects corne in, not to say just as we have done with other PUD's, that we may have to do some adjusting but again this is for them to help market because the Sand Companies who is the developer will own their residential component, but the commercial it's the intent to spin off so we want to make sure we have clear direction and what our expectations are. So with that the Planning Commission on a 7-0 vote recommended approval and staff is also recommending approval of the PUD. So I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: Kate under your PUD design standards, you're basically pulling those from previous developments that are similar in nature? Kate Aanenson: Correct. And we also have added the multi-family design standards that we just proposed to you last fall, that the Planning Commission did and then so those are also included as far as inclusion of a little more brick in some of the residential. Councilman Peterson: And that's really my question I think I've been kind of like a broken record. The bigger the buildings we get, the more concerned I am about, about just the look and feel, the appropriateness to the neighborhood. So that it's not a big box and I know that with the PUD we have the ability to hold quite a bit of leverage on that. And I think, as one council person, I'd be more aggressive in saying I really want something different. I don't know what that is until, I know what I don't like. Kate Aanenson: Well, I think we did give them some folders to look at, at what our expectation is to make sure that we're speaking the same way, and obviously one of the easiest ways is through the articulation so it's not flat walls. Similar to what we did at Presbyterian Homes where you've got the balconies. Some of the movement of the buildings and I believe that we're in concurrence on that and these design standards reflect that. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other questions. A couple questions that carne up in the Planning Commission meeting, both from the commissioners as well as from residents. One was the issue of the location of the pedestrian trail and I don't know if that's something maybe we want to address. I know that we were focusing on a trail for one side but that doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be crossing of 101 for people for north or south access. Kate Aanenson: This is a tough struggle and the cost issue too, and I'll let Todd talk about some of it but when we put together the 101 with MnDot, we actually put the sidewalk on this side of the street. A lot of the commercial is over here. So for this portion of the Sand Companies, which is on the other side of 212, it does mean if you want to go to the commercial immediately south, so they don't run across 212. There's not an opportunity to do another underpass for cross purposes. So you would have to cross, corne down and then cross again. It's not the best. Todd Hoffman: It's one way or the other. The Mission Hills people, they're going to be happy. So one side or the other. 17 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 Mayor Furlong: If this development was on the east side, it probably wouldn't come up. Todd Hoffman: And as we moved through the process of developing the pedestrian routes through the Highway 212 corridor, it was our position we would put those trails on one side of each bridge and so you have to pick one side or the other. One thing to note is that this is shown in the wrong location on Lyman. This trail is on the north side, so you will have an opportunity to leave this neighborhood, through a trail and then access this property without crossing a major intersection or major road, so for this route we took the neighborhood route and something to keep in mind when you plan these trail connections, you always want to put the trail on the side of the street where the homes are at. But in this case you have residents in homes along the entire corridor. Mission Hills, large neighborhood. Chanhassen Hills, large neighborhood. We also want to make the most defined connection between our downtown and the southern corridor of our park system at Bandimere Community Park so those are some of the reasons we stayed on the east side at this location. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. The other, one of the other issues that came up at Planning Commission was the height of the apartment building. Limitation of the apartment building. I think the applicant actually brought that up. Right now it's at 35 and they were saying something higher is typical. Kate Aanenson: It's 35. Mayor Furlong: That's what we have in here? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: And that's throughout. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I'm not sure whether the interpretation of the height... Mayor Furlong: Why don't you come up to the microphone sir. You or someone from your group is going to be here in a second anyways so. Richard Hennings: I'm Richard Hennings, the architect for Sand Companies, and I'm the person that brought that up just because I'm concerned that if, at least in my mind it runs a little counter productive, or counter intuitive to your design standards in that, in that it allows 3 stories but our 3 story buildings, just by the nature of how they're built nowadays are 28 feet to the top floor ceiling. 29 feet to the spring line of the truss, and if you maintain the 35 foot average, it really limits you to maybe a 4:12 pitch, and that's probably the last thing you want to do is have real flat roofs on these buildings, and so I know the Planning Commission said we should just talk about that during the individual, each individual building and that's okay, but it does seem that those two things may be butting heads with each other a little bit in my mind. 18 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 Kate Aanenson: I believe that the only rub would be on the two apartment buildings. Right so, and it may be in how we interpret. Typically we take from the middle part of the pitch, so I'm not sure if Sharmeen looked at that. Richard Hennings: Well it does, yes you do take from the mid-point of the roof. But like I say, in the buildings because they're fairly wide and you want them wide rather than long and narrow, and therefore the roof gets high is the only reason I brought it up. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And maybe that is an issue that we look at with each individual design. Kate Aanenson: With the site plan. Mayor Furlong: Which might help Councilman Peterson's issue as well. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? On the PUD at this point. If not, the applicant is here this evening. If there's anything that you'd like to say at this point on this matter. No? Okay. Thank you. This was a public hearing at the Planning Commission but if anybody else would like to provide comment to the council, I would certainly invite them up at this time as well. Seeing nobody. Bring it back to the council then for discussion or additional thoughts. Councilman Peterson, you were raising some questions earlier. Some thoughts on this or? Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I think it's a reasonable request and again speaking on behalf of myself, it's simply, I'm going to push hard to make it really architecturally interesting so the architectural design, I'm looking for something that's very distinctive and creative. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts. On the PUD. Councilman Lundquist: I think it's reasonable. I like the, for this application using the PUD tool rather than other options available, so it allows us some more flexibility to do the things that Councilman Peterson was referring to. So it seems like the right thing to do. It's good access. On the highway and some of the other things that Kate talked about as well with the parking deck and some of those other things as well so I think it fits in, I feel like it fits in well, as well and I guess we'll just look for the, curious to see what the specifics will be when we get into the final design and those things. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Your thoughts Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: No. I mean the issue with the sidewalks is a concern and that will be something I would wish the developer would look at is, the city would put one on the west side also. That behooves me why we wouldn't want one on each side for. Kate Aanenson: The problem is the decking of the bridge over the overpass of 212. The cost of that. Todd Gerhardt: To accommodate a trail along, over the top of 212, the bridge needs to be expanded by 10 to 12 feet. And that cost, MnDot will pick up the first trail widening on the bridge. The second one falls back as a responsibility onto the city and we opted out of that when 19 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 we looked at the 101, Powers and we're still working on the Bluff Creek one right now. But it's roughly about $250,000 for each pedestrian overpass, or widening of the sidewalk for each of the roads. Just for the bridge section. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think you know the comments were made this evening with regard to the design standards that Councilman Peterson brought up. If I'm correct I think the standards that are quote in place, in addition to the new ones for medium density that we put in just this last year. ..Highway 5 corridor standards that we've spread out across the city now and if memory serves that was back in the late 90's that that standard was put in place. '98-'99. Somewhere like that. And maybe as we sit here in 2005, it's time to look at those and maybe step them up a notch. I wouldn't be at all opposed to looking at that, as a kind of a review. As a way to look at that. Not just for this particular PUD but throughout. 212 is going to be a major corridor and it will be a view that many people that aren't residents of Chanhassen will see of our city as they drive through, and both from a commercial standpoint as well as landscaping requirements and such like that. At least maybe it's something that we should start talking about and say what do we want to do here. To the extent that we, at least under this PUD I guess it'd be something that I'd like to consider somehow to, since we're a couple years away from the development here, since it likely will tie with the completion of 212, I'd like to make sure that we have a way to incorporate, if we do decide as a council to modify, step up those, that those would be included as well in this and the other developments that we're talking about. So I don't know from a process standpoint how we do that. From a condition on this PUD, if we have to put something in there or, I mean it refers to ordinance I believe. It does as a condition, if I read it correctly in terms of materials and designs and such. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And as those are modified then they would follow that, and we can put that in there. The PUD would follow any modifications to the design standards. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Not necessarily assume that they'd be there, but let's look at it and if there are, let's make sure that this gets included, anything like that. Any other thoughts or comments on the PUD? If not, there's another item associated with this. We could either take them separately, which is consideration of a letter of support regarding a tax credit application or we could bring, we could vote on the PUD. Bring that up second. Is there a preference one way or the other? Councilman Lundquist: Do this one first. Mayor Furlong: Okay, that's fine. Why don't we go ahead and consider a motion then on item 7(a). Councilman Lundquist: Is that the one on page 8? I would move that the City Council approve Rezoning of property located in the northwest quadrant at the intersection of realigned Highway 101 and Lyman with the, from residential single family to planned unit development mixed use. With the design standards as printed in the staff report and modifications of the design standards. That the PUD follow any modifications of design standards between now and. Mayor Furlong: Say final approval. 20 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Final approval. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any, is there a second to that motion? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Second Councilman Labatt. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves rezoning the property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of realigned Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 24 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: CHANHASSEN GA TEW A Y PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses . The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and office uses shall be limited to the area located south of Highway 212. Residential uses shall be located north of Highway 212 and along the western portion of the southern half. . Small to medium-sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) . Banks with a drive-in service window . Office . Day care . Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per tenant . Convenience store with or without gas pumps 21 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 . Specialty retail (Book Store, Jewelry, Sporting Goods SalelRental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) . Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self-Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). . Residential High Density (8-16 units per net acre). The total number of units for the entire site may not exceed 150 units. c. Building Area . Commercial/Office - Not to exceed 75,000 square feet for the entire development . Maximum Commercial/Office lot usage is a Floor Area Ratio of 0.3 . Maximum office/commercial building area per tenant may not exceed 8,000 square feet . Maximum residential units may not exceed 150 units. d. Prohibited Ancillary Uses . Drive-thru Windows except banks or pharmacies. . Outdoor storage and display of merchandise e. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary f. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 22 Building! Parking Setbacks (feet) 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/20 50/20 0/0 50% 70% 1 story 2 stories 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. Buildings and site design shall comply with design standards outlined in Article XXIII. General Supplemental Regulations, Division 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. g. Residential Standards Buildings and site design shall comply with design standards outlined in Article XXIII. General Supplemental Regulations, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 2. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick, stone, etc. 3. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. h. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard, north and south of Highway 212 and west of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. 23 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 i. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. j. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; b. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. j.t. Proiect Identification Si2ll: One project identification sign for the commercial portion of the development located at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 24 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 j.2. Monument Shm: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lake Susan Drive. One monument sign per lot shall be permitted for the commercial portion of the site. These signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. These signs shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. j.3. Wall Si2ns: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. j.4. Festive Fla2s/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. j.5. Buildin2 Directorv a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. 25 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 j.6 Directional Siens a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. j.7. Prohibited Siens: . Pylon signs are prohibited. . Back lit awnings are prohibited. . Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area . Menu Signs are prohibited. j.8. Sien Desien and Permit Requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. 26 City Council Meeting - June 27,2005 k. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than Yz candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. l. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. m. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Mayor Furlong: Next item on the agenda is related to the PUD that we just passed, is a request by the developer to consider a letter of support in their application for tax credit financing. Why don't we move to a staff report please Mr. Miller. Justin Miller: Sure. Mayor, council. The last work session we had the applicant approach you about providing a letter of support indicating what kinds of financial support the city is willing to provide. They are applying for tax credits and a level of assistance from the city would give them some additional points in that process. It's a highly competitive process that I think they told you about last week. We left that meeting and staff, or council gave staff some direction to check up on a few things. One of those being references. We did call representatives from other cities that the applicant has done projects in and they all came back very good. They spoke very 27 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 highly of the applicants. Said they worked well with staff. It was a high quality project and they were very flexible and met the requests of the councils and staff so we feel comfortable with those references. The applicant also provided a preliminary tax credit application scoring sheet on the points that they feel they would earn if there's city assistance and if there's not and I believe that that scoring tabulation is attached to the report. Then staff and the applicant went through several revisions on a letter that we feel like meets their needs in terms of securing points for their application, as well as giving the city some flexibility and not locking us into anything definite and so that letter's attached as well, and staff would recommend that you approve the letter as attached. Be glad to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: One of the questions I had was in the second to the last paragraph where we talk about flexibility and the zoning and development standards. I'm a little concerned with flexibility in the development standards, even though we discussed it's a PUD. But you know it seems to allude that we were going to lessen our standards to make this thing move ahead faster. That is a worrisome statement from my perspective. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, did you want to probably elaborate on what you meant by that statement. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and actually what the PUD is, we transferred the density from the north to the south and that's the part of the flexibility. Just in the fact that we're creating a PUD as a zoning technique that gives them points. Creation of a PUD. Councilman Peterson: I understand that. Ijust didn't, I read it and then it just didn't, it sounded like we were willing to give up on our standards and that was just a concern. Again it's a minor point. Kate Aanenson: We didn't. I mean we even told them now that we want to see the project before we look at the roof lines so we haven't. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think their original letter had setbacks, parking and we eliminated those items from the letter. I think this one just dealt with the transfer of units. I wonder if we can just write that language in there. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I don't want to word smith. I was just giving a reflection more than anything else. Kate Aanenson: I think we changed that. Mayor Furlong: That we did change it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think the way it's written now it reflects. Mayor Furlong: What we did. 28 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Consistent with what we've done. What we just passed. Kate Aanenson: Correct, what you just passed. Mayor Furlong: A few minutes ago. Kate Aanenson: . .. and that was the goal. Right as we understood. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good. Any other questions? Of staff. If not, is there any discussion by the council? Or is there anyone else that would like to provide input to the council before we discuss too. 1'd certainly invite public comment. If anybody would like to come forward. If not, that's fine. Okay. Discussion by the council. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. I just want to make one point that the assistance that we're looking at here is very similar to, or exactly like the assistance that we provided to Presbyterian Homes. Ijust want to make that clear. We're following the same standards and guidelines that we used on that project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thoughts, discussion on this? Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, it's been one, I think we talked a little bit at our work session, one of the troubling points of it was kind of the speed at which it came along. I'm glad to see some of the things around the scoring and I probably still don't understand that process enough to understand it. 12 points is the make or break line, but I think regardless some of the concerns on this one, it's a, it provides a lot of opportunities. The location I feel like is a pretty good spot for this. Certainly this type of housing is not something that we have a lot of in the city. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes that bad. It tends to be a thing that I notice comes up a lot in some of our scores or some of the things that we're, the city is looked upon so certainly something that has kind of been on my radar to look at and explore options. We talked about a little bit of affordable housing. Potential when we did the bowling alley project a couple years ago. This one, the financial commitment for the city is fairly minimal as well, so I think that provides some benefits. The references, things are good and some of the things that I've heard about the developer and the owner/operator thing I think lend positive on this. I will still state for the record though that I'm not in favor of the financial assistance or some of those other things unless these tax credit issues come through. Without the tax credit thing I think as we spoke to the developers, the market's not going to be there for them to provide that service there anyway so certainly not open to giving assistance or other things like that to a market rate townhouse or apartment. That's just not something that I can support so I feel like that I'm still being rushed along a little bit. I understand the deadlines here. The wording in the letter seems pretty, pretty loose and seems like there's a lot of out's there so to speak so, but hopefully I guess I'm assuming that staff's gone over this with the developer and they feel like that serves their purpose. So I guess I'm still a little bit hesitant but comfortable with where we're at. It seems like there's enough space in this letter, if this thing doesn't happen, and certainly as we spoke on item 7(a), we're going to be, pay a lot of attention to this development as a whole. It will be a 29 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 highly visible thing so we need to make sure that it just doesn't you know, become something that we regret how it happened. So that's my comments. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Peterson: Keying on what Councilman Lundquist just said, we don't want to regret. We certainly don't want to regret any of our decisions but we're talking about large building structures and developments. It's even more but I agree with the majority of what Councilman Lundquist statements were. However a couple of things that I differ on. We've compared Presbyterian Homes often tonight and in the last meeting and they are similar. But what happened in exclusive, not exclusively but essentially in the Presbyterian Homes development, or before we gave the tax support, we had seen that building design through it's infancy to it's ultimately was the final design, and we could see exactly what we were going to be giving tax credit for. In this situation we don't. So we could be signing up for something that we ultimately don't like, even though we've got a PUD. You just don't know what you're signing up for until you get it done, and that concerns me. That I really want to be able to see what the plan is before I say I'm going to support it with tax increment financing or any derivation of the same. So that's not happening in this situation so that's a big difference from what we saw in Presbyterian Homes. I can't see this. I can't feel it. And we don't often use this increment to make this thing happen and now I've got a situation where I don't really know what's going to go in there, and what kind of standards ultimately will be there. Because even within the PUD we've got flexibility. I don't want that to totally hang our hat on that. So I am concerned that I really don't know what it's going to look like. And ultimately I might say yes. This is a great idea. I want to support it. But that's, I would normally think that would come after the building plans are in front of us for approval. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, can I ask...? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Absolutely. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Why don't we have anything in front of us to see what potentially could be there? Kate Aanenson: Well 101 has to be relocated. Again they're trying to tighten down the market. I think we're pretty close as far as what we know it's going to look like. Three stories. 47 units. 48 units. We've given them design and they've given us other prototypes of their building. It does have to go through a site plan review so no matter what, even if you chose to give it funding and you didn't want to approve the project, that's your stop gap. You say we're not going to approve the site plan, so ultimately you have the control. If it doesn't meet your PUD standards, or the modifications thereto, then you wouldn't approve it. Whether you've given them the affordable or not, but because they have to lock up those dollars at a future date, they have to go for those today to tie them up. That's kind of the sequence of timing of when the road will be relocated and I think that's what Brian was kind of... 30 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 Councilwoman Tjornhom: So then if I would vote for this and it does not fairly meet Mr. Peterson's ideas of what we should be developing, or what my idea should be developing, we do have an out? Kate Aanenson: Well I think our idea is to follow the POO that we just put in place. Now, as you know there's different iterations within that POO but if it meets that in whole, that's our guide plan or any modifications thereto. But clearly the goal was to give them some direction on what our expectations are. As far as design. And again those are the new standards with the brick. Some percentage of brick and those sort of things. So I think we're on the, or the staff believes anyway that we're on the same page as far as design issues. And again you have to approve the site plan. Based on the POO. Councilman Peterson: But you can't not approve a site plan based upon the PUD if you follow the POO standards, right? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: But I think we have some control or effect on those standards given the conditions in the POO. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's what you just told me that you want me to look at those and make sure they're where they want them to be. Mayor Furlong: I mean we haven't seen it, I concur with that. I view this letter as much as a concept plan or similar to a concept plan that might corne forward in a development phase. We did have some elevations and again concept in nature in the information that was provided by the developer at our work session at the last meeting so we did have some of that, and I included their concept in terms of 100% of these 48 units being affordable or lower cost cost kind of, and the types of units and such like that. So we haven't seen it from a site plan standpoint but I don't view this, I view this letter as support conditioned upon what we've seen so far. And if it comes back different, then our support may be different too. To that point, so other comments. Councilman Labatt: I don't disagree with anything. I think the last meeting we beat this around in the work session and I don't, I guess I agree with your comments Mayor about, if what comes to us in the fall, or whenever we may see it, is not what we expect, we still have options present at that time. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comments? I guess to close up, from what I've seen economically on this and I think Councilman Lundquist alluded to it, is it's, there's a lot of things that have to fall into place for this to move forward and I think the, what the city can do here is be the catalyst. We did get a short timeframe. I don't think any of us appreciated that, but sometimes we try to react as quickly as we have to. And I commend staff for trying to work with the developer to put something together and I agree with Councilman Lundquist. This letter is a letter of support but there are conditions on it, and the conditions are that we give back what we're, from a concept standpoint, agreeing to. If that changes, if they don't get their tax credit financing, and they want to come back for a market rent unit, I don't think, there's not going to 31 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 be support there. I wouldn't support that, but if we can be a catalyst to try to, as a city to help them attain something else, I think financially the city's commitment here is probably not going to make or break the project financially. We do have that condition in there as well. The but for condition that's obviously required. But I, in looking at the potential financial components, so say with the property tax, or the increment relative to the whole size of the project, it's probably not going to hinge just on that so I support it. I think these are opportunities and as part of our strategic initiatives that we as a council talked about earlier this year, we talked about housing and trying to bring that in and making sure we look for opportunities to do things. I agree with Councilman Lundquist that it is an opportunity here for us to do some things. It may not be perfect. There's work to do but that's what we always do when we start with concepts and go to the final and I think that we can support this and write this letter of support with the understanding that we're supporting what we've seen so far and that's what we're trying to do at this point. And hopefully again be the catalyst to see if we can't get some additional of these life cycle housing units in our city. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members, I'd just like to add a point to this is that you know history is a factor in this and the Sand Companies history has played out in other communities and they've been flexible in working with those communities and their reputation and the property that they've managed over the years and some of their techniques that they use is pretty creative. But I think the City of Chanhassen has also been working with the Sand Companies. I think they understand that. We've allowed the zoning for this and worked with them in the concept stage and looking at providing financial assistance so I think they understand that this is a partnership and for a successful partnership there's got to be give and take and I think we've given. It's now for them to come to the table and show us a product that we would be proud of on that comer. It's a gateway. That's the name of the development and that's what we would expect from them. Councilman Lundquist: Clarification. They have the developer's received letters of support already from the county and school district, is that right? Todd Gerhardt: I'd have them respond. I believe it was from a couple of religious organizations and a couple of businesses. Developer: And the County. Councilman Lundquist: And the County, okay. Todd Gerhardt: And the County. Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Move approval. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. 32 City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the attached letter of support for the Sand Companies tax credit application with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. COUNCIL PRESENT A TIONS: Mayor Furlong: Are there any presentations from council members this evening? One item I'd like to mention, and probably stealing Mr. Gerhardt's thunder or Mr. Hoffman, and that is the Music in the Park, the first event was a week ago last Thursday I believe, and was a really good start to what's going to be a great program. I can see us and viewing that as an opportunity to expand the number of events and I'm sure that's something we can fund through some sponsorships as well. Making use of that. Of that park as a gathering place and really as a place for people to come together and that's what it was. I had the chance to stop by and it's just walking up there and with music and walking around and saying hi to people that you haven't seen for maybe a week or two, or maybe over the winter time so it was a great event and commend the park and rec department for following through on that idea and something that we can build upon. Todd Gerhardt: Just add to that. We probably had approximately 100 people attend the event and the Mayor's proclamation on a sunny, beautiful day was right on the numbers right there too, so if you can duplicate that for the 3rd and 4th, that'd be great. Mayor Furlong: Tell me where to sign. Todd Gerhardt: I don't have anything else to add tonight but like to continue our work session. Still had a couple items left on that to finish up. Mayor Furlong: And we will do that following adjournment of this meeting. Thank you. ADMINISTRA TIVE PRESENT A TIONS: None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Councilman Lundquist: A question for staff. Maybe for Todd. Farmers market. How are we looking now that we're more into the summer and some ofthose things? How's the farmers market looking? Todd Hoffman: Can't tell. To be quite honest I've not been present so has anybody been down to the farmers market? Todd Gerhardt: I know they've only been open for about 2 weeks. They had a late start with the wet spring. So I believe it's been 2-3 weeks that they've been operational. I've seen the signs 33