The URL can be used to link to this page

11-15-95 Agenda and Packet AGENDA FILE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSI( WEDNESDAY,NOVEMBER 15, 1995,7:00 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER I,C•1.r. CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. An amendment to the City Code for landscape nurseries and garden centers in the A2, Agricultural Estate District. 2. Conceptual planned unit development for a mixed land use development of commercial, office, single and multi-family on approximately 66 acres located south of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard,Villages on the Ponds, Lotus Realty Services. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Site Plan Amendment request for a 9,400 square foot addition to an office warehouse facility on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located at 7600 Quattro Drive, Microvision Corporation. 4. An amendment to the City Code to allow commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels in the BF, Fringe Business District,Nancy Lee. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS 5. Livable Communities Act OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. . CITY QF CHANHASSENr 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: November 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District. SUMMARY On November 1, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the A-2, Agricultural Estate zoning district. Mr. Don Halla, Halla Nursery, requested a text amendment to allow landscape nurseries as a permitted use in the A-2 District. The Commission tabled action on this item to receive further information from staff. More specifically, the Commission wanted to see a side by side comparison of the different options of allowing retail nurseries as a permitted use, conditional use, and as an interim use. The following definitions are being provided for discussion purposes: Permitted Use is defined as,any use allowed in a zoning district and subject to the restriction applicable to that zoning district. Conditional Use is defined as, a use permitted in a particular zoning district upon showing that such use in a specified location will comply with all the conditions and standards for the location or operation of the use as specified in the zoning ordinance and approved by the City Council. Interim Use is defined in Section 20-1 as, a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. By way of example, the use could terminate when the site is brought into the MUSA, when sewer or water is provided to the site, a date could be set for the use to end, or if the zoning district changes to a residential zoning. Planning Commission November 8, 1995 Page 2 — Staff assembled the following table to illustrate the differences between permitted uses, conditional uses, and interim uses: — IMPACTS OF ALLOWING RETAIL NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A-2 ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED USES CONDITIONAL USES INTERIM USES Not all A-2 zoned property would By classifying a use a conditional Use is eventually terminated be appropriate for retail nurseries, use,special conditions may be allowing the property to be i.e.lack of adequate public imposed to mitigate the adverse converted to a use which is facilities impacts consistent with the Comp.Plan Retail nurseries and garden Conditional use must be approved if Would discourage the use of — centers are inconsistent with other applicant meets all conditions set permanent buildings permitted uses in the A-2 District forth in local ordinances and other conditions imposed by the City Council May allow businesses such as, Not all A-2 properties are Not all A-2 properties are Bachmans,Franks,or other appropriate for retail nurseries or appropriate for retail nurseries — nursery and craft stores which garden centers or garden centers may be in conflict with surrounding residential or agricultural properties. — Permanent buildings may be Permanent buildings may lead to Encourage the use of constructed which may lead to other uses if the nursery is vacated, temporary structures or — other uses if the nursery is e.g.,auto repair,contractors structures designed for a vacated,i.e.,auto repair, storage/yard,misc.retail,etc. specific use which would contractors storage/yard,misc. discourage conversion to an _ retail,etc. inappropriate use Use would be allowed in Use would be allowed in perpetuity Use would have a termination perpetuity date — Retail nurseries or garden centers Retail nurseries or garden centers in By classifying a use a in most cases would be in conflict most cases would be in conflict with conditional use,special with the comprehensive plan,i.e., the comprehensive plan,i.e.,corner conditions may be imposed to corner of Hwy.5 and 41,which is of Hwy.5 and 41,which is currently mitigate the adverse impacts currently zoned A-2 zoned A-2 Planning Commission November 8, 1995 Page 3 The City Council recently approved a temporary sales ordinance. This ordinance applies to the business zoned districts only, i.e., BG, CBD, BF, and BH. Temporary sales are allowed as an accessory use to a permitted or conditional use, and are limited to 60 days per calendar year. Staff examined the possibility of allowing retail sales as a temporary use in the A-2 district. This would allow a"wholesale"nursery to temporarily sell retail products. The impacts of this approach are that not all A-2 properties are appropriate for retail use, the use may be inconsistent with surrounding properties, the use must be permitted if conditions are met, and would be very difficult to enforce. Staff is of the opinion that retail nurseries and garden centers are inconsistent with other uses in the A-2 district and the comprehensive plan. Allowing garden centers or retail nurseries as a permitted use would encourage permanent buildings and use, and discourage the conversion of the property to a more appropriate use consistent with the comprehensive plan. To mitigate these negative impacts, staff is recommending an alternative that would allow retail nurseries as an interim use(see memo to Planning Commission dated October 25, 1995). ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated October 25, 1995 2. Map of Chanhassen showing current A-2 zoned properties. C I TY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — �'r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: October 25, 1995 — SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District SUMMARY Mr. Don Halla, Halla Nursery Inc., is requesting a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow landscape nurseries as a permitted use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate Zoning District. Mr. Halla indicates in his application that nurseries are currently prohibited and that landscape nurseries are an agricultural use and should be permitted. Further, Mr. Halla indicates that he has occupied this property since 1962 and his business is no longer a permitted use. — BACKGROUND The intent of the A-2 District is, "preservation of rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family residential development." The following uses are permitted in an"A-2"District" 1. Agriculture — 2. Public and private parks and open space 3. Single family dwellings 4. State-licensed day care center for twelve or fewer children — 5. Utility services 6. State-licensed day care center for six or fewer persons 7. Temporary real estate office and model home 8. Arboretums _ Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 2 The following are permitted accessory uses in an A-2 District: 1. Accessory agricultural buildings 2. Garage 3. Private stables 4. Swimming pool 5. Tennis court 6. Signs 7. Home occupations 8. One Dock 9. Roadside stand 10. Private kennel The following are conditional uses in an A-2 District: 1. Commercial communication transmission tower 2. Electrical substation 3. Churches 4. Recreational beachlots 5. Group homes for seven to sixteen persons The following are interim uses in the A-2 District: 1. Churches 2. Mineral extraction 3. Mobile homes 4. Bed and breakfast establishments 5. Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies 6. Wholesale nurseries 7. Golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses Currently,wholesale nurseries are allowed as an interim use in the A-2 District. Wholesale nursery is defined in Section 20-1 of the City Code as follows, "Wholesale nursery means an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (but not including power equipment such as gas or electric lawnmowers and farm implements)". The ordinance provisions of the A-2 District do not meet Mr. Halla's current needs because retail sales are not permitted. The retail sales portion of Mr. Halla's Nursery has been expanded illegally and is in violation of City Ordinances. Discussions have occurred between Mr. Halla and city staff over the years concerning the retail segment of Halla Nursery. Mr. Halla has shown a desire to expand his business to provide for Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 3 — additional retail space. In his request for a code amendment, Mr. Halla indicated that he would like to continue to operate his business as a"legal use"or permitted use. This would allow him — to expand or intensify his operation at the current location. It is staff's opinion,that Halla Nursery would best be classified, for zoning purposes, as a retail — nursery or garden center. A garden center is defined as follows, "Garden center means a place of business where retail and wholesale products and produce are sold to the retail consumer. These centers, which may include a nursery and/or greenhouses, import most of its items sold. These — items may include paints, handicrafts, nursery products and stock, fertilizers,potting soil, hardware, lawn and garden power equipment and machinery, hoes, rakes, shovels and other garden and farm tools and utensils." This definition appears to better describe the current — operation of Halla Nursery. Section 20-1 of the ordinance defines nursery as follows, "Nursery means an enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site, as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (but not including power equipment such as gas or _ electric lawnmowers and farm implements). Halla Nursery currently has retail sales which do not meet this definition. By way of example,pet food is offered for sale on the premises. ANALYSIS When considering zoning ordinance text amendments, one must consider the comprehensive — impacts on all properties affected by the amendment. Any amendments to the A-2 District will not only affect Mr. Halla's property, but all property zoned A-2, and those properties located near an A-2 District. — The current permitted uses in the A-2 district are either residential in nature or are uses which require a large land area, such as: agriculture, arboretums,parks, etc. These uses do not generate — a significant amount of traffic or require a large investment in buildings or other improvements. The A-2 District may be better described as a"holding zone"or"open zone"because the _ majority of property in this district is guided for further development. The City of Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan shows this property guided for Large Lot Residential. Permitting garden centers or retail nurseries may ultimately lead to a"spot"zone of this property. The property _ surrounding the existing Halla Nursery buildings, which is part of the current nursery, has received final plat approval for a residential subdivision. Other A-2 zoned districts are adjacent to existing and future residential or industrial developments. A"retail" oriented nursery or _ garden center may not be compatible with the existing permitted uses in the A-2 zoning district. However,there may be certain A-2 zoned areas which are suitable for garden centers or nurseries. — Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 4 Property currently used for nurseries or similar uses may be suitable for use as a garden center or retail nursery. If allowed in the A-2 district,retail nurseries or garden centers would be more compatible with the current interim uses in the A-2 District. Structures such as greenhouses, outdoor displays, and nursery areas are for the most part temporary structures or uses. Allowing additional permanent structures would only increase the likely hood that the property would remain in retail use. By permitting retail nurseries as an interim use, conditions can be placed on the permit to ensure that the property will someday comply with the comprehensive plan. Constructing permanent retail buildings makes it difficult to redevelop the property into other appropriate uses. Staff is also concerned that if permanent buildings are constructed for retail nursery purposes, these buildings may be converted to another retail use if the property is vacated by the nursery. The City Comprehensive Plan discusses both present and future agricultural uses in the City. The Plan states, "While several farms remain in the community, for the most part this use has either been eliminated by development or is often conducted on a lease hold basis with the land held by persons intending to market the property for development. The city has no desire to see these operations prematurely eliminated and will cooperate with the owners to allow them to continue as long as it is feasible to do so. However, there is no proposed on-going goal of permanently providing for agricultural land preservation in the community." Interim uses include those uses which are allowed within a zoning district for a limited amount of time. The temporary use is permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Interim uses are reviewed and conditions added to soften any negative impacts on adjacent properties, such as: increased traffic, noise, drainage, and requirements for public facilities and services. As mentioned above, A-2 Districts are often located near existing or future residential or industrial properties. These properties serve as a"holding"or"open"zone until such time as the property is further developed. If garden centers or retail nurseries are to be permitted in the A-2 District, it would make sense to permit them as an interim use. Staff is recommending that the ordinance be amended to allow for retail and wholesale nurseries as an interim use in the A-2 District. Amending the ordinance to allow retail and wholesale nurseries as a permitted use would be inconsistent with the A-2 District. Staff is concerned with the impacts that a retail nursery or garden center would have on surrounding properties and the spirit and intent of the A-2 District. Garden centers would permit the retail sales of a wide range of products, including: hardware, lawn and garden equipment,paints, tools, etc. The current permitted, conditional, and interim uses in the A-2 district are either residential in nature or are uses which require a large land area. A garden center is inconstant with other uses in the A-2 District. However, staff is of the opinion that adding retail nursery sales may be appropriate in certain locations, if the necessary conditions are attached. Staff has provided seven conditions which would apply to retail or wholesale nurseries. The conditions are as follows: Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 5 — 1. The site must be on a collector street or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive — plan. 2. The minimum lot size is five (5) acres. — 3. All storage and yard areas as well as building must be setback one hundred (100) feet from public or private road right-of-ways and five hundred(500) feet from an adjacent single — family residence. 4. All outdoor store areas must be completely screened by one hundred(100)percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operations shall be set by the City Council. 6. Light sources shall be shielded. 7. No outside speaker systems are allowed. 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. — 9. One ground low profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four(24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on the premises. (Note: The 500 foot setback would not allow Mr. Halla to add additional buildings after homes are constructed in his subdivision. Staff is of the opinion that 500 feet is an — appropriate setback for nursery buildings from single family residences. Again, consideration must be given to all properties within the A-2 Zoning District.) — RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending denial of the zoning ordinance amendment as submitted by the applicant. The applicant's proposal requested that landscape nurseries be a permitted use or"legal use" in the A-2 District. Staff has provided a proposal which would allow the applicant to operate a — retail nursery. Currently, retail nurseries are prohibited in the A-2 District. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: — Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 6 "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Sections 20-576(7), 20-1, and 20-257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A-2 District as an Interim Use, as outlined in the staff report dated October 25, 1995." More Specifically, the amendments shall read as follows: Amend Section 20-1 to read: "Nursery means an enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site or imported to the site, as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. The retail sale of hardware,paint, pet supplies,power equipment, and farm implements shall be prohibited. Nursery may include greenhouses." Amend Section 20-257 to read: "The following conditions will apply to all wholesale and retail nurseries: 1. The site must be on a collector street or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. The minimum lot size is five(5) acres 3. All storage and yard areas as well as building must be setback one hundred (100) feet from public or private road right-of-ways and five hundred (500) feet from an adjacent single family residence. 4. All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one hundred (100)percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operations shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only, work on Sundays and holidays is prohibited. 6. Light sources shall be shielded 7. No outside speaker systems are allowed. _ 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 7 — 9. One ground low profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four(24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on the premises. — Amend Section 20-576(7)to read: "Wholesale and retail nurseries." — ATTACHMENTS 1. Application for zoning ordinance amendment submitted by Don Halla dated October 4, 1995. 2. Letter to Don Halla dated October 6, 1995. CITY of CHANHASSEN FIECE1 'FP CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE OCT 0 6 1995 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT (612) 937-1900 CITY OF cHANHASSEK DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION OCT 5 195 _ APPLICANT: f/A 1-A A/0 //lVG OWNER: B A 'ARTM[ T tr,_ `1<, 1- - - BLVD ADDRESS: /0 000 6X A-A7 P -4 //f/S ADDRESS: 6 6 0 / /fOG!/f•( 7 A/ A45p44 M/✓ . ,553ig -oiiVA4 //->N 5 37 -/ Z7 TELEPHONE (Day time) &"/$"- S,< TELEPHONE: 9'/ J,Z 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUPISPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of ail property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract _ -.d - 'mt.- t - . SN9I530 HN;',Hi40 l•JOdA LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION A —7- REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION A •- � G l REASON FOR THIS REQUEST A —,2 �� M G, • This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed an must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the - authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further — understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my .nowledge. Sign re of Applicant ate -41441- Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. nr :r".i 5rr" I 'b '9i SNE1I53.] UW,U i3 r' !]NM W0.d3 CITY 4F C IIANHASSEll{Yf 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 October 6, 1995 Mr. Don Halla Halla Nursery 10000 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Halla: I have received your application from Steve Kirchman today. It is my understanding that you are requesting an amendment to the City Code permitting landscape nursery's in the A-2 district. The procedure for a code amendment is a public hearing before the Planning Commission and then review and either approval or denial by the City Council. I have scheduled this hearing for the November 1, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kate Aanenson Planning Director a 1 ! 1 {_rte I C- L1 = ! I -D�1 ff i i 1f Ei t f i r t ! Ff E , i j_p 5.11f.‘01117.Illri ,� • �l.11a1' 'ill/�. '!-,;-.1....7.-....• .cr 'AV ryt,-. aAil am w-,,,,,-,,,-.-Ft:1 �1 nir"''�=k . '''u .� .i_Z 4. _ — G�/ 1.11 l'`��Illlllnn��l�� 'illf-IIG.i.�,� yi11�� .y , - - N'/ �`� • 4`t ty\ .` – _ ,,, moi'. . ��. - Y .: tank: 1:ti ��sL'd�f•....._ - r-,i-i-i-.r7Ph--A — - � -7' -11 - :; &' . :\'. L- '1 � V'7� arIII . '.rs\�t.num � ,{y.� .'"° �)7 3 ��TLSA -It"S;'a:+lYiF.. ..`t• y G ilkple 4.4'..-'"'-'‘k..,.,L,...imml..mirke 1.,i7 7:r.....: . . _..4.1....,1,.,. !, iiie ''' rti „;='- ..fet W ,arm=:6:.••••• .. ..?1-13, II. I.2 .!"- g 1 /I ,--',(e -av 111 .-7--i, ..-rtaire#-:--lagr- _.. . --- ♦ c9g` IttS' .� / a i / I w �� Fes•_ /I: m---- - — . 7004...,, �r �i��a,,�,' .«.. $ -•,,, I.I.Z SIMON w' ...41 ,., _ .. , 1 I. L ....$1 gir - --- -7 77:.,--:'•411.!1.1.°V.7-. -'.. . I w I 1 1 � sbi-/ it � d�.`9e E ,r-� 1g E3 QTY OF I ;� 4 4.;.. C.HAN-iASSEN ---- 1 ....M. —� BASE MAP ..., r.•. 1.f .[[( 1 _ 411,44 ...._� �� 44_ .7 • CURRENT --- /#4,, _ ,.�. . . , AM2 ZONED — ", • `eArradXe • Aitw10./:7 :-------:,1,*a ___ 5 PROPERTY 6...„... • . ...., _„.____:-, _.• .„ __. ,r__. _ i . k \ ' - A, . -II rz,--,- ._1 '70:41). - -- -.'..--*.--40r :!we;<!---'409.'°#. i -- i • v°v '-..:•.-:•,•"A r.4,0,-e'r, -----i--- r - -:------,/r- - -. -..,-'.•,-.. 1 Ale [ I i . _ ..moi- 7 l f a i Q $ II 3 8 1 $ I • I Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail, Mpls. Robert Bruno 1601 E. Hwy 13, Burnsville Mark and Kay HaIla 770 Creekwood, Chaska John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I have a couple. Where else do we have nurseries? Retail nurseries. Where can they go now? Is the only place where, central business district? I know Lotus Lawn and Garden. Rask: Yeah, business highway where we have Lotus Lawn and Garden there. Don't know if, I don't believe it's in the CBD. I think just business highway. Mancino: So it's business highway which is where else in the city do we have business highway? I mean I'm an avid gardener. Where can I go for retail in our city to a nursery? Or will I be in 10 years from now, from what we have set up. Rask: Currently the zoning districts we have, I don't know if there's a whole lot of vacant land for that type of use or if there's areas that would be suitable. Aanenson: That was one of the reasons why we looked at the temporary use ordinance because we've had...to provide that retail outlet...on a temporary basis. Mancino: So, but I'm a real gardener. I mean I'm not a temporary Target gardener. I mean I want the real thing. I want to pick my perennials. I want to you know, so that I would go to business highway district? That is where they could locate because what I'm hearing you say is that right now we have our wholesalers. We have the, I guess it is the Gorra property on Highway 5, north of Highway 5 between what is it, Kerber and Galpin. And that's an interim? Aanenson: Yes. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: And we also have the Wilson Tree Wholesale Nursery on. Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: And that is also interim at this point? Rask: Yeah, I don't know what the current status is. If it's still operating under a conditional _ use from some time ago. I don't believe they've gone through the interim use process. Mancino: Okay. Those are just, I just wanted to know, where they are right now and doesn't — the Wilson's have a retail space place on 212? Is that also BH zoning? Aanenson: BF. Business Fringe. — Mancino: Business Fringe. So they could also be in the business fringe. Okay, thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to make a presentation? Don Halla: Good evening Madam Chairman, commissioners. I'm Don Halla, Halla Nurseries. We believe our landscape nursery and garden center should be permitted in the A2 — zoning. We requested a zoning text amendment after we recently asked for staffs permission to build another greenhouse. The building department said that we did not need a permit since the greenhouse would be an agricultural building, with agricultural products being sold. — However the planning department said no, because we are intensifying our business which they feel is a non-permitted use. The planning department said that the zoning does not allow us to exist. We realize our grandfather status does allow us to exist. Halla Nursery has been — a retail nursery since 1962 at our Chanhassen location. In 1973 a permit was issued to build a structure to house our landscaping, garden center and sales office... Since that time we have always carried dry goods, plants, tools, animal feed, bird accessories and other items related — to the development and care of landscaping and plants and animal habitat. Prior to 1994 we stocked and sold these items in our office building, our greenhouse and in a display and storage building. In 1990 the city changed their ordinance without notifying us. In 1993 we — built two buildings, mainly for the purpose of equipment storage and planting of bare root nursery stock. No permit was required. In early spring 1994 we built another building to _ condense the products which we were displaying and selling from our office building, greenhouses and... Again, after inquiring of the city building department, we learned that no permit was required. Not until the summer of 1994 were we notified that the change in the _ ordinance affected the legal status of our business. Why were we not notified when we inquired previously about building permits? Probably because the nursery business is guided by the State and Federal government as an agricultural business...horticulture. Just as — farming, greenhouses and... We feel that when the city changed it's ordinance, and zoning for 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 A2 land in 1990, and error was made by not including landscaping nurseries and garden centers as an A2 permitted use. There are several other nurseries in the community still grandfathered in, in non-compliance with the A2 ordinance. The ordinance should have taken into consideration these families and businesses before it was adopted. The restriction should be the same for everyone. A2 is agriculture. This means Arboretums, nurseries, garden centers, farms...greenhouses, all of which may or may not include retail sales. The zoning is silent as to retail sales. Halla Nursery is a licensed landscaping nursery, game and poultry farm. We have been all of these for many years. Homes are permitted and usually are part of any agricultural business. My son and his wife live on the nursery property. The city staff has stated that there would be certain A2 zoning areas which are suitable for garden center nurseries, by Section 20-1 of the ordinance. Defining nursery means, an enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sales of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. Arboretum means a collection of plants. Is permitted in the A2 zoning. Is this not what a nursery is? Our Minnesota Landscape Arboretum is located on A2 land. It has a retail store which sells jewelry, trinkets, books, clothes, blankets, cards, quilts, housing items, and Christmas gifts to name a few. It is also, has a restaurant. They called their store a variety store in a conversation that I had with them last Saturday. They do not sell plants or plant supplies, except at all their fund raisers where nurseries, like us, donate products for sale to help fund the continued growth of this valuable asset. Nurseries are likewise a valuable asset and service to the community. They grow plants of many types and kinds, which are sold to beautify our homes and businesses. Nurseries must make a profit to survive. Unlike the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, we don't have the ability to get grants, volunteers and fund raisers to continue our existence. Nevertheless, we are a valuable asset to the community. Our nursery presently has 100 acres of land but we do not necessarily need all 100 acres for our operation. Recently we have _ been approved for a subdivision that would leave at least 12 acres for the nursery business and the remaining land for 2 1/2 acre average residential development. Charles Cudd Builders, a fine home builder now building Bearpath and Big Woods in Eden Prairie, has been working with us to create a development that makes the nursery like an Arboretum. A plus for the neighbors to enjoy that want to live in a country atmosphere among the peacocks and flowers. We are looking forward to being an attractive asset to this new subdivision, just as we feel we are for Chanhassen. Over the years we have donated trees and plants to the parks, the churches and other non-profit organizations. We raise over 20,000 perennials and annuals each year and we also grow thousands of shade trees and shrubs and ornamentals. These plants are grown to be part of the beautification of the world in which we live. And in particular Chanhassen. We hope the community grows and that we will remain an integral part of it. We are a third generation family business. We do not feel that it is our business, which has existed since 1962, is an interim use business. Because we have needs for another greenhouse and because city staff has complained to us that our nursery did not complain with the A2 zoning, we are requesting the ordinance amendment. In the October 25th memo 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 • from planning, the planning staff listed certain conditions that would apply to retail and _ wholesale nurseries if added as an appropriated use in certain locations. We commend the staff for their thoughtfulness and desire to develop the community in an organized and precise manner. However we feel some of these recommendations may be harsh and not particular to — a business that has existed prior to the zoning changes. We would like to negotiate some of these items with the city. Kay Halla, a registered landscape architect on our staff, has worked as a county planner in Howard County just outside Baltimore, Maryland. She would be — pleased to work with the city to negotiate appropriate A2 requirements for a nursery and garden center. Some of the items and conditions we wish to negotiate are, in your list item number 3. This should be line with regulations regarding businesses. Most nurseries, farms — and greenhouses would have plant and yard areas within 100 feet of the street. The 500 foot setback of the yard building and storage would require a site of at least 27 1/2 acres. If you take 500 each direction, it comes to 1,000 x 1,000. Multiples out to 22 1/2 acres. Take the 5 — acres in the middle and you have 27 1/2 acres required to do that. And wouldn't allow a home, which is permitted in A2, to be part of the nursery. Screening the nursery with a fence would make you think it's a junkyard, and located behind it. Not plantsand supplied to — beautified our homes and neighborhoods. Growing plants are attractive. They're not ugly or repulsive. A nursery by it's nature is an outdoor store. Fencing is not required for farms or other A2 permitted uses which may include such things as manure piles, or junk equipment. — Item number 5. If hours are set by the city, they should be in keeping with other businesses. Farms and the Arboretum that are permitted in the A2 zone. Large farms and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum have speaker systems. They should be permitted but controlled if too — loud or abusive. As a family business, most farmers, nurserymen, and greenhouse operations along with the Arboretum, would not like to feel that they would have to close or liquidate their business unless the economics were such that they could not exist. Is it fair for the city to tell the landowner that he much sell his property and cease making a living? This is what an interim or conditional permit does. Most nurserymen and farmers are very good stewards of the land. They love working with plants and animals and enjoy the beauty of outdoor work and living. It is hard work. Most work 60 to 80 hours a week to earn a living in the 7 to 8 months in which we have to grow a crop. Their work benefits all of us through food production, beautification and helping keep our earth healthy and alive. Society needs to help and encourage all agriculture or we won't have a society. We need extra greenhouse space to help accomplish this. We want to cooperate and facilitate Chanhassen in it's growth into the — next century and beyond. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. — Don Halla: I believe Kay Halla has something she wants to say. Mancino: Thank you. Any other of the applicant would like to present? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Robert Bruno: Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Robert Bruno. I represent Halla Nursery and I want to make just a brief presentation for you here...on the definitions involved in this issue which I think aren't addressed in the staff report. ...from Don Halla's presentation, there's a great variety of commercial activity that goes on at the Halla Nursery and has gone on for many, many years. Since 1962. However when you attempt to apply what the city has defined as a nursery or a wholesale nursery or permitted uses that are described in the A2 zoning, you come up with very inconsistent results. One of the permitted uses in A2 zoning district is agriculture, and the city staff hasn't defined that for you in the staff report but I think it's a very enlightening definition. Agriculture, according to Section 20-1, the definition section of the City Code...commercial use of land. And I...commercial, whether they're raising a livestock poultry, growing and producing fruits, vegetables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms. And choose and cut Christmas trees sales. The term does not include commercial raising of fruit or any animals or the operation of riding academies, commercial stables or kennels. The way this issue arises, was out of the request to build the additional greenhouse, which at first blush would seem to be an agricultural use. However the staff has interpreted the definition of agriculture here to exclude retail sales or retail activity, even though it's not mentioned anywhere in the definition. And because there were going to be grown within that greenhouse products which would then be sold at retail, that converted it into something other than agriculture in the staffs mind and you see in the staffs report other definitions, depending upon what the issue might be, you see definitions for what a garden center is, and there's inference that the nursery would be a garden center. You see a definition of what a nursery is and in some respects...some parts of it are nursery. Not all of it. But I think you have to look at the definition of agriculture here to see that what we are requesting here really means a consolidation and a clarification of all of these definitions which I think are really conflicting. If you look at the term agriculture, it uses the word commercial use of the land. It doesn't mean, it didn't say wholesale_ It didn't say but not retail. It said commercial. It used the broadest possible language to define what agriculture meant and certainly...farmer who is growing crops, is intending to sell them. It's not intending to eat all their crops or compost them. They're engaged in a commercial activity to dispose of those crops by sales and certainly there are retail sales which occur on agricultural property...look any further than the orchards or in fact the Christmas Tree cutting is a retail activity which is contained right within the definition of agriculture. Eggs can be sold off of a farmer's place. There are many retail sales. I think the definition of agriculture implies that there is a retail component and there could be a retail component of it but I don't think that has really been brought up to this body's attention in the staffs report. All of these definitions, depending upon what Mr. Halla wants to do with his property, the staff will point to another definition and say well, you don't really qualify on this. Therefore we can't allow you to construct your greenhouse. What we are attempting by this is to try to make some sense out of the patchwork of definitions that we have. To simply say that nurseries are a permitted use in the agricultural district, this is 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 an idea that was suggested to us by the city's attorney. By Elliott Knetsch who suggested that this makes a great deal of sense. That it's not outrageous to think that a nursery should be in an A2 zoning. You see it all over the place. It's not an idea that is repugnant really to common sense. And so as a means of trying to, instead of trying to deal with all of these _ definitions, try to make them all conform to each other. Try to make them exclusive definitions, we would simply request that we allow as a permitted use nurseries which is what the applicant has requested here. And I think it certainly makes a great deal of sense for this _ body and for the city to give some direction to what is included in an A2 district rather than leaving it to some court to try to sort through all the various definitions of nurseries and wholesale nurseries and garden centers and agriculture to try to decide what this body or this — city means when it says that certain activities are allowed in the A2 and we can definitely make that decision here and the City Council could make that decision by making the amendment that we've suggested to allow nurseries to be a permitted use in the A2. That's the only reason... Mancino: Thank you Mr. Bruno. — Mark Halla: Good evening. I'm Mark Halla. I reside at 770 Creekwood, Chaska mailing address. Right on the nursery property actually. Let me just first point out that we've been in — business since 1942. I'm the third generation. That's important to me. We've been in Chanhassen since '62. Agriculture is allowed by the current zoning. We are agriculture. No question about it. State and federal law considers horticulture an agricultural type of business. The entire agricultural gross product, horticulture is nearly half of that. That's corn, soybeans, horticulture. We're half of the entire agricultural product of the nation. We're under federal law. Federal labor law as agriculture. We pay overtime different than standard businesses because we're agriculture. We were just recently, a couple weeks ago, down in South Dakota at their Ag...Career Day. It's a job fair. We've been invited two years in a row now. They're an agricultural college inviting us to go down there and hire their students. There seems to — be a difference in opinion on retail. Exempting us from being agricultural. That seems in the past we've always come to that bone of contention. Because we were retail, we're no longer agricultural and I have to say that I strongly disagree with that. The agricultural industry as a — whole, in the end at least, if not right up front, is a retail business. No question about it. Can't go to store and buy something that's produced from the farm without considering that a _ retail sort of business. The corn huts are allowed. They're a retail business. A farmer selling his goods and they're allowed to put up a stand and sell from a stand but the question in this case is, are we allowed to have a building or a greenhouse to sell our produce from. We _ want to be permitted by code. We feel we already are permitted by Code. You've heard the definition of agriculture out of the code book. That permits us. We don't ask...difference of opinion is there. We're trying to bring this before you to get some feedback and get approval and hopefully get this resolved so it meets everyone's end. We realize the city is...folks for 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 being here tonight and putting in their time and doing this. This is a good city. It's coming along really nice. It's a lot of struggle and a lot of work needs to be put in to see that it happens in the good way. We're growing this rapidly, it's pretty tough to control it. I'm starting to think that if we...process and try and work it out. The staff obviously has concerns in making an amendment to the ordinance of this magnitude. When you start saying okay, we're going to change the whole thing. Everything A2. Now someone can come in and put in a retail business as long as...shrubs around it. I think that is a concern that everyone needs to understand and listen to. It's a little different when you've got a business that's been there since before the city was a city. Back when we were a village. We've come along with the city. We've grown together. We'd like to think that because now the city is growing, that we're not going to be snuffed out. We're not going to say we're no longer allowed because things have changed. We think we've got a great business. I know Nancy's been out there. I don't know what you think. Hopefully you're pleased by it. We've got an awful lot to offer this city and it just seems to me to try to limit us or snuff us out is a disservice to the community. Where's a gardener going to go? Basically you're saying okay Lotus, you get all the business. Halla's out of the picture. They're not allowed. By putting up a greenhouse that's not expanding our business. Not at all. In fact it's protecting our crop. We believe we've got State and Federal laws that allow us to do that. We have the crop and plant material that have a right to be protected. We'd like to continue to do so. I have some suggestions on how we can resolve this. The city may not want to simply change the ordinance. Maybe that's not what needs to be done. There's a couple of different things that could happen. Change the zoning to allow retail garden centers and nurseries...change the code and we're done with this. I don't know if that's the best resolution, and that's why you're here and hearing both sides of the issue. You could amend the ordinance to allow existing retail nurseries and garden centers to continue. Maybe that's the solution. ...what's existing at the time this code is enforced, let's amend it to say you can still continue. You're acceptable. We're not going to say you're no longer acceptable and then every time I want to do something, I have a battle. We came to the city to ask on this building, even though it's in the present code book that a greenhouse...in your presentation talked about greenhouses being an agricultural building...a temporary structure...you're supporting our argument that we shouldn't be here tonight. We should have been simply said, go ahead. Build your building. Greenhouse. Temporary structure. It's agricultural land... So you could make it as simple as allowing the existing properties that are already there to continue. The other thing, and this seems a real simple solution. Is simply to agree that horticulture is agriculture. We're already allowed by the code, no different than the Arboretum...Thank you for your time. Any questions? Mancino: Thank you. No. Mr. Bruno. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Robert Bruno: Let me just add one thing. I would just discourage all of you from spending any time on the interim use issue because Halla is not at all interested in applying for an — interim use permit on his property. So there really are no applicants who are interested in applying for an interim use. Halla is not. So I think that would be a diversion from the issue here and I'd hate to see us waste the time trying to come up with a whole bunch of criteria — over what interim use should be when there's no one that really wants it. Mancino: Is there anyone else from the applicant wishing to present? Okay. Seeing none, may I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please? Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to speak on this matter? It's open to a public hearing. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hewing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Gosh, lots of questions. Mike? Meyer: Yeah, just for the record, I'm going to abstain from this one. I do have a conflict of — interest so I'm going to step down for this vote. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Other commissioners, your comments and questions and maybe — even needing more information on this. Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: Well I think staff did a good job of analyzing the pros and cons and it's always tough when issues are presented. A community grows. Neighbors come in. We will fill up. That's not an agricultural community anymore. It's going to be residential. What we're up here doing is trying to figure out how it becomes that way and sort of put some organization — to it. It's hard to have it all ways. It's hard to be agricultural. It's hard to be retail. And it's hard to be residential. And you kind of have all of those and we have neighbors moving in and it's right now, we have an agricultural district but if you're here every two weeks, you see how many new developments are coming in and not necessarily what I always wanted, but that's what has happened. Your neighbors are selling out and they're building other things. _ So what we end up doing is putting in ordinances to protect those people that are moving in, and sometimes that doesn't feel like it's fair to those who have paid taxes and done a good job of doing a good business and in many cases are a source of community pride, which I think — the Halla Nursery has always been that. So anyway with that aside, which took us no place. 34 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 I appreciate the report that staff did and I think the analysis is appropriate in my mind. What they did do. We are zoning for the entire area. We're not zoning for Halla. We're zoning for agricultural area and we, you know if nurseries, that agricultural area will, based on the landowners, turn residential. They're selling. That's the way it is. So what we have to do is make sure that our zoning codes reflect that long term. At this point in time, the only question, you know my hope would be, I have two hopes. One, I agree with the direction of the staff but two, at this point in time I really don't have a need to restrict the Halla operation. This is one of those issues that more than likely I wish wasn't here. And so at this time Madam Chair, what I'm telling you and the staff, I think their analysis is right. I don't have. Mancino: ...an interim use permit? Conrad: I think the logic of what they're doing, or how they analyzed this is appropriate. On the flip side of the coin, I don't really have a need to restrict the Halla operation at this point in time. Hearing that interim use permit is not what they're requesting, I don't need to go forward with an interim use permit. So therefore. Mancino: So therefore what? Conrad: We're back where we started in my mind. We're not, you know I'm saying that I need to know how, I go back to, how does that greenhouse impact anything? I don't know the business. I don't know why that is not allowed. I'd like to see how it could be allowed and not impact. Mancino: An ordinance. Conrad: An ordinance change. Mancino: Staff, that's a good question. Aanenson: Herein lies the problem. It's a wholesale nursery. They've indicated they don't meet that criteria. We're of the opinion, and we made the interpretation, we've got different categories in the definition. Agriculture is one category but there's also, we differentiated wholesale nurseries from agriculture, from nurseries, from gardens. We gave different definitions because we believe there are different types of agricultures. So if we go with the underlying standards and say it's a permitted use, we're trying to find some resolution to allow this to happen and that's why we recommended. If we say it's a permitted use and we go ._ with the underlying district, do we let them add on? Not worry about parking spaces. The number of...underlying district and say, as long as you maintain the 10 foot sideyard setback, there's no criteria? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: No. Mancino: No, we couldn't do that. Aanenson: That's our concern with a permitted use. You open it up and then somebody opens up and has farm property and they put up a building for retail purposes, and part of it has to do with shrubs and they're selling other things, but they're also for agricultural — purposes, where do you draw the line? That's why we're trying to establish some criteria. And the other problem, as we pointed out in the staff report is, you may want long term or people invest in more permanent type buildings and now we've got maybe 6 permanent type buildings out there and they leave the property. I'm not saying Halla's are going to leave. But let's say somebody else does this and they leave. Now someone buys the property and they've got 4, 5, 6 buildings in the middle of a residential district. The likelihood of that — converting, and that's always the intent of the interim use is that it becomes something else, then we've got some of the retail in the middle of what may be residential. Conrad: Being grandfathered in Kate means what in terms of an interim use solution? Aanenson: Well the problem is, when they called for the agricultural building, it's not. It's a — retail building. Mancino: It is for retail sales? — Aanenson: Right. And so we've got a building on that that's retail. Mancino: It's for retail sales of agricultural products. Aanenson: ...There's no review from planning staff as far as the number of parking spaces or — anything like that. Access. Those sort of things were never reviewed by the planning. There's building code issues but there's also planning issues so we're trying to separate those _ two. Unfortunately they just talked to the building people. It was never asked...but we're trying. We believe that we can work to some way to, we want to try to resolve it. There was another solution on the table and this was another option that was given by the attorney. The City attorney. It was never our recommendation that it be permitted. That we try to come up with some resolution. Some standards. Certainly if they want to sit down and meet and review some of these standards, we'd be happy to do that. Come up with some other — criteria, as Mr. Halla indicated, we'd be happy to do that but I think we're uncomfortable saying carte blanche permitted. I mean that's, you can put a lot of intensity on a piece of property without any control and I think that's something we don't want. — 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: So again, being grandfathered in gives them the right to do what they're doing today. Mancino: And not have any control. Aanenson: But they've improved that and now they have some non-conforming out there. They have a retail building. That's non-conforming. Mancino: Just wait please until we finish. Conrad: So basically they can be non-conforming. Do what they're doing today. Aanenson: You cannot expand a non-conforming use. Conrad: Okay. And the only one solution is to put the interim permit in place. Aanenson: Well to do some sort of it. They want to do the permitted use. We're saying we're uncomfortable with the permitted use. We'd rather do the interim use. Mancino: And then we can have the controls on it for retail. Aanenson: Or even a conditional use. You're kind of leaving it in perpetuity because it goes with the property so really the only temporary...and whatever length you give that interim use permit. Mancino: And the other wholesale nurseries right now, what is their sunset? Aanenson: Well like Holasek is in an industrial zone. Mancino: Okay, but Wilson's? Aanenson: I think that one's, I'm not sure... Mancino: Somehow I would like to know what the existing interim permits are for the wholesale nurseries. I'm sorry, I interrupted you. Conrad: No, no, that's good. That's good dialogue. I guess I'm thinking, taking it through. There has to be control. And I think my preference is to explore the interim use. And maybe some of these aren't appropriate in terms of the term, and I don't want to feel wishy washy on 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 that but I can, you know there's just some things that need clarification in my mind, like outdoor storage and things like that. — Aanenson: Certainly, and we'd be happy to meet to work some of those out. Conrad: And maybe that's what made me feel a little bit uncomfortable with it. I just didn't know how it applied and so I guess my recommendation is to again take the staff 100%. Take a look at the interim use permit process. See if staff and the Halla's can come up with — something agreeable, but also knowing we're not, I think I want to be a little bit sensitive to their needs to stay in business but also sensitive, I hope they hear, I hope you hear that you are running a retail business and that's a whole different thing. It really is and agriculture, I know retail fairly well. And you're running a retail business which means you start, if you want to run that kind of business, then you have to live up to certain standards and that sort of goes with the territory. So if you want to do that, we have to make sure that those standards are there so, again I'm playing both sides of this Madam Chair but I think it's important that the Halla's know that that just sort of goes with the territory if you expand a — business. We have to be, we're concerned with the safety and all that other stuff, so anyway. Mancino: What would you like to see? ...see something coming back? Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to table this tonight and see if they can look. And maybe the Halla's don't want the interim use permit. That's what I heard their attorney say. But to me, it's — probably suits them far better than any other solution. I don't know that we're going to be attracting any other nurseries into Chanhassen with the interim use permit but it might be a way that we give them to expand their business, yet have some degree of control. It's really — almost to a degree spot zoning. It's not spot zoning but we're, in my mind I think we're being, it's a fair way to proceed. Mancino: Mr. Halla, if you'll wait until we're done then, thank you. Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I concur with Ladd. — Conrad: Geez, what did I say? Skubic: I can't remember. Conrad: I don't know. Sorry about that. — Mancino: Is that all you have to say? 38 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Skubic: That's all. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: Just a couple of things... Definition of retail business. This isn't a court of law and Mr. Halla and his attorney can argue the definition of retail business and agricultural but that doesn't really take place here and our opinion on that is personal. There's no lawyers here... I've always considered, and they can comment about this...Ladd's definition of retail. You sell manufactured goods. You're not selling eggs out of the chicken coup. You're selling manufactured goods also, along with your organic crops. Those goods are not necessarily manufactured on site. You have a wholesale retail situation going on there and in defining what the restrictions are for retail...follows that. And you can't be kind of both but none of the above. I think therein lies the problem, as Kate said. I'm uncomfortable with doing broad based definitions of zones for one business and I agree with the way staff looked at this as an overall... I don't think that it is the intent that we...as a transition or sunset comes on agricultural products...urban area, obviously what Chanhassen's becoming. That...or to convert to another form of business that is allowed or permitted, and we could combine that with good planning that deals with the issues of retail sales, or whatever efse we tend to come up with that fits the definition of being good for the community. I have no problem with that. I don't like the issue of going beyond and saying that this is a grandfathered use, you can go ahead and increase that usage. Just let us know what it's going to be. That's not good planning. And I think that the city is correct is defining, no you can't do that. We have other uses that are out there that are grandfathered, such as mining and some of the other ones that are not conducive to what is being planned for the city and we're saying that you can do this because you're already grandfathered in. We started this particular...you can't expand it. And I think that we pretty much follow that across the board. I don't recall ever us making an exception to that rule. So I think it's a good one to follow. And I am, I'm not sure what to do with it even if we table it because I've been told the applicant doesn't, isn't applying for what I see is the only solution for this issue. We can...so at this point...I'm not sure what useful information that we give back to the applicant other than sitting down with the city and trying to work out something that would apply to that overall definition. I don't think that, as I said, it would be appropriate for us to do a zoning for one business. Mancino: Well maybe by tabling it staff and the applicant can get together and kind of work through some of these. Farmakes: That may be and you're going to have to deal with the issue then obviously of the retail business and I'm not certain that I hear that. That that's going to be defined in City Hall. It's not going to be defined here, I know that. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: At this meeting. At this meeting. Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: I've gone through the staff report several times. I've heard what all the commissioners here have said, and I've listened to the applicant. All of it in various ways makes a lot of _ sense. What everybody's had to say. The result is, I'm confused. I don't mind telling you that. In the staff report we talk about temporary use, interim use, permitted use, conditional use. I guess I'd maybe kind of like to see some kind of a side by side comparison of these — things and how it relates to the city and how it relates to the Halla Nursery. Something that we can look at and do a direct comparison. I'm having trouble sorting it all out. Especially in light of what Halla's goes and the comments we've heard from all of you. So again, I'm — confused. Mancino: And you would like to table it for direction? Mehl: Yeah, I think I would. I don't know what else to do at this point. I don't feel it's enough information I've heard for me to make a decision. — Mancino: Excuse me. Mr. Halla, you wanted to make a comment? Don Halla: If you're done I would. Mancino: Okay, this is the one and only comment. — Don Halla: We're not expanding the business. We're actually making it smaller. We've agreed to develop approximately....acres of our land. With the keeping of the 12 acres in the — center. We're, by asking for a greenhouse, we're not increasing anything. We're just putting a roof over existing plants that are there are today that are growing outside. We want to be able to garden...better quality product, instead of starting after the thaw. When we put up the — new building in 1994, we took down a building. We eliminated a little over 5,000 square foot building and put up a 4,700 square foot, all... Even with that, you know working with the city to bring that up to B2 requirements. B2 requirements. Health and safety codes... even to the extension of taking out our existing toilets and putting in new bathrooms in order to facilitate the new rules that are involved in the city. So we have been trying to cooperate. — We have been working with the city. We've been trying to accomplish things that were proposed of us. We've come to a stalemate about our greenhouses. Originally when we started talking to the city, they said give us a plan of what you want to do and we'll go ahead. — They entered into a lawsuit with us over this building. They said if you do this...show us what you want to do in the future. We'll agree to it and we'll do it. Those things are changing. Now they're saying it's going to go...we find that acceptable. We do want to condense our buildings... We do want to... We're willing to develop the 80 acres that are 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 there. We also have some of the top name developers that think this is a major asset. They want to use the nursery as an asset where people can walk through it. They do not look at it as a negative. They're talking about building homes of half a million dollars. They wouldn't do that if they thought the nursery was...thanks. Mancino: Thank you. Staff, do you understand where the commission is directing you to go? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: Do you feel you have clear direction? Okay. I really don't have too much more to add. I am one of those users, without question... It is a retail agricultural. I can understand the combination only because they get their perennials from out of state. They ship a lot of them in yet they grow from seed some of them here on their own property I'm sure in their greenhouses. I do feel, and I don't want see spot use zoning at all but I think that there are ways to have a nursery surrounded by residential. I think there would need to be very strict conditions. I have myself on our property, been the victim of I think it was Gardeneer who used the Middle School West as a place where they in the 80's had a lot of their landscape material and their equipment when they housed...at the middle school. And at that time the City Council said fine. We're not, the middle school isn't open. If we're going to let other small businesses in the area, and use part of it for their landscape operation. And although we have probably 300 feet of woods inbetween our residence and the middle school, I can tell you that I was not delighted at 7:00 on Saturday mornings hearing the equipment going. And that was when they got all their plant material and they got their crews ready at 7:00 in the morning on Saturdays and actually worked there on Sundays too. So I do think that whether it's interim use, conditional use, that we think about these conditions for the adjacent properties and then for the businesses. So with that, do I have a motion? Farmakes: I make a motion to table. I'm not sure I'd call it an application at this point. But I'll make, this issue. I'm not sure which one I'm referring to here. I'd like to table, I'll call it an application dated October 25, 1995. Conrad: For landscape nurseries being permitted as a legal use in the A2 district, if you wanted to tag that in. Farmakes: That sounds very good Ladd. I'm not sure which one you're reading that from. Conrad: I found that someplace here. Mancino: Do I have a second? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: Yeah, I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table an amendment to the — City Code for landscape nuiseties being permitted as legal use in the A2 district. All voted in favor, except Meyer who did not vote, and the motion carried. Conrad: Can we have some discussion? Mancino: Sure. That was before the vote. — Conrad: Yeah, I know. Did you say that? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: And I missed it, okay. Are we asking staff to review the interim use process as the prime vehicle to allow the applicant to get done what they'd like to? And are we suggesting that permanent zoning allowing nurseries as a permanent use in the A2, have we ruled that _ out? Aanenson: Ladd, what I got from Don, if I can interrupt, is that he wanted to see comparison of the pros and cons of that and we'd be happy to do that. Farmakes: But I think there's...issue is the definition of retail agriculture. If you're in _ disagreement about that and disagreement...because somebody's particular operation might be a little different. It might be more than just growing trees and bushes. Mancino: You could have Frank's Nursery. Farmakes: Well I'm just saying that yeah. — Mancino: You could. You could have a Frank's Nursery. Aanenson: That was our issue. But we'd be happy to do a comparison. I think that's a very appropriate question that Don asked. We'd be happy to show you that. Mancino: That would be good. Appreciate that. Does that satisfy you? 42 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: I just want to make sure staff, no I want to make sure we were closing in, if we could, but I think...examine other alternatives. There are many alternatives. Mancino: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF APPROXIMATELY 61 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 3 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS, SITE PLAN REVIEW OF TWO 64,000 SQ. FT. BUILDINGS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: AND VACATION OF AN EXISTING RIGHT-OF- WAY IGHTOF- WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED IN THE _ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5, CSM CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Murray Kornberg 2575 University Avenue, St. Paul Jim Paulet 12125 Technology Dr, Eden Prairie Mark Kusnierek 9369 126th Street, Savage Steve Schwanke 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Mtka. Howard Dahlgren 2360 Aquila Avenue No, Golden Valley Tom Rockford CSM Corporation -- John Dietrick RLK Associates Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? Commissioners? Commissioner Farmakes asked a question that could not be heard on the tape regarding the berm on Highway 5. Al-Jaff: The berm meanders between 4 and 6 feet. Mancino: But it doesn't show it meandering. Farmakes: Well yeah here, it covers up half the building. Mancino: So it's something we should ask the applicant. Applicant: I would be happy to address that. 43 PC DATE: October 18, 1995 CITY O FNovember 15, 1995 cHANHAssENCC DATE: November 27, 1995 • CASE#: 95-2 PUD By: BG STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development for a mixed used development consisting of commercial, office, and residential uses,Villages on the Ponds LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard — Q APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services V Attn: Brad Johnson P. O. Box 235 — 0. Chanhassen,MN 55317 a - < PRESENT ZONING: IOP and RSF ACREAGE: gross: 66 acres DENSITY: 100 residential units INTENSITY Commercial -247,000 square feet; Office -203,600 square feet ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N-BH, Highway 5 S-RSF E-BN and PUD - aW-IOP, Rosemount QWATER AND SEWER: Available to site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Lowland hardwood forest,wetlands,steep slopes,significant elevation change. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Highway 5 Recommended Changes: Office/Industrial and Institutional north of Great Plains (f) Boulevard;High Density Residential east of Great Plains Boulevard and cul-de-sac;Low Density Residential south of Great Plains Boulevard;Medium Density Residential and Office west of Highway 101 2000 Land Use Plan: Commercial north of Lake Drive East extension;Medium Density Residential east of Great Plains Boulevard and cul-de-sac and west of Highway 101; Office north of Great Plains Boulevard and south of Lake Drive East; Low Density Residential south of Great Plains Boulevard;Parks/Open Space south of creek 1\. ARK d ��/1111•� �' � D ��41p:*��I 1 - �)�,.' .:- �_....,,- - ,�_- i, MEADOW.1 J ��• ��11 �� e,�� .� E�l1r��, . 4j�j�\� L a K E \ i ' GREEN PARK Va g We �� A� E, mi►,,`�� i ��A�\. �/> % _ o tir /gin Miires,1 to; r. o vi..e! 411110 _ AMEN ■ it ' i ) I 4111011.4i, apt -----.41144011wirtig - - •-lis em , • ny....-... .., . ....,:i .........) !NNW 4p` ''' - . 1161b Aft op -0 a,' 0111111.60 *-11111".'"...r ''-: ■ �o or. � p Ait � " :i .�. i � VI %� u ',aloft, taa. 4 Lia . '‘VAirtitit1 410. OA. ., - t0 MK& l'.4-1 aworj ik, t... mina 114.*''i ft4 Alvjgglirili ME W SNA Ptn �� 41�� - er�l� airrm' ., :�j- 3 d P hi(PVT) NN;� ..!E 7J_ , . J 'TES ;761 : $ i �: For war ,,+p++ --- ---- l�tj,j�C 4.!O im C Imo # 1 r� " ,l� MTfflffigigN„U � L'.444 fit] ¢++ —1 I t4 V Y �1 sun �r wo v i 4H VI • . - C i E R �',�I t.,,,,_-,;. i � q � �l ®�, .�!� . � Nei- o W n p 1.1111111111k crs R�' Y �► + ..1'.416-1111 ' a/1111iLI NO= aPIP L N%'). i af sE r H IGKW AY *�� ter= 1111111.1 -7RIVE > Env., o`� ti-oz; or ....: y, i 311 .40-; 1 7 1 MIL Teo Ci O o � c -4'...:.- • , :r iv :;.-4..-: .2 , • to r� '�StaPARK I 4V1I*IO At ;, ZIP c •�F, (PVT /` �� `iiir- iz_r/�1` �:. �' 4 r +moi t � 1 1 i INN /� ♦ S EN SVT) ♦ .l•�� _� -" \ .�� ucFo� rl�, ,r. ©��Ii 3. i CIRCLE a . W ;, LAKE SUSAN :< >::. .:.i �� 4 2 y _1118 , —'- - - �— m L - `. ://. I DRIVE N HIULS _/ p/� > ,,�R,� Oak 1 _ /; `... 2-FRISco w /T / COUf2T s t4i X PPS 41111111�� I \\` $4,...„.....,... 4ite ......1.4e. c._ a OPP itii:11 .4,„4:,..e.........,az . ll - � e � � ffilq :PF IMIS�� ARSHLAN� y'�r��. MHILLS ��• 4II!Ur_W WAYSTRAIL ]" WAY - .':� is°viP4 �Iri� ��, 1IUli! WEST EAS4 - imPOC:,:- E--- ...._ ED `•,.,�� 4 Alar ��a • COURT 6, pR�i o�P� a ��-416 I a ,rid ,-- _�-'" oft ri. 4:- E Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Conceptual planned unit development for a mixed land use development consisting of commercial, office,and single and multi-family residential. The project is known as Villages on the Ponds. "The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to create a retail-office-residential(mixed use)activity center which complements the existing downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to both the existing and expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in village scale and traditional character,using both on and off-street parking and traditional architecture of vernacular character." The retail village will be characterized by small one and two story structures with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional,vernacular architecture. Buildings will have pitched roofs with a variety of gables,gabled windows,and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the right-of- way similar to a small downtown area. Structures will be linked by roofs,canopies and low walls. The office component of the development proposes the use of smaller building pads of 15, 000- 20,000 square feet on 3 -4 story buildings. Building pads will be located in open or plateau areas _ of the parcels,maintaining existing vegetation and sloped areas. Underground parking shall also be incorporated into the site design to lessen disruption of the site. The residential component of the development consists of two types: high density on the eastern portion of the site and low density on the southern portion of the site. The high density development would be limited to two building pads built in multiple stories with underground parking. It is anticipated that a senior housing project and an apartment building would be built. The applicant is proposing an environmentally sensitive development of the site that will retain major hardwoods,preserve steep slopes,and protect and enhance wetland areas. This will be accomplished through limitations on building pads,providing underground parking,and vertical development of the structures. Due to the scope of the project, a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project. (The project scored a ratio of 2.5; scores in excess of 1.0 require mandatory EAW.) The project is just below the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement(score of 0.96 with a mandatory EIS for scores in excess of 1.0). Staff believes that there are numerous potential benefits for mixed use projects. A mixed use development would be unique to the city and would provide a focal point on the fringe of the downtown area and additional vitality to the community. The village concept provides a pedestrian friendly environment and the provision of transit services. Staff believes that it is Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 — Page 3 critical to incorporate a residential component as part of this development. Should it be — infeasible to locate the multi-family along the eastern property line due to site constraints or design limitations, the city may wish to relocate the residential units within the commercial village area, either as upper story residential units or as distinct structures,or — exchange the office locations for the residential location. Any residential development site should be located east of Highway 101 and south of East Lake Drive to permit access from the residential development to the commercial development without requiring individuals to cross collector roadways. Staff also concurs with the applicants' assertion that additional commercial area is required for the community. The comprehensive plan did not prohibit — commercial development outside the existing central business area; rather, it stated that fringe development would be minimized until the central business district was largely completed. The comprehensive plan goal is to provide a mixture of development assuring a high quality of life — and reliable tax base. Based on staff review of other communities, it appears that the comprehensive plan has an insufficient amount of commercial land at the current rate of approximately 2 percent of the land area(272 acres). "The comprehensive plan recognizes the need for commercial expansion in the future" (Land Use Element page 24). A reasonable goal may be to provide between 3 and 5 percent commercial land area at buildout which represents approximately 400 to 600 acres of commercial land. While there is no definitive — amount of commercial land that should be located in a community, based on staff's review of available literature, a target of approximately five percent commercial land may be a reasonable amount(The Community Builders Handbook, "Recent Land Use Trends in Forty-Eight Large American Cities", and"Bringing Land-Use Ratios into the `90s"). Currently, there exists approximately 18 acres of vacant commercial land within the — downtown area. Of this land, approximately five acres is slated for development in the near future (Medical/Professional building and Crossroads 3rd Addition). In addition, there is approximately six acres of land that could be redeveloped. In 1991, the city had a — supply of 118 acres of vacant commercial land within the Municipal Urban Services Area (MUSA) line. This 118 acres was anticipated to be adequate commercial land to accommodate Chanhassen's growth through 1995. As can be seen,this land will be rapidly exhausted if current development trends continue. In order for the city to provide a full range of shopping opportunities for Chanhassen residents, additional retail space should fill niches that are not currently available in the community. Some examples are apparel and accessory stores, specialty stores, upscale _ restaurants, and personal services. In addition,within commercial areas, office users can be located. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting with residents on Wednesday,November 1, 1995. The neighbors are strongly opposed to "for rent" housing adjacent to their homes. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 Page 4 The applicant further believes that the neighbors would be opposed to any rental housing within the development, see attached memo from Vernelle Clayton to Bob Generous dated November 8, 1995, and the applicants are,therefore, looking to propose moderately priced for sale townhouses at a lower density within the development rather than apartments. While this type of residential development may fulfill portions of the city's affordable housing goal, staff is concerned that the revised proposal will have serious negative impacts to the preservation of environmental features on the site that could be accommodated through the use of a single building pad as outlined in the residential section of the original proposal. Vacant areas of medium density land are available elsewhere in the community. But there are very few areas where high density residential development could be done. Additionally, the multi-family within this development is strategically located adjacent to an office and commercial area. Staff believes that it will be somewhat easier to develop affordable for sale housing and very difficult to have rental housing built. Staff therefore believes that without a commitment to the provision of rental housing within the Villages proposal, then there is not sufficient benefit to the community to warrant the granting of a PUD for this project. Staff is recommending that the concept be approved with the modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions contained in this staff report. Site Characteristics The site has rolling terrain with elevation changes from 967 in the north to 879 in the south. There are several areas of steep slopes exceeding 10 percent that are located throughout the property. The site is covered by lowland hardwood forest species. Areas of mature trees are interspersed with young trees and open fields. Wetlands are located throughout the site with a creek connecting Lake Susan with Rice Marsh Lake running across the southern quarter of the _ parcel. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 66 acres from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are four components to the PUD: commercial, office, multi- family and single-family. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 — Page 5 Section 20-501. Intent — Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater — variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility,the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be — realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive _ environmental features, including steep slopes,mature trees, creeks,wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The applicant has expressed the desire to develop the site in an environmentally sensitive manner to protect slopes, existing vegetation, and wetlands. They propose to accomplish this through the limitation on the size and location of building pads on site, — through the use of vertical development of sites, and through the use of underground parking to fulfill part of the required parking requirements as well as through shared parking within the site and provision of transit opportunities. — The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east-west across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the — project moves forward in the review process. In addition,the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere in — the PUD. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The applicant is proposing a true mixed use development incorporating commercial, office, and residential opportunities. There is significant potential for preservation of natural features on the site including wetland, slopes, and woodlands. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 Page 6 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. The proposed development provides a gateway to the downtown area from southern Chanhassen. As such, special sensitivity will be required of the development including incorporating the natural features of the site with urban scale development. Transitions will be provided through the preservation of natural areas to the east and south of the parcel. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The proposed development is consistent with parts of the comprehensive plan as well as inconsistent with part of the comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan amendment adding commercial uses to the site and providing office development in residentially guided areas will be required for this development to be approved. 5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The applicant is proposing the incorporation of an extensive trail system within the development. In addition, the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere in the PUD. 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The applicant has expressed an interest in providing housing"affordable to the average two-income family employed by the vast majority of our industrial park occupants." Staff will work with the applicant to clarify and define the affordable housing opportunities. 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The clustering of development, the mixing of uses, and the use of shared parking provide energy conservation. 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 -- Page 7 Finding. The applicant is proposing the construction of Lake Drive East through the project. This facilitates traffic movement envisioned by the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending that the applicant realign the Lake Drive East extension to follow the — Great Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east-west ridge on the northern portion of the project. This realignment can help in the preservation of this sloped area. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility,but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility,the city is receiving: • Preservation of desirable site characteristics(wetlands,water quality in lake, trees, — topographical features) • Sensitive development in transitional areas • More efficient use of land — • Development of a high quality project, unique to the community and the region • A planned, unified mixed use project GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development proposes: "The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to — create a retail-office-residential (mixed use) activity center which complements the existing downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to both the existing and expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in — village scale and traditional character,using both on and off-street parking and traditional architecture of vernacular character." The retail village will be characterized by small one and two story structures with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional,vernacular architecture. Buildings will have pitched roofs with a variety of gables, gabled windows,and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the right-of- way similar to a small downtown area. Structures will be linked by roofs,canopies and low walls. The office component of the development proposes the use of smaller building pads of 15, 000- — 20,000 square feet of 3 -4 story buildings. Building pads will be located in open or plateau areas Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 Page 8 of the parcels,maintaining existing vegetation and sloped areas. Underground parking shall also be incorporated into the site design to lessen disruption of the site. The residential component of the development consists of two types: high density on the eastern portion of the site and low density on the southern portion of the site. The high density development would be limited to two building pads built in multiple stories with underground parking. It is anticipated that a senior housing project and an apartment building would be built. The low density development consists of detached and attached units. STREETS The applicant has relocated proposed Lake Drive East within the development in accordance to staff's recommendations. This alignment will provide continuity of the east-west frontage road concept as shown in the City's comprehensive plan. The plans also propose two other access points to Trunk Highway 101. These access points will require both City and MnDOT approval. Staff believes that the northerly access road would be restricted to a right-in/right-out only given the existing roadway geometrics and the close proximity to Trunk Highway 5. The southerly access point (south loop road) will be subject to further review at the preliminary plat review process. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet traffic demands for this development. Staff also recommends that the applicant should have a traffic study prepared to document and provide data justifying the access points and to determine necessary roadway improvements required for this type of land use. The public streets in this development will be required to be built in accordance with the City's industrial standards (36 feet wide face-to-face with concrete curb and gutter). Lake Drive East will be required to be built in accordance to State Aid standards as well. The right-of-way requirement for the public streets will be 60 feet. Lake Drive East, given its State Aid status, will require an 80-foot wide right-of-way to facilitate boulevard landscaping,trails and walks. The applicant's narrative requested that on-street parking be permitted along Lake Drive East and the south loop street. Staff strongly recommends against this from a traffic safety standpoint. Lake Drive East will be a heavily traveled street to service this site as well as act as a frontage road. On-street parking only encourages pedestrian crossing at unsafe points as well as increasing unnecessary traffic turning movements. Parking should be prohibited on both Lake Drive East and the south loop street. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 — Page 9 UTILITIES — The Lake Ann Interceptor trunk sanitary sewer is available to be connected to at the southernmost end of the site. The developer will need to extend the sanitary sewer to serve the — site. The City's comprehensive water plan recommends a 20-inch trunk watermain be extended through this property along Lake Drive East in order to provide sufficient flow through the City's water trunk distribution system. A connection point to an existing 20-inch watermain is located at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive. The trunk water system should be extended westerly through the development following the Lake Drive road alignment and connect into the trunk watermain along Trunk Highway 101. This trunk waterline may be — installed under a private development contract by the developer with the City crediting the oversizing costs against the trunk area assessments for the properties or this work could also be petitioned as a public improvement project which, depending on timing, may be able to be — completed under the current Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32A. The City's Fire Marshal will need to review the fire hydrant locations throughout this development. — All utility and street construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. The developer will also be required to enter into a development — contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. The City's Surface Water Management Plan requires that all storm drainage from this site incorporate the City's water quality and quantity measures. The City's Surface Water Management Plan has designated water quality and quantity ponds on the site. The applicant — should take these ponding areas into account with the development plans. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN — The City has a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a general planning tool for development. The SWMP serves as a tool to protect,preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water — bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in — shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 Page 10 development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed drainage areas along with water quantity and water quality runoff calculations for pre-developed and post- developed conditions for a 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm. The applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in lieu of SWMP fees. Detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- - developed and post-developed conditions. Water Quality The SWMP has established a connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the applicant constructs the pond or$4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the City constructs the pond. Water quality fees per acre were calculated from the average cost per acre for 10, 35, and 50 acre developments. The following table shows these values: Land Use Water Quality Rates ($/Acre) Single Family 800 Duplex 871 Townhome 1,530 School, Church 1,494 Apartment 1,640 Industrial 2,507 Commercial 5,909 Credits will be applied for the developer's contribution to the SWMP requirements. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 — Page 11 Water Quantity — The SWMP has established a connection charge for different land uses based on an average, city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP — trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. The connection charge is based on the type of land use for the area. Fees will be based _ on the total developable land. Undevelopable area (wetlands), public parks, and existing development is exempt from the fees. The fees are negotiable based on the developer's contribution to the SWMP design parameters. The following table is the fee structure for water — quantity connection charges: Land Use Water Quantity Rate ($/acre) Single Family/Low Density $1,980 Medium Density $2,975 High Density $4,360 Commercial/Industrial/ Business — Parks/Open Space $1,190 Credits will be applied for the developer's contribution to the SWMP requirements. WETLAND REGULATIONS The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland — Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report by a qualified wetland delineator, wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan, wetland alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, and the applicable permit application for wetland alteration. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip _ monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback — for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. _ Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 Page 12 EROSION CONTROL Erosion control is high priority during the construction period. Staff requires an erosion control plan that meet the City's best management practices. Maintenance and upkeep of the erosion control system will be enforced. PARKS AND RECREATION The Park& Recreation Commission met on September 26, 1995. They recommended that no development take place south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of PUD#92-1 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east-west _ across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the project moves forward in the review process. In addition,the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an _ alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere on the PUD. 2. A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project. 3. The applicant shall develop individualized development standards for each parcel including setbacks, building heights and bulk, and uses. 4. The applicant shall better define the"vernacular"to be used within the project. Specific architectural development standards shall be developed. 5. The applicant shall investigate realigning the Lake Drive East extension to follow the Great Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east-west ridge on the northern portion of the project. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 — Page 13 6. The applicant, in conjunction with the city, shall develop a strategy for the provision of — affordable housing within the project. 7. The applicant shall work with the city and Southwest Metro Transit for the provision of — mass transit opportunities within the development. 8. The applicant shall develop a tree preservation plan for the project. 9. The applicant shall develop specific methodology for the preservation of trees, slopes, and wetlands. 10. Lake Drive East shall be constructed in accordance with State Aid standards. The — remaining public streets shall be built in accordance to the City's industrial standards. Lake Drive East will require an 80-foot wide right-of-way and the southerly loop street a 60-foot wide right-of-way. — 11. All access points onto Trunk Highway 101 will be subject to City and MnDOT review and approval. — 12. On-street parking shall be prohibited on all public streets. 13. The applicant should prepare a traffic study to provide data justifying access points and to determine necessary roadway improvements required by this type of land use. 14. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet the traffic demands of this development. 15. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates for construction. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial — security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. 16. The applicant shall implement the City's Surface Water Management Plan with regards to — accommodating water quality and quantity measures with regards to surface water runoff from the site. 17. The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act(WCA)and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report by a qualified wetland delineator,wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage _ Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 Page 14 plan,wetland alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan,the applicable permit application for wetland alteration. 18. In addition to the requirements of the WCA,the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. 19. The applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development. 20. The applicant shall incorporate additional internal pedestrian facilities within the development. 21. The applicant shall develop design parameters to buffer the existing residential neighborhoods to the east from this development." ATTACHMENTS _ 1. Development Review Application 2. Images of the Villages on the Ponds 3. PAS Memo, August 1992 4. Towle Real Estate Report, 1995,pp. 23 - 29 5. Memo from Fred Hoisington to Kate Aanenson dated September 27, 1995 6. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Slopes in Excess of 10% 7. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Vegetation 8. Ward Property, Site Analysis -Wetlands 9. Villages on the Ponds, Chanhassen, MN 10. The Community Builders Handbook, 1973,pp. 130 - 131 11. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 12. Rescheduling Notice Dated September 29, 1995 13. Letter from John and Brenda Lud to Robert Generous and Chanhassen Planning Commission dated October 16, 1995 14. Citizen's Concern about the Ward Property Development 15. Aerial Topography of Eastern Edge of the Ward Property 16. Planning Commission Minutes of 10/18/95 17. Memo from Vernelle Clayton to Bob Generous dated November 8, 1995 18. Vacant and Redevelopment Commercial Properties Location Map Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Revised November 8, 1995 — Page 15 19. Letter from Fred Hoisington to Bob Generous dated November 2, 1995 — 20. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List for 11/15/95 Public Hearing 21. Land Use Acreages • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION _ APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services OWNER: Ward Family Attn: Brad Johnson ADDRESS: PO Box 235 ADDRESS: Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) 937-4538 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal _ 5. X Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARJWAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 750 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME The Villages / Ward Property LOCATION Highway 5 at Market Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached PRESENT ZONING 10P /RSF REQUESTED ZONING PUD PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Undeve I oped REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Reta i I /Off ice/Res i dentia I REASON FOR THIS REQUEST First phase of a planned community This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowled e. GQi C«-G LJ � 1t-cv cL-eele Date 4- f Signature of Applicant � Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. Ori✓. 19� rc G 14d( o) /SSD SJ 77 `5-7 the The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. The Villages / Ward Property The Ward property lies at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 101 or Market Boulevard. The property consists of approximately 67 acres and is characterized by rolling terrain with a number of large stands of mature trees and scattered stands of younger trees. There are three larger wetlands and one small wetland located on the property. Rosemount Engineering lies to the west and large estate lots to the east. North is Highway 5 and downtown Chanhassen. To the immediate south is undeveloped land with new residential development further to the south. Existing circulation and proposed circulation consists of the new Highway 101/Market Boulevard alignment which runs north-to-south through the property. East/west circulation consists of the frontage road system or Lake Drive as proposed by the City's Guide Plan. One additional roadway is proposed to provide internal access to the various parcels and links Market Boulevard to Lake Drive extended. The proposed circulation system also proposes to provide public access to the large residential lots lying to the east. The proposed land use for the Ward property consists of three general uses. To the north it is proposed to provide an extension of the Chanhassen downtown. The intent would be to locate buildings up close to the roadways with parking located internal to the site. The desire is to create an urban downtown image with possible parallel parking on the street system. The existing Chanhassen downtown is complete, with either finished development or proposals and/or construction currently underway to fully develop all possible retail parcels. The downtown needs to expand and provide the residents of Chanhassen a broader cross section of retailing opportunities. South of the retail land uses, it is proposed to provide opportunities for general or professional office use and support services. These parcels are located along Market Boulevard and adjacent to Rosemount Engineering. Along the eastern property line and at the southern end of the property, residential uses are provided. The large residential parcel located along the eastern edge is proposed at a higher density which would be developed as two buildings to reduce the site development impacts. The residential parcels to the south are proposed to be utilized as basic single family or twin homes. Part of the overall proposal is an extensive trail/sidewalk system which includes maintaining the northerly wetlands as a feature by locating buildings which would take advantage of the amenities and vistas. The southerly wetland, which is part of a more extensive wetland system, would remain in its existing condition along with the existing trail system. Approximately 10-12 percent of the property would remain as open space and basically undisturbed. The anticipated schedule would be that major portions of the roadway and infrastructure would begin in the Spring of 1996 with development of some of the parcels beginning late summer and fall of 1996. 01/04/89 01:38 4744204 TABLOID MEDIA INC PAGE 02 - �' 7J4J4(G r.bG EXHIBIT A TRACT I Beginning at the Northeast corner of Outlet I, "CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK" , according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder, Carver county, Minnesota; thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said Outlot I and the Easterly line of Outlot J, said CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK" and the extension of said easterly line of said outlot J to its intersection with the shoreline of Lake Susan; thence Easterly and Southerly along said shoreline to its intersection with the South line of Government Lot 2, Section 13 , Township 1.16N, Range 23W; thence Easterly along the South line of said Government Lot 2 to its intersection with the center line of S.T.H. No. 101; thence Northerly along the said center line of said S.T.H. No. 101 to its intersection with the center line of S.T.H. No. 5; thence Westerly along the center line of S.T.H. No 5 to its intersection with the East line of said Outlot I extended Northerly; thence Southerly along the East line of said Outlot I extended Northerly to the point of beginning. TRACT II All that part of the following described premises, viz: "Government Lot 2 and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 13, Township 116N, Range 23W, Carver County, Minnesota, containing 77 . 50 acres , more or less, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof , and known as the Emil Klein Farm" , not included within the premises as described in TRACT I above. IMAGES... of The Villoges on ilie Ponds ,... ... .., .1. .., _ 1 UN to: ',.• * v_ ..:... il - ' I 1 ilkbk--'---- .- ' -4 0.--.11WW"I _____------ _- .eel ----•!Ye': Ariistir ---.. / .t abb.- - .--•=fe... - - ------ ` ---. - . - 0111i pi 1r4filii ,..• .. "... -'_-f_t• , -,..e'•-- _ . ,2_,......... ‘-‘, ...._ . .. _ --.._„.........., Iv L.L.,.......... 1 .., • • :.: , , 4 I--. - ,..4.•• _. 1, lt - . ,..:J., ,........_...., -. • :,..A., AA!_,,A_ .... 0....._ ...._ ....., . [,___/..__. . - 0 --imrin.-'1601A-7'.eio•-•-' \ .*-__, „L„„,,,,e,r, ii 0 .,„: . @ . • • ,,.., . ......._, . _...,....„ , ..!, ..... , .____t__ ., ......_.. . . • „„,Igkikr _....,... -......... .3•' ' '- V;' - . .. i.--.- - ‘..... 0.-- . ,..7:\,:- ,_ .r..:, -_•.:.....-.‘ .--_--t- 4 .....111.U.' .. - .., . :..)1 • ....-----7.:•;-\-- - - - - .:- - - ---,:;-',33--• . , ,.; wir......................- . --.'....-_,------- -si.---_ ' .t'*.. . . ,.t.-- •-4,': ,-, 4 ..- :-...., .... -_ 1 , , 'LL*.101„K--. - ------ 411- , V-7-7_- I ,..__ 7* -. I, t la &me; 'ct•'..L_- ;,4 ai *-CiJ •r ' . ,4", • ' .1.....117....;. ....,. WA": • ,...-- -,---— ------ ,44' '-0\ ' ,---- ---1-5:- '_ :.' lr - . • r c...-- -3. " 6\,,fa.- .@-k s' ' .- --- - -_-_-,-,4 rit, '1A ...1,'..';:,„t, ',:.:,,,e--- *4'''. .1,'0";• I .... ,." i .... . 4 \7,1 :•::::t. - P ...1; , 4 .*-4„.....,.... . , --,..T . .'If/•- if 40ItIT.- ..; .,- ! _ lr ' .- •• . . fi ' L • All- '‘,-7:4)f '/_:1tr;e 3 •-• ''. 7.0#fill: . -sc:i', .,•,e:: N• 'illt \i 19114 4 - - -, --.ti ,- - -:."-i, - •, '" '-'- -•ft....._ , . i 'i 4.-1 t - 4. ......, ' ll• ".^ - ' 4 . %..,. .: .., ..., ..v ..,,,,,.,.;. ..tici.,. % ..e. ..... , ,,.. ..;..H,....,.„. .... .....6. , , ..„.-i__ . i ,,,,- , , ,.. , ...0 % .. .... ___ ...• .,. /..... .„..„.._ ..,. ., ..: • . .7.,...„, _.... :... ..,--y----: --......N ... 1 4 •••::• --1 li 11) 1 II.....1-..- i II .•-r2 ---' • e."- - 1 I 4-.1.•,- .-- ., .-) , \ 111 ,,,,, A46- ' . .T114 ,„ I 1 : -. ; ,s,„.„,..A. ,, _ ......,_ L r , . ,. , 11 . _ ' -4 ---„, i . pd ...., • , •<• i• , ._ --,- ,._......._ t,...„,_ar - _ _. ...._ ---0... iiiii.. . . ..,10,,•_, _ .... . 1 , i kliil • III ', -- ..........- il e..4-:-. ..•.„ . v7.-- ..- ,....1 • • •- A a - _mork---•f. w_r , . , ;;;'• - - L...- ��)i • . ---/- - ,,,„ „...-.1_,, ,,,y,r . - - -- ,,..„0. wei-so, Alifir,------.---, 1 , 0„,,_...._. , _____.__— _-....i._.,nji,bt: in +F��— -T H'51 4 >`.- ?l l^Retail. _I fr - --— rKy .,"�h�'".,..—,`'T Y�/1„►�„ •V. 3.4 Ac.. 11 iii`►V;t,� f,,�� _ 441 _ gal 1/�% ;_ 7,-, � _1,��s( Retail '� ti� \40,000s.F.,_ ,,, , �� II. 0.„, 'ilei�'•�I —13.1 Ac. �' ler.*-;r . k1!!;p!'�u 36,000 S.R0., - , v • �I 1U�rrt� ,,l�am� ,- ' Retail �`��P.'•j I i .-. • . iiia "..4 •3.6 Ac. _ '4 N � i.�1.Avo. ��-' � -42,000 S.F. Retail. I < o . . --- �'111,•, /' 28 A'.% - � '37,500 S.F. — d ik, ``�`� 33,000 S11' r‘S\‘‘.1,1• .F. 1App '� r}y� ),:*....---44 ''..M% it D r\,..-*,,,,c,..- Retail i�$ 1 a-4 1— -- ? -ec '-'-' \1 G-. ,�,-4/r , . `` 1p 7.4 Ac. i\r ^ z, •-��';� 87,500 S.F. 41111 I - f/''/a .\3 1 Residential ..,_ ,. A 1 ft 0`;-"' . )1:— r ,,c),A..4. „,,L,,..:-.,..,,,,:f 4. c w�..°a .,...,; . . ..- . , 1! , 60 D.U. hp,.. `�I ,2 Office \\ �\ : 1 ' ,' — 50 800 S.F. y .1.1 ' Al 'i %�_ �i,:\11►%.+ -.0'4.0 Ac. -0-4.14'.., \ �y."� ',•57,400 S.F,,,a 1..-- -- ) IWI � ' � ' Office ��' G,�,t��• _n..a....-. ,� ,.�.� �- — • . ----:Ar'6.6 Ac.( ',4. 1....."--,..S7-1.stia•\1,,,,,N- tErtris, Jo--- — NiNit\ , lici;i•frili17. . --0.7,-77\s„ 7Q'”" Residenti:mill ' Residential,`;'1.l Ac. � _.5se , _K �,,, �' �,�S�SL-- I ResidentialL��'- '°-.1I ► --- •ll — . , • i r#2:011MV oft Wig I I I I ii l'r77-'1", --.;,--_icre5wN ' .1 - ,,,,,, j 'Ig - t._.,,-;)� K — Ward ■■1■ private Drive . LI-7 ,.. Property •••• Trails North — B R� WARD PROPERTY General Concept Plan The Ward property consists of approximately 73 acres located along Trunk Highway 5 between the old and new State Highway 101. The site is gently rolling with heavy vegetation consisting of young trees. The only old stand of trees is located along Lake Susan at the old farmstead. The remaining vegetation consists of young trees which have "volunteered" over the past few years. Of the total site approximately 20% is either wetlands or water. The general concept for the property is a mixed-use program with an attractive "country village" look from all internal roadways and from Highway 5. The uses anticipated are hotels, restaurants, retail, small and medium offices buildings, residential and open space. For the look and the concept we have drawn from the success of such areas as Monterey and Carmel, California; Freeport, Main (a New England community concept) and for local relevance, from the success of 50th & France, which we hope to duplicate with the "Country Village" attraction. The roadway network is designed so that old 101 will be realigned and will become a part of the internal street system, a system which will provide on-street parking, access to major parking areas, a perimeter road around the "Village Center", as well as access throughout the balance of the site. The street system will easily provide access and accommodate traffic from the industrial area to the west and from the to-be-developed Legion Site to the east, without creating a thoroughfare through the site. The street system has been developed with a view toward providing a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Highway 5 and 101, both 4 lanes at this point, will handle the major north-south and east-west vehicular traffic. _ The Village Center will provide a variety of retail, service retail, small offices, restaurants, lodging opportunities and possibly even a small church. The "Village" site plan concept envisions buildings located along the wetlands and along the internal street system, with primary parking on the "inside" of the sites. Segments of the site are anticipated to be used for larger but low-rise offices of no more than three stores, oriented toward the lake and the major wetland. The residential usage will consist of clustered single family along Lake • Susan and a medium density product along the easterly property line. A concerted effort will be targeted toward the preservation of the Marsh Lake and Lake Susan vistas. Over 20% of the site will remain as open space offering the opportunity of extending the trail system throughout the site and providing direct linkage to the trail along Lake Susan, Marsh Lake and into the balance of downtown Chanhassen. The concept plan anticipates the following development intensities: Estimated Annual Percent Real Estate Taxes Use # Acres of Site # S.F. Taxes/S.f. to be Generated Retail 23.5 32% 275,000 $3.00 $825,000 Office 14.1 19% 200,000 3.50 700,000 Multi-Res. 7.4 16% 60 units 180,000 S.F.-Res 4.0 / 6 units 24,000 Streets/Open 33% Totals 100% $1,729,000 It is anticipated that the first phase of development will be undertaken in the Fall of 1996. RECEWtL e`- ( '<- - l - S E P 0 8 1992 1992 Y UMInr jEN 1 P A S MeFrk AMERICAN F. PLANNING ASSOCIATION xi Residential 42% Residential 52% Residential 40% Residential 48% Commercial 3% Commercial 3% Industrial 8% Com�merclal 1CommercialCommercial 10% Industrial 6% Public Use 47% industrial 7cc Public Use 51% '• Industrial 10% Public Use 31% Public Use 32% 1955 Small Cities 1992 1955 Large Cities 1992 Bringing Land-Use and land-use map will have the most insight into what forces brought the city to its current form and where it may be Ratios Into the '90s heading in the future. Land-use ratios are most useful to planners and developers By Christopher Harris involved in comprehensive planning and long-range development,because these data are necessary in Every municipality is responsible for guiding future growth. determining what mix of land uses should be encouraged in The challenge is creating an appropriate mix of residential, future decades. Also,developersbuilding neotraditional — commercial,industrial,and public uses in the community. towns,planned communities,and large-scale mixed-use One pivotal factor in this process is a solid understanding of developments on vacant land find ratios from other the current pattern of land uses within municipal boundaries. communities to be a good basis for land-use allocation. Knowing what uses exist and what services are needed to It is interesting to note that the ratios from the planned provide for those uses can determine the type and location of community of Columbia,Maryland,which was built in the development that a municipality should plan for. early 1960s,nearly match all of the ratio averages from the This PAS Memo is a summary of a 1992 survey of 1992 survey. land-use ratios in 66 municipalities.The American Planning Association undertook this study in response to a Current Data are Important large number of requests that the Planning Advisory Service Development patterns change over time—even within a receives for an update a 1983 study. Part of this demand is decade—and land-use ratios need to be updated to reflect — driven by the growing number of states that are mandating those changes accurately.This study will serve as an update cities and counties to do comprehensive planning.These to several surveys of land-use ratios done in preceding mandated plans must include an inventory of existing decades. land uses. The first major study was done by Harland Bartholomew — Even in cities where planning is not required,there has and Jack Wood in 1955. They surveyed ratios over a 20-year been a significant number of comprehensive plan updates span and published their results in Land Uses In American in the last few years.Some of these communities may be Cities.Those ratios were used in a large number of the redoing their plan for the first time since the 701 era of federally funded 701 comprehensive plans. planning in the 1950s and 1960s.Land-use trends and A second study,by Eisner and Associates,examined ratios settlement patterns have changed significantly since that compiled between 1939 to 1985.The usefulness of this data time,causing noticeable changes in the land-use mix for comprehensive planning purposes is compromised by the — and a need for updated ratios. fact that the researchers analyzed ratios over a 46-year span. Too many development trends altered land-use ratios over Who Uses Land-Use Ratios that period.Eisner's ranges include both pre-and post-World Land-use ratios refer to the breakdown of various categories War II residential settlement patterns,which are vastly of land as a percentage of the total amount of land in a different. community.After a land-use survey,the results are mapped Yet another survey of 22 large American cities was done or entered into a computer and total land acreage for each in 1973.The results of that study were printed in Urban Land category is tallied. Policies and Land-use Control Measures(Vol. VI,Northern Because the ratios are derived from acreage totals, America). they do not represent the spatial patterns of cities. Spatial Finally,the most recent comprehensive look at these ratios arrangements of land uses typically are portrayed on a land- was a 1983 survey by Gregory Longhini and Mike Sutton. — use map. Planners who understand both their land-use ratios Published by the APA, it quantified land-use ratios from 46 large and 22 small cities(See PAS Memo May 1983).Most course;a privately owned area might be an amusement park. of the land-use ratios in that survey were compiled between Transportation and utilities is the last public use — 1978 and 1982. distinction.This includes rights-of-way,streets,alleys, airports,rail,transportation terminals,communication,pump Methodology stations,power stations,water facilities,and other similar — Approximately a third of the information presented here uses. was discovered by reviewing many recent comprehensive Although the categories in this study were selected to plans in the APA library.Most of the data for small cities reduce discrepancies,the task of fitting each city's land-use were collected this way.The other two-thirds of the data, ratios into these two tables was still extremely difficult. — particularly for large cities,were collected through telephone To repeat: these are only generalizations. interviews. Unfortunately,the manipulation needed to reorganize Selection of cities for the study was based on two some of the cities' ratios has weakened the results slightly. variables:date of their land-use survey and their geographic For example,a small percentage of the communities did not — location. Although some of the ratios used date back seven calculate the acreage of streets and right-of-ways.Sometimes years,the majority of the data were collected since 1989. transportation is completely ignored and other times only Almost every region in the country is represented. utilities,bus terminals,airports and the like are calculated as Land-use ratios are calculated as a percentage of the all of the transportation uses.In these cases,this category's developed land within communities.Therefore,agricultural ratio is typically under five percent. and vacant lands were not figured in.This results in a more Other inconsistencies arise because specific uses are accurate representation of the breakdown of land uses in handled very differently among communities,according to the urbanized portion of each city. different rationales.For example,a recreational facility such One problem with the data is that nearly every city as a miniature golf course or a driving range is certainly a responded with different land-use categories.Tucson, recreational use.But,by some definitions,it is also a Arizona,breaks its developed land into 21 categories. business use;after all, it is earning a profit. Although _ Baltimore responded with only five categories.For this the definition of recreational uses in this study includes study,the data have been reorganized into the following four for-profit uses,some cities include these uses in the land-use categories: residential,commercial,industrial, commercial category. Some cities consider railroads to and public uses.Public uses are further broken into three be a transportation use,as does this study,while others — subcategories:parks and recreation,institutional,and consider them an industrial use. transportation and utilities.Limiting the categories was Mixed-use developments create yet another problem. necessary to reduce the discrepancies between uses as For the purposes of this study,these percentages are figured defined by each city and,for comparative purposes,to use into whichever use dominates the development,particularly ft- categories that resemble those found in APA's 1983 study. commercial,residential,or industrial.For example,small structures,such as an apartment over a retail shop,will most Details of Each Category likely be categorized according to the use occupying the — The residential category includes single-family detached ground level—that is,commercial. units,two-or more family attached units,apartments, Although mixed-use developments are not included as a condominiums,and mobile homes.Noted in the table is the category in this study,more cities are beginning to include percentage of single-family detached housing as a percentage them in their ratios.Tampa,Florida;Bellevue,Washington; — of the entire developed city. and Frisco,Colorado,responded to this survey with mixed- The commercial category includes all types of trade and use ratios.In two of the three cases,the percentages were services.The retail portion includes uses such as strip malls, minuscule.Tampa,Florida,has multiple mixed-use — small and large scale shopping centers,and wholesaling categories such as suburban mixed-use,which covers outlets.Also included are office buildings and business parks 13 percent of the total developed land. that have financial or administrative functions.Other general The process of recalculating data to serve the purpose commercial uses are restaurants,grocery stores,and repair of this study is the last major methodological problem. — businesses. A majority of the ratios for each city had to be recalculated The industrial category includes both heavy and light in order to eliminate the percentages of land that is either industry.These uses are characterized as construction, vacant, agricultural,or non-improved open space such as manufacturing,warehousing and distribution,resource forest land.This,combined with rounding the ratios, is the — extraction,and,in some instances,high technology research. reason some of the percentages do not equal 100 percent. The public use category is the cumulative percentage of institutional uses,parks and recreation,and transportation and Residential Uses utility facilities.Institutional uses are those owned by the Since the first study of land-use ratios in 1955,residential — local,state,or federal government,such as schools,hospitals, uses have occupied the most land in small and large cities. and police and fire stations.Churches,synagogues,and In 1955,40 percent and 42 percent of the land in central fraternal organizations,which are quasi-public facilities, and satellite cities,respectively,was used for residential — also are included in the institutional category. purposes. In the 1973 study of large cities,40 percent of land The second public use category is parks and recreation, was residential.The boom in suburban growth in the 1950s comprising private or publicly owned areas used by citizens and 1960s increased these percentages significantly.The in the community.A public area could be a municipal golf effects were evident in the 1983 study,where residential land — increased to 48 percent of a city's developed land for both Christopher Harris is an APA research associate. large and small cities.The residential densities in large 2 Land-Use Ratios (in percent)for Communities Under 100,000 Residential Right City or town Population (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'l Parks of way . Aiken,S.C. 20,000 ' 65%(60%) 9% 1% 25% 9% 16% NA Ambler,Pa. 6,600 63 11 10 16 3 4 9 - Asheville,N.C. 62,000 69(62) 12 5 14 9 5 NA Bellevue,Wash. 88,000 65(57) 10 4 18 7 11 NA - Carlsbad,Calif. 51,000 57(40) 5 9 29 3 17 9 Carrollton,Tex. 33,000 39(34) 30 17 15 5 10 NA Columbia,Md. 78,000 43(32) 20(combined) 37 NA NA NA - Costa Mesa,Calif. 88,000 51 (30) 12 15 22 13 9 NA Elgin,Ill. 72,000 37 5 4 54 10 12 32 El Monte,Calif. 79,000 57 15 15 13 5 1 7 Evanston,Ill. 72,000 45 (30) 7 4 44 10 - 8 26 Fishkill,N.Y. 15,000 . 24(20) 4 1 70 25 33 12 - Frisco,Colo. 1,600 38 13 3 45 NA NA NA Galveston,Tex. 62,000 25(21) 5 25 44 19 25 NA Highland Park,Ill. 31,000 53 6 0 41 4 18 19 - Hoffman Estates,Ill. 45,000 46(37) 10 2 41 3 15 23 La Verne,Calif. 27,000 67(58) 11 3 19 19 NA NA Lynnwood,Wash. 29,000 56(46) 22 3 19 13 6 NA - Manassas,Va. 22,000 52(41) 8 12 28 26 2 NA Midway,Ky. 1,400 54 7 1 38 24 NA 14 - Montpelier,Vt. 8,400 51 (45) 6 6 37 7 15 15 Mount Prospect,Ill. 58,000 65 (57) 6 16 13 4 9 NA Northbrook,Ill. 32,000 46 7 8 39 7 13 19 Oak Creek,Wis. 20,000 37(27) 8 12 43 6 23 14 Olathe, Kan. 49,000 52(43) 7 6 35 14 9 12 Prescott,Ariz. 26,000 74(50) 8 4 14 NA NA NA - Pompano Beach,Fla. 67,000 44(25) 10 17 39 4 17 8 Redding,Calif. 53,000 64 11 12 13 8 5 NA - St. Peters,Mo. 38,000 72 12 4 12 NA NA NA Sedona,Ariz. 7,300 74(71) 15 0 12 11 1 NA Skokie,Ill. 60,000 34 6 13 47 12 3 32 - Versailles,Ky. 7,200 50 9 19 23 9 NA 14 Wakefield,Mass. 24,000 54(52) 5 3 38 8 6 24 West Hollywood,Calif. 36,000 42(8) 22 3 33 3 1 29 - Ratio Averages 52% (41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA NA t. te e.^- ��a� ��,�o,� 57?� .q 474 6 �o IS.'590 23 % How Land-Use Ratios Have Changed in Small Cities Over the Years Residential - Year of survey (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'l Parks 1992 52%(41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA 1983 48 7 8 37 13 5 - 1955 42(36) 2 8 48 11 4 Land-Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Over 100,000 Residential Right City or town Population (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'l Parks of way Albuquerque,N.M. 385,000 57%(47%) 15% 5% 23% 11% 8% 4% Amherst,N.Y. 112,000 43 (40) 7 2 48 12 12 24 Atlanta 437,000 54 5 9 32 11 (combined) 21 Aurora,Colo. 232,000 44 21 17 18 NA NA NA _ Austin,Tex. 345,000 48(43) 7 5 38 7 5 26 Baltimore 787,000 42 27 6 25 16(combined) 9 Charlotte,N.C. 395,000 61 10 6 24 21 (combined) 2 -. Cleveland 506,000 35 5 15 45 6 7 32 Dallas 1,007,000 58(50) 8 12 22 5 8 9 Detroit 1,028,000 43 (33) 5 9 44 13 (combined) 31 El Paso 485,000 42(36) 6 10 42 15 5 22 Evansville,Ind. 129,000 57 24 5 14 NA 8 6 Fort Worth 448,000 50(45) 7 12 31 6 13 12 Hartford,Conn. 136,000 32 11 4 53 16 16 21 Honolulu 432,000 30 34 15 12 6 6 NA - Indianapolis 742,000 55 (48) 7 10 28 28(combined) NA Lansing,Mich. 127,000 60 6 10 24 11 13 . NA Lexington, Ky. 214,000 58 8 8 25 18 (combined) 7 Long Beach,Calif. 440,000 48 (32) 12 22 18 6 6 6 Madison,Wis. 191,000 39 8 4 49 7 12 30 _ Norfolk,Va. 266,000 44(33) 9 4 43 27 6 10 Omaha 336,000 38 5 4 53 20(combined) 33 Peoria,Ill. 113,000 52 8 6 34 7 21 6 - Reno,Nev. 101,000 36(25) 8 5 51 25 21 5 St. Paul 270,000 37 4 14 45 7 12 26 - Salt Lake City 163,000 25 (20) 7 9 59 7 7 45 Santa Clarita,Calif. 121,000 70(59) 6 14 10 5 5 NA Tampa,Fla. 834,000 44(30) 15 26 15 10 5 NA - Tempe,Ariz. 133,000 41 (30) 8 10 41 11 16 24 Topeka, Kan. 122,000 50 10 6 34 21 13 NA Tucson,Ariz. 419,000 52(39) 10 5 33 8 5 20 - Youngstown,Ohio 104,000 60 9 8 23 8 13 2 Ratio Averages 48% (38%) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA How Land-Use Ratios Have Changed in Large Cities Over the Years Residential Right Year of survey (single-family) Comm'l Ind'! Public Inst'l Parks of way 1992 48%(38%) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA 1983 48(39) 9 12 31 NA NA NA 1973 40 10 5 45 19(combined) 26 - 1955 40(32) 3 6 51 11 7 33 — Eisner & Associates Studies, 1939-1985 breakdown within the residential category.Cities that offer breakdowns within the residential category tended to do it in Use Range of Percentages two different ways:number of families per unit(e.g.single- family and multifamily)or the number of units per acre. — Residential 35-39% As expected,single-family housing is by far the largest Commercial 4.8-5 portion of any city's housing stock.This type consumes an Industrial 10-11 average of 73 percent of the total housing stock in the 12 — cities for which this information was available.The averages Streets 20-26 for multifamily and mobile homes are 14 percent and 3 Open Space,Schools,Parks 10-18 percent,respectively.The data range for multifamily housing was from 8 percent to 41 percent of land used for housing. The range for mobile homes was much smaller:one-half western cities are typically lower than large eastern cities. of 1 percent to 7 percent. For example the residential ratio in Long Beach,California, is 79 percent.In Pittsburgh,it is only 28 percent,according Commercial Uses to the 1983 survey. Since the 1950s and 1960s,commercial uses,which include Suburban sprawl also explains the residential ratio office and retail,have occupied an increasing amount of increase in small towns from 42 percent in 1955 to 52 percent acreage in both large and small cities.The land-use ratios in — in 1992.An increased level of automobile ownership led to 1955 were 3.32 percent for the central cities and 2.54 percent the creation of the bedroom community.Employment, for the satellite cities.By 1992,these averages increased culture,and goods and services were not necessarily needed significantly,to 10 percent. in these communities as long as the nearby major city offered The biggest factor in this large percentage increase is — them.Therefore,residential uses predominate the developed parking. Parking has become a major regulatory concern land. over the last few decades,as both large and small cities have These high ratios of residential land should begin become dominated by cars.An entire parking lot is to decline due to a combination of many economic, considered a commercial use.Many uses require parking that — demographic,and regulatory trends that are decreasing effectively doubles the acreage of commercial land. demand for single-family detached homes.The 20-percent- Unlike in large cities,where suburban office migration has down conventional mortgage is no longer affordable for the caused commercial land-use ratios to plateau at 10 percent, — average U.S.household.According to U.S.Housing Markets this ratio continues to climb in smaller cities.The Land Use (January 29, 1990),a household needs an average down Institute estimated in 1986 that 57.3 percent of the country's l payment of 28 percent.The cost of the average home from total office market was located outside major downtowns. 1988 to 1990 increased 8.4 percent,or$11,000,while the This was an increase of nearly 10 percent from 1981.Height — average income of a household has increased only 4.8 restrictions and a strong bias toward low density development percent. exist in these areas,so buildings cover more acres. Quickly rising land cost is another major factor Also contributing to the higher commercial ratio is the contribt)ting to the inconsistency between housing cost and rise of average square footage allowed per office worker, — income,according to an article in Building Sciences according to a 1991 Price Waterhouse Study.Between 1942 (November 1987). Land costs are now one-quarter of the cost and 1979,the average work space increased from 110 square of a single-family home.Thirty years ago,that figure was feet to 199 square feet.In 1988,only nine years later,that — only 10 percent. average had crept up to 342 square feet. Demographic changes are reducing demand for single- Currently,trends between office and retail development family homes as well.Couples are purchasing houses at differ greatly.The construction of office buildings has an older age and having fewer children.Builder magazine decreased considerably in most cities since the late 1980s — reported in January 1992 that the percentage of home buyers due to high vacancy rates. But according to Real Estate who are first-time buyers has dropped significantly from 47.7 Perspectives magazine,retail overbuilding continued at a rate percent to 34.6 percent in 1990.Furthermore,the 1990 nearly double its absorption rate well into the recession in Census indicates that household size declined from 3.33 1990.The common types of retail development—strip centers — persons in 1960 to 2.62 persons in 1989.Ultimately,this and regional malls—consume large amounts of land.Given means less space will be required for each family.In fact, that these development styles are being used in small and surveys conducted recently by the National Apartment large cities alike,the commercial ratios in both sizes of cities — Association have noted an increase in apartment living. can be expected to increase. Zoning trends have become an issue as well.Recent environmental protection regulations encourage development Industrial Districts patterns such as cluster and planned unit developments.Also, In large cities,the amount of land used by industrial firms courts are ruling against five-acre estate lot sizes and other peaked in the late 1970s or early 1980s,and has recently been large minimum lot size zoning when the effect is to exclude declining.In 1955,the average industrial land-use ratio was certain income groups. 6.4 percent.The 1983 survey indicated an industrial land-use ratio of 12 percent,while this current study shows a ratio Breakdown by Housing Type of only 10.5 percent. In small cities and suburban areas, Although this study provides general land-use ratio the industrial land-use ratio has remained within a third perc:ntages for residential land as a whole,some of a percentage point since 1955,at around 7.5 percent. communities may be interested in the housing stock The trend most affecting industrial land allocation is the 3 country's economic shift from manufacturing and other An example is Hoffman Estates,Illinois,a Chicago heavy industry to a service industry.This may be causing suburb,where institutional uses cover only 3.4 percent of — what Coldwell Banker identified in 1990 as the highest ever developed land.In El Paso,Texas,the percentage is 17 national vacancy rate(6.9 percent)of industrial buildings percent.El Paso is a county seat and therefore must offer r larger than 100,000 square feet. the entire spectrum of institutional uses to the region. This shift has led to the conversion of many industrial — buildings into residential loft or commercial office space, Transportation and Utility Uses thus decreasing the industrial ratio. Transportation and utility uses have consistently covered the Differentiating between industrial and commercial uses second highest amount of acreage in a city since these data _ has also become more difficult.For example,many light were recorded.As evident from the data set,many cities do manufacturers also have service centers,showrooms,and not include streets and right-of-way in their acreage.These warehouses on the premises.Therefore,when ratios are cities therefore have disproportionately low transportation calculated,they are categorized as heavy commercial uses, land-use ratios. Because of this discrepancy,averages for — not industrial uses. this category are not listed. As the ratios from the three studies show,economic The amount of land devoted to right-of-way increases restructuring has not affected the land-use ratios in suburban as a city's single-family housing stock increases. But areas nearly as much as large cities,because heavy because many cities calculate streets into institutional and — manufacturing never was a dominant force there. recreational uses,it is extremely difficult to pinpoint transportation land-use ratio trends.For the purpose of this Parks and Recreational Uses analysis,it is understood that streets and right-of-way _ The following analysis is based primarily on improved parks constitute most of the transportation uses and utilities and open spaces that are maintained by public park districts category.The utilities and communication uses are usually a or municipalities. very tiny portion. For example,only one-half of a percent of Historically,the rule of thumb for calculating the number developed land in Austin,Texas,is occupied by utility uses. of acres of park land needed in a community is one acre of There are two major current planning issues that may land per 100 residents.However,for the past 40 years many affect future street and right-of-way ratios:the recently communities have fallen well short.In the 1955 study,the adopted Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency percentage of park and recreation land for central and satellite Act(ISTEA)and neotraditional town planning. ISTEA marks — cities was 7 percent and 4.4 percent of developed land, the first time that the federal government plans to tackle respectively.Eleven small communities from the 1983 congestion problems head-on by improving the management survey list an average percentage of only 4 percent.These of existing transportation systems and coordinating data are difficult to compare,in part because,in many _ transportation planning with land-use planning.Until now, y communities,parks,playgrounds, and athletic fields on the solution has been to increase road capacity.Successful school property,as well as vacant lots,are calculated into the implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes,bus lanes, institutional ratios rather than the parks and recreation ratio. ridesharing, encouraging the use of alternate modes of travel, — This makes the ratios appear as though less land is available and coordinated land-use and transportation policies,could for parks and recreation than really exists. mean that right-of-way and transportation use ratios will hold The explosive growth in single-family homes also had an steady even if population increases. interesting effect on the use of public parks.Most suburban — homeowners have their own private front and back yards. Words of Caution This explains,in part,why suburbs will typically have a It is not recommended that these ratios be used as urban lower percentage of land in the parks category.Manassas, land-use models. Any city predicting its future land-use Virginia,an outlying suburb of Washington,D.C.,has only requirements solely on the ratios of other cites could be — 1 percent of its land as parks while in St. Paul,Minnesota, seriously misguided. Every city has different factors this use covers 12 percent of the developed land. affecting its land-use distribution. Instead of considering these numbers rules of thumb,consider them examples of — Institutional Uses land-use ratios that exist in cities today.Look closely at The percentage of land occupied by institutional uses has what factors affect your own city's land use before increased slightly in the last 50 years.The Bartholomew comparing your ratios to these data. study indicated that central and satellite cities had about 10 — percent of their land devoted to institutional uses.The 1983 The PAS Memo is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory survey showed that the ratio of institutional uses in small Service,a subscription research service of the American Planning Association: Israel Stollman,Executive Director;Frank S.So,Deputy Executive Director. towns was 13 percent.No averages were calculated for this study.However,the data do not differ drastically from the The PAS Memo is produced by APA staff in Chicago.Research and — writing by Research Department staff:Marya Morris,Editor.Production Earlier studies. by Publications Department staff:Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor; Large cities typically will have higher institutional land- Dennis McClendon,Design Director. use ratios.Uses such as hospitals,churches,schools,and Copyright 01992 by American Planning Association, 1313 E.60th St.,Chicago.IL government buildings are all directl related to the 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 — y Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. population;as the number of people grow,so will the acreage All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any of these institutional lands. Other institutional uses are not so form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording. clear cut:state capitol grounds,museums,civic centers,and or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing — from the American Planning Association. colleges and universities are all uses that serve a regional Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber market and are therefore more common in large cities. and 10%postconsumer waste. 4 — �� rz (11 f ` • \`NpTi S. , \ _ Retail Report", Market Overview \ R All of the reported Still, the Twin Cities metro area is con- — =yam statistical successes of the sidered an attractive market to national ........1/4 :' �� Mall of America after its second full year of chains. Several retailers are planning to enter r \ 1 r`i operation are impressive.The 35 to 40 million the market in 1995, including Office Depot, f1 „ — visitors, $650 to $700 million in total dollars Home Place, Media Play and Petsmart. 7-tjs t spent, and even an estimated 6% of its cus- Daytons has purchased the eight closing T+�\�� j \, L t� tomer base made up of tourists coming from Carsons stores and will open new Mervyn's \ N_ 11 --' outside the United States,are impressive fig- stores in seven, and expand its Daytons lt .1/4` --17,7....A, ures. The problem is that despite all of the Department store in one. All of these retail- r \ r}: optimistic news being reported by Mall of ers are entering markets where competing America officials on its success and the posi- stores are already established. Development �� `i tie influence it has on the Twin Cities econ- of new restaurants is increasing throughout . \\ 1j '\� omy, the true impact on the local retail mar- the Twin Cities as well — `- -- ket is very difficult to measure. The desirability of community center �� -11 ‘;k; -�_ One aspect of the Mall of America's space still runs high, and is reflected in both If7 r� impact is very evident; it has focused the the new construction which took place in 1 - T attention of almost every expanding retailer 1994,and the proposed new developments for - ` � `�' in the United States r 1995. Two new corn- 1 .Z.\% �4j`\\. N\1 on the Twin Cities munity centers were :1 ;'1 Before the _ developed in late 1994 N *��~ 1, ..r--..7,--A- market. ;1 Mall of America along the I-494 strip \ ``- '- - opened in 1992, the . ii,f4WsI and one community `��A -�\ Twin Cities metro 1 - center added a second \- ,`�, area was considered - -•1 �3' 0 '__,_____,�_ phase in Woodbury. __J�' an under-retailed _ - - — . --1,�. In addition, nine pro- �. ��• market with a strong posed community cen- • ti' ��- 0 ,,;„ ; economic base. ,� ters could break � /�-� � T� A roximatel two r Ir r �•,+ PP Y ground in 1995. �� ,, i ,�ti ,, — and one-half years For other retail stares• 1win �� later, six Circuit center types, the pace - !.-.tea 1:3995 one City's, three Sport- M"'r''` of development is k `�•1 1!leue�s Bas ent.k -'.-' marts,two Computer modest with four ° \ 1 &�9 four of its Bac,, f: City's, two Comp USAs, eight Barnes and neighborhood centers (30,000 sq. ft. or larg- j loca$e!s. N' ,..- City's, Nobles,four Filene's Basements along with a er) proposed in the Twin Cities, and a pro- `� 1'� �\ ''_ handful of other smaller retailers have posed regional center in Maple Grove. \0\ *More col m eaters `•\ sprouted throughout the metro area. Some of Despite all of the growth in discount- 16- .-- sprouted a )ml ou these retailers, particularly Circuit City, oriented retail in the suburbs, some urban �i � syy 4� .d• i- Sportmart and Barnes and Noble,are contin- retail centers have not fared as well. Sears r ' " • �,.� \ pre6o61e to treppe.;f 49s: — uing to look for new sites in the Twin Cities. announced the closing of its 1909 flagship „ i �` J �� iI i As some retailers may attest, the Twin store in Minneapolis, due to poor \ Cities metro area may no longer be under performance in recent years. Owners of ',The l v ��e `` _ for all mult'rfenaat retail" ozif ,-7: demand. This is reflected in the — increasing sale prices. Sale prices COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT per sq. ft. in 1994 ranged from $8.36 1985-1994, AND PROPOSED FOR 1995 for the Skywood Mall,to$103.31 for MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA — p the Sonthporte Centre. (See Page 27 for a list of transactions). Community Center Development Accounted for 60%of total retail center ' The downtown Minneapolis development over the past decade ®lowteRed Nth Cmgmr+ =isz2,250,000 ` retail market is relatively healthy '2,012,435 with good occupancy in both 2,000,000 I. Gaviidae Centers, City Center andProposed 1995-3,000,000+ the Crystal Court. Approximately uWi 1,750,000 — 28 retailers came to downtown W 1,500,000 Minneapolis in 1994. Many were 1,250,000 skyway related, but some notable Q 9ns9s — retailers include Barnes and Noble, 1,000,000 Aveda and the Thomas James t�11 750,000 6SI,t85 521,286 559,000 Gallery. The downtown St. Paul 445,149 381 150 retail market is losingground and is 500,000 — .' 185,326 r 130,256 ' ' ' 98,258 mainly servicing downtown workers. 250,000 Overall, the Twin Cities retail 0al al market improved over the past year, 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 — reporting an annual net absorption '9 community centers contoing over 2 million sq.Acome on line in 1990 ..--.2‘ of approximately 575,000 sq. ft., and -z::-, a decline in the vacancyrate by0.8 as four neighborhood retail center and anchored by Byerly s. Also — , percentage points to 8.0%. The cur- developments are currently pro- proposed is a 7,000 sq. ft. Kinko's rent vacancy rate for all multi-tenant posed or under construction. Copy Center and 35,000 sq. ft. of retail space is the lowest level since Carlson Real Estate is constructing shopping space. `' 1989, which is impressive consider a P the 56,000 sq. ft. Rosemount Market A new center of approximately =• ing approximately 10 million sq. ft. Square anchored by a Jubilee gro- 60,000 sq. ft. is proposed in Y - has been added to the multi-tenant cery store near the intersection of Minnetonka. This center will proba- =s retail base over the past six years. In County Road 42 and Chippendale bly be anchored by a Circuit City — addition, an estimated three to four Avenue in Rosemount. and an Office Depot. -; million sq. ft. of free standing, "big T.F. James is currently develop- Approximately 31,000 sq. ft. of box" retail space has been Bevel- ing a retail complex in Chanhassen free standing retail tenant buildings 7. oped over the same time period. near Kerber Boulevard and West are planned for construction in out- .. 78th Street. Phase One is complete lots at the Roseville Crossings Neighborhood Centers The neighborhood center retail ;. 4`'_ s - - -" ,; market in the Twin Cities is showing ?�� ,_ 1 - continued signs of improvement. - {�/ = I, For the third consecutive year,it has • — -- reported strong absorption levels - and decreasing vacancy rates.Part of wL1 kPOUS this tightening in the market can be " attributed to a lack of recent devel- = ; ..% 1 opment. Still, the current vacancy cow LAE-: ..; rate of 8.9% is the lowest level since -• y • ` 1987 and the market has steadily . . , • - :'; — f tightened from the peak vacancy 14••. a ` r'. . .- s ` .-• ' level of 13.3% in 1992. In the past -+;� ' ; ' - three years, the neighborhood cen- �i' - ter market has absorbed over 1 mil t .• .•� ., lion sq. ft.. N t - /_ 1 -._ ' The general improvement in the• _ market has stimulated new growth Park Place Plaza,proposed Community Center,St.Louis Pork TOWLE 24 1 Center at County Road C and - Snelling Avenue in Roseville. VACANCY AND ABSORPTION The Spruce Tree Center located MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA • FIRST QUARTER 1993 - 1995 in the Midway area of St. Paul was purchased in 1994 and now is being Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net - Market Sector Date Centers Leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption marketed almost entirely as office ANOKA COUNTY space. This center has been Neighborhood 1993 20 1,616,786 182,792 11.3% 174,595 _ removed from our survey. 1994 20 1,564,102 160,841 10.3% (30,733) Neighborhood center owners 1995 20 1,590,384 119,571 7.5% 67,552 have been attempting to control (immunity 1993 7 1,314,448 85,498 6.5% 29,878 operating costs in recent years by 1994 7 1,305,263 80,869 6.2% (4,556) - reducing amounts of common areas 1995 7 1,296,940 156,646 12.1% (84,100) in centers and reconfiguring centersWood 1993 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 4,000 .�: 1994 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 0 with interior mall space. The aver- 1995 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 0 '-4; - age CAM cost for neighborhood sped* N/A space for first quarter 1995 equaled Total 1993 28 3,742,234 284,290 7.6% 208,473 •' $1.56 per sq. ft., a 9.3% reduction 1994 28 3,680,365 257,710 7.0% (35,289) from 1994. It is also 17.9% lower 1995 28 3,698,324 292,217 7.9% (16,548) - than the average level in 1992. DAKOTA COUNTY Neighborhood 1993 37 2,328,280 310,962 13.4% 167,465 CommunityCenters 1994 37 2,310,912 267,912 11.6% 25,682 1995 37 2,325,912 269,922 11.6% 12,990 .. - Community centers and power Community 1993 13 2,521,812 260,100 10.3% (56,418) `. centers have been the dominant 1994 13 2,516,565 232,328 9.2% 22,525 development story in the Twin 1995 13 2,513,812 184,160 7.3% 45,415 Cities over the past five years. Regional 1993 2 1,600,000 46,000 2.9% 32,000 Approximately 18 centers contain 1994 2 1,714,343 25,000 1.5% 135,343 1995 2 1,664,343 56,000 3.4% (31,000) ing over 4 million sq. ft. have been sway N/A _ developed over the past five years. Total 1993 52 6,450,092 617,062 9.6% 143,047 This equates to an approximate 51% 1994 52 6,541,820 525,240 8.0% 183,550 increase in the total community cen- 1995 52 6,504,067 510,082 7.8% 21,405 ter universe of the Twin Cities. The MINNEAPOUS - tendency towards the community,or Neighborhood 1993 1 381,141 23,166 6.1% 1,162 power center, style of development 1994 7 381,141 24,966 6.6% (1,800) -" 1 is due to the value,convenience and 1995 8 438,141 22,907 5.2% 59,059 Community 1993 2 311,938 39,082 12.5% 37,070 volume-oriented retailers emerging 1994 2 311,938 55,073 17.7% (15,991) in the market in recent years. 1995 2 311,938 38,700 12.4% 16,373 In 1994, two new community tegiosd 1993 3 796,516 313,000 39.3% (156,945) centers were developed, and one 1994 3 802,875 49,000 6.1% 270,359 - community center's second phase 1995 3 804,645 68,000 8.5% (17,230) was completed. Specialty 1993 6 787,544 187,941 23.9% 108,594 The Robert C. Muir Company 1994 6 787,544 267,111 33.9% (79,116) • 1995 5 701,946 257,500 36.7% 3,817 - completed the second phase of its Total 1993 18 2,277,139 563,189 24.7% (10,119) Woodbury Village Center at the 1994 18 2,283,498 396,156 17.3% 173,392 Northeast quadrant of Valley Creek 1995 18 2,256,670 387,107 17.2% 62,019 Road and I-494. This second phase a Towle Real Estate Company totaled 117,000 sq. ft. and is anchored by Best Buy. 100,000 sq. ft. of multi-tenant retail Place and Office Depot. It also has CSM Corporation completed with Petsmart as a potential anchor. a remaining bay of 26,000 sq. ft. - the first phase of the Shops of Homart completed the Circuit available. Landale at the Northeast quadrant City Center located at the In looking ahead to 1995, the of I-35W and I-494 in Richfield. Northwest quadrant of France total amount of proposed communi- - This first phase includes Best Buy, Avenue and I-494 in Bloomington. ty center development is staggering Sportmart and Comp USA, and This center totals 136,150 sq. ft. and with approximately 13 centers totals 128,000 sq. ft.. Phase two is is anchored by Circuit City, Home potentially breaking ground. Of . planned to contain approximately TOWLE FEAT E57.4'! 11 25 "1 ... 4.• \ Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net these proposals, nine centers with a Market Sector Date Centers Leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption proposed 3,000,000 sq.ft.are consid- NORTHEAST ered probable to happen in 1995. Neighborhood 1993 29 1,962,033 331,543 17.2% 42,942 (See Proposed Community Centers 1994 29 2,061,740 304,972 14.8% 132,278 chart on page 28). 1995 29 2,036,425 239,475 11.8% 40,182 The significant number of new Community 1993 6 1,229,803 104,000 8.5% 57,866 retailers entering the Twin Cities - 1994 6 1,229,803 33,046 2.7% 70,954 market, and the additional competi- 1995 6 1,229,803 83,600 6.8% (50,554) Regional 1993 4 2,859,625 250,071 8.7% 131,471 tion they bring with them, increases 1994 4 2,879,625 211,057 7.3% 59,014 the potential for shake out of retail _ 1995 4 2,843,477 211,210 7.4% (36,301) tenants and increased vacancies in Specialty N/A community centers. The recent clos- Total 1993 39 6,051,461 691,614 11.4% 232,219 ing of four Filene's Basement stores 1994 39 6,171,168 544,075 8.9% 262,246 and the sale of the Carson's stores to 1995 39 6,109,105 534,285 6.7% (46,673) Mervyn's are examples of that. NORTHWEST However, the vacancies from •: Neighborhood 1993 19 1,488,663 155,650 10.5% 22,544 Filene's leaving the market were 1994 20 1,508,239 182,855 13.1%2 (445, 4)07 quickly absorbed byexistingretail- • 1995 20 1,494,704 182,855 12.2% 5,401 q y Community 1993 7 1,350,842 33,580 2.5% 13,945 ers (Marshall's and Linens N' 1994 1 1,351,096 90,685 6.7% (56,851) Things) looking for good locations. 1995 7 1,489,021 114,463 7.7% 114,141 This quick absorption of anchor - Regional 1993 I 925,000 10,000 1.1% 17,750 spaces may not be repeated as quick- 1994 1 925,000 25,000 2.7% (15,000) ly in the future if the Twin Cities 1995 1 925,000 20,000 2.2% 5,000 retail market reaches a saturation - Specialty N/A Total 1993 27 3,764,505 199,230 5.3% 54,239 level and national attention on the 1994 28 3,784,335 312,774 8.3% (116,025) local market wains. 1995 28 3,908,725 317,318 8.1% 124,554 _ SOUTHWEST Neighborhood 1993 28 1,801,473 84,348 4.7% 145,030 1994 28 1,800,654 99,651 5.5% (16,128) .,•.,..0". 1995 27 1,787,465 64,137 3.6% 22,331 W= , - • Community 1993 5 804,826 74,364 9.2% (5,424) ,_ - 1994 5 805,066 34,989 4.3% 39,615 2 _ W , --Li.---,- 1995 7 1,075,386 69,626 6.5% 235,683 - Regional 1993 4 5,550,221 362,560 6.5% 2,441,639 _• � 1994 4 5,550,221 415,560 8.6% (113,000) 1995 4 5,350,522 200,560 3.7% 75,301 Specialty 1993 1 417,784 15,201 18.0% 0 Westwind Plaza,Minnetonka 1994 1 417,784 62,200 14.9% 13,001 1995 1 417,784 75,201 18.0% (13,001) Total 1993 38 8,574,304 596,473 7.0% 2,587,245 1994 38 8,573,725 672,406 7.8% (16,512) Regional Centers - 1995 39 8,631,157 409,524 4.7% 320,314 Little change occurred in the ST.PAUL regional center market over the past Neighborhood 1993 10 620,195 110,232 17.8% 45,946 year with approximately 25,000 sq. 1994 11 617,759 73,906 12.0% 33,890 ft. of absorption and a decline in - 995 10 534,214 52,324 9.8% (4,063) vacancy rate of 1.7 percentage points ( Community 1993 4 823,929 123,245 15.0% 29,200 1994 4 882,935 100,880 11.4% 81,311 to 5.2%. No new space was added 1995 4 891,929 76,288 8.6% 33,586 in 1994. - Regional 1993 2 363,000 181,000 49.9% (121,000) The Mall of America, which has • 1994 2 363,062 180,000 49.6% 1,062 been dominating the retail news in .4 1995 2 359,150 145,344 40.5% 30,744 the Twin Cities market over the past Specialty 1993 5 261,535 27,048 10.3% 3,022 several years, has reportedly had a - 1994 5 262,650 22,580 8.6% 5,583 1995 5 262,650 25,976 9.9% (3,396) successful second full year in opera- Total 1993 21 2,068,659 441,525 21.3% (42,8321 tion meeting and/or exceeding 1994 22 2,126,406 371,366 11.1% 121,906 expectations so far. Its occupancy - 1995 21 2,047,943 299,932 14.6% 56,871 level has reportedly reached 95%, ©Towle Reol Estate Company TOWLE - REAL ESTATE - - 26 T ,\ - and its impact on the local hotel Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net market has been very positive. Of Market Sector Date Centers Leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption - the tenants located in the Mall of WASHINGTON COUNTY America, the restaurant and enter- Neighborhood 1993 7 466,065 72,782 15.6% (11,4680 tainment oriented businesses appear 1994 1 466,065 61,832 13.3% 10,950 ;'; to be doing best. While three of the 1995 7 466,065 45,664 9.8% 16,168 four anchor tenants reportedly are Community 1993 9 1,808,509 130,247 7.2% 649,800 satisfied with sales,Bloomingdales is 1994 10 1,892,052 176,209 9.3% 37,581 1995 11 2,006,452 226,506 11.3% 64,103 rumored to be looking for a replace- Regional N/A :'f ment anchor to sublease its space. Specialty N/A A new regional shopping center Total 1993 16 2,274,574 203,029 8.9% 638,332 development has become a possibil- 1994 17 2,358,117 238,041 10.1% 48,531 - ity in Maple Grove. Two sites have 1995 18 2,472,517 272,170 11.0% 80,271 '` been named as potential regional WEST t mall locations. The first proposed Neighborhood 1993 30 1,668,588 91,196 5.5% 53,022 1-'- site is a 100-acre site located at the - 1994 31 1,734,416 91,503 5.3% 65,521 southeast quadrant of 1-94 and the 1995 31 1,677,732 100,052 6.0% (31,583) Community 1993 7 1,063,548 38,839 3.1% (4,276) planned Highway 610. Rouse 1994 7 1,063,548 68,711 6.5% (29,872) Company, which owns Ridgedale 1995 7 1,063,548 67,757 6.4% 954 - Center, would be the developer of Regional 1993 2 1,654,000 32,425 2.0% (11,699) F. this site. The second site is at the 1994 2 1,670,000 32,300 1.9% 16,125 northwest quadrant of I-694 and 1995 2 1,670,000 32,000 1.9% 300 Highway 169. This site consists of Specialty N/A - 2.000 total acres of gravel mining Total 1993 39 4,386,136 162,460 3.7% 37,047 1994 40 4,461,964 192,514 4.3% 51,774 land held by a consortium of owners. 1995 40 4,411,280 199,809 4.5% (30,3291 Potential anchors for a new regional : METROPOLITAN TOTAL center include Daytons, Sears, Neighborhood 1993 187 12,333,224 1,368,671 11.1% 641,238 Macy's and Nordstrom's. Each pro- 1994 190 12,445,028 1,282,678 10.3% 175,486 posal is only in the talking stages, 1995 189 12,351,042 1,096,907 8.9% 188,043 - and either would likely take three or Community 1993 60 11,229,655 888,955 7.9% 751,641 more years to complete. 1994 61 11,358,266 872,790 1.7% 144,776 Carson Pirie Scott's vacated 1995 64 11,878,829 1,011,746 8.6% 375,607 Regional 1993 19 14,559,362 1,211,056 8.3% 2,343,216 ;. anchor space at Knollwood Mall in 1994 19 14,716,126 1,013,917 6.9% 353,903 St. Louis Park has been demolished 1995 19 14,428,137 749,114 5.2% 26,814 and a new Kohl's Department store Specialty 1993 12 1,466,863 290,190 19.8% 111,616 is being developed in its place. 1994 12 1,467,978 351,897 24.0% (60,592) - 199S 11 1,382,380 358,677 25.9% (12,580) ' Total 1993 278 39,589,104 3,758,872 9.5% 3,847,711 RETAIL CENTERS SOLD IN 1994 1994 282 39,987,398 3,521,282 8.8% 613,573 1995 283 40,040,388 3,222,444 8.0% 577,884 • MINNEAPOLIS/ST.PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA ©Towle Real Estate Company Price Sale Property Name Per sq.ft. Date Kohl's is also adding new stores in signed Barnes and Noble as a 44,000 Southporte Centre 5103.31 1/94 Eden Prairie Center, Maple sq. ft. anchor. This center's owners, , Westwind Plaza $85.35 11/94 Grove, Southtown Center, Eagan, Bradley Real Estate Trust, recently Mapleridge 580.62 10/94 and is expanding its store at completed a $1 million renovation Maplewood Mall. and repositioning of the center. - Knollwood Village 557.00 9/94 Owners of Brookdale Shopping Though claiming its first two Birch Run Station 546.98 4/94 Center are still attempting to sell, years of operation a success, the Town And Country Square S21.46 7/94 and the operating covenants with Mall of America is appealing its Century Hills Shopping Or. 517.91 2/94 the center's anchor tenants expiring assessed market value of $378 mil- Valley Creek Mall 517.16 9/94 in 1995 will remove the major obsta- lion. The largest and costliest real Falcon Crossing S10.31 7/94 cies hindering a sale. New owner- estate development (approximate St.Anthony Main IV 58.95 5/94 ship of this aging regional mall $700 million development cost) in Skywood Mall 58.36 2/94 would likely bring a renovation. Minnesota will also be its largest c©Towle Real Estate Company Har Mar Mall in Roseville has property tax dispute. Other regional _a TOWLE ® REAL ESTATE 27 �:••-•4 — malls are appealing there property PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTERS (1995 AND 1996) tax levels as well. Rosedale Center won the first round of its case in MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA — 1994, but the decision was appealed Breaking Possible Size Center Ground to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Development Name City Anchor(s) (sq.ft.) Type Probable In Southdale Center is also disputing — its assessed value. It will most likely (entre Pointe Roseville Office Depot 400,000 C 1995 take months, or even years, to Fontana Square YodnaisHeights Target 260,000 ( 1995 resolve these cases. Hartford Place Eden Prairie Mervyn's,Office Depot 165,000 ( 1995 Maple Grove Power Center Maple Grove Kohl's,Gander Mountain 260,000 ( 1995 — Midway Marketplace St.Paul Wart, 485,000 C 1995 Specialty Centers Specialty centers in the Twin Northtown Village Blaine Sportmart,Media Play 175,000 C 1995 Park Place Plaza St.Louis Park Rainbow 420,000 ( 1995 _ Cities metro area are gradually Roseville Crossings Roseville TBA 31,369 N 1995 becoming a thing of the past as more Shops of Tyndale II Richfield Petsrnart 100,000 C 1995 existing centers reposition space. TamarakVillage Woodbury Cub Foods 750,000 C 1995 Specialty centers are typically asso Eagan Promenade �°,Home Eagan Depot,B e dated with upscale retail, which has g Y dY's,Mervyn's 416,000 C 1996 struggled in recent years. Inver Grove Center Inver Grove Heights TBA 300,000 C 1996 Maplewood Power Center Maplewood Cub Foods 215,000 C 1996 Riverplace in Minneapolis closed its Ryan Center Brooklyn Park Home Depot 400,000 ( 1996 Mississippi Live entertainment corn- The Quarry Minneapolis Rainbow 430,000 ( 1996 plex and is now renovating its space Total proposed retail space=4,807,369 sq.ft. for office use. The Conservatory in Center Types: (=Community Center N=Neighborhood(enter ©Towle Real Estate Company downtown Minneapolis was pur- — chased in 1994 and will likely be performed well. The current vacan- Market Outlook repositioned in 1995 due to histori- cy rate for specialty centers equals cally poor performance. Other cen- 25 9%, and negative annual — ters which have repositioned special- The primary story for the ty space in recent years include absorption was reported for first Minneapolis/St.Paul retail market in quarter 1995. Bonaventure in Minnetonka. and 1995 will be development. The hot Upscale retailers had a rough Pavilion Place in Roseville. year in 1994. Established retailers property type in 1995 will once again — After removing Riverplace from such as Sims Clothiers and Mark be community centers,with over 4.8 our survey. 11 centers containing Cross closed their doors. Saks Fifth million sq. ft. currently proposed approximately 1.4 million sq. ft. of throughout the Twin Cities. The — Avenue and Neiman Marcus specialty retail space exist in the added clearance areas to their potential exists for a repeat of 1990 Twin Cities metro area. Of these Minneapolis stores. when over 2 million sq. ft. of multi- remaining specialty centers,only the tenant retail space came on line. _ Galleria in Edina has historically This was the largest retail develop- ment year in the past decade. ;,` • - excluding the completion of the Mall J__ i of America in 1992. The mass entrance of national dnt- retailers into the Twin Cities market - will continue in 1995. Possible new T .:.10.o ... _ retailers entering our market over j--- –_ • _ 4': b.'_ 1' .1.,+.�__. " • '- - •-- the next twelve months include . • "'4"T _ -•' ;oa•4 ' Home Depot, Home Quarters. T' - _tet_ , _ `' Pacific Linen, Bed, Bath and ` ;; _ _ ,,:.a_ 1/4 Beyond, Lil' Things, Kidsource and t I. .. ..- - '. ''s, _ Today's Man. .R.'!"'`� .. '� ; - • s r'rx - _ - . The majority of today's growing — • Q r , --e_ , A00- ? retailers are category killers". 1,. `t`'•,4 Extreme price-sensitive competition ` ,�; - ` \ will continue to grow in the retail — s market, possibly forcing out weaker Maple Grove Power Center,proposed Community Center,Maple Grave retailers. The national "category TOWLE REAL ESTATE .71 4 -g.:,..,. killer" chains have strong buying RENT AND EXPENSES — power, and operate on higher volume sales and lower profit mar- MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL METRO AREA- FIRST QUARTER 1995 gins. Local retailers will continue to Median Net Rent struggle in 1995. Center Type Low High Net Rent Range Avg.CAM Avg.Taxes Competition between larger Community 510.00 514.00 55.00-525.00 51.85 $2.86 "category killer" retailers will also Neighborhood $8.00 S11.00 51.50-520.00 51.56 S2.52 be fierce. Price wars between retail Specialty $12.00 S23.50 510.00.550.00 S6.30 $4.67 s — giants such as Best Buy and Circuit Regional $15.00 535.00 55.00•565.00 $6.57 $6.70 City, Comp USA and Computer O Towle Real Estate Company City, and Office Max and Office — Depot,may cause retail center casu- and I-35W, is a redevelopment pro- A growing disparity in property alties. Best Buy won its latest war in posal of aging industrial and corn- values between newer, national-ten- the Twin Cities with Highland mercial buildings into a modern ant anchored centers and older tra- _ Superstores,which was forced out of community retail facility. Ryan ditional strip centers anchored by the market in 1991. Companies is planning to redevelop local and regional tenants will occur While retail development con- the former Honeywell site in St. in 1995. Demand by investors and tinues to focus on the second and Louis Park. Proposals for redevel- lenders for prime retail property is — third-tier suburbs such as opment of the Sears Tower site on growing,pushing capitalization rates Woodbury, Maple Grove and Eden Lake Street in Minneapolis may sur- down. Prairie,redevelopment of inner-ring face in 1995 as well. Specialty retailing should con- _ suburbs and urban locations should Older centers will continue to tinue to succeed in isolated urban happen in 1995. The proposed renovate and remodel space in order areas such as the 50th and France Midway Marketplace development to stay competitive by minimizing area and Grand Avenue in St. Paul, located along University Avenue in common areas and upgrading exteri- as well as unique suburban locations — St. Paul would redevelop the old ors. Older existing retail centers' such as Downtown Wayzata. Look Montgomery Wards site. This largest competing advantage over for more specialty shopping centers 4 development proposal has been newer centers is rental levels. to rethink tenant mixes and uses in — hampered by environmental con- Controlling rising operating expens- 1995,minimizing their concentration Y cerns but should break ground in es is critical in order to maintain of upscale retailers. 1995. The Quarry site in healthy effective rental rates, and Plans for a new regional mall in — Minneapolis, near Johnson Avenue hold value. Maple Grove should become more concrete in 1995. The two proposals for this development are still in very =` VACANCY RATES preliminary stages. This project — FIRST QUARTER 1987 1995 most likely will not break ground until 1996,if at all. ®1orAeRed tslaleComply Look for stronger absorption of — 35% retail space over the next twelve months due to more retailers enter- 30% ing and expanding in the Twin — Cities.Vacancy rates will most likely Z25% rise with the potential for heavy t++ retail construction in 1995. V 20% — W a 15% 10% _ T- 5% 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 sMRE Specialty NNE Regional Neighborhood mu. Community • TOWLE REAL ESTAIE r.—.0f- 29 is Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. lin 11111 - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MEMORANDUM — To: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director From: Fred Hoisington, AICP, HKGi — Date: September 27, 1995 Subject: Ward Property, Villages on the Ponds INTRODUCTION Because of the complicated nature of this very large Planned Unit Development (PUD), Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) was asked to review the Villages on the Pond development proposal for 73 acres of land located south of Highway 5 and — on either side of Trunk Highway 101. The plan was reviewed by HKGi considering its relationship to downtown Chanhassen, the degree to which it fits the natural _ environment, the degree to which the plan meets application requirements, its consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, codes and ordinances and how the project might benefit the City, thus warranting the use of PUD as the appropriate _ application process. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The 73 acre parcel which is the subject of consideration is owned by the Wards. It extends from STH 5 to just south of Riley Creek. The site has approximately 70 feet _ of topographic change and includes both wetlands and trees. Much of the vegetation consists of young trees though there are some excellent stands of upland hardwoods generally located south and westerly on the site. The site is also partially — within the statutory shoreland area of Lake Susan. The PUD is proposed to be mixed-use including retail, office and residential. It is — intended to have a Village or "New Urbanism" motif with generally smaller buildings setting near the street line and parking at the side or rear of structures, thus, creating a pedestrian friendly environment and a stronger and more appealing — connection with the street. The Village center (Parcel 1) is intended to have two larger buildings, comprising — 40,000 square feet. A restaurant and motel are intended to occupy Parcel 2. The plan calls for 247,000 square feet of retail floor area, 203,600 square feet of office floor area and 100 dwelling units. The plan also proposes open space in the vicinity of Riley — Creek and protection of the wooded and associated wetlands located just south of Highway 5. 7300 Metro Boulevard,Suite 525,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 — (612)835-9960 Fax(612)835-3160 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Generally, the proposed roadway alignments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The land use is not, thus, requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment if the project is to move forward. While the plan addresses access, it does not restrict access to Highway 101 to insure proper spacing. Areas of inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan include the substitution of retail development for office and industrial, the substitution of office for multi- family westerly of Great Plains Boulevard, an increase in residential density along the east side of the PUD and residential development in areas designated on the Comprehensive Plan for public open space. Proposed building heights also exceed zoning allowances. The PUD proposes anchors that are not architecturally in keeping with the Village Concept though it intends to have smaller buildings elsewhere which connote the Village Concept. These larger buildings are intended to be the traffic generators for Villages on the Ponds. The PUD in no way limits the use that can be made of commercial/retail sites. Virtually any use including free-standing fast food restaurants would be possible given the loose land use descriptions. The Plan calls for the elimination of existing Great Plains Boulevard though it fails to discuss how that vacation may be phased to accommodate site development. While the Plan attempts to provide access for the existing residences that are currently served by a private drive just to the east of the PUD, it does so in a manner which will be detrimental to the existing land form while providing relatively little access benefit to the residential area. The Plan proposes a rather significant intensity of office use in an area that has considerable relief and proposes residential development on the hill near the south boundary of the PUD which has slopes approaching 20 percent. This means that the hill, which was intended to be preserved as an open space element, would need to be destroyed to accommodate eight residential units. Unwanted access to the highway will also be necessary to serve these unintended residences. The Plan proposes a bridge across the existing wetland to accommodate the extension of Lake Drive East, a bridge which is not defined by the Plan as to its character and/or impact on the wetland. The Plan does not address required wetland setbacks per the City's Wetland Protection Ordinance nor does it address the intensity of use allowed by the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. The site may, in fact, contain wetlands that are not shown on the Site Analysis Wetlands Map. While the use of PUD is intended to provide some flexibility in these matters, the Plan fails to address the City's ever present concerns for shoreland management, wetland protection and stormwater management. Some land consuming, pretreatment of stormwater will be required. This need is not addressed in the concept plan. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 2 The application is deficient in a number of ways. It does not meet the following PUD District and Shoreland Ordinance requirements: 1. It does not demonstrate how it will preserve desirable site characteristics (trees, open space, wetlands, Riley Creek, Lake Susan or scenic views). It fails to protect the desired open space and the hill located near the south boundary of the PUD. It also does not illustrate a mass grading concept for land that will need to be substantially altered to accommodate the intensity of development proposed. — 2. It does not demonstrate sensible development in transitional areas, especially as it relates to the existing residential development lying easterly of the PUD. 3. It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described above. 4. It does not provide open space that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. It does not demonstrate how the PUD plan will offer the City higher quality architectural and site design, the protection of wetlands, creeks and mature _ trees and the buffering of adjoining properties. It provides no general description of vegetation types and character. 6. It does not address probable hard surface coverage per the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. 7. It does not stage and establish a time schedule for development. 8. It does not stage the construction of roadways considering the changes in — roadway configuration that are proposed for the PUD. 9. It provides too little description of land use intent especially the "Village — Concept." 10. It defines no benefits that will accrue to the City as a result of approving the — PUD other than an architectural style that is depicted photographically. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We very much like the Village Concept because it will have a distinct flavor that is _ unlike anything else that exists in the southwest corridor except perhaps the 50th and France commercial area. It has great potential to create a much more people friendly environment due to its compact nature and human scale. On the other — hand, its very core will not be consistent with the Village Concept suggesting that the theme will be in jeopardy from the beginning. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 3 — This is a very large and complicated PUD that has significant potential implications for the City of Chanhassen and downtown in particular in that it is intended to accommodate a great deal of competing retail space. The site contains wetlands, steep slopes and is partially situated within a shoreland area. We, therefore, do not believe a proposal that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan should have such frail documentation. Since the Plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City is in a position to require sufficient documentation to provide assurances that such project can and will be built, will be of sufficient benefit to the City to warrant the use of PUD, will not be detrimental to downtown and will be compatible with the natural environment and established land use patterns. These assurances have not yet been provided and in our opinion the City should not risk a change in public policy which could result in the duplication of things already existing in Chanhassen. Our concern is whether or not the Village Concept is viable for the City of Chanhassen given the immediate intent to violate it. Because so little information has been submitted to date, it is our opinion that the application is incomplete and, therefore, cannot be processed by the City. It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, would require an amendment for the project to move forward. It does not demonstrate that it is consistent either with the natural environment or downtown Chanhassen and it provides insufficient description of the concept and how it would be applied to the Ward property. Of significant concern is how such a development can be approved and full assurances provided that it will be built as proposed. What if the concept is not marketable but the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for the site to be developed commercially? What will have been gained by a change in public policy which would eliminate the potential for industrial and office and merely replace guided uses with duplicative retail development? The only way we can see this working, once the application is complete, will be to approve the PUD in concept but reguide and rezone only those parts which are defined as Phase I. In the event the concept fails to be viable, the changes in zoning and guide plan would revert to their current designations. Another major concern is the absence of benefit to the City of Chanhassen for using PUD. What does it get for providing increased flexibility to the developer? One thing that might be considered, assuming the City is happy with the treatment of wetlands, slopes, vegetation, etc., is the incorporation of a public transit element. An integrated park and ride lot or transit hub could provide significant benefit to _ the City warranting the use of PUD. The proponent will need to discuss viable concepts with Southwest Metro Transit Commission for providing such facilities. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 4 HKGi recommends that the application not be processed until such time as the application is fully complete. It should be understood that we are not asking for detail beyond that which the concept stage is intended to require. We must be able — to determine from the information provided whether we agree with the land use proposed and how it will impact and/or benefit or be sensitive to the site, the neighborhood and the community. The information provided does not facilitate — these understandings. In summary, the application is deficient in the following ways: 1. It is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not describe the benefits that will accrue to the City for amending the Comprehensive Plan. 2. It does not demonstrate sensible development in transitional areas, especially as it relates to the existing residential development lying easterly of the PUD. 3. It does not demonstrate that added retail is justified or how it will impact downtown Chanhassen. 4. The proposed large anchor buildings are not consistent with the purported Village Concept. _ 5. The Plan does not restrict land uses either by type or character. Guidelines describing the relationship between sites, buildings, parking and streets are only _ vaguely discussed. It does not address probable hard surface coverage per the Qty's Shoreland Management Ordinance. It provides too little description of land use intent especially the "Village Concept." _ 6. The Plan provides no rationale for increases in building height or density. 7. The Plan fails to restrict direct driveway access to Highway 101 to minimize traffic conflicts. 8. The Plan does not address the types, character and proposed treatment of vegetation on the site. 9. The Plan does not illustrate and/or discuss possible grading impacts. 10. The Plan does not address phasing either of land use or roadway — improvements. 11. The Plan does not address stormwater management and the probable impact — this may have on site development. 12. The Plan does not address the treatment or role of wetlands in the Plan _ concept. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 5 — 13. The Plan fails to illustrate how a development of such intensity is intended to protect the site's rich natural characteristics. 14. The Plan destroys some of the most important natural resources of the site (most notably the hill on the far south end of the Ward parcel). 15. The site may contain wetlands that are not shown on the proponents wetlands map. Some cursory investigation of the presence of other wetlands should be done as part of the concept stage. 16. The Plan is not consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study which discourages big box type developments. 17. The Plan does not address the benefits that may accrue to the City for using PUD. Though discussed with proponents, it does not address an integrated park and ride lot or transit hub which could provide significant benefit to the City warranting the use of PUD. 18. It does not demonstrate how the PUD plan will offer the City higher quality architectural and site design, the protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and the buffering of adjoining properties. It provides no general description of vegetation types and character. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 6 _ jrllto - , - .,�: r . _____ „ /// \ ' .a --+�•.•e--_,-,.;•-- -,- - { �r Retail CBD _ • 35.500 S.F. • 71:F:1:::: ---. - . i .: .. --.*:-...;----\-:.. ......., r :, -:,c, -.to* '.7. ,. .,, ,-_i,. . • • ry Retail( IIIIIIIIII/� 01 ' :; II, 1 • /)t '=�-e •a• It' • _Retail CBI)) , ? —,l.._/, t t //1111111 ,/e.� �� 3.2Ar.' — 1 33,500 S.F..+. C t iito. `—_T�� i / • '`.l `~\ `Retail c. , ,", ' •• .-.. _ -�—.1 1. 78.000 S.F... fill ? �" • ��I , 101,' •e' N1 f O o 9Q 1). \\ i , -,. Il • l • • II1I .,,i•e ••••-••� .T • •e . . .. , \\ _4..0 I •` ►Iih�: 1I -'lOP �, I • .. a " S • Otr� , _ik"""` • .; ~ � El5[Yt1t- r �1 ,•Open Space� � �I. tI „ StRcwcAl.inl + esiden i 2 Units •j -.1 v 2.5 Ac. - I /h Unite ”"' SUSIN •� Open Space I "j � �`•, �-- �-I I , * ., �---- ,lam' t, _ - � Site Analysis - Slopes in Excess of 10% Ward — 0 50 I. :00 Fete North Property B R W1 L 1 . L ,,,...,...... , , __,.._._,_._i__, 7._______ _____.„.....-,,,f •-f------- . ,..„, _, ____ , • r - // / ---.-_-:- L ,__ ..,,-/....--. - , ..,., ,....____ ,__,,......„.. ,. _ . ....„.._ ......,1,. ,,, ‘,.....„, . .....,......„. ,_ _,-- .._.-..„_- ......._:.,-, ,•S ,i‘; -7--.•.- --! -".iii'.7-'''.4.--' ---•---. . ,....__. . , ..:' -,-;'' ,.-• ' .:' .-".• '''ik‘t- •------ - - .... ,,- . . ,. . - ,... -. _______ L.. , • -0 L,.i . ..'Itet;i1 Ci, . • , --- . . - -Ir 4 - - L..-, --r- L, eytn---- ......--- -4,-F- --•••`!"-,...A.,7.-?.. -:.-------77,- el •- --•, L _. • 4- .., I • 11 ;•1', r7amswil‘ 1, ;7_t ,1:.-'1:, : — - ' ' • 35 Pd.'ji 44/ 1 . ,, .2.4 4 ''vf•,,.:*es.:ff/c.0 f.,i;0.';If ft .I 1 ''' ' ' • . • . i .. . .....re"r. '2#0000 : i t • . " I ' . .0 /i-.' 4. .. i L .......„. ..... .. . e /..1 -- -- - -- - ' 1 /- 0 -, . .• .r, :.. . -- .: ---: „i. • . A: _. Retail CRI) . • 1. • ,,,i' '-- :-...7:-._ . . -e,s,7 ,, • 9.5 Ac. •'.., ) • • wee* • ' c---------- -.-.t mo, 1 c ,.- es -2- ' 100.000 S.F., : 1,..te,;,,,ii,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,...1,::,:.:, .....,..--_1_ , • L _. i ..,. ..., , ..,„,,,,: .••....,_ „ _ 1 ' ! i.. \' '' . f I" •r ' r t , -• - . ,... • ir 3 3.501) A..". ....• ._ --- 1 .1 .- .. . ',4: ., ,i''. •-•=41-F--'-'5.. -.-'t_, . • . . • , • • • --'..."° - .- ,'.4 , c'-'--; ....-•.: • : ' 0 ,„,••,.., ,, . .../ dirAr•1 .•.-• • --s- • •%, .0•' - 4SS°.49',1..................... - • ....7 '4,4"' -' 0, - - .! ' -•': , L , , . . •,. • : . • o'Jr ..,, . •,,, • :'''•, . ,r "I .,th•• i. ,,.., ,.' ;),,. ' --, ''7-;''' ' • ' '' ' ...2fr'.1'.• .•. R 1 "I Cir'' l ir' rP4'' . -,.., _:----.....-..---, . c al .'' 4, ., ,0""&,•./. .-. -- .- e;.-_„. • / 04,-,0--' .. #.,' s t ' 7.4 Ac.• • '. / p. R-I2 • '(7'.5 '•'' -• • •• •' ' 7 o .-.,:,,,-..,'.I 444 7 -(X.,•t '.,,0„.• Residentia -- - :• L ...., - , of, ,‘' i„, # . • / . , I' •4,. ',:tf ' ' # • ' ." - '. ' 4..".4,. '-, . ,,' ' —- ,•',' L ''-/';',0.. -"k----;K.- -•'i-:. ',../ ' • - ' - - --- ' 0-4.2440.• -••.-- 4.0. .r•- .• ....- • ' r,/ :,r:n.:°:4•.;-" ::::::,.,......:re,,,/... /0 e ,e;oi:1-el:-i ,7641)Alc-i..-7, 0.4 -.: -,...-:,.:•..-•,..'.:_;. L • . '/' . ' • ''---- /.., - . . : ,., - • ,_•••.,. , , _____.. .....,._ • y , , . ••••••, ,, 3.5 Ac.7 -- / ,e7. 1 ., e L „......_.37,, . Z.., j •, 0 .—0 / ,,,*".12 -''' d!-Xn,/,44, y :: • gi -9,,10•&,,,,,-__ i - ----;s:''A‘'' .. ' "'...- I X.. . ;#1, ."•441 • 1 OA-- ;0/ / t• --,,,,,e,e, ov i ----„. ,,---• . - ;-......)44..el h.,row r•r. i l'-'''..... OY 41 / , ..1"2'''.. .• dielle'- 1 ' L ,,, Ii e.• 0 • .,,,,,.,..L•- / _ . 0:-,!•„ .,,, , I ' tf At/ . - 1 - ' 'f -.P•110111111: I'II.' ....•,-,,-..-,-,-I '''' "/..4;"°;'-'4.4".411(:7. f '--, I L AWE "Of*,,A..-/ ' 'Ay •4 Ii ,0 .,...s,. 17 VoliA4- 1 tj rele joo i;•.4p,,,,,I jo ii#1,. -, **". 1.4' • 4 d$I r ' es. 40 _ 1 •:, $;',i41;: 1 i it,//•••40.,.„ ,,, - I •f• .! Cr ...- z . i i'-' -I ./r.,/, iri,..1___ *.• - .'„/ L__ e).„ 0,,,,,,' /7.., ... - r,..„?...0...././.- -;...\ -‘4. . , 7 -.). .;. I__ ......_ _— " .7; : ,i../I,,7, —,.-4-. 7. .7---N,- '1. 1—''? 1 c q .- .--' '.`,' :.- -•-, ..- '\ •• \:. .. 1 1 i ... ''' •4-'' ...%,1 •:::/f,1C :1-( ''s)*.: '- j)---• 41)• ''' 71 1.*Ni 't ...e"',. N's• 4-1,------4' ----— --1 ef'..,:k"',.;.:,-•c., ,,,,- .t---r'_ i A l' I ; •• ....1'.1 - '''--r''''.-- "•• - 1 / ,.; ) - ,.. •-• -;/).r. i.,.; ,....: -___--7..-:.. ,-,-f. '"- - It ..-,,.-/ -.-_._-—--..- ) ;-----:..--- -.-..:_-_,,.-2.:";----__.-. .-- _,-.. .1 _ ..;;,,,......--;;;;-.. ';-,...,-___;,-:..7--::- --- - • vi:----- -s' • .,,- -;..-\ ,i .• (-- ,.--- 4.,-r.---.,--:--; - .-_-1----t•'-,..,, .1 'i ..- - -.- -ss,. . ‘'. .• - , (.____ • - Site Analysis - Vegetation Ward 7-1_77 , 0 50 100 NO I.. Norlh — r0141 dr,.........-..........4-WY ---- I I ; 1 ----4 I ______--,-,. , 1"C.,..,,-...--•----------. I / I -_•--7;:•"s--:_'::-17:-..-;?.'' '"41 _ . /• , / - 1,--• ', - ''' .." -----. ..;.• , 1 , • . , I # ------ i 7 • --:•-••"- --'•-•••r..x: r.'' • • ; ,--7 - ',....ni•ig;P:::.'s1. , .f• • ..- —='" •' .... )..!..24.-`,--r-- •----- . - -- . -- -,•" • ....--- 1 „.,-, ---- ---' '" " • ''E:,' I 1---'7---- •.-1- ,/1.`",10,,,,,„, -i-- •e-J: •t ._ _ ___.,,,_-_!....-_-_:--. ;.,_ ..,. . .. n'.!:- ',1 i k......_.4:", .1 ''''.-6 - ,.i'...-":''....._''--..->...r"- --j-t-7- L . -..... . . Z-•'•;*Retail CBE) 1 ---_, , - ••- I.., i -.L._•.,71111,-,-------c.r..--iti.•••-•--- -- .---.-.':-..t.r:::-'<:-.-•,... ' •"- , •-.1.- • : 1 .n,. • c_-______L- .:,.....,............----7.,.,::•..-.:.:.:,:i.:::z.::::,..•:Vii ::::'''' •3.4A .- .., •• • - 1 .., -‘,.. J, - ar- .:Mark0.::::WA:t., •, 35.500 S.F._. ' ‘,i. . • I. t...4- 1 I • 1.).,, i.1, - :__ --`,. - i ' 1411.4,0ki:eilh:•.‘ . , • . ' ,. , \ ,:m:::::iiii:, : .,. • .. ...,.....,„•:: _;;;;,,.../.-'441, -- • - ...1. --.1 ' '...-.:: ' '''''.. --- - --- fi• • •••• _ _...- -__, -...:••• .., ,....\. ! •. • I • ... ''' -•• ,',,,ii 4 _. •. ' !,Rellil CBD ' ..."'" _ .„ • 4..:t k•-.. .r.;-- . (.`, . ‘ .. ' ' 4,:',... :" I_. . ‘,...4 •:...t„,.-,..,,, ,• ' J.:1AC. -'..,• o•.• , •„--,.___ .i - 'so. 3:1 z- ,..' 100,()00 S.F., • --- .... • ‘, .--: 6 ;1,. l'...'',..::---- ' --' , 411. Retail C111)- 1',...7.; h.„ A .- , , -.. i • ' j ' - .-7:..-..,.-_:-_- : ". 1 , -: • A fl, .. ;_ • .• . • •, ' -•.' , --.,-- /• • 'rc,:- '•; , '• k_ 41 ..- '.' ' ‘111 _.,:. :,...-•-] . el' ' • . . ,. •v _ • _ . ,. . : , . , • r \.., ..,... .._ ,:....,„___, : _ .,. .. ., ,_„., .„_:,.: ,. .. . 7.4 Ac. • 1 . ,. ,...-' . ; I. n • . •;','..;?- ::. •:,,i::::i:K•i•i•i,. • . R-12 . - • • — ,,.. _ ':. • •••.;-•.Z.-:c;•'‘. ••••••••sii'N'", 78,01/0 S.1... ' ! • . -‘,. . -.::::::::: n _Resideliti:0 --...1•- --, ••.: • . . .. •7" .K.,,,,,,.. , __ _._ _.._ ; ___;,;......,...,..i... -- _ ,,,,,..,I. . •' • • 7.4 At: -' _ i- . r-.- •\... ... ' -•,- 10P 7,-, .•s :. "Z:FL7 .•• ' 90 D.U.: • • • - * •' • • ; --:, -, 1..'.1,.- ` 1 ,,,'N, - ;• • N.1 :.i.3.5 Ac. : ,,,,,, . . , •• , a •. : '--,-,.."-• . .., . -,__I ;50,800 S.F. . • . • ... —, • .....,..,.- • ,4 • ..- ,... r -, .,'• ",' , I '.- s'-'\ -----. "-.. ‘• * "-. •• ;:ktik's,• • ; ,:; . ,....,-,..-- . ''''-•- - . ' ' .' • 4i. 101' / • ) : ,-. - ••-•.' ••-- ------!. '''''.---_.-,. '' - - - . n - •.,- d ,, • • _• --.,-;;"-- - • . i :-;-:-7' • - ':,41; ,k, 1:71) ••:f,,,••• ()Rice it - • , , ,••• .„ .. - ;?, • . -s*....,, .,.• • • ',. 4.0 Ac. ,,,,, a . "-L':'..- • _ ,•• ____________.___I ____,:,,..„•:;,:i ' , , ;',, lop 1, , -- ...; .57,400 S.F.,-;;., ••,,,,. ea. --- — , • • • ..----... -• -,..' ,CASEOANT 'Ilkw i • d" 7-'-'''..f7.> °nice -..• -,:.•----1•-- ••••-::•••"11;k117111.7:''.• .... ...,.... ."--••••-L4!•,„ . 6.6 Ac. ':t'•:_./..,-; ';',..,•,;,,,:;.••,',., • 'i•-",-. -,•::Viilraii:::::•...:: • _ip ,„-••.. 4:w. .. ............., 1 -.7•••'..95,400 S 1.. ,; i - --,1- _ • . •••• . ...1.:1:14Zirf:ii:i:: : iii::iiE::: I ',,,0 f.:- -' , ' : f n•':::. .;I' ! •44....,:Nitlill: RIER' "-.. ) I .... 1 \.%.\'. ' .---- ', 0 . ''' . 1 '"'..'•:t:.N.F••••,' a:!.ii550V-Jiii .iNiiigki -,...,. I _IV,-- ...::::TZT ""''' ''''•14.‘A •i:::::i:iiid.V•k.!ii:::t MEN ,,e. mg,-0 1 •• V iNIAO.:::x,:•:":... :, ii::iikffii',: - L ALT 'LI.'....•e e••' ' • ,c,-, A-- r *,... 4:*,..::1•:::'..:4,...:•%•,•••,..•:''...:s.ii:: :.*:.:.:.:.:.:,.:.,..... , I It 1.1 Ac. ,,1 ...."'::.... meSifienlial :,-.44::::•:::::::::::.:4:.:K::. .1.0M 2 l'ilit, .., 2.5 Ac. •• agib::::NM Png , ' , • I . 1 , ,\litillitc ' Iiiiiikagf!": ''''.T.•!':*"': ' iL - P"" / • \\k-',_•'- '•• Migneinii diEN ''''''-j ; II t ' ' ' '`.•‘‘'.$-:;-.:.r-- :::::i;:iR:::iin::0:i:::: W;:i:r.:Z: -....1 L _ / , , - _..... .... ..--,•••• ::::,:::::::::::::::::d ,•-•.- -I ------- -----r.--::. ., ,1 _... ,..,, ...... 7,_„....., _ ...., _ . ••., ,, ,:,. .:,:.:•. •::::rr::::•:;•',::....."- _ - t ---r - - re-7.9...,..-..-:- . -v ,--- ---,..._:-; IMEME:i:RK:: -- ill 1t. - 71"•:s.` -1 's : -\ ‘. ' • .' ' •%PiNgiiRi; :ii=,.....- • '','1 • --%' 7 i'" • **••• 1/4': N.. .. , (*),.(.7;•'":.-j.. .-/. .••••_ , ,,, I : , .1 . ••-..3* .:. , •-! / ; '- •• ••• •:-"-- ','%'. •_',, , ;4))''.• /,. ; '•,• • - I ..c: :"--------y. ../ !,.....•.' - '',..:......7., ...7.:::,--71---*,....-: -..."'•4-r-Lt.,•s. ,....• iii.V.f'71'. --, .:::',„/ 6 '.--., ,...".":"::';'•'.-'-'. /:::: 'N.' .! . \ if . . . -- • .e,6•!..--'."; .- _:„..;;,-.A..-?,.- ..:„.-,..-..:' ,1 I 1 '..: 'e I.1 '• c",... /7. -.r:.---.5-... ..(........ -,-...,1. , 'I i , - 3.- .....-,:_i______ -1-_-' • ., -• •-- • --/ Site Analysis - Wetlands Ward rir7 -r. - .... . 911 I. 214 Feet N.A. Pronertv InTm VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Chanhassen, MN CITY OF CHANHASSF RECEIVFE N OCT 9 1995 CMAN1. CIv rr-wnr1ivu UtPT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Proposed Amendment to Comprehensive Plan 2. Villages on the Ponds, the PUD 3. Advantages of Proposed Development Over Currently Guided Designation and Benefits From the Use of the PUD Concept 4. Compliance with PUD Standards 5. General Concept Plan Requirements — Amending the Comprehensive Plan ■ Forward ■ 1991 Plan ■ 1995 Amendment ■ Planning Commission Minutes ■ Comments ■ Summary ■ Exhibits FORWARD The application submitted by Lotus Realty Services, Inc., on behalf of the owners, John H., Mary E, Austin T. and William J. Ward, is for approval of a Planned Unit Development on what is — commonly called "The Ward Property". We are also applying for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A brief narrative accompanied our formal application. A more complete description of the concept of the PUD as well as reasons for an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan are being presented for review as a part of the Concept Approval process. More detailed plans will be presented as a part of the Preliminary and Final Approval stages of the process. In addition, documents supporting Subdivision review will also be submitted. in conjunction with the Preliminary and Final Approval PUD review, as required by City Code. — In order for the development to go forward there must first (or simultaneously)be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this first section of our submission relates to the proposed — amendment to the Comp Plan. When the Comprehensive Plan for the use of land in the City of Chanhassen was amended this — summer as a part of an exercise surrounding the use of land along Highway 5, we had already had discussion with the Planning Commission about our current proposal. While they had concluded their deliberations on the Amendment to the Plan, the Council had not. We determined not to bring our proposal to the attention of the Council in an attempt to modify the proposed amendment because our proposed PUD would have required an amendment to the Comp Plan as it existed prior to the 1995 amendment as well. — Because the plan was amended so recently, there is some confusion among participants in the _ process as to what actually was put in place relating to the Ward Property. The earlier plan and the proposed land use plan prepared as a part of the study of the Highway 101 corridor are very similar in land use designation. Both have commercial, office and residential use designations in — approximately the same areas and both provided for some open space designation. The recent amendment not only changed the land use designation, it eliminated any land designated as open space. (A listing of the above three plans/studies' proposed land use as they effect the Ward _ Parcel and the uses proposed by the PUD on a parcel by parcel basis is attached at the end of this section as Exhibit A.) -1- — In support of our request for land designation as set forth on our proposed PUD we will first provide an historical review of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, some information from the Highway 101 Corridor Study, pertinent portions of the Highway 5 Corridor Study Report and — briefly discuss the January, 1994 Planning Commission minutes reflecting their consideration of the 1995 amendment.. In subsequent sections we will review some of the reasons why our plan meets the intent of prior plans and studies, how it provides for the needs of the community and -- why the most recent amendment is inconsistent with those needs. -2- 1991 Comprehensive Plan - The stated overall goal is to "Achieve a mixture of development (typo omitted) which will assure a high qualify of life and a reliable tax base." Among the policies listed are these: "Chanhassen will continue to encourage the location of commercial uses in the central business district. Commercial development outside the central business district and its fringe will be minimized until development of the central business district and fringe are largely completed " At the time the City's 1991 Comp Plan was adopted, the projected population estimates being used and as provided by the Metropolitan Council's demographers were 15,000 folks in 2000 and 17,500 folks in 2005 Today we have surpassed the year 2000 number and we are approaching the 2005 projection The Narrative section of the 1991 Comp Plan had this to say about Chanhassen's Commercial land. "Chanhassen currently has a supply of 118 acres of vacant commercial land within the present MUSA line. This supply, most of which is located within the downtown area or in close proximity to the downtown area is adequate to accommodate Chanhassen's growth through 1995. After 1995, commercial land demand in Chanhassen is more difficult to predict. If the economy remains strong and housing starts remain at or near current levels, the demand for commercial property and particularly the demand by large scale users may intensify. The completion of 212 to TH 101 which is scheduled for completion by 1997 will also contribute to commercial demand " "This comprehensive plan recognizes the need for commercial expansion in the future. That expansion needs to be programmed consistent with the City's long-standing goal of developing the downtown area as the primary commercial focus. The future land use element of the comprehensive plan needs to accommodate the "germination" of the downtown area while accommodating future large-scale commercial users. " -3- - At a second section entitled Commercial in the narrative section, the Plan goes on to say: "The City has maintained a long standard(sic)policy of directing commercial development into the Central Business District. Chanhassen is rather unique among suburban communities in that it has historically had and maintained an active downtown business community. In recent years, there has been substantial public and private investment in furthering development in this area and there is no desire on the part of the City to see that effort diminished by the construction of commercial centers oriented to highways outside the business district. Consequently, it is anticipated that the overwhelming majority of new commercial development will occur in and around the Central Business District,primarily _ north along Highway 5, but also in the newly developed area south of Highway 5 located along relocated Highway 101. (The Ward Property) Additional commercial development is anticipated in the mixed use area illustrated around the Highway 101/212 interchange. A total of 129 acres in commercial designation is being proposed It is anticipated that this is sufficient to serve the needs of the community through the planning period" In the sections immediately following the above, these observations are a part of the Plan.: "Various types of office uses are accommodated in the commercial and industrial future land use categories. The plan designates a location along TH 101 as 'pure'office. This site which totals approximately 11 acres was designated in a TH 101 corridor study in response to specific site characteristics including transportation access, topography and proximity to existing and planned residential areas. " The initial 1991 Plan, which recognized the need for substantially more industrial land, increased the available acreage from the then 95 acres to 520, making a total of 638 acres. Contrary to the 1995 amendment, the 1991 plan designated four areas: 1. "The logical extension of industrial uses west of the current terminus of the MUSA line, a short distance to the east branch of Bluff Creek...serviced primarily by Audubon Road to the east and Highway 5 to the north. 2. The south side of the intersection of Highway 5 and 41. 3. South of the railroad tracks between Audubon Road and Lyman Blvd. 4. The west side of Bluff Creek adjacent to Lyman Blvd.. -4- 1995 Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Highway 5 Corridor and Design Study The Executive Summary at the front of the Highway 5 Corridor and Design Study completed earlier but dated August, 1995, states that: Suitable land uses within the corridor were established by the city's 1990 Comprehensive Guide Plan. To a large extent, these land uses were confirmed or merely refined by the Highway 5 Corridor planning process. The only major geographic area for which new recommendations were made is that identified on the 1990 Guide Plan map as the "1995 Study Area". This area lies on the north side of Highway 5 between Galpin Boulevard on the east and TH 41 on the west. It does not appear, therefore, that it was the intent of this Task Force that the major changes that were made by the 1995 amendment to the Guide Plan as they affect the Ward property would be made Under the Goals and Policy section, relating to Land Use, the Study document says: Goal: The Highway 5 Corridor Plan defines a mixture of land uses that supports the concept of developing a diverse community according to the goals contained in the City Comprehensive Plan. Land use decisions should seek to develop and support an image of Chanhassen as a community with solid residential neighborhoods, a cohesive downtown, a - diverse economy, and a strong social fabric We believe our proposed PUD meets this goal. — Policy: The Highway 5 plan should determine land use designations for the 1995 Study Area identified near the intersection of Highways 5 and 41, as well as for other undetermined (underlining added)parcels located within the corridor. The purpose of defining land uses is to promote more efficient planning in the corridor and assist property owners and residents in understanding what may occur in the future. It does not imply that these parcels will be brought within the MUSA line in any particular time frame. These decisions will be made by the City Council at some point in the future. It appears from the above that the emphasis was particularly on parcels outside of the MUSA line and other undetermined parcels The Ward property was neither of these and it was outside the defined corridor study area. -5- — The concluding paragraph of the Purposes and Intent section says: Nothing in these provisions is intended to stifle creativity or artistic expression. Rather, the provisions are intended to challenge design professionals to create extraordinary sites and buildings within a context that is unique to Chanhassen. Chapter 4, entitled Land Use Within the Highway 5 Corridor, states that the objective of the task force was to ensure that the land use recommendations in the 1990 Comp Plan were still sound given the newly configured roadways;to refine or change those recommendations as needed and to make recommendations for the 1995 Study Area identified in the 1990 Plan. To that end and since there was a reconfigured roadway within the Ward Property, the Task Force listed potential uses and included three potential land use plans. The Task Force also reiterated at this section that the central business district should remain compact and well-defined Retail uses are to be largely confined to this part of the city. Under the heading Retai/Commercial, the narrative states: Specialty retail and neighborhood commercial may be appropriate; however, environmental constrains(e.g. significant wetland area) must be recognized and preserved intact. Residential: May be appropriate at south end of property. Office/Industrial: "Clean" industrial use (e.g. light assembly or high-tech) office, or institutional use (e.g.,parochial school) appropriate but only on a small scale. The language of the summary recommending paragraph relating to the Ward property is not clear in that the terms "low density" and "medium density" are used to apply to something other than residential and we are used to using these terms to apply to single family, townhouses, etc. The recommendation reads: Low density, office, light industrial, or institutional uses adjacent to TH 5, medium density south of Lake Drive, office or medium density west of Highway 101; residential possible in southern portion of the parcel. The intended recommendation of the Task Force is more clear in the three Site Development Concept plans which were included in the section. (Copies are at Exhibit B at the end of this section.) These plans propose three alternate routes for Lake Drive. In every case, the Task Force recommends some retail in the area between Highway 5 and each of the Lake Drive Alternatives they proposed. Each scenario also includes some office,two include some institutional and one includes some High Tech Industrial (small footprint buildings), all at the upper portion of the parcel. The plan which included the Lake Drive alignment which was ultimately selected by the Council indicates retail/institutional and office north of Lake Drive and — Office/Retail and Office south of Lake Drive; however, the Council, on recommendation of the Planning Commission, changed the designated use to O/I, a use which incidentally was not included on the Task Force's alignment plan selected.. It seems clear to us from reviewing the Task Force Report that a careful study of the Highway 5 Corridor was undertaken which focused primarily on the 1995 Study Area and on the impact on land along Hwy. 5 by the creation of the frontage road system. The Ward Property initially did -6- not appear to fall into either category in that the area of frontage roads studied in the report was defined as to the south side as that area between Audobon Road and Highway 41. Be that as it may, the alignment of the portion of Lake Drive which runs through the Ward Property was also included in the Task Force's deliberations. By definition, charge to the Task Force and therefore their mission, did not include the requirement of careful analysis of the economic impacts of the recommendations as a primary responsibility. Thus, while we believe a careful evaluation of the "impact on a reliable tax base" as — well as other economic aspects needed to be considered in amending guide plan--as it was in the preparation of the initial plan—it was not a requisite of the Task Force. That responsibility must, however be recognized by the Council and to the extent requested to do so by the Council, should be dealt with by the Planning Commission as well. -7- PlanninE Commission Minutes We have read the minutes of that part of the Planning Commission dated January 14, 1994,which contains a discussion of the change in the Guide Plan as it relates to the Ward property. The _ discussion revealed opinions ranging from adamant support from one of the members for retail on the site to a fairly negative response to retail on the part of the chair. Other members expressed an openness, concern for a degree control no matter what the use, the observation that there was no evidence available to support the need for retail (no compelling reason) and whether or not this — area should be a part of Chanhassen's CBD, the need for a sense of community, and an apparently unanimous desire to avoid a 10-acre type box store. In the end the group removed the _ commercial and office segment from the recommended use and appeared to approve the currently guided use on the basis of chair's proposal that "Maybe we remove the commercial segment of this but if it happens to come in with a PUD and it looks good to whoever happens to be on the Planning Commission at that point in time, what do you think about that?" The Planning Commission's sensitivity to big box users and their skepticism as to the ability to avoid them, led to their decision. We understand why they took the action they did, and we are — submitting a proposal which not only provides the opportunity to be a part of establishing development criteria and but also provides an assurance that the big box users will not be accommodated. -8- Comments Retail: The research supporting the preparation of the 1991 Comp Plan and the conclusions drawn have proven to be very precise. The conclusion was that we had enough land for a period through — 1995. By the end of this year, plans for nearly all of the remaining parcels in the existing downtown will have been considered for approved. In addition, plans will have been considered for the approval of a redevelopment of a major area of downtown. — As the 1991 planners predicted, there were three large-scale commercial users, assuming market Square is included in the Target and Byerly's category. The City then as now intended that the commercial focus stay on our downtown and because they realized more space would b needed for the downtown area, they anticipated that the needed new commercial space would occur around the existing downtown on the north of Hwy. 5 and in the "area south of 5 located along relocated 101" Since the only expansion north of Hwy. 5 would have to through purchase and/or condemnation of improved parcels, it seems prudent that the planned for downtown expansion occur on the south of Hwy. 5 on the Ward property as we are proposing. The 1991 Plan anticipated that this area would provide a 5 year supply. The absorption rate for the past 4 years indicates that it will provide a 4 year supply. If, however, the Moretnson/American Legion — site is added, there would then be a 5 year supply. Office/Industrial: The 1991 Study/Plan in its wisdom also recognized the need for pure office and designated a portion of the Ward property for that use. While our plan provides for commercial/retail on that — specific site so that we can provide the critical mass needed for the project, our plan provides for that needed pure office space at locations immediately adjacent to the originally proposed site and immediately adjacent to Rosemount. This latter location, adjacent to Rosemount, will not require — a change in the Comprehensive Plan in that the 1995 amendment provides for that use. The 1991 Plan did not suggest On immediately adjacent to the existing downtown because they recognized that area would be needed for Commercial. They did recognize the need for 0/I and listed four logical areas for the expansion of this use. We agree with their logic. -9- Summary It is our conclusion after reviewing all of the above documents and plans that, with the apparent exception of the action of the Planning Commission and Council with respect to the 1995 Amendment, there have been consistent conclusions by the various study commissions and by the City in developing its thoughtful Comprehensive Plan, that there will some day be a need for more retail and more office space and that need will, in logical fashion, be met by the use of the Ward Parcel. Much thought, study and analysis went into each of these conclusions. Even the Planning Commission with respect to the 1995 amendment appeared to be desirous of leaving the door open. Unfortunately the amendment to the Guide Plan as finally passed dealt with the entire Ward parcel, not just the portion that was included in the Highway 5 Corridor Study and therefore not — just the portion of the Ward parcel that was considered by the Planning Commission in the meeting described above. Therefore, the City cannot employ the 25% provision assumed by the Planning Commission in approving the PUD being proposed and we are requesting an _ amendment. Based on all of the prior studied reasoning as to providing retail and office use on this property, — we believe there is ample justification for a commitment to amend the Comp Plan in order to allow the Proposed PUD to go forward to further review at the Preliminary Approval stage. In addition there appears to be a further need to amend the Plan based on prior intent that there be some open space use designated in the southern portion of the Ward Parcel. In subsequent sections, and using, the last suggestion by the Planning Commission as a segue, we will attempt to provide additional justification and compelling reasons why the plan should be amended as well as why the PUD being proposed should be given Conceptual Approval . Subsequent sections will include: A. Description of the proposed PUD. — B. Discussion on how the PUD meets the intent and needs recognized in prior plans and studies. C. Economical reasons for the need for additional retail and some exclusively office zoning. D. Advantages to the City of Chanhassen as a whole and the existing CBD District in particular in expanding retail/commercial to the Ward Property. -10- EXHIBITS ■ A. Parcel by Parcel Comparison of: 1991 Comp Plan, HWY 101 Corridor, 1995 Amendment and Proposed PUD ■ B. Site Development Concepts by 1995 Task Force Parcel by parcel history and comparison of land uses as set forth in the 1991 Comp Plan, the Highway 101 Corridor Study, the 1995 Amendment to the Comp Plan and the proposed PUD. Parcel#1. Comp Plan Office Hwy 101 Office Amendment OI/I (except small area on east: R Low) PUD CBD Parcel#'s 2 and 3. Comp Plan Commercial Hwy 101 Commercial/Office Amendment 01/I PUD CBD Parcel #4 Comp Plan NE 2/3: R-Med;W 1/3: Office ) All three of these Hwy 101 R-Med. ) plans had a road going Amendment NE 2/3: R-Med; W 1/3: R-Low ) through the parcel. PUD CBD Parcel #5. Comp Plan R-Low Hwy 101 SF; portion along south: OS Amendment N 1/2: O1/1; S 1/2: R-Low PUD Office Parcel#'s 6 and 7. Comp Plan R-Med Hwy 101 R-Med Amendment 0/R-Med PUD O/IOP Exhibit A, Page 1 of 3 Parcel# 8. Comp Plan East portion primarily road;NW 1/4: 0; S 1/4: R-Low Hwy 101 East portion primarily road;NW: R-Med; S: SF — Amendment East portion primarily road; W& S: R-Low PUD R-12 Parcel #9. Comp Plan R-Low — Hwy 101 R-Low(SF) Amendment R-Low PUD R-12 — Parcel #10. Comp Plan N 1/2: R-Med; S 1/2: OS Hwy 101 North edge: R-Med; Balance: OS Amendment 0/R-Med — PUD R-Low Parcel#11. Comp Plan OS — Hwy 101 OS Amendment R-Low PUD R-Low _ Open Space Comp Plan Provided at lower portion of Project Hwy 101 Provided at lower portion of Project Amendment None provided — PUD Provided at lower portion of Project, with portions designated as Parcels Nos. 10 and 11. Exhibit A, Page 2 of 3 /O r .Study 101 Comp P//env r Comme��,o� F 4)1 11 011 i1 oto F� 0 5� ✓IR LooR-Ned DS os os DS g cru 6- /9,5 /995 Ami„dme,t pup 01 /1 4) R"N� app CBO 171 or/1 (.) CBp r -' _ C) .. 4, ® — OAR-H e.') \.2 ) i R- .L1-‘1)"7: 1-°u) —_ OS R"NSL___°5 - Exhibit A, Page 3 of 3 W W1 H Z P• A. -2Z o �cA . \ m - "i C7 z U - a < � a � �.\` x g r,-;1 r,_ ofW z H 4 Q [~ w z � �' 8 ° F < F 0 ^•, v < a < � F �i e a a a � or, z 0.1 W a < ;:ti O r\._ v W I1_ii ❑ A .. r- =IMENNklilt o„ , [...1 ) Tv , kin tr,kw410 ., , .\ . \ irt ,t i) \ .417 '"\i .... \----): ,777. ,/4.\,. .rit)\11111.'. -, , --'.,__ ., 0° • i .••• `I I I. , I - . • 1,4 \---; \ ‘. ... r • __„,.., a 1..), • j .:= .. b„.. ,... 1 , ,, - a ,-------___-/ ' w X J _..;,A L.‘______\________ ---—4 ___. , /• rz:_-_—_-...-- ,...._ „osvio• ,--,L ,,, _ 1 r ' f a AI i\ i .`, 0 = ° 3 i � < U .. < J Wp W ipFp�� VEQ 1 z OGO :. .moi W E-4' M I:4 z W N w 0.4 5; = U 0. ji \`� oc mQ\ X u' < aQ < z tic W o�Z a z z w W c a [.� 6 ti < o W �t V W �1 '"�I W ... w ww W a a Ga O • It _` > li P.-- W OLD n+ia1 / lairj P t i )., ()0h ,, c.i. ‘ 42,‘_:....i. : ,\ • '-'\ * cs \ \ • a, el 4 • ,1 ee/ Nilliiih, ., -..._ ,_;_____-_-, 21:14 -\\\ ,(lip i ' Ic . ,-.\ i • i Fr err ),... , ,\ 1a A „,<_ , , 2 (J _ 4 s 000' ■ • r f 40- �< II / / ,E ! 1,..1 _ /$/ o F cc za 0/1 1 if : M 002 64 Fal U C.0 Z. M 64 40 W F U '�1 ea 0.1 O c� • U a, cn flI1a z< d 1- 8.4 V V 8 0 > `n [T, E- 2 �' �F- V Z ^y U C > W U v ara ;4 c. Z E- .. t, vl �Q w W F w E, ,�J LS I W w3 � aw � o ►• F W ° CZ U W �'; JCC v w q,', _ - , `- a a c W � wQ n -\God r `\ • ca). co (-4 . ‘ t i/ '\6.6 _,_.i -- ..:\ % CS lib**:(lit ilk V.-. \� :R:.., gar o t . N. .1 / •. 1; \ 1§ ti .e4:\• 1 1(1 1‘ % I 4 :lir 11 (jA 44ea rri.E ♦ o -74 r e.7— . , a• J C . -• / ') � I t� i ... :// � / Z1. w Z pw oa. cc V. .. w o I _ ° a F ccn F a F c:: C.' Z LT: 0 Y F c") W W cC. J � ¢ a > VILLAGES ON THE PONDS The PUD The PUD ■ Overview ■ Site ■ Development Scheme: ■ Circulation ■ CBD/Retail Development ■ Office Development ■ Residential ■ Open Space ■ Summarr-M,,, ,,,, - ■ Exhibits VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Overview Villages on the Ponds is a proposed development for the Ward Property, a parcel consisting of approximately 67 acres, lying at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 101, or Market Boulevard. The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to create a retail-office-residential (mixed use) activity center which complements the existing downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to both the existing and the expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in village scale and traditional character, using _ both on and off-street parking and traditional architecture of vernacular character. The flexibility for fulfilling both the intent and the theme are most reasonably assured by a CBD underlying designation for a major portion of the site. For other portions we are requesting Office and a variety of residential densities as the underlying designation for this PUD zoning request. Site The property is characterized by rolling terrain with a number of large stands of trees, most of which are softwoods, consisting of poplar, aspen, ash and elm which have grownup over the last 10 years. Prior to that time, the upper areas were still farmed or grazed. The southern portion of the site consists of more steeply sloped terrain facing both Lake Susan and the wetlands associated with Rice Marsh Lake. On some of the more heavily sloped areas are hardwoods consisting of more mature maple and oak. More mature hardwoods are also found around the old farmstead which is on the westerly edge of the site and along the easterly property line. There are a number of wetlands located upon the Ward property. At the southern portion of the site is the major wetland at Rice Marsh Lake. At the northern portion of the site is a large wetland along with two smaller wetlands. Along Highway 101 is another small wetland at the center of the site. Our preliminary Wetlands Site Analysis which accompanies this submission reflects information obtained from the City and from physical observation. A Wetlands delineation study will be undertaken as a part of the Preliminary Plan stage. While the site contains a number of sensitive environmental areas, these areas also provide development opportunities that are highly desirable. These sensitive areas will require smaller building pads and more vertical development. Some sites will also require that some parking be located within or under the buildings. It is the overall intent that the "Ponds" development will retain the major hardwoods and steep slopes and ponds which give this site its intrinsic value. -1- The wetlands and ponds on the portion of the site that is to be developed are an integral part of the theme of the development, providing water views in the summer and skating in winter. The _ development will comply not only with the City's Shoreline Management_and Wetland Protection Ordinances, but will also be done in a way that enhances these natural amenities. It only makes economic sense to retain these elements which are highly desirable by today's developers and — future retailers, user and/or residents. In addition the concept presented proposes to leave untouched a vast area at the south which includes additional wetlands.. For subsequent approval steps, exact delineation of the wetlands will be provided along with enhancement methods. It is the intent that all required setbacks associated not only with the natural wetlands and major bluff lines will be adhered to. Additionally, all facilities will be — designed to provide pretreatment of stormwater run-off to protect the wetlands. Grading on the development parcels toward the southern portion of the site will be limited to small development pads and the access routes to them. — -2- DEVELOPMENT SCHEME Circulation Villages on the Ponds will utilize Highway 101 as its major access and major north-south circulation element. The extension of the Lake Drive frontage road system will be developed to provide the major east-west circulation element. One additional roadway is proposed to link Lake _ Drive to Highway 101 to provide access to various parcels and to provide an additional route into the existing downtown of Chanhassen. Access into the development parcels off Highway 101 will be provided at the intersections of Lake Drive and at the intersection of the new southern loop road. The major access to the retail parcels would be off Lake Drive and the south loop road. The development proposes that the buildings would be located adjacent to the roadway rights-of-way. Parking would be provided at the side and at the rear of buildings. To create a pedestrian-friendly retailing experience, we are requesting that on-street parking be allowed along both Lake Drive and the south loop street. Two additional roadways are illustrated on the concept plan. The large single family lots lying to the east of the Ward property are currently served by a long private drive. It is both the City's and the residents' desire to have a public roadway. Due to existing vegetation and topography, it appears that the only way to provide access to the majority of these adjacent parcels is with two cul-de-sacs. If the property owners can provide internal circulation, then only one cul-de-sac would be required, which would result in less disruption to the terrain. An integral part of the circulation is the trail system provided throughout the project and around many of the wetlands. This trail system would be integrated into an extension urban sidewalk system serving the retail parcels and would provide linkages to the City-wide system currently in place along Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake. CBD/Retail Development As stated earlier the concept of the "Villages on the Ponds" is to develop a small intimate retail village. The retail village will be characterized by one and two-story buildings with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional, vernacular architecture. The buildings will have pitched roofs with a variety of gables, gabled windows and possibly chimneys. The structures will be primarily placed up close to the major roadways to create a small downtown village atmosphere. It is the intent that each building will contain a number of retail uses. Some buildings might contain a more major anchor,using say 20,000 square feet,but the architecture would be detailed such that the image is not of one large building or user, rather an image of multiple users. Where appropriate,buildings would be architecturally linked by roofs, canopies or low walls. -3- Pedestrian-scaled lighting will be provided along with heavy landscaping and small intimate seating areas and focal points. The majority of this CBD area contains none of the major hardwoods. The ponds and wetlands associated with these areas would be retained and enhanced to provide pedestrian amenity and vistas into the area. There is one major ridge line which runs east-to-west through the largest — parcel. This ridge would probably be eliminated but as the project begins further refinement, there may be opportunities to prove access into multi-storied buildings constructed into the ridge line. At this concept phase the various uses that are anticipated would include: Destination retail, specialty retail, apparel, outfitters, restaurants, household furnishings, domestics, office supply, small offfices--insurance, investment, medical, including veterinary--, lodging, convenience. — Library, should the library wish to consider a second story location over the retail, for example. While the above list was developed for creating an example for this submission, we do not intend that it is inclusive, we do however intend not to provide for big box use or for grocery store use. The mix of uses is designed to allow a shared parking scheme which could include parking for transit usage. The intensity of the development will be further dictated by the parking _ requirements of the users, as well as the terrain and wetlands. The roadway system will also provide for convenient transit opportunities and parking. And the site will be further delineated in cooperation with Southwest Metro to provide for transit hub service by Southwest Metro. — Because the plans for this service are in very early stages, it is only presumed that it will occur on or near the retail area, but it could also occur on or near the office areas. The retail development has been located on that portion of the site which has the least sensitive environment. Those wetlands within the retail area will be protected and enhanced. There are no significant stands of upland hardwood vegetation and the ridge line is a small linear hill with a — 15-20 foot rise running through the middle of the larger retail parcel. Office Development While the retail area is located within an area where there are few natural amenities, the office parcels are located on land that contains the majority of the steeper slopes and major stands of _ hardwood vegetation. For that reason, it was decided to provide a land use which would not require large building pads and could provide vertical development. It is proposed that these office sites will each be developed as a single 3-4 story building with some underground parking. _ Each site contains a small central area which is generally flat and developable. The perimeter of each of these sites will remain untouched, with the building and surface parking tucked within the surrounding major trees and steeper topography. All three of these sites provide development — -4- opportunities for a very attractive office development,two of which will be located and designed to provide a dramatic entry to the CBD from the south along Hwy 101. Based on the anticipated intensity of development,the actual building pad would be in the neighborhood of 15,000 to 20,000 SF., (.3 - .5 Acre) on sites ranging from 4.0 to 6.6 acres. Potentially 25% of the parking requirement could be provided underground, leaving 75% of the parking requirement to be met by surface parking. In all cases both building pad and surface parking would require about 50% of each parcel. The same potential for a reduction in the maximum .30 FAR indicated by the accompanying site illustration, exists at the office sites. This FAR reflects maximum utilization. The terrain and natural amenities may dictate a lesser FAR. Thus, we believe that there is simply not another land use which would provide a greater opportunity to preserve the natural qualities of these parcels. Residential The concept plan proposes a multi-family residential parcel along the eastern property line. This parcel is located adjacent to developed (approximately a half dozen) large single family lots. The exiting Guide Plan suggests that this area be utilized for single family residential. This area also contains a number of hardwoods and steep slopes. Given the existing terrain, this area does not lend itself to typical single family development because of the vast amount of clearing and grading that is necessary for the roadways, driveways and building pads. For this reason, it is proposed to develop two multi-family residential buildings on this site. The northerly portion is proposed for a senior housing and the southerly portion for a 2-3 story apartment with some underground parking as well as surface parking. This project would provide a moderate income level of rental housing. Both of these residential projects will have an architectural image similar to the retail villages, yet with greater residential flavor. Many of the reasons dictated by the terrain for the office usage on their sites are consistent with the reasons for multi-residential usage on these sites. The sites contain some rather steeply sloped terrain and associated hardwoods. By developing a multi-family project with underground parking, the majority of the site can remain undisturbed. In addition we will attempt to locate the building pads near the new roadways system, which will not only protect the terrain and hardwoods, but will also provide the greatest degree of privacy for the neighbors to the east as well as adding to the 'village'flavor of the project. There are two remaining parcels which are identified as potential residential use. These sites are at the southern portion of the Ward property and are on either side of Highway 101. The parcel on the west side of Highway 101 and on Lake Susan is proposed as one single family lot or possibly a twin home. As Highway 101 is relocated in the future, access to this lot would be provided by old 101 which would cul-de-sac at this lot. The residential parcel on the east side of Highway 101 is proposed as a very small multifamily project of 6-8 townhouse units. This parcel contains a large hill covered by a variety of both -5- upland hardwoods and lowland vegetation. This residential project would be tucked into the side of the hill and again would preserve the majority the existing terrain and vegetation. Open Space _ The majority of the proposed open space consists of the wetlands and buffer area around Rice Marsh Lake. The open space also contains Riley Creek and the lands adjacent to the Creek. No — improvements are proposed for these areas; however, existing zoning proposes that this area be used for single family development. NOTE: To assist in understanding the location of the various major parcels within the proposed PUD, a brief narrative of each and a numbered map is attached as an Exhibit to this section. -6- _ Summary The proposed development will require an amendment to the current Comprehensive Plan. There are two basic issues related to the request to change the Comprehensive Plan. These issues are the proposed land uses and the amount of retail use. The current Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as a combination of industrial, institutional, office and residential, whereas the Plan prior to the 1995 amendment recognized the need for additional retail and guided portions of the land accordingly. With the exception of offices, the guided uses are simply not compatible with the natural features of the site. The Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan proposes land uses which are land-consuming uses which require either larger horizontal building pads or single family, which are extremely difficult to develop on heavily sloped terrain. Grading would require the removal of large stands of vegetation and would destroy virtually all of the ridge lines. The proposed PUD complements the preservation of natural site features while providing a mix of uses complementary to the existing Chanhassen downtown area. The amount of retail use is a critical issue for Chanhassen and must be addressed and resolved The existing downtown area of Chanhassen is currently almost 100% filled with either existing developments or approved development projects. (See Exhibits at the end of this section relating to Currently Available Parcels and Absorption.) It was decided years ago that the Comprehensive Plan should recognize the desire to first fully develop downtown and then rethink the need for additional retail areas. In fact the Ward Parcel was designated as a retail area in the that Comp plan. Within the amended Comp Plan there is very limited opportunity to provide small areas of neighborhood retail and highway commercial areas at the transportation modes. Today the City of Chanhassen has roughly 1.5% of its land either presently zoned of guided for retail or commercial use. (See Exhibit at the end of this section.) Typically free-standing communities such as Chanhassen have approximately 7.8% of land devoted to retailing or commercial use. (Source: Urban Land Institute and American Planning Association.) The Ward property offers the only viable land available to expand the downtown of Chanhassen. The viability of existing downtown needs a critical mass or square footage that provides an opportunity to offer a sufficient variety of retailing opportunities such that the residents of Chanhassen will utilize the downtown. If the downtown provides only a limited amount of comparison shopping, the users simply keep turning over. The existing downtown area of Chanhassen simply does not provide sufficient square footage and opportunities for a wide variety of retailing opportunities which a City the size of Chanhassen's potential requires and/or will require. (See comments on Critical Mass as an Exhibit at the end of this section.) Villages on the Ponds is the only logical expansion to downtown. The center will provide a mix of retail and office uses and it integrates into the downtown area additional residential projects, which contribute to the viability of downtown. The proposed development respects the natural elements of the site and provides a development which will retain those natural aspects of the site which give it its intrinsic value. -7- EXHIBITS ■ A. Parcels By Number and Map ■ B. Currently Available Parcels ■ C. Absorption ■ D. Chanhassen Land Use by Type ■ E. Critical Mass VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Parcel-by-Parcel Proposed Plan The size of this project and the variety of uses within it dictate that there must be a focal point---an area where the greatest amount of emphasis on design is placed. Retail use and retail-type buildings lend themselves best to this effort and we have therefore designated the retail Parcel No. 1 area as the Village Center. This area will be the focal point of the project. The Village Center will encompass all of Parcel No. 1 and this parcel is the key to the success of the development. Not only is it the focal point, its design sets the tone for the balance of the area to be developed. (The numbering of the parcels are for purposes of tracking the descriptions in this memo only.) Parcel No. 1: In order to assure the success of this village center retail sector, we have planned for a minimum of two retail anchors of approximately 20,000 SF each. This size is necessary to provide the type of destination traffic that will allow us to attract the smaller merchants and allow them to succeed. Particularly in parcel No. l and at every possible opportunity in Parcels 2, 3 and 4, it is our intent to orient the buildings toward the street, around the edge of the parcel, with parking both on the streets and behind the buildings, whenever possible in interior parking courtyards. This will not only enhance the appearance but will also provide easy pedestrian access. Specific design guidelines will be used for this area in addition to site plan criteria. This core area, for example, will have buildings only 1 and 2 stories high. Residents, employees, shoppers and visitors can conveniently walk to and from the village center and the sidsewalk/trail system will connect them with lake trails to the south and the CBD north of 5 as well. If there are to be apparel store in Chanhassen, they will locate here. The flavor of the majority of the businesses, however, will be dining, entertaining marketing and specialty stores. Parcel No. 2: The area closest to Number 1 and adjacent to the pond will be an extension of the core retail village. Although this site does not lend itself to the circular development as in No. 1, it has the added pond amenity and some buildings will be oriented to the pond, others toward the streets. At the northwest corner, and to be blended in with the rest of the parcel, we're planning two buildings, one a restaurant on the pond and the other a motel. Exhibit A, Page 1 of 3 Parcel No. 3. — This parcel will be planned to reflect the Village design look in uses which may include service — retail, office, convenience, medical services, etc., taking advantage of the Village atmosphere, the pond and Highway#5. Parcel No. 4: Likewise, this site which can accommodate up to three smaller buildings clustered near the pond, will reflect the same design criteria. Parcels Nos. 5 and 6: — These parcels each may accommodate more than one office building and design criteria will be established which captures the essence of the Villages. It is our intent to design those closest to -' Highway 101 for a dramatic impression on entering Chanhassen CB from the south. Parcel No. 7: — This site will accommodate an extension of the design mode for offices on Parcels 6 and 7 and uses such as extended-stay lodging as well. New building construction will be located at the present site of the old farmstead with access from the north. Parcels Nos. 8 and 9: These parcels provide a buffer between the Villages and the existing residential neighbors. The _ roadway system also provides the neighbors with City Streets. Due to the need to maintain privacy for these neighbors by preserving tree stands, and therefore the need to avoid extensive disruption of the terrain, one apartment-type structure is planned for each. On No. 8, senior — housing is anticipated and at No. 9 an apartment building, perhaps stepped and perhaps utilizing underground parking and based on 16 units per acre density will both utilize and protect the site to best advantage. Parcels Nos. 10 and 11: These sites are lower density residential. The former will accommodate two nice single family lots or one two family structure. The latter lends itself to low density clustered homes in order to _ preserve the terrain and wonderful vistas in all directions. Exhibit A, Page 2 of 3 0,47----4.-_,..,, 4-1 , ___,F-e_ ,,,,,.. ... I 11 ,0m Aitillt ".., cuate NE_,+�"`��_ � —�� r.\�'�'-Retail CBS' .l 1 �'ur I ;InElialitilliS ..- ••\•-35,500 S.F.. i � ' ,,,, -- ilroill ,3-, ) ,-, ‘, ‘ ...„OVA,RI _ .., , • 111' , ii:•9 ;Z\-1.,444 teltlig - _.�';�i'��lii tur a \ Retail CBD o AL, Al /� 41L... - ., Wit„�� / 9.5Ac.;",:,t, .� iiii ••� / , g1 • V IA aft. J�,000 S.F =c\ Lig • -Retail CBD 11. ,'' A �l _ .• 3 2 Ac. .11 o �. �'-- •"" ��Q�' •, / 33,500S.F.- :, IA VtAck n~, `ilktii tip. A*4114\ -".”,........ °Allegli If , -/f ,,' 41;,111.1P. .--1,e4 _r, _ _,—_ • � . Retail CBD 1 • `` !,� . :, ,- �• I ��. F • �i E'-_oma- �� Q -- .- � I ;�`;;i, `` 7.4 Ac. `l ) S R-12 - i=--%2.7 i -�` y ' j 8,000 S.F. t�1�� 1 Residential -k" - ho q -- - .11 • IkvAA I t, :.SOtIiii, ,---- _,i Sew. - 7.4 Ac. al, lMI.M[IfT ROADWAY'P) ffir1 t kki z. ,\ I ,-• �, 90 D.U. IFF, --1 •50,800 S.F. `A- - i�1 • - A: l ,,AN -/1►',,�� . irs v-,...,;„ Office • _/.,), J �,. �*�,�\(�, 4.O Ac. • ,s r/ „s-- 57 400 S.F • i 0� lOP 7 .\\:0,,.. ..4\, �� .... .� ( rc�tcrc.J� `— — ' Office �'r== \I!ILA' . .- •- 1.141 --95;400 S.F. r�� Stai ,a•••. a , ,„t,:,,,,.,-;.:„.,, i ---, K.Y. .om,'. \„--,,, am' � '��i1 "�"-`.� � to ;pace I_ iuuU • • •r.ucno 1 LAi E .R-0\�, ` \ „•L„,. •esideatial 1 Residential 1 . 1.1Ac. - . 2 Units `1c2.5 Ac. ' ��J, •,'8 Units .,,,, _ Su5+N i Open Space .' 1\IS , , - / - - _„. .,,,n am _ ,__ , c _, ____ _,. • .. . . e 0 ---ze • �� * ,� )419/,/,.; ,,,-)- s,„1-: . � r / -- - - 4...1--===--1_•, . • '"`�� Page 3 of 3 f4� 'o� _�• �_ Exhibit A, — Vii'`;,,- . .- •=a, t - 1 .f-. ) .)..! _.is'AV.P.7..-- >, 11 '2,,tat ILE/ . -441 i -...w v .- t _ r; .4 2 1:16:: gimirP; zintro-10.,b, ,,,A.• -4 --• p AIN 4 - P. gemisisisua*A1, f4ag in etii / 4,1,4'k:4 int Ril.,r_41,... k ilk 111 a . ,...., it ---‘ u- 'TR -moo _m, . ,_ , li •�1��,,;�llii:F . ZLL ji _,,..4., .1h1._.,.1.2, 'Ilk NNW :: - ii t, - uoirt;,,ik 4 1. ililllialid= Ulu 1‘ a FA 1141 .r3rvigar.W.. Au_ . fAl- wow, vis pg, illiEi bogre:/ Ai vor iii ip -' : lir ; : s \go,' mi i IIIIIII swi lIl 4.,triil -44 !grz mum ie. i pin 00 -6 mei --- g 11-133a4. v. I 0 -li 16 : % t 0‘ 1* Otaz .4 • imt 1 . is _'741. , 1 c " ■iLla ■ 1 -(i • ,a l�+- II ItilVIIIAllie 'S rag ' 1r J ,- ' \t 44) i ort**17 „II � I � ri) ), `r--- i .�1lMIi _� ,(1/0 ` t4W� a3 � E / t a I In% ,_..1,W.,e!IP_ 'cilia rail 4/ rec % '�i� � I � � r Q 1: 11 r a .. , '2: '•, 44kl 1!_3,q!4, :,Iti 14 . • • 4-1 iip --dik : ,... :2-:. .. ,.._...•..., 4b... ICLI‘t. ' - k i I"AP '*/ - i'li.47.::1171 MI Oaf - ‘) -‘111021*'' lip_illii a ■''1' .... ,„ ,c5 ,... t, _ ate.) C O a3 ,d 11 x . c y 111 - iriI .\\ t _ i' N 3 1 Absorption 1992 through 1995 Completed, Under Construction, Approved or to be Approved Project No. Sq. Ft. Market Square 88000 Americana Bank 6500 Medical Bldg, Phase I 18000 Target 100000 Goodyear/Abra 12000 Hanus 1000 W. 79th Street 10000 Dinner Theatre Complex 12000 Colonial Plaza 9000 Town Square 4000 Market Square II 10000 Wendy's 2500 Byerly's and attached 80000 Kinko's 7000 Century Bank 5000 Boston Market 3000 Richfield Bank 5000 Hotel Expansion 12000 Perkins 5000 Taco Belle 1800 Market Square Ill 8000 Entertainment Complex 29000 W. 79th (HRA) 13700 Total 442500 Absorption per year (4 years) 110625 Villages on the Ponds: Commercial 247000 Office 203600 Total 450600 Number of Years' Supply 4.07 Exhibit C Lotus Realty Services V123H.WK4 v Y - O (.) N r 5 0) N C2 U") O M I- n O 0 U _ U W C 0 CO CO CO CO CO U) (6 O ✓ CO O) CT C)) C') O _C -C O O — o O t m a) C') 0 V VCS N- N YC d d CD CA CA C) Cr) O) O) Nt W a a V NCf) � a N OO 0 _ O O 0 ' O ' O _N CU a, d 0 77 U a) O 77 (D I,- CO O CO C') C') CO CO CO C r C) C') CO CO N- CO I� f0 U (n O U O O O O O O C 1. .0 r r C '- C) N O 7 CL IZ (o 0 U) CO N O CO r- OCA C) rn C) N- CO N- (17 N- CJ) N C) U) - V O 0) CAC) U) m U) L Y CO 1.13 el I Y NCO 0 O O '- O '- c N N N Q N C Y � a W On - (o N CO . U) CO CO O) CD 0) U) 0 O 0 U) Ch N U) V 71 CO N CO CI) V C) Ch CO N CD U) CO .- CD CO e- CO .O. Cr) V V U) CD 0 I - I CO CO 1- O O v- 0 (0 a) r- r C U C C O O CA N a) ..... - -a N I- V N CO CO CT CO I,- U) N CO I� U) O CP 0 0 in a) CD v e- CO U) C. c- y- (O a O CD N O U N ' E O E e- N 0.N cq � Co co 0 N N V N N 0 N 0 (o CC o E > E o '- > 0 0 o N - a)> 0 c U> 7c N o 0 D 0 D O r) o co I- In Un o 1- o e- CO C N 19 Cr C) CO N e- CT I,- CD N N (D N o ' N C') CO CO O CO O -. LL LL C) C7 (9 2 2 v CD C N- N- N (O C) V (O V O c ✓ CO U) CO 00 O V h - '' C) N- O) O _ U LL -....- 0NV O V u_ Ni (T '- U) U) E L.0 0 in O O CO - a W W CL 0) c) oVN rn mN O (C CC[ CO '0 "C3 N 0 .1) (nNCn � 0. a) W Z C o o Q Z E a) a) c J > m c Z? - LL -0 -o C4 O .0 O C C a d U - c W 73 0 CO O C C p) 0 CO C Q Q CU fa r Q Q N L Cp Q (/) U Q d) Q_ Cp Q C/) Q CO '0 F d a) (Wn a � � o � g � °�'CD o E D � 2 o 0 0 N E Or <ch O 2 < > < 77 > LU V Q 'n Q > ,_ c >_ W >_ _c = 0 m y a) 0 0)v 0 D 0 = - °' a) p R - C a) C Z C c c c7 a c to c U) a D c0 - te rn ▪ m m N m =• a) .(1) xx = o x xx = o o = xx D O Q 0 0 0 0 Cr) '2 0 O ' W W O I- W W O F- F- 0 W O I- W O N- I- 0 ,- 'e- W o Z Critical Mass Volumes of research have been compiled relating to the appropriate amount of retail, the critical mass. It is not our intent here to undertake to portray more than highlights and to relate them to Chanhassen's needs. Based on the commitment to directing commercial development to the downtown area, the 1990 planners perceived that the existing downtown would be filled by 1995 and that additional space _ would be needed. They designated the Ward property as the logical area for the needed expansion. We concur with their conclusions. The 1991 Plan lists 163 acres(although the appendix lists 151) acres as the current amount and goes on to say that they were adding 129 acres, for a total existing and planned of 280 to 292 acres. The current estimate of developed plus planned is 200 acres. The removal of the Ward parcel from the planned designation constitutes a major portion of this decrease since the Comp Plan was adopted. — Thus, as of the 1990 projected total, the 292 acres represented 2.2% of Chanhassen's total acreage. As of 1995, the 200 acre estimate represents 1.5% of Chanhassen's total acreage. This is a dangerously low number, given the strong desire on the part of the community to maintain a viable downtown area. As is stated in our Submission,the Urban Land Institute and the American Planners Association both recommend 7.8% as the appropriate mass for free standing communities such as Chanhassen. It should be especially noted that this recommendation relates to free standing communities, it does not purport to be the recommended area for a regional center. _ The benefit to the community from a reasonable critical mass can best be explained by listing some of the negative things that happen without it. 1. For shopping other than destination, if there is little comparison shopping available, shoppers will go elsewhere both for value and for selection. A. That means that while destination retailers can survive, the specialty shops cannot. B. That means that there will be continual turnover as shops fail to survive. This is costly to owners and costly in City image. C. The final scenario is that after numerous turnovers,the space is leased at lower rates to less desirable users. D. The net result of all this is that there are lower property values and thus a lower tax base. Exhibit E, Page 1 of 2 2. Due to the tremendous residential growth in the Southwest Area and with limited amount of available space for development, users will locate elsewhere in the SW Area. In our case they will — leapfrog Chanhassen and locate in Chaska as it plans to continue its aggressive search and assist program, or to Victoria, as it is just beginning to awaken to the need for a balanced tax base, or to Waconia, which is also growing by leaps and bounds and has an open door policy toward _ commercial development. A. That means that our fledgling retail community will be faced with loss of traffic from — competition outside Chanhassen. B. The results listed in items B through D above are then indicated. — 3. The residential growth and the limited amount of space available in the downtown area will also put immense pressure on parcels of land outside the CBD area within Chanhassen. — A. That means that in addition to items B through D listed at item No. 1 above, there is the possibility of multiple business districts within Chanhassen, which we have so anxiously sought to avoid. Exhibit E, Page 2 of 2 Advantages of Proposed Development Over Currently Guided Designation and Benefits From the Use of the PUD Concept Advantages of Proposed Development Over Currently Guided Designation and Benefits of the Use of the PUD Concept — To further summarize and to compare the potential uses as guided under the current plan with the uses proposed in our PUD, we submit that the PUD offers the following advantages to the — community. 1. Incomparable opportunity for the preservation of natural resources throughout the site, — particularly at the south and east edges, where most of the desirable treestands and steeply sloped terrain occurs. In addition, it will preserve the habitat areas at the south which would otherwise be destroyed if developed as single family as is guided by the Amended Plan. Further, we will be — providing much-needed drainage for the site so that more 'inadvertently man-made ponds'will not occur. 2. The only opportunity for expansion of complementary, smaller-scale retail/commercial character uses to downtown, thus creating a viable, unified and well-conceived retail hub and tax base for the City, a vibrant, well-performing downtown, yet with a village image. Not only does the project improve the image, it prevents incurable damage to the appearance which would occur with industrial (large) pads, which the currently amended Plan permits. — Just as importantly it will prevent further deterioration of the east end of the existing downtown including the area along West 78th Street east of Market Boulevard and all of West 79th Street. This area has, since the development of Market Square, Target and Byerly's, felt the effect of the shoppers' predisposition to shop that western area of West 78th Street. This project, which will be complementary to the look and feel of the proposed Entertainment Complex redevelopment, will provide a balance in activity and excitement at the east end of the downtown as well and will help to provide additional traffic and awareness of what will then be the midsection of the Chanhassen Central Business District. — 3. An opportunity to provide a staging area, possibly transit hub area for Southwest Metro particularly for its reverse commute busing services, which will be of benefit for all of downtown — and for employers located in Chanhassen. 4. An opportunity to achieve a greater degree of quality and compatibility than would be available if any portion of the parcel were not developed under a PUD, but rather parcel by parcel under the Plan. This is true whether the parcel is fully developed over the next two to three years, _ over the next 4 - 5 years as anticipated, or over the next 10 years, should some downturn befall the economy. 5. More than 50% of this site lies outside of the Highway 5 Corridor overlay district which establishes certain design and site improvement standards. This PUD proposal provides the -1- opportunity for the imposition of quality design and improvement standards, while the present Guide plan would not, if the sites were not developed under a PUD. 6, Satisfies the City's overall goal "to achieve a mixture of development which will assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base" far better than the proposed guided zoning. (See the brief Tax Analysis as an exhibit at the end of this Section.) 6. Facilitates the extension of the Highway 101 improvement project, completes the frontage road system in a timely fashion and completes the project roadway system in an efficient manner. 7. Provides attractive and close-in linkages to the existing Trail system. 8. Provides housing alternatives. 9. Opportunity to coordinate plans for sewer and water with planning and installation of those services for the area to the south. 10. Provides, as stated elsewhere, a more efficient use of land through clustering, minimal setbacks, vertical office and residential development, on street parking, underground parking and a minimum number of drive areas. 11. Provides a development that will be unique among those in other communities. 12. Creates an opportunity for the City and a neighborhood to obtain public utilities and public roadways. -2- EXHIBITS ■ A. Tax Analysis Tax Impact by Use For comparison each Use is assumed to be located on approximately 1 acre of land. Use Taxes Generated Single Family Assumed 2.25 homes/Acre at $300,000 each. Assumes _ Homestead Credit has been Recaptured $18,689 _ After deduction has been made for the estimated per year cost of $3450 per child living in the homes,the net amount is 15,239 -- Residential at $3,000/unit, R-12 36,000 Residential at $2800/unit, R-16 44,800 0/I Assumed 15,000 SF Building at $2.00/SF 30,000 Retail Assumed 10,000 SF Building at $3.50/SF 35,000 Office Assumed 12,500 SF Building at $4.00/SF 50,000 Exhibit A, Page 1 of 1 Compliance With PUD Standards Compliance with PUD Standards Chanhassen's Code states that PUD's offer enhanced flexibility in developing a site through the relaxation of zoning district standards and that the PUD zoning allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange, the city has the expectation that the development will result in significantly higher quality and a more sensitive development plan. PUD's are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including site slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. The site has nearly all of these amenities. We believe that our narrative description of the project and our stated commitment to the selected land uses and development techniques, demonstrate that our proposed uses will provide for a greater opportunity for compliance with the suggested requirement than would any alternative, including the alternatives provided for in the amended Comprehensive Plan. In fact, these features are intrinsic to the success and value of the project. Upon approval of the Concept Plan, more specific details will be provided along with the review of the Preliminary Plan. _ 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. While the mixing of uses afforded by the proposed CBD, Office and multi-residential underlying designations will afford _ more efficient and effective use of land than is presently guided, the balance of this item is not relevant in that it refers to the assembling of a large piece of land. It is, however, relevant in that the overall PUD if approved at this time will avoid the potential as presently guided of having a multitude of small parcels developed over an undetermined period of time,thus negating the efficiency of providing public utilities and roads in a coordinated fashion as proposed under the PUD. 3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. We believe we have captured the essence of Chanhassen's hoped-for look and feel in our plans for creating a friendly, yet vibrant village feel, enhanced by the numerous ponds, reached conveniently by trails, automotive and public transportation. A village that is small town in character, yet urban in convenience and services. Specific site plans which will accompany the Preliminary Plan review proposal will provide examples of the effect of the intended close-to-the street placement of structures, landscaping that provides focal points within the project, that exploits the extraordinary views, that emphasizes the ponds,that creates cozy resting places and that leads the visitor to its destination. The building architecture will of necessity be limited to that which enhances and -1- General Concept Plan Requirements General Concept Plan Requirements The City Code provides "an opportunity for applicants to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial costs." Subjects applicable to this PUD concept plan are: 1. Overall gross and net density, which is superimposed on our preliminary site plan. 2. General location of major streets and pedestrian ways, which is a part of the preliminary site plan. 0 3. General location and extent of public and common open.space, which is set forth on the preliminary site plan. 4. General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. These are also indicated on the preliminary site plan as well as in the narrative description of the PUD. 5. Staging and time schedule for development. The advantage of staging when the use of a PUD is employed is of lesser importance with this development than in many other PUD proposals in that the staging of the improvement of the individual sites will be market driven and will not be speculative as is the case in most housing developments, for example. It is anticipated, however„ that a portion of the area closest to Highway 5 may see the first development and that the senior housing site may also be done in an early stage. Currently available prospects for development might dictate a staging of the construction of a portion of the roadway system without being disadvantageous to either the City or the balance of the project. In this case the first stage of roadway construction would be the extension of Lake Drive. It is anticipated that a portion of the loop street would either be completed simultaneously with Lake Drive or shortly thereafter, if staging is deemed appropriate. In that case disruption of traffic flow can be avoided by temporary continued us of the remaining portion of the present alignment of existing Great Plains Blvd. Similarly the improvement of the southern portion of TH 101 may for convenience as well as the practical recognition of the time involved for coordination with the various governmental units involved, be constructed during a later phase than the construction of Lake Drive. Although requirements of applicants at this Concept approval stage are limited to providing general information as to the above five items, because of the scope of this development, the distinctive character being proposed as well as the uniqueness of the site's topography, we have intentionally, and at the request of City staff as to some of the issues, gone beyond these subjects „� in the narrative which accompanies this submission. rLi1uiiT> \ " :I1wEsT 3 e H sr. Hr < -- NOTICE OF PUBLIC >�.. s HEARING �_okr•-„„.4� ao. y , PLANNING COMMISSION ,��'t 0 '* MEETING � �iii *�� Wednesday, October 4, 1995 HIGHWAY.,:.>;: ::: >:> ` LA q ,e\t, il W _ • Lon& Mary Stutelberg Robert &Lois Savard Jay S. Anders 8133 Marsh Drive 8080 Marsh Drive 8090 Marsh Drive _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Martin& Timaree Fajdetich Yagui Wei & YuYi Lin $arryl & Sandy Wrolson 8100 Marsh Drive 8110 Marsh Drive 8120 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paul & Rita Klauda Walt&Pamela Chapman Bruce & Cynthia Marengo — 8130 Marsh Drive 8140 Marsh Drive 8150 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven &Julie Lundeen Gary& Debra Disch Eric Johnson & Molly Surbrook 8160 Marsh Drive 8170 Marsh Drive 320 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Randal &J Meyer Richard, Jr. & Patricia Hamblin Mark& Sharon Nicpon 330 Sinnen Circle 340 Sinnen Circle 341 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Jill Hansen Billy&Diane Streepy Robert Langley& Laurie Soper 331 Sinnen Circle 321 Sinnen Circle 8134 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hugh Faulds & Karyn Knutson Thomas & Rita Mohs John & Brenda Lund 8136 Dakota Lane 8138 Dakota Lane 8140 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ■ Jason White Blue Circle Investment Chanhassen NH Partnership ,. 8139 Dakota Lane 6125 Blue Circle Drive 900 2nd Ave. N. • Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 1100 International Ctr. Minneapolis, MN 55402 CITY OF \ 1 ; CHANHASSEN 3 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 September 29, 1995 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to notify you that the following item has been rescheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, October 18, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers: Conceptual planned unit development for a mixed land use development of commercial, office, single and multi-family on approximately 66 acres located south of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard,Villages on the Ponds, Lotus Realty Services. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Robert Generous, AICP Planner II Steven Kokesh &Nancy Ecoff Albert& Jean Sinnen Richard& Linda Anderson 8201 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8210 Grandview Road Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Mary S. Bernier Harvey & Rosemary Will Robert W. Armstrong,Jr. 8155 Grandview Road, Box 157 8151 Grandview Road 8400 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — James& Kathryn Jacoby Joseph& Patricia Eickholt Mark& Lori Jesberg — 8410 Great Plains Blvd. 8408 Great Plains Blvd. 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Andrew Freseth& Milton Bathke Willis & Anita Klein Lynda Williamson 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 8405 Great Plains Blvd. — 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 George, Jr. & Margaret Shorba Donald & Dorothy Gale Rosemount, Inc. Attn: Controller 304 Chan View 8402 Great Plains Blvd. 12001 Technology Drive _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55317 Robert Dittrich Holiday Station Stores Thaddeus Korzenowski 1827 Crestview Drive 4567 80th Street West 20645 Radisson Road New Ulm, MN 56073 Bloomington, MN 55437 Excelsior, MN 55331-9181 _ Chanhassen Inn B. C. Burdick Donald F. McCarville — 531 West 79th Street 684 Excelsior Blvd. 3349 Warner Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mound, MN 55364 James& Carol Udstuen Peter& Mary Staudohar Knoll Bisrat & Denise Alemayehu 360 Hidden Lane 370 Hidden Lane 380 Hidden Lane — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 William& Debra Prigge Andrew& Jeannine Cone Brian Semke & Deborah Duetsch 390 Hidden Lane 321 Hidden Lane 331 Hidden Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Randy& Kimbra Green Michael & Prudence Busch Mark& Alexandra Lepage 8103 Marsh Drive 8113 Marsh Drive 8123 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — -Lon& Mary Stutelberg Robert& Lois Savard Jay S. Anders 8133 Marsh Drive 8080 Marsh Drive 8090 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _vlartin&Timaree Fajdetich Yagui Wei & YuYi Lin Darryl & Sandy Wrolson 8100 Marsh Drive 8110 Marsh Drive 8120 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 'aul & Rita Klauda Walt& Pamela Chapman Bruce & Cynthia Marengo _3130 Marsh Drive 8140 Marsh Drive 8150 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven& Julie Lundeen Gary& Debra Disch Eric Johnson & Molly Surbrook _ >160 Marsh Drive 8170 Marsh Drive 320 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 -Randal & J Meyer Richard, Jr. & Patricia Hamblin Mark& Sharon Nicpon _330 Sinnen Circle 340 Sinnen Circle 341 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 :'homas & Jill Hansen Billy & Diane Streepy Robert Langley & Laurie Soper 331 Sinnen Circle 321 Sinnen Circle 8134 Dakota Lane -.hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jugh Faulds & Karyn Knutson Thomas & Rita Mohs John & Brenda Lund -J136 Dakota Lane 8138 Dakota Lane 8140 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jason White Blue Circle Investment Chanhassen NH Partnership :139 Dakota Lane 6125 Blue Circle Drive 900 2nd Ave. N. -Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 1100 International Ctr. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Arthur& Jo Ann Mulligan David& Sharon Nickolay 501 Tigua Lane 8500 Tigua Lane ;hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 October 16, 1995 Mr. Robert Generous — City of Chanhassen Planning Commission PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 120 P02 NOV 02 '95 15:09 _ I l 1 \ \ icy ii v Lon& Mary Stutelberg Robert& Lois Savard Jay S. Anders 8133 Marsh Drive 8080 Marsh Drive 8090 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Martin&Timaree Fajdetich Yagui Wei & YuYi Lin Darryl& Sandy Wrolson 8100 Marsh Drive 8110 Marsh Drive 8120 Marsh Drive I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Paul & Rita Klauda Walt& Pamela Chapman Bruce & Cynthia Marengo 8130 Marsh Drive 8140 Marsh Drive 8150 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven&Julie Lundeen Gary& Debra Disch Eric Johnson& Molly Surbrook 8160 Marsh Drive 8170 Marsh Drive 320 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Randal & J Meyer Richard, Jr. & Patricia Hamblin Mark& Sharon Nicpon 330 Sinnen Circle 340 Sinnen Circle 341 Sinnen Circle _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas& Jill Hansen Billy & Diane Streepy Robert Langley & Laurie Soper 331 Sinnen Circle 321 Sinnen Circle 8134 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hugh Faulds& Karyn Knutson Thomas& Rita Mohs John & Brenda Lund 8136 Dakota Lane 8138 Dakota Lane 8140 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jason White Blue Circle Investment Chanhassen NH Partnership _ 211Q Tlalrnta Tana A1/6 Rim. rirr1P TlrivP Qnn /rid AvP N o o a N in N TM CC cr 0 \ I 0) 010 0 0 I0) N , I 00000 L- O r co co LC) ar- c.)U a p 1 0 tea) 0) 0TrTr COCO1- t N OO O CO m' N - t E I N- M '- co IZ _ 3 -v, w 0 ow , i I I i _w I i CC up 11 I1 w > L I 1 I ,- ¢) V e e e I e e'e e e l e ct e e Q O O O .O O O O O O O O O � � ZCM,000,T00TCCY �tN1- O) CD 1 C cd up U 1 I a- rY ; -o W ! i ; I J °- CO O co 00 N O) LA co 100 0)1 co 00 M co WA d. MI:Mt N- 0) 00 co C) CO O) LC) CC Ni O C) CV CO ad 4 N O CV ,LC) CV Ch oN'T "- 0 LI) NC') 0 T CO V' NCO i QN T MO LOC? LOCM iI` M T . N r r d' r C'') T I 1 J Cl)' p i CDa F- O c en Lu -I 4) E . cn CDa) p = a 0 i U _v La - Ci rts as o Z cn aJJa • 'a `gym a) Easascocis, 0ala cN c c c N 0 U .2 -L "p 1 0 _ as m a) a) N N ... c I 0010 a aoccccccc21cnD L P.C.DATE: 11-15-95 3 C I TY 0 F C.C. DATE: 11-27-95 • CASE: 90-6 Site Plan \ I • CIIAHAESS BY: Al-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for the Construction of a 9,400 square foot Office Warehouse Expansion I- _ ZLOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Permag Corp. Addition, North of Highway 5, West of Dell Q Road,and South of Eden Prairie city limits U _ APPLICANT : Microvision Corporation a. 7600 Quattro Drive 0. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q 975-9911 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 2.4 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N-Residential-City of Eden Prairie S-IOP,Ver-Sa-Til E-IOP,Vacant W-IOP,Vacant QSEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. — Q , SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site contains an office/warehouse building. A berm W extends along the northerly edge of the site with mature trees _ on the northwest corner. A 20 foot conservation easement extends along the northerly portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE: Office/Industrial I ((; ) �I \ :; I 7200 - �\ L w I7 C , ''�get TWIN f'1 c LANE 1 I Afilit 's, ( fir= 7300 111111, 1. ensswoao tr._ CIRCLE . .,\ Pi - A_ ^' 2 )171 61 .s .� ; :)fir 400 1. J � .•\ 1LoCskt GIN- O. ,; o Ns -MIA 41. 410;;;49 ., co ! '$ iI .1�3Miimum z fir. Ir��*o 741 *-_ - 7600 cAgw Ls:j.z 1 11�� 11I i 2 77th ST EET 7700 15 ._ ,111111111I 2 CDN- Illh _ , 11111 I a. 01 1ST. EN �" " -1IIIII 1 '1 w 7:TH ST 0 7800 t dill' a:TNS 5 ! MALI a — ' t' EAST 7900 td° 41N� � HANHASS N �- .7. 01441-c . YENNE JfMRK - -- R M 01' 0 loR = 1�i7 4112 — , 8000 1'1�4 �� i; P* ' 41 • W `-° — 10 03 - ��r�'�,�'�� • S� , 8100 at f 011111 ofv m , % lir/ li\ 7,.,.. No prism il 4 iri„*. . a. + * -&‘ • •N zx air ,it � «" 8200 A ii 0 - e401040 1- MARSH o PAP SINNEN CIRCLE PARK LAKE W _ ---NN3300 - . 4.4 p .._ R/C E M •• RSH LAKE 4/ vl e _v _._ r-=:_-_._----- . .. ( , . .., W W .1 • 8600 J- — .�H 212 . --Si � 8700 -f" � f. I- _ 8800 Microvision, Corporation November 15, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a site plan review for the expansion of an existing office/warehouse building. The site is zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and bordered by Eden Prairie to the north, Dell Road to the east,and Quattro Drive and Ver-Sa-Til to the south. The lot area of the office/warehouse site is 2.4 acres and has full access from Quattro Drive. The site plan is for an expansion of an office warehouse building. This expansion was planned for in the year 1990,when the original building(Dexter Magnetic) was approved. It will be added north of the existing building. Materials used on the addition will be identical to those used on the original building, rock faced concrete brick with a single score concrete brick that will be used to accent the building. Staff is recommending the applicant incorporate windows along the east and west sides of the addition to give the 62.8 foot wall addition some architectural interest. Existing loading docks are located along the west side of the site and parking stalls are located along the east side of the building. With the proposed addition,the applicant is proposing to add 34 parking spaces rendering a total of 73 stalls. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND On August 13, 1990,the City Council approved a site plan for a 20,000 square foot office and warehouse facility. The building housed an operation of manufacturing industrial magnets. A future expansion of the building was conceptually illustrated on the plans. The current proposal is consistent with the concept plan which was presented in the year 1990. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed office/warehouse building addition,with an area of 9,400 square feet,will be situated north of the existing building. The site is located to the north of Quattro Drive. The addition is fairly straightforward. Access is gained from Quattro Drive. Existing parking is located to the east of the site. Proposed additional parking will be located to the west of the site. Existing truck loading area is located to the west of the site. The truck loading area is screened from off-site views by the existing berm and trees. Microvision, Corporation November 15, 1995 Page 3 — The site plan for the expansion was planned for in the year 1990,when the main building was approved. It will be added north of the existing building. They are proposed to utilize the same — materials as the existing building consisting of rock faced concrete brick with a single score concrete brick that will be used to accent the building. The accent band was painted in the year 1990. At that time,painting accent block was a permitted method. Hence, it is grandfathered in and the use of the painted stripe will continue along the addition. The applicant is proposing to change the accent paint from blue to burgundy. Staff is recommending the applicant incorporate windows along the east and west sides of the addition to give the 62.8 foot wall addition some — architectural interest. The building is located 20 feet from the north, 130 feet from the east, 85 feet from the south, and 180 feet from the west property line. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance _ with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing — tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; _ (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general — community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; Microvision,Corporation November 15, 1995 Page 4 c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets,width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers,preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements. The site design is compatible with the surrounding development and the ekisting building. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. GRADING& DRAINAGE The Engineering Department has already issued a grading permit for the parking lot expansion on the west side of the building. This permit is for site grading of the parking lot to give the applicant time to install the parking lot prior to inclement weather conditions. Storm drainage will sheet drain across the parking lot down to Quattro Drive where existing storm sewers will convey the storm runoff to a stormwater pond in the Business Park. The proposed retaining walls may require building permits from the City's Building Department. STREETS/PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION Parking requirements for the office section of the building is 3 parking stalls per 1000 square feet which amounts to 29 parking stalls. The manufacturing facility is proposed to accommodate a maximum of 30 employees. Thirty parking stalls will be required as the ordinance calls for 1 parking stall per employee. The warehouse and shipping area has a total area of 10,000 square feet which translates to 10 parking stalls as the ordinance requires 1 parking stall per 1000 square feet. The total required parking stalls is 69. The applicant is proposing 73 parking stalls which exceeds the minimum requirements. Microvision, Corporation November 15, 1995 Page 5 — PARKING TABLE USE AREA PARKING TOTAL — Office 6,500 s.f. 3 stall/1000 s.f. 29 _ Manufacturing 12,216 s.f. 1 stall/employee 30 Warehouse/shipping 10,000 s.f. 1 stall/1,000 s.f. 10 Required total 69 stalls Provided total 73 stalls Based on this analysis, staff concludes that parking requirements have been satisfied. LANDSCAPING — The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for the new building and parking lot additions. The plans provide for the required square feet of landscaping area, but according to ordinance, a — landscaped peninsula or island is required for every 6,000 sq. ft. of vehicular use area. The new parking lot contains 12,000+ square feet and therefore,two landscaped peninsular islands are required. No additional trees are necessary for the site. — Efforts should be made to protect existing trees on the west side of the property from construction damage. The five oaks in the western corner and eight pines along the northwest property line should be protected by tree fencing during construction. LIGHTING — Lighting locations for the parking lot have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than 1/2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. Microvision, Corporation November 15, 1995 Page 6 COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Building 1 Building Height 2 stories 1 story Building Setback N-10'E-10' N-20'E-130' S-30'W-10' S-85'W-180' Parking stalls 69 stalls 73 stalls Parking Setback N-20'E-10' N-20' E-20' S-30'W-10' S-125' W-30 Hard surface 70% 58.3% Coverage Lot Area 1 acre 2.4 acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The City Council approves Site Plan Review#90-6 as shown on the site plan dated October 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall add windows along the east and west elevation of the proposed addition. 2. Applicant must provide two landscaped peninsulas in the west parking lot. Existing trees on west and northwest sides of property are to be protected by tree fencing. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Microvision, Corporation November 15, 1995 Page 7 — 4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of — each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall — be submitted. 6. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss commercial — building permit requirements." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated November 7, 1995. _ 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated November 3, 1995. 3. Memo from Jill Sinclair, dated October 26, 1995. 4. Application and property owners list. — 5. Plans received October 13, 1995. CITY QF \ 6• 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel,Assistant City Engineer cl3lIt' DATE: November 7, 1995 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Warehouse Expansion at 7600 Quattro Drive Microvision Corporation- File No. 95-37 LUR Upon review of the site plan dated October 11, 1995,prepared by BDH Young and grading and drainage plans prepared by Terra Engineering, I offer the following comments: The Engineering Department has already issued a grading permit for the parking lot expansion on the west side of the building. This permit is for site grading of the parking lot to give the applicant time to install the parking lot prior to inclement weather conditions. Storm drainage will sheet drain across the parking lot down to Quattro Drive where existing storm sewers will convey the storm runoff to a stormwater pond in the Business Park. The proposed retaining walls may require building permits from the City's Building Department. ktm g:\eng\dave\pc\micro.spr CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Shannin Al-Jaff,Planner II — FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official • c1.1, DATE: November 3, 1995 SUBJECT: 90-6 SPR amend(Microvision Corporation) — I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, OCT 13 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. g::safetykak\u emos\plan4niwn2-1 MEMORANDUM TO: Shannin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Jill Sinclair,Forestry Intern DATE: October 26, 1995 SUBJ: Landscaping requirements for Microvision additions The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for the new building and parking lot additions. The plans provide for the required square feet of landscaping area,but according to ordinance, a landscaped peninsula or island is required for every 6,000 sq. ft. of vehicular use area. The new parking lot contains 12,000+ square feet and therefore, two landscaped peninsular islands are required. No additional trees are necessary for the site. Efforts should be made to protect existing trees on the west side of the property from construction damage. The five oaks in the western corner and eight pines along the northwest property line should be protected by tree fencing during construction. Recommendations: 1. Two landscaped peninsulas are required in the new parking lot. 2. Existing trees on west and northwest sides of property are to be protected by tree fencing. 18/89/95 1763:23 612-937-5739-> 612 093 9299 Page 2 • ORY OF CHANHASSEN 600 COULTER DRIVE• ONANHA88EN,MN MIT — (612)93T-1900 j - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION _ • • MZCROVISION CORPORATION OWNERI SAME _ , A�i'UCANT i ---- _ QUATTRO DRIVE ApbRlrl3s: 7600 AGQRFFFFFF.4 li CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9306 I TE EPHONE i(Dar tlrrle) 975-9911 TPLEPHONE:LZ — 11,.� COMptierte{isive Plan Amendment 11, taoatlon of ROW/Eassmenls E,'�. 001d10o* we Petrnk 12. Variance — _ 9.; Sciiii4xcavatiah Perrrld 13. Wetland Atleratlon Pemtll — i 4,i L.-._. Irliklrh U4 Pent 14.___ Zoning Appeal p,; - Pi4nned 142 Development ' 15. hong Ordains Amendrrrerd i 1 _ - -. ---r—� *ening — 7._� 8 Parfiis — 0.. 7 shin Pled Revlew NQIfllcation$lens $50 Signs + $100 Deposit = $150 1 — p, _ Bib Rim Fievlew .� Escrow for Fling Pee/Attorney Coot" i1 DO OUPIBPR/YACNARIWAP $10 0 $250 + $10 0 = $3 5 0 $430 Minor SUfe1Metes A Bounds — iI G, 8tlbdiVleb4 TOTAL FIEE$ 6 0 0 A Hit IWO illiptioperty arrears within 500 feel of the bounAar'bp of t e property must Inolt diar a appllc tlort. 1 1 1 Twoentyshe full size Low wales of the plane must be WLI l4ltt.d. — l OW'X 11" F4ebuced copy Of trines/am for each pian sheet — •NOTE• When multlafe appiloations are processed,the appropriate lee truie be charged for each application,, " escrow will be rbquired for other applications through the development contract C/ 'd . 17C99 .°Neived Time Oct. 9. 5:02P11 IRISH DNA0/1 1 HQH NIdE0:5 5661 '0t :100 18/89/95 17:83:45 612-937-5739-> 612 893 9299 Page 3 • - 1 A OJECT NAME ticE0111.411,0 CORPORA'UO I_ -- 1 I CATION 7600 QUATTRO DRIVE, CHANHASSEN 41 55317 . I' • � LOTS 5 & 6 , BLOCK 1 , PARKON THIRD la's a. aesdRlf''rloN __. ,�.�, �,.,� ADDITION I _—, t --- f SENT zeNtNo '.IOP I tiE ?UESTEO.ZONIN¢ IOP • PRESENT LAID USE DESIGNATION LIGHT MANUFACTURING, •REOUE9TED:LAND ISE DESIGNATION LIGHT MANUFACTURING SITE PLAN REVIEt4 FOR ADDITION_OEXISTING FACILITY REASON FOR THIS kOUEST appibat • must be completed in full end be typewritten or clearly prlhted and must be a000rrpanied by all$nforrnetlan and plans :• ire0 ret tb) applicable City Ordinance provisions. Beton/ filing We application, You should confer with the Planning De J. o determine the epeolfb ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. I Title Is to co ?t that 101 making applloetbn for the described aolbn by he City end that I am responsible for complying all City • • • '• its with regard to h1e request, This application should be processed In my name and I am the party m the • • contact repo any matter pertaining to this Walton. I have attached a copy of proof of ere* (eft er •• of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstr of Tide or purchase agreement), or I am the o authorized pa •nu) Make this application and the tee owner has also a ad this application. I I W I keep If • .d of the deadlines for submleelan of malarial and the progress of this application. I further uh ersland a• • nal fees may be charged for consulting teas, feasibility Studies, etc, with en estimate prior to any authorization l p .• ed with the study, The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of filmy knowl e, ' I a u mid that iter the approval or prancing ct the permit, auoh permits shall be invatld unmeas they are recorded agq*nst the to he Property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Reoorder's Office and tit original document returned to City HaN Records. /c."--//- tis .B roof WI Data \\n„ ; I / . I ' • ia.r"i!-v /Q -i( - ci s-- 87 re of Mme ;r I Date iepOloetbn ReOh+ed on I0.–j- --9 5 Fes Paid A�.5 'On. Receipt No. 5 75 3 5 l The applicantshould contact stall ter a copy of the staff report whioh wIN be available on Friday prior to the meeting. it hat obntacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to ths;appfant'a address. £/8 'd 1889 •4,1?ived Time Oct. 9. 5.0211 NOISHQ DNI-10A 1 HQH MEM y661 •OI :1c0 7300 — BAsswoao CIRCLE E OF PUBLIC 7400 M P) NOTICE HEARING 00 - PLANNING COMMISSION °co D MEETING o / 7500 Wednesday, November 15, 1995 a at 7:00 p.m. ,„co,( ,, 7600 ' City Hall Council Chambers „co,( ,, 690 Coulter Drive , . a P 0 77th STIIEET 7700 Project: Microvision Addition c2 _ o W 7:TH ST Developer: Microvision Corporation - 7800— Location: 7600 Quattro Drive ,Riv EAST 7900` TCHANHA$S YENNE ESTATES -, — R M/N/ PARK Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant Microvision Corporation is requesting a Site Plan Amendment for a 9,400 — square foot addition to an office warehouse facility on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located at 7600 Quattro Drive. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. — 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit — written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 2, 1995. Victor& Wenda Osfar Rogert &Andrea Palms William& Pamela Sutherland 18455 Twilight Trail 18423 Twilight Trail 18564 Kristie Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Michael & Diane Casanova M. A. Deam&B.Boedecker Deam Norman&Debra Wertanen 18563 Kristie Lane 18559 Kristie Lane 18567 Kristie Lane —Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 —James&Jan Luker Walter& Michele Cohen Walter& Michele Cohen 18519 Twilight Trail 18551 Twilight Trail 18551 Twilight Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 William & Margaret Schmidt Carter J. Nichols Gale & Patricia Moug —18615 Twilight Trai 1 18647 Twilight Trail 18679 Twilight Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie,MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Galen& Anne Johnson John P. Pawley, Jr. Matt&Nancy Stevenson 18711 Twilight Trail 18769 Twilight Trail 18585 Twilight Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Jay&Cathy Simpson Richard E. Helzel Clifford J. Dunham 18552 Twilight Trail 18616 Twilight Trail 18680 Twilight Trail _Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 —City of.Eden Prairie David Copp Lyman Lumber Co. Attn: Planning Dept. 7647 Paulsen Drive P. O. Box 40 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Excelsior, MN 55331 —Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Waytek,Inc. D. J. Bogema Lee&Deborah Belka '7660 Quattro 18400 77th Street W. 7611 Kimberly Lane P. O. Box 690 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Zhanhassen, MN 55317 S. L. Shorey&K. M. Berger J. B. Draper&W. K. Wold Roger& Judi Laurence _7635 Kimberly Lane 18354 Evener Way 18310 Evener Way Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Cesar& Christine Martinez G. M. Alexander& S. Geiser C. K. & S. K. Sumner [8371 Evener Way 7634 Kimberly Lane 18743 Twilight Trail --:den Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 William& Barbara Fairbanks Paul J. McCoy Gregory&Janice Beckstrom 18586 Kristie Lane 18520 Twilight Trail 18584 Twilight Trail _ Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Daniel &Kimberly Schneider Kevin&Kaylene Cornell Ralph &Margaret Kimpula 18648 Twilight Trail 18712 Twilight Trail 7629 Paulsen Drive — Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Twin Cities & Western RR Co. Frank, Jr. & Marilyn Beddor Frank, Jr. & Marilyn Beddor 723 11th Street E. 649 5th Ave. S. 7580 Quattro Drive Glencoe, MN 55336 Naples, FL 33940 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 — Frank, Jr. &Marilyn Beddor Fredric & Lorie Silvers Terry VanMaasdam/Jeannie O'Neel-- 7700 7700 Quattro Drive 7619 Kimberly Lane 7627 Kimberly Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Wade Thurman Thomas W. Wedin Scott& Joanne Mitchell 18376 Evener Way 18332 Evener Way 18353 Evener Way Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Norman & Janice Cox Clinton& Kristin Cutler Milan& Nancy Nelson 7642 Kimberly Lane 7626 Kimberly Lane 18603 Kristie Lane — Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Matthew& Patricia Meyer E. A. & L. S. Martingnetti Summerfield Townhomes 18721 Nature Lane 18761 Nature Lane Homeownerrs Assoc. Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 c/o 2681 Long Lake Road — Roseville, MN 55113 Donn&Jacqueline Ravers John& Lynn Shimota J.N. & J. A. Pflug — 18621 Kristie Lane 18741 Nature Lane 7611 Paulsen Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner HI DATE.- November 79 1995 n7 T71% Amendment IT_11�\ 2�7j_�" 3uni: T City Code Amenament w ine 9 Fringe -business District to allow co=ercial raising of fur -bearing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels, Nancy Lee and Patrick Blood The applicants are requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance in the BF - Fringe .Business District, to allow the construction of a multi -faceted facility that could provide services for the care of domestic animals 'ncluding kennels and stable, "humane society" services, and city/police drop off availability. The applicant is proposing this change take place by amending the definition of agriculture. The current definition of "agriculture" in the zoning ordinance is as follows: Agu 0 VA & a/j ,�79�,-ns the commercial use of land for raising of livestock and poultry, �, il7e mea growing and producing of fruits, vegetables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms and choose -and -cut Christmas tree sales. The term does not include the co=ercial raising of fur -bearing animals, nor the operation of riding academies, commercial stables or kennels. Agriculture is a permitted use in the A2 - Acultural Estate District; RR - Rural Residential District; and BF Fringe B- stn District. The applicants are requesting the definition be amended to read as follows Agriculture means the commercial use of land for raising of livestock and poultry, growing and producing of fruits, vegetables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms and choose -and -cut Christmas tree sales. The term does not include the commercial raising of fur -bearing animals, no the operation of riding academies, commercial stables of and kennels. Planning Commission November 15, 1995 Page 2 As mentioned earlier9 agriculture is a permitted use not only in the BF district, but in the A2 and RR districts as well. Attachment #1 reflects current BF, RR, and A2 zoned property. Changing the definition of agriculture as requested by the applicant will not only impact the BF district, but will also impact all of those areas highlighted on the map. To fully understand the effect of this potential amendment, we must examine the meaning of the proposed uses. The zoning ordinance Section 20-1 provides the following definition. - Commercial Kennel means an establishment in which dogs, cats, or other domesticated animals more than one (1) year old are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained, or sold for gain. Chapter 5 of the City Code dealing with Animals and Fowl offers the following definition: Comme,Tc9'9§XePvPvel means any place where a person accepts dogs or cats from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. The city code does not contain definitions of commercial raising of fur -bearing animals, operation of riding academies, or commercial stables. These uses are permitted in some districts as follows-, CLASSIFICATION A-1 A-2 RR RSF BF Agriculture P P P P Commercial Kennels IUP 1UP Commercial Stables IUP 1UP IUP Riding Academies IUP IUP = Interim Use Permit P = Permitted Staff believes that changing the definition of agriculture as requested by the applicant will create some incompatible uses in some districts, and will make it difficult for the city to regulate the use. A better approach would be to regulate these uses as a Conditional Use Permit in the BF District only. The Planning Commission could direct staff to develop a set of standards for these uses that would address issues such as noise, disposal of feces, and shelter for the animals. Planning Commission November 15, 1995 Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission table action on this request and direct staff to develop standards to allow commercial raising of fur -bearing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels as a conditional use permit in the BF District. We also recommend these standards be incorporated into Chapter 5, Animals and Fowl. ATTACHMENT 1. Map showing the areas impacted by t1he definition of agn'ctllftire teas imp %11 1LAi A 2. Map showing BF District. 3. Application and legal description. 4. Public hearing notice and property owners notified. I I YL 116 51 GNU gem ;a " = a IF' 71. WOM Ed' a./S L /� �I�r a� .I�',.�/_ �Ri�w I/ �n r.Q .i.l.�•s mow' •� 3t / ' Ate.' ��1 " .�.:� .. • /� lw ♦ a��.�� • •. If,tinN�� nn = �•►�,i,�� .tical ►.—_ .._ � � =',.�► �imq e�` ., � ��r r•� �:��►� �rl� ��'��j•-: ''_C�4s1� w� .'►!b� �._�► /�.:..,�� s �:i�f�J� �Ai r1_ �ffi,,� N.7 rag-% __ led mLd� ` i 1M�• N3w�; �� •w„N•Ii F� i sn/ / i �� _ cam.- _.x, /��JI��M�� cm i� "r. 1 TAWY-.I m artiassa USE FIFNT IP RR, A-2 ON Fm U P OPF TV �Y I — , 1 -- — LK l4W T c.IM?1wlJ •I Mc1E11cw1El c q°"',l__ I r••• ! mr ___. LAS M w0- 1 S--_ LAXL w ,w —6200 43M ca 4100 = � ---r-- � • .n � 1'I I �.`� y �aR a]00 SSW or, 1:t 6400 _ v �� I' <� l } i f —r �' � � ` {�-t -- ; ��. P• � MOO L ' {loo LAKE t. I d ♦ � ' It�� •[ICM � r r -r �N GWO I m00% / - =�. --- -- o 07 -s►oo W_ M610AAL two �6 / \` �` -1 ___`•III,io� LAKC WCr + V «� L O>•(/J ti� {s0° Ton —.-_ W 0 l LAKE y lf�OF ✓ � - -. ..� � A5y^;,W.• h —_1000 ~ ti— ----noo J 1• 7200 L AME LAXE ANN 6AEEA Alltir f , �' _ �11s00 `'��, 1 J - '.7 C. '1 �.•v1 _ Or 1100 'soa - -- -- I T ( t • r�. ?� - 100 *ace - — - --- --• AA'p IAAW• 1a ^ - ---7l00 1700 - --- ' .. •.,�' ��• v�iS ` ={ ' 1 -- -- 7600 , I ' al I 4 TA Af it ! A —' MCI Rog +:. V .w It _ 1400 �` ''�. • Yf - _ 7100 «�---- - i ,K,srt•• _ ` - "rav Harr o i Jc• = NKM�a 000 T. '! Y azw •[t. /� C: .�J F' /` y 'f j • i. i i -4100 °Aq L bAQ .---- J r 1633 aoo . A•ACE z - a LAKE Bim. --___._ / ' I __ �"�� _ - , ,,.?1 •� 'li .. - - iir:F Pj[FK _— _- _ 63oo inr ly t V. LAKE J(/SAN F '•f E M MSM L AXE �-.! �•',!-� _ /`. ` may. �,�y� 'G`''.' .��•�1 � A/C 1 '* :(f -ry iy A•y �' �, F.� t , --` I F1 1,o ` A _ i J •. � i � e ]Z � � v •_� o u �F . ' � �` i .. ( �►�,� v), ''��---.____—..._,700 T in! •� /j', ' I ~ 4400 rr-""r•� ' 1 —4600 vAR CITY OF i - C„A P�pKLLS �" Q -, CHANHAS� � � rw 1 I _ J( �R '—YOC BASE M" 1 sf�•. .... I jam•\ i �caat,�n LAXE a "" • +P/LEY TRICT To dq A, 1 r 5 �•. PfiEPARm BY: SLUFF I c f.K ` CHANHASSEN ENGOWERING DEPT. REVISED JAN, /995 r A W LIKF • \ v S p.2 O 0•.VE ` LEGEND CITY HALL PROPOSED R/W t C T. Of -MANMA55CN N- •--PRIVATE ROAD _ _._ - \ CIT7 Of i AKOPEE j / _ • PARK BOUNDARY r� I 1000 7 Soo 000 SODO 1 1 j I o ( 2000 ( 1 WALE No FEET -SCOTT J R S 1 I I z o $ 8 o 8 o 8 ------------- s ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Nancy Lee & Patrick Blood OWNER: Same ADDRESS: P.O. Box, 24-- ADDRESS: Shakopee, MN® 55379 TELEPHONE (Day time) ( 612) 445 -0503 1. 2. Comprehensive Phan AmendmsM Conditional Use Permk °� 12° Vacation of ROW/Easements �. ° e��erom Use Permit � �° � o ° W0and Ker �*on PermK 14. Non -conforming Use Perm'K 14° Zoning Appeal �o o Panned Unit Development Rexodon � �. � �o�ing Ordinance Amendment 7. Sign Permits � Soon Man Review Notif ication Signs ° pie Paan Rav�ew X_ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10° Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all proper? owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the cppD�c0on- y Twent -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81d' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. `* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract 4' PROJECT NAME 4-OCATI ON Plains Blvd . LEGAL DESCRIPTION Sec . 36 TWP 116N Range 23W See attached description PRESENT ZONING BF - Frin e Business District REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESS GNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESS GNATION Please see attached, "FA Folz H� REQU[r�E_-S T Please see attac This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly primed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedura0 requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with ail City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am theart p Y whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Tale, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. i will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 10/13 95 Signature o Appiic Date Signature o� [Fee Owner Application Received on Fee Paid Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Frida prior h Friday t o the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be malted to the applicant's address, N.I.Tancy Lee and Patrick Blood RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION AND REASON FOR TMS REQUEST: "Agriculture" is a permitted use in the Business Fringe District. The last sentence of the City defmition of Agriculture states: "The term does not include the commercial raising of fur -beating animals, nor the operation of riding academies, commercial stables or kennels." We are requesting that this exclusion be changed to an inclusion of the Agriculture definition. We would like to build a multi -faceted faci1ity that could provide senices for the care of domestic animals including kennels and stables, "humane society" serxtices, and Cit 7/police drop off availability. Chardiassen and the suiTounding area does not have anything like this available to them. V, That part Of Government Lot 4 � 23 fest �� i ° Section 361 Township 116, North Ren s nc�p�l Me�'�d�.en, Carver County, Minnesota.� which lies soul h e r I y 09 ZhG oau Ch�Qogo and RoTth �'zoz�h�� ht-ofmway line of the St© Love ��'� ��ac��i' �� Q k0FmET1Y Minneapolis i ��7 C"PORY) "d ROT�hQTR o� the p s and ttate ��aMI®Y foo R69 rd ho � n®rthe�� dine of contgin@col �R t�hQ o� o ��o gPTING they-ef p a r t That paT � of Goverawant Lazo 2na 4, "C"Otn 36, Toc�n2hiP 116 Ra 23� de��1 as fo1loV�o �o��Q�� age said soc�Ron o thaflc@ So 0 U o o Ot Mhz �eOZ Quarter corner of said Go er c� �� @long an enufloion of the gest line L®� �, � d��G��i�Q o� of ��o�� gest• the deflecting too the R�g� 206o2R o30oo s nce northeasterly actualpoiRof �� o Q d io to ne e of 1327.05 feet to t e thence ��nfliflg o� rho tract a� land to be cont�r��ng ��h��c�� described; feet; thence northweozQ � ®ng lag �e��ibe� e®arse 170. 35 Of 50 ��y de f loc��ng t® the �e �t � , � � ° a feet to a �go��t r�Q� b � P,� a distance continuing northueaterl� � ��c�� o thence � a�on�; �� eac�ibed course, a di��nc 473.2 feet Cao a point markod e of Northwe terl defl by- Judicial Landmark; thence Y ect��o �o �� Q�t� 63°30° , a distance of 4 a point Marked by 0 ,Judicial Landwo � U feet t o deflecting to the left 250301 thence southwesterly marked b e 30 diOtQhce of 146 feet to a r ,Judicial Landmark= thence 2outheastevl loin the actual point of begi,nnin a ® � 54S • 52 feet t o described �ovrse b Sr p �� dein marked on the last j judicial Landm rkg diotant Sp f northwesterly of actual po�n�, i feet g nnin And except th®t part of the South Section 36 Tow Half of the Northweat Quarter of Township 116, Range 23, described as followoo at a point on the Horth right of wa 1�, 0 Starting which point is S® feet Nor y ne of Trunk Kighwap No. 169 point 1487.4 North °f the center line of the pavement at feet Northeasterly from the West line of ' a said recti®n 36 s8 measured along the center line of said v North 13°32' West or at ®n angle ep8,e®ant andrunningthence distance of 47 8 of 89 1S with ��lu pavement 8 302 feet; thence Horth 77®1®° West 40 South 77e200 W�Bt; 146 feet= thence Southeasterly feet; thence North Tight of wayo t�:eesterly Sol feet to North lino of said Trunk High�ra and North-easterly along said right of we line Y thence beginning. Y 171 feet to place of And EXCEPT that pert of said Government Lo following, described: t 4 lying easterly o f th 8, llne. Commencing al Llie West Y � said �:; stction; ��;:thence South aloe a ager corner or g n extension of the Vest line Government: Lots 4; distance of 14 of deflectin .* to . � s: � �' • , n .65 f set thence northeasterly g ,.. ., the.��left ..106 21..30 a dietanCe of 14 actual - point �'of -v beginning of the i 87.40 feet to the northwesterlyd line �tb be described; th deflecting to the left 89 1S to the s ence Chicago and North Western Ra31we Com an oath line of said terminatio r Company and said line there g i � . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF CHANHAS SEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 15, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an amendment to the City Code to allow commercial raising of fur -bearing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels in the BF, Fringe Business District, Nancy Lee. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on November 2, 1995) Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II Phone: 937-1900, ext. 120 Roger & Betty O'Shaughnessy 1000 Hesse Farm Road Debra Wendorf 740 Vogelsberg Trail Chaska, MN 55318 6 Skip Cook 15506 Village Woods Dr. A Eden Prairie, MN 55433 r Mr. Paul Burke U. S. Fish & Wildlife 4101 E. 80th Street Minneapolis, MN 55425-1665 Verne & Susan Severson 675 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 r I Jack Brambilla 550 Valley Park Dr. ( Shakopee, MN 55379 1 I 1 I t J. Michael Sorenson Rt. 2, Box 187K Belle Plaine, MN 56011 Norman & Karoline Monroe 565 Lakota Lane P. O. Box 115 Chaska, MN 55318 John Malzahn 10551 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 SuperAmerica Group, Inc. P. O. Box 14000 Lexington, KY 40512 Bert & B. Notermann 812 Co. Rd. 78 E. Shakopee, MN 55379 Chester & Betty Teich 825 Flying Cloud Drive Chaska, MN 55.318 Allen Rothe 750 Vogelsberg Trail Chaska, MN 55318 Ms. Ruth Sobnosky Dept. of Transportation 1500 Co. Rd. B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 Control Credit, Inc. 7 841 Wayzata Blvd., #2 00 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Maynard C. Happe 495 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 Robert Drury 575 Flying Cloud Dr. P. O. Box 193 Shakopee, MN 55379 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and gave an introduction of how the Planning Commission meeting would be conducted. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Bob Skubic, Don Mehl, Ladd Conrad, Mike Meyer and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CROSSROADS PLAZA 2ND ADDITION INTO 4 LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,742 SQUARE FOOT _ TIRES PLUS FACILITY LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF HWY 5, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD ON WEST 79Th STREET. Bob Generous presented the staff Deport on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point, from commissioners? Okay, seeing none. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Ron Fiscus: Yes. Good evening. Ron Fiscus...representing Tires Plus. As Mr. Generous stated, I think the one issue that we would like some further guidance on and offer some suggestions as to the condition we put on, is that roof. We're in concurrence with the staff on the other issues and have worked very diligently with both planning staff and engineering staff to resolve those issues, both on the subdivision that the city is putting together and the site plan, building plans for Tires Plus. Perhaps some drawings that give some color to the black and white transparencies that were shown can help provide some further input into that roof issue. As we talked last time, we talked about some potential roof ideas. We raised the issue of the type of roof style that's seen rather prevalently in Chanhassen, like on the Market Square properties, where you take a portion of the front of the building and take it back to a reasonable point and then cut off the roof feature at that point. So here we're suggesting that maybe the end of the showroom area, this showroom depth is this face of the building. Take it back to that point and cut the roof off at that point so it would just be a straight peak that would extend back from the peak of the front parapet, clock tower feature and then go straight back to this point. It's probably one of the more simple statements but we think it would be in keeping with a lot of things that you already see in Chanhassen. Once again there aren't any rooftop mechanical issues to try to screen on this building. Everything from mechanical in nature is either on the ground outside the building or within the building. Two 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 alternative studies have been looked at. The other issue we talked about last time, which is the possibility of extending what was shown on the first alternative clear on back to the back — end of the building. Having this peak ridge extend the full length of the building. Our concern there is that at this point it becomes kind of massive and awkward looking as it extends the rest of the area. So as we were looking at some other alternatives to share with — you here, to get some more guidance, actually what shows up here and the bottom piece are two other alternatives. One being to take this highest point of the showroom parapet wall and put a roof on top of that. And the other alternative being to step that roof down as it goes — over to this portion adjacent to that showroom and the piece that sticks out in front of the building, right in this area where this...wall steps down and then coming in there and then putting another roof structure at the lower level there. I guess our reaction overall to this is —' that perhaps it provides a better end point statement to this development. One of the things that we were encouraged to do by staff, as we got into the beginning stages of this project, is to provide some screening from the properties, the railroad track and properties to the north of — this project, and to really define an end point to where this project is that northerly edge of this, and our sense is that by putting a roof like this on that building might really do a better job of making that kind of a statement. Any of these alternatives are certainly acceptable to Tires Plus. The preferred one would be the simplest statement that we had talked about last time. That being this that does tie in so nicely to a number of the other roof features in _ Chanhassen. Second choice would frankly be probably be this choice. So we would welcome any insight into that that you can give us. Thank you. Ma Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Fiscus? I have one. On the north side, what would be the treatment that you would see. I know that on the north side of this building the elevation goes up. The grade goes up so you will be seeing down on the north side of this _ building from those stores or that entertainment area that will be there. So on the north side, it will appear flat until you get to the south side of the building? Ron Fiscus: Much as the backs of a number of the other buildings in the downtown area. Farmakes: We don't have any materials do we? — Mancino: Do you have materials with you? Ron Fiscus: We do not. It's a brick exterior. Red brick exterior. Standing seam steel roof. The awnings are a vinyl, red vinyl awning. And this is a tan drivit. asma Mancino: Did we have them at our meeting, our first meeting? — Generous: No. 2 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: So we haven't seen materials? Farmakes: I'm concerned about the red roofs and red awnings. How that fits into the surrounding structures. What I hope we don't have happen here is the stuff we've got going on at the end with the fast food. The buildings that we have coming up here follow fast food color structure where we get our klaidescope of bright reds, yellows and greens and things like that. If it's more terra cotta or it's more from an architectural nature color, it'd be better serving the city than some sort of bright red. Since you don't have the materials in front of us, and obviously the roofing material is provided. Or the colors are custom colors it comes in or you have to match a color, it would be nice for us to see that type of material. A magic marker drawing on a piece of architectural paper does not... Ron Fiscus: I recognize that having the colors on a sheet of paper doesn't quite feel the same. Tires Plus has gone to a number of other communities that were rather restrictive or a strong concurrence about the color representation. And...provide some attraction to the area, as they are occupying a back portion of this site, with the red can provide that...Can actually match into some other colors that you have...in the area. And perhaps it's something, as we were looking at alternatives prior to the last meeting and working the entire building, I guess I would tend to agree with you that if the entire building had a pitched roof to it and that entire thing was red, that might be a rather strong statement. Here it takes on more of a character of an accent and the predominant, the over powering sense you're going to have is a very high quality red brick facility. Light tan, lighter tan brick as an accent across here but all of those things going very nicely here. Farmakes: We've run up against this over the years where we have operations that come in. They're looking for high visibility and they want the red striping. We had a few buildings that have went up and we've tried to pass ordinances that try to give us what we want as far as an end plan once the city's primarily up and running and completely filled up. I've always found that, or at least we have a couple of different ordinances. One is the PUD ordinance that talks about the issues of building structures being overtly different from others in the surrounding area and then we have the Highway 5 issue dealing with garish and bright colors. There are no other buildings that I know of that have red doors in Chanhassen and as I said, I think the issue here is one of color and if you have a bright red and you're interested in being some sort of stop sign from Highway 5, I don't think that would be best serving the city. We've asked other developers to be sensitive to that issue and I think we should be holding any of the applicants that come in to the city to the same criteria that we try to come up with. A sensible blend between stores that want to be seen by Highway 5 and some sort of tasteful application of architecture in the city. We really are a fairly low impact city. Most of your signage and so on is moderate and you can be seen from the street. It doesn't really require the overkill of dayglo awnings and roofs. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: That can certainly be put in a condition that we set forth and also with the condition that for the City Council, all the materials be brought to show City Council on the — colors, etc. Farmakes: I would however like to mention to some of the new members on the commission. — Preferably we like to see materials when we look at these structures because you're going to find that you're going to be somewhat surprised, either pleasantly or unpleasantly when these buildings go up. That gee, that wasn't quite what I thought it was. So hopefully, particularly in this case, without having the materials in front of us, we're pretty much voting on things that we don't really have the criteria to vote on. Ron Fiscus: If I may offer one more comment. A year ago, a little over a year ago we approached the City of Apple Valley, and Apple Valley as you know has gone through a much needed change in what they define as their downtown area, which is the corner of — Cedar and County 42. They established some very stringent criteria for how they wanted this area to appear and some of the comments as they were going through the planning process on that downtown area came out was that they didn't like the constant change of one color to another and the signage that the next person's sign had to be larger and brighter than the one before it to attract attention. They had shared some concerns about Tires Plus standard _ building prior to, or at the time we started opening discussions with them about whether or not Tires Plus would fit into that kind of environment. As we got into it, Tires Plus agreed to design a special building for that Apple Valley setting that would address some of those criteria that the city had established and yet the city recognized the need for Tires Plus to keep some of it's standard statement which is that red identifier. As we got into it, the Tires Plus was very pleased with the facility. The Minnesota Shopping Center Association was so pleased with the facility or how pleased Apple Valley was with it, that they gave that building an award for the best building under 10,000 square feet last year. This is that building. This is the building that as we started talking to the city administrative staff and...process, they — said well our image of Tires Plus is this fairly plain, concrete block building that really doesn't do anything for anybody witty a lot of overhead garage doors. What can you do about that? At that point we directed their attention to this Apple Valley building and the — general reaction we got was that's a very nice facility and is something that would compliment that redevelopment project very nicely so that's kind of where we've been coming along in this project as we've been interacting with staff. — Mancino: Appreciate that. Appreciate hearing that. Any other questions? Mehl: The blue areas that you're showing there I assume is glass. Ron Fiscus: It's glass, right. — 4 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mehl: Is that intended to be shaded blue in some way or are you looking at just clear glass? Ron Fiscus: Clear glass. Mehl: Okay. Any kind of a sun screen, a smoked appearance? Ron Fiscus: It isn't intended to be. Mehl: Okay. The other comment I would have I guess I agree with Jeff. I'm not sure about the red roof next to the red brick are just a little off in color. We'd have to look at materials. I think they're not, maybe not contrasting enough or, we'd have to see the materials. Ron Fiscus: As we've gone into the Uptown area required brick. Maple Grove required brick. Apple Valley required it. Burnsville required brick on these facilities. The red awnings, the red trim does blend very nicely with that red brick. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please. Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public heating was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come up now on this issue. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments and remarks from commissioners. Commissioner Skubic. Would you like to. Skubic: I really share Jeffs observation mostly. The concerns about the color. And I agree, without having samples in front of us, it's really hard to tell. I can tell what I like and _ unfortunately by the time I see it, it's usually too late. Everything will be up. So I'm sensitive that the roofline matches the, compliments the adjacent structures. I think this is something that staff can work out with the applicant. I like the number 3 roofline. The pitched roof on number 3 by far. That's real nice and I think it's consistent with the strip mall to the east that's being renovated and also consistent with one of the other plans we have before us tonight. The office industrial building. So I really like that. Mancino: Commissioner Conrad. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: Well I appreciate the more data on the subdivision from staff. I think the applicant has done, the subdivision looks good. The only thing that I would put in would be the — overall subdivision, you want to keep 35% green space so I'm real comfortable with allowing this one to go over that but in total we just have to adhere to that. There's no reason we shouldn't. The site plan looks good to me. I don't care. The applicant did a good job. I — appreciate what you did going back to two alternatives that I think are better than what I saw before. I think they meet the intent, from what I can tell. I think Jeff's comment about a bright red is valid. A rust. You know I don't mind what I'm seeing here but I think the point — is, I'd like to, we'd like to see the color. I certainly don't mind a reddish tone. Whether you call it terra cotta or not, I think that's attractive. I'm looking at some colors that I think are attractive. They may not be the real ones but I do agree with Jeff s point. We don't want a typical McDonald's red type roof. I think that's the extent of my comments. I think it's much better than what we saw before. Mancino: Commissioner Meyers. Meyer: Nothing additional. Mancino: No additional? Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I agree with what's been said. Again I'd like to reiterate that when we see these things, the materials would be extremely helpful. You can bet that when the architectural _ firm is showing this to the client, that they are showing the materials. I don't think that it'd be inappropriate for us to see those materials. In looking at the version that I've seen, I prefer the one on the lower part of the screen, with the exceptions that we continue to see these — types of buildings say that this is very similar to Target. It would be helpful if, I think in keeping more with the Highway 5 designs or the intent, is to try and do something about some of the edges or the square. If you're looking at this building from the side. It isn't — necessary I think that you have to have a pitched kind of fake roof all the way around it but even if there was more of a cap or an extended cap on the roof level so you don't have a box. And I would throw that out as a comment for staff in discussing this issue maybe again with — a lighter color on the cap. Part of the roof with the staggered level of the roof, or excuse me, the pitched roof that you've added to the front area. That would be enough, when you view the two together and from the side, that you would, we'd be breaking this up somewhat. My concern is that we kind of come up with a facade where it kind of looks like Frontier town. You have a building in the front, all the rest of the buildings from the side look the same. Mancino: It looks like a set. 6 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Farmakes: Well like a set, yeah. But again, if you can extend out a cap, there are things that you can do by extending out the cap that break up the square. And typical squares in nature are non-existent. We make them and a little bit goes a long way to break that up. Anyway, if we continue to take the same solution over and over again with these buildings, we're going to create a very sameness to everything and that really, we need to be careful with that in one way but again when we're trying to plan these things and come up with ordinances, hopefully there's some variation that we get from the applicant. As it is right now, cities tend to look very much dated by the materials that are being used currently in commercial construction. You're seeing a lot of these metal roof structures now, particularly in the commercial retail level of these buildings going up. And little extra details of stone details I think are going to be important that not everything look the same. Version 1. Version 2...character. The other issue with regards to the windows. I'm concerned that we add on or we add in that if we're not going to require smoke windows, reflective windows. If their intent is to advertise in that space, that we be cognizant of what that is or omit that. Because of the amount of glass space that's facing to the south. Mancino: Omit what? Any signage? Farmakes: In the glass. The tire places, if you're familiar with Rapid Oil Change and so on and a lot of them put up these temporary banners and so on in the window. My concern is with that much glass, that we don't get an S in one window. A big A in another and then L in another and an E in another. That's 8 feet tall or something. It's not again to restrict. I believe that you would use some allowance for square footage in window signage but again, the distance, this is not a pedestrian area. The distance to the highway is fairly considerably so to have workable signage and advertising will be an issue. And I think if they're allowed temporary banners and so on for opening and that type of thing, it still would be a concern. They have clear windows. _ Mancino: Staff, what is the ordinance for that? I mean we do most of the architecture in the front is windows and what is our sign ordinance? Generous: 50% can be in temporary signage. Mancino: So that glass could be filled up with 50% signage? Generous: Yes. Farmakes: Is there a square foot cap though? To that 50%? Rask: No. There was not in the sign ordinance...and we agreed on 50%. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Farmakes: That's a lot of window space. Is your intent to utilize that? You say it's not? You would not object to an ordinance, or an amendment being on there to limit that? — Mancino: A condition. Ron Fiscus: If you wish to use that down...for the people driving by right close... I would probably object to restricting it...so you don't occupy 50% of the window space you don't get the big SALE letters that are visible from the highway, then I'm having a problem reducing that down... Mancino: Well that might be a good condition to let the applicant and staff work that — through. Farmakes: The last issue on monument signage for this development. If we make it — architecturally compatible, with what architecture will we make it compatible? Generous: Probably the front one but we don't know what that looks like yet. I meet Friday with the architect. Mancino: But that will still come through the Planning Commission. Generous: Yes. Ron Fiscus: If I may offer a little clarification of that. We are working with Applebee's architect currently to resolve that and my sense is it will be more in keeping with Applebee's — architecture. Farmakes: Alright. I don't have any further questions. — Mancino: Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: I agree with Jeff that some type of a small inward beveled roof line around the perimeter of the building could add some interest to the, what would be the east and west and north. North sides. You tend to get rid of that upper square corner. It could make it more interesting. And I agree with the advertising of the windows. Even with the large amount of glass that's there, we really have to watch how much is going to be allowed in there. That's all I had. — Mancino: Thank you. It's come a long way. I think it looks so much better. I have just a couple concerns and a couple questions for staff. I see this building as having almost two 8 _ Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 fronts only because when the north side of the railroad gets developed as an entertainment, they will be looking at this building and will be getting out of parking lots and going into this _ entertainment complex. So that this building does not really have a back, or shouldn't because of what's going to be developed on the north side. Am I correct in seeing it that way Bob? Generous: Yes, you will have the entertainment district if you will. Mancino: Right there and it will be looking onto this so I would like to make sure that both landscaping wise and adding a new roof element will have the back also be aesthetically pleasing. Maybe not quite as much as the south side but that the north side have the correct amount of landscaping too so it doesn't feel like the back of the building, because I do think it has two fronts. My other question has to do with parking lot. Bob, could you put up the last overhead that you had up that showed where the parking lot for this subdivision may have access on both the west and the east side. Generous: On the west side, it would be looking along this... This is the bank's drive thru with one way traffic going towards the west. The other one would be down in the southeast corner of the development if they choose to make that connection for the second phase. Mancino: Okay. My concern is, and I read over the Chanhassen Vision 2002 newsletter that we all received, was that one of the points that it made is that the foundation of the plan were talking about park once, shop twice. And what I found over at Market Square, parking in Market Square. We parked at Wendy's. One of us went to Pet Jungle. One of us went to Lawn and Sports and we had to cut through a huge parking lot and I found with children that is not pedestrian friendly. You can hardly park once and shop twice because the parking area is so big and there is nothing that, for public safety, allows you to walk to all these different places. I don't have the solution but I would like to see the city come up with one in these big parking lots that are going to be multi-use for 4 and 5 different retail spaces. Anybody on the commission have any solutions to that? Mehl: I have one comment. I counted the number of parking places that were going to be in the restaurant parking lot. I got 90 to 100. Is that what's required for that restaurant space? Or could some of those parking areas be done, or be rearranged in such a way to get them better traffic flow. Maybe some additional landscaping. Maybe some pedestrian walkways. This sort of thing. Generous: Well they have improved that pedestrian walkway. The first answer is, it's not sufficient for the site that's specifically on the restaurant site. There will be cross access and parking agreements so there's shared parking within the development. And also with the 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 connection, the bank will be losing some parking spaces so they'll get shared parking with this development also. This is a little too small to do it. Like I said, we have provided the — best pedestrian opportunities that we saw based on the layout on this site. With both ways of the entrance boulevard, there will be sidewalks on both sides and then there will be these connections to east and west. — Mancino: So there is perimeter pedestrian sidewalks? Generous: Correct. And also... Mancino: Okay, but we haven't come up with a solution to diagonally or once you're on the east side, to get to the west side of the parking lot. Generous: Not from internally, no. — Mancino: No internal sort of pedestrian sidewalk. I would like staff to work on that concept _ as we get bigger parking lots. How do we allow people to some sort of an internal pedestrian, whether it's even painted on the asphalt, etc. Generous: Yeah, I don't know. Part of the problem is if they do that, they eat up their impervious surface and we need so much landscaping in the parking lot so maybe it's a credit along that line. Yeah, it's something we could look at. Mancino: Yeah, I understand. Appreciate it. Thank you. Those are my only comments. Do I have a motion? Conrad: Sure. Just before I make a motion. Mancino: For subdivision. Conrad: The subdivision is neat. It's real simple. But it's really, the simplicity is almost, you take it for granted but it's really quite nice. I don't think anybody has said that. When you have the shared parking for four buildings, you get a couple buildings up front. This is neat. It's also neat that we do have some accesses possibly going to the neighboring property owner so in it's simplicity, don't ignore how nice this particular subdivision is. I like it very much. A comment about the parking. We blew it when we built Target and you know, that was a massive parking lot and we had opportunities galore there. This one's too small in my — estimation to really do something useful. That really functions. Tough to deal with this one but those are some add on comments but I'll make the motion on the subdivision that the Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of Subdivision #95-13, Crossroads 10 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Third Addition, plans prepared by Peters, Price and Samson dated July 12, 1995, if that's still the right date. Is that the right date? Generous: For the subdivision. Conrad: For the subdivision, okay. Replatting Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition into 4 lots subject to the conditions in the staff report plus the deletions that staff made that maybe I didn't get totally down. I know we deleted number 1 and we deleted number 6. Mancino: And 7. Conrad: And 7, okay. And then there was an adjustment to, there were some wording changes to 2, is that right Bob? Generous: Yes. Delete all but the last sentence and then modify. Conrad: Okay. But I'm not going to repeat that. I bought what you said and it made sense so you can get that in. The only addition that I'd make to this would be point number 20. The condition be that overall 65% impervious surface will not be exceeded. And that's the extent of my motion. Farmakes: Will you take an amendment? Conrad: Maybe. Farmakes: An addition. I asked that staff to work out the details from the architecture that was discussed. Conrad: This is just for the subdivision. Not the site. Farmakes: Okay, I'm sorry. Mancino: Second to the motion? Meyer: Second that. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of Subdivision #95-13, Crossroads 3n1 Addition, plans prepared by Peters, Price & — Samson dated July 12, 1995, replatting Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition into 4 lots subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed construction plans as well as as-built plans will be required upon completion. 2. The preliminary plat itself appears to be acceptable. The appropriate drainage and utility easements will be dedicated with the plat. 3. Existing landscaping along West 79th Street will be in conflict with the proposed driveway. These trees will need to be relocated. 4. There is an existing concrete driveway apron on West 79th Street located in the southwest corner of the site that will need to be removed. 5. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the grading limits. 6. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 7. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest — edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 8. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. — 9. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 2 year, 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance — with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water 12 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 level and high water level calculations in existing basins and created basins. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 10. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 12. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 13. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the wetland -- mitigation areas into the surroundings is recommended. 14. Prior to filling the wetlands, the City shall receive all necessary permits to complete the project in accordance with the WCA and Army Corps of Engineers. 15. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 16. Erosion control fencing (Type I) shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the perimeter of the site prior to any work commencing. 17. The condition be that overall 65% impervious surface will not be exceeded. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: May I have a motion for the site plan. Conrad: Yeah I'd make that motion too. I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Site Plan #95-10, plans dated October 20, 1995, prepared by Yaggy Colby Associates for Tires Plus, Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, subject to the conditions of the staff report with the following changes. On point 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 number 6. That the Planning Commission recommends the third alternative as the elevation. The third alternative provided by the applicant as being the design of choice by the Planning — Commission but with the one exception that the cap be placed on the top of the roof line on the east, north and west. I'd revise number 7 to add that the staff will insure that landscaping to the north is adequate to soften the hard view or to soften the view from the entertainment — center to the north. I'd add number 13. That the applicant be required to bring in the samples of the roof and the brick to the City Council with the intent that the roof not be, the intent that the roof be a more natural reddish color at most. Not a bright red and that will be for the staff and the applicant to review before it gets to the City Council. Mancino: Second please. Farmakes: Can I make an addition to that or friendly amendment? When you say the roof materials, can you also add the details and the structure, being the awnings and the doors and — so on. Conrad: Yeah. — Mehl: One other thing too. Are we all clear on which is design number 3? Conrad: Yeah. I think everybody here knows but it's the third, it's the bottom of the new alternative. Mancino: It's the double pitch. Conrad: Good point. Mancino: Thank you. And do I have a second to that motion? — Farmakes: I second. Mancino: I'm sorry, any discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City — Council approve Site Plan #95-10, plans dated October 20, 1995, prepared by Yaggy Colby Associates for Tires Plus on Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: — 1. Building is required to be fire sprinklered per NFPA 13. 14 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 2. Ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 3. Submit radius turn dimensions for approval. 4. Signage will only be permitted on the south elevation and must comply with city code requirements. No panel signs will be permitted. A separate sign permit will be required for signage. 5. Grading of the site must be consistent with the master development plan that will be required of the plat. 6. The third alternative, which is the double pitched roof, provided by the applicant as being the design of choice by the Planning Commission but with the one exception that the cap be placed on the top of the roof line on the east, north and west. 7 Revising landscaping plan to locate all proposed trees outside the Minnegasco easement. Staff will insure that landscaping to the north is adequate to soften the hard view or to soften the view from the entertainment center to the north. 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the grading limits. 9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. The private utilities shall be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant _ and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 12. The applicant shall enter into a site development agreement with the city and provide the necessary security to meet the conditions of approval. 13. The applicant is required to bring in the samples of the roof, brick, awnings and detailing to the City Council with the intent that the roof be more of a natural reddish — color than a bright red. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. — Conrad: Madam Chair, can I make a comment? Can I make another comment? Mancino: Yes you may. Conrad: I did not address the window space. And I think City Council can. We have a brand new ordinance in town. We just looked at it. I really hate to all of a sudden identify this project as one that we're going to change that ordinance to because we see a few more _ panes of glass so that's why I didn't bundle that in Jeff. I'm real nervous about doing that and about setting individual window specifications. I did want to bring it up because I think City Council should review it but I want them to hear my comments. We have a new ordinance. _ It's there. We screwed around with it. We thought about it a long time. I don't really like to get in and nit, I'm not sure it's nit picking because it's a valid concern but I don't know, I felt uncomfortable. Farmakes: You may want to review that ordinance because I'm not sure, we did at one time have a... Aanenson: There is a cap based on the wall area. It can't exceed the wall area for that district. Conrad: It may be okay but again, that's. Mancino: And it's passed. When does it go in front of the City Council? Generous: November 13th. — Mancino: Okay, thank you. 16 -- Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 6 1/2 FOOT HIGH ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LANDINGS DRIVE AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KENNETH DURR Public Present: Name Address Kenneth Durr 4830 Westgate Road, Mtka 55345 Craig Miller 6450 Minnewashta Parkway John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Ken Durr: My name Ken Durr. I reside at 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka._ At the time that the preliminary plats were developed and submitted, I did submit the day following, holding all of the applications, 20 some copies of this that we had prepared originally. Prior to any of our work being done on the property. With that was a drawing showing, which was on the screen there that Bob had on. Showing the drawing dimensions of the sign. The actual signage area...about 4 feet under what is allowed. The height of the lattice work is I think 6 foot 5. Foot and a half higher than what the ordinance requires. Now I did have these were prepared by our office. We had these run at Kinko's and there were 20 some copies. Where they went, I don't know. But we assumed that being that this was included with the application, and the sign detail, that we didn't have to do anything further. That was an error. Staff report states that one of our landscaping plans only shows one monument. Originally we had three. There was the lattice work on this side. The gatehouse in the center. And more lattice work on the other side, as the three proposed. We dropped that idea when we were required by the city to open Ironwood Road through our subdivision. Because we knew once the four additional people who were not residents of Minnewashta Landings, that we could not ever control that by a gatehouse because the association did not include T those people. We always, up until finally determining to drop the gatehouse and the other monument on the other side, we always did show three but I think maybe the staff didn't recognize that on the drawing that they referred to with one monument, there are really three. They're indicated in red. It says monuments. And there are three of them but in black and white they may look like trees rather than monuments. The...ordinance states 5 feet. We're in excess of that and that's our error in not checking...and following procedures but I really did not know that that was featured as a problem. Interestingly, even our appraisal for the subdivision which was done back in May 26, 1994, the appraisal has the same entry 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 monument. And essentially there, ifs nearly identical to the...that's near to that which we could possibly do. Now since that...driving down Highway 7 after this occurred, and just — observing the various subdivision signs all along Highway 7. There is not a sign along Highway 7, the main subdivision on the south side of TH 7, from TH 41 to Minnewashta Parkway, that is 5 feet or less. Every sign is over 5 feet. Some of them as high as 10 feet. And I have taken pictures from, here's one at 8 foot 2 inches. There's one over on TH 41 that's over 8 feet. Any number of them. There's Minnewashta Heights. Sterling Estates. Minnewashta Manor. All of them along Highway 7 and some as much as 10 feet and every — one is in the highway right-of-way so I concur that yes, we acted without a permit. We're in excess of the 5 feet. We have a spent a great deal of money and time and effort and concern on trying to develop the very best looking community that we could. We didn't just do this — hap hazardly. A lot of thought was given to the total planning concept. The size of the sign. The coloring of the sign. The color of the lettering and all to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible. And we receive nothing but compliments from neighbors on it and not one objection to anything that we've done to the entry. So yes, we're in violation but we have spent a great deal of money and effort for signage was $7,000.00 and it is done, not just all out of wood. It has a steel structure inside of the wood so that the posts are steel mounted in concrete. It's the same type of structure that's used in the Arboretum for their signage for their arbors and the people there have gone to great expense to finding the best materials that _ will get longevity and service from their use at the Arboretum. And I had a lot of conversations with them. I even used the same person who does their signs. Pete Boyer who happens to be a building contractor does all of the Arboretum's arbors and signage work. So _ I employed Pete Boyer to build this and we did it with the same materials, same techniques, the same preservatives as they use at the Arboretum. I'm confident that the longevity of it is going to be very good. We've used similar procedures before on lattice work that is 25 or 26 years old now and has held up very well. And it does hold up well at the Arboretum. And we do have a sufficient money in our homeowners association to handle anything that needs to be done as far as maintenance. We're not going to have a shabby look by any means after all we've spent on the subdivision. It's a look that I think is important in character. It's in good scale and good taste. But it exceeds 5 feet. Mancino: Thank you very much. This is a public, oh. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing please. Meyer moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hewing. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. — Craig Miller: My name is Craig Miller. I reside at 6450 Minnewashta Parkway, which is directly across from the Landings entrance. One of the signs...and the sign is there when I'm 18 _ Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 working in my yard and when I look out my front window. It does not restrict my view of the lake. It's done in good taste. It's not gawdy. It represents the area very well. It fits well with the landscaping around it. In short, if I have no objections to it, I can't see why anybody else would. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Skubic moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: First of all, could you answer the question as to why from TH 41 west to Minnewashta Landings there are signs on Highway 7 or south of Highway 7 that are higher in height than what the ordinance says. Rask: Most of those are older subdivisions. I can't say that they went in after we had a sign, or before we had a sign ordinance or not. I don't know that. I would assume they were in before the sign ordinance, not this latest revision but before we really had any standards. Looking back at other subdivisions in the city, we have a great number of permits for other subdivisions for their entry monument signs and if you look at other subdivisions throughout the city you'll notice that the vast majority of those do meet requirements. They are low '— profile signs. They are not over 5 feet and conform to the other regulations so I would assume that it's just because they are older subdivisions. Mancino: Excuse me for a public service announcement. Kevin Snyder has his lights on. It's a red Ford Bronco parked in the lower lot. And we'll stop proceedings until you come back. Just kidding. Thank you. I assume if it's a newer one with a newer ordinance you would be out there talking to them? Okay, thank you. Farmakes: What would you attribute to the recent developments that we're seeing the same problem. With Rottlund and Lundgren. Rask: Yeah, I don't know where we've missed there. Obviously if you've got two there's something going on. I mentioned though responding to Nancy question, it hasn't always been a problem. We've got a whole filing cabinet full of permits that show people have come in and they've applied and even you look at all the subdivisions we've got going in, we haven't had a problem on the other ones. They've come in and asked for permits. Aanenson: Maybe I can respond to that a little bit. Some of the newer subdivisions that have gone in have been in the Parade of Homes. They're marketing to a different identity. Some of the other subdivisions that we've had prior to that aren't going in with the same 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 priority because there's a different marketing technique and so signage has become more important on some of these subdivisions. — Farmakes: As a "monument" versus a. Aanenson: A statement, identity. Exactly. Which maybe we haven't seen as much before. Where they wanted to match, similar to like the Lundgren where they wanted to match kind of their theme of what they're trying to do. Just as Mr. Durr has indicated what he's trying to — do... Mancino: And the other hard part is, we are not a design review board here. We're the — Planning Commission to uphold the ordinances that we have. Comments from the commissioners. Mr. Mehl, would you like to start. Mehl: Yeah, I think it's a very attractive sign. Very well designed. It looks great. It's probably going to stand there a long time you know with the materials it's made out of. I — don't know how maintenance free the lattice work is but aside from that I think that the sign could be scaled down and proportioned down to be basically the same sign and the same attractive sign to fall within the ordinance. Mancino: Okay, Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I think there are other precedence of mistakes being made by builders, developers in regards to city ordinances. And criterias from the outside looking at problems sometimes seem petty and bureaucratic. However, when you're coming up with ordinances, we do not — tag onto the end of the ordinance as a form of law saying, unless it looks good. And that is not an excuse to ignore criteria that we have here and we do have variance criteria to give variances. I agree with the city staff that the criteria is not being met here, in any one of the — several guidelines. I agree that the sign could be reconformed to have the same appearance and fit within the parameters. I am somewhat concerned that we're getting a rash of these from developers. I'm wondering about the intent of following the ordinance. And it seems — that they continue when they're off or they forget about the plans, that they continue to be taller. They don't have a tendency to be smaller than the ordinance, so I think. Mancino: But we don't know about those. Farmakes: Well, that's neither here or there. It's just an observation. My point here on this — issue before us is a procedure issue. If we say that this is okay for this, because it happens to look good, that is not a criteria for a variance. Nor is criteria that we add on when we're, when the city is passing ordinances. I think that this should be handled the way that we've — 20 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 handled the others, as an issue and we should be consistent with how we deal with this. Otherwise we're then creating a precedent situation where if we could...well that's okay, we'll look the other way... Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Meyers. Meyer: It's been very well covered...nothing additional to add. Mancino: Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: Whereas typically I enforce our ordinances, I guess I'm a little bit showing some •- sensitivity in this particular case, probably because I didn't buy the ordinance in the first place. Probably because an entry monument sign is significant. Can create a sense of place. A sense of welcome. I don't think our ordinance allows that to happen. It's meant to minimize the impact of signage whereas in many cases signage can be a real positive thing for a major development. So that's why I'm vacillating here. I don't have, I haven't made up my mind what I want to do. I really buy following up the ordinance again. The ordinance is relatively fresh, as I said before. Here's a case where we have something that's fairly well designed, and I probably lobbied for a design bonus, if I recall what my position was when the ordinance was going through. So I'm sort of caught between what my feelings were then. A case where I think this is probably an attractive sign. Well designed. Not offensive. Not, you know it's not doing anything bad. Yet the ordinance is there so I'll stop my comments at that. Mancino: I was going to say, and who decides the design bonus? Commissioner Meyers. I mean Skubic. Excuse me. Skubic: I'm going to support the ordinance. I believe it's put there for a right reason. Certainly maintenance I believe is an issue and also the size that we're trying to level the playing field here so that there aren't any advantages. Should the City Council decide to approve this, as they have on some previous situations, I certainly hope that they will take staffs recommendations to insure that the maintenance is covered by the homeowners association and also some penalty fee be added. Mancino: Thank you. I also support what Commissioner Skubic has just talked about. As hard it is for me, I think the design is very good. I think all the thinking has been done to design it well. To make sure it's constructed well and will weather time and I have no doubt — that the homeowners association will maintain it. 100%. We still have a new ordinance and it may be, from these last two, what would be Longacres signage that was done on Highway 41 and this one, that we look again at the ordinance. We may want to do that and do some 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 revision but as it stands right now, I too would say that a variance, or hardship hasn't been established here. May I have a motion please? — Farmakes: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission deny the variance request for a 7 1/2 foot high entry monument sign for the following reasons that's listed, 1 thru 3 from the report dated November 1, 1995. Mancino: Is there a second? Mehl: I second. Mancino: Any discussion? Fannakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the — vaiiance request for a seven and one-half (7.5) foot high entry monument sign for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. Neither the size, physical surrounding, shape or topography prevent the placement of a sign which meet ordinance requirements. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship appears to be self created because the applicant could have reduced the overall height of the sign while maintaining the same size area. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Mancino: When does this go in front of City Council? Rask: On the 27th. — Mancino: On the 27th of November. Thank you. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO MONUMENT SIGNS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 761 WEST 78TH STREET, RICHFIELD BANK. Public Present: Name Address Steve Kuchner 6625 Lyndale Ave. So., Richfield — Jan Susee 6625 Lyndale Ave. So., Richfield Kevin Snyder 2170 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? — Jan Susee: Thank you. My name is Jan Susee. I represent Richfield Bank and Trust and the Richfield State Agency that owns this property. This sign is not designated as an advertising sign. We immediately took that off when we saw the report, which was about 8 times it's mentioned that it's advertising. Well that's not the intent. If you know the site, you're driving right in front of the drive up tellers and it's safety to get cars to go to the right... I'll also point out that our monument sign is actually only 15 square feet in size. It's approximately 3 x 5 and the bottom base is not necessarily, there's nothing on it. It's a back lit sign which is the same so you can see the directional signage that's there. We've spent a great deal of money on a sign and we probably have bar none, the most expensive sign in the city of Chanhassen or probably the surrounding area. The fountain out front is costing well over $100,000.00 as part of the package we were trying to develop a very high quality building. High quality signs. Our actual signage on the building is less than permitted. We could have had quite a bit more. It's actually 87.5 feet for each of the signs. That's the actual size they indicated... The square footage, if you call this a monument sign, the 15 feet that's actually used plus the 46 feet on the fountain side, is less than would be allowed as well. And this is just an attempt to make the building attractive and make it something more than just a cold sign saying go this way. It just isn't right. That building is too expensive of a building. Too attractive of a building within the needs of the city and clearly meets all of the actual size of — the building. I'll also point out that this isn't a single use building. There are at least 5 other tenants in the building and there are no signage for those. We restricted those in their leases so they can't have individual signs. And this is just to direct people where to park. We've — got 5 different businesses. We've got a drive-up coming right out in front. It's an attempt to make an attractive sign that designates where people should drive. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing. Excuse me. Is there anyone else from the applicants that would like — to present? Okay. May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing please. Meyer moved, Skubic seconded to open the public heating. The public heating was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time. Seeing none, — may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public healing. The public heating was — closed. Farmakes: May I ask a question of staff? Before we proceed. — Mancino: Yes, before we proceed. Go ahead. — Farmakes: I didn't get a chance to ask in regards to the comment but I'd like that clarified from our engineer or city staff. Just chime in whoever thinks they should cover this. There — is a do not enter sign at the area coming in. The applicant made a comment about safety. Knowing where to turn. You only have one other way to turn. Do you feel that that's covered in the issue of safety? — Hempel: I can respond to that. If you're referring to the access off of Kerber Drive, when you turn in. When you turn into the site, you're approached by the drive-up, or the exit from — the drive-up teller windows and it was our recommendation at the site plan review process to put do not enter signs, one way signs at that point. — Mancino: At the south side. Hempel: South side. As shown on the site plan here. — Mancino: Okay. Farmakes: So those, my point, do you concur that an additional signage with this, if this is fulfilling, it's enhancing that safety or do you feel that that's self explanatory. That if you have a do not enter sign, and there's only one other way to turn, does it need additional — signage is what I'm saying to...people driving in there, in your opinion. 24 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Hempel: In my opinion, based on the traffic signage manual, I'd say the signs that they show here, the do not enter sign is adequate for the traffic flow. Mancino: Thank you. Any comments from, or questions from commissioners? Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: Well I don't have any strong opinions on this. We certainly aren't enhancing the building by advertising on this sign and it certainly is, as the applicant said, a quality sign and I can see the advantage of some directional information on the sign but once again I'm hesitant to override our ordinance so I don't know. I'm undecided on this. I'll listen to the rest of the commissioners. Mancino: Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: Staffs report is appropriate. There's no doubt. Functionally you can direct traffic within our ordinance. I support the ordinance and staff report. Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: I'm concerned about the safety issue. I feel satisfied that that's adequate...support staffs report. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: No additional comments. Mancino: Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: Yeah, I agree. We don't need that sign. The sign that are there are adequate. Do I understand it correctly that they can put a 4 square foot directional sign in there and it would seem to me that they could put some good effort into styling and shaping, positioning of that sign that it could be very functional and very attractive. Mancino: Thank you. I have no additional comments. I do support staff report. I think a directional sign would be welcoming there. Telling people that there is an auto bank or cash machine and where to go. And sticking with the ordinance, the size of the sign. May I have a motion please? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial for the request for the sign permit variance #95-9 for the November 1, 1995 based on the findings — presented in the staff report 1 through 5. Mancino: Is there a second? Mehl: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Fa nakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the request for the Sign Permit Variance #95-9 based on the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. Richfield Bank has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with two wall signs and fountain sign. 3. Provisions exist in the City Code for the use of directional signs. 4. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. _ Mancino: When does this go to City Council? Rask: On the 27th. Mancino: November 27th. Please follow it onto City Council, who will make the decision. — Thank you. 26 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail, Mpls. Robert Bruno 1601 E. Hwy 13, Burnsville Mark and Kay Halla 770 Creekwood, Chaska John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I have a couple. Where else do we have nurseries? Retail nurseries. Where can they go now? Is the only place where, central business district? I know Lotus Lawn and Garden. Rask: Yeah, business highway where we have Lotus Lawn and Garden there._ Don't know if, I don't believe it's in the CBD. I think just business highway. Mancino: So it's business highway which is where else in the city do we have business highway? I mean I'm an avid gardener. Where can I go for retail in our city to a nursery? Or will I be in 10 years from now, from what we have set up. Rask: Currently the zoning districts we have, I don't know if there's a whole lot of vacant land for that type of use or if there's areas that would be suitable. Aanenson: That was one of the reasons why we looked at the temporary use ordinance because we've had...to provide that retail outlet...on a temporary basis. _ Mancino: So, but I'm a real gardener. I mean I'm not a temporary Target gardener. I mean I want the real thing. I want to pick my perennials. I want to you know, so that I would go to business highway district? That is where they could locate because what I'm hearing you say _ is that right now we have our wholesalers. We have the, I guess it is the Gorra property on Highway 5, north of Highway 5 between what is it, Kerber and Galpin. And that's an interim? Aanenson: Yes. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: And we also have the Wilson Tree Wholesale Nursery on. Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: And that is also interim at this point? _ Rask: Yeah, I don't know what the current status is. If it's still operating under a conditional use from some time ago. I don't believe they've gone through the interim use process. — Mancino: Okay. Those are just, I just wanted to know, where they are right now and doesn't the Wilson's have a retail space place on 212? Is that also BH zoning? — Aanenson: BF. Business Fringe. Mancino: Business Fringe. So they could also be in the business fringe. Okay, thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to make a presentation? Don Halla: Good evening Madam Chairman, commissioners. I'm Don Halla, Halla Nurseries. We believe our landscape nursery and garden center should be permitted in the A2 zoning. We requested a zoning text amendment after we recently asked for staffs permission to build another greenhouse. The building department said that we did not need a permit since the greenhouse would be an agricultural building, with agricultural products being sold. However the planning department said no, because we are intensifying our business which they feel is a non-permitted use. The planning department said that the zoning does not allow us to exist. We realize our grandfather status does allow us to exist. Halla Nursery has been a retail nursery since 1962 at our Chanhassen location. In 1973 a permit was issued to build a structure to house our landscaping, garden center and sales office... Since that time we have always carried dry goods, plants, tools, animal feed, bird accessories and other items related to the development and care of landscaping and plants and animal habitat. Prior to 1994 we stocked and sold these items in our office building, our greenhouse and in a display and storage building. In 1990 the city changed their ordinance without notifying us. In 1993 we built two buildings, mainly for the purpose of equipment storage and planting of bare root nursery stock. No permit was required. In early spring 1994 we built another building to condense the products which we were displaying and selling from our office building, — greenhouses and... Again, after inquiring of the city building department, we learned that no permit was required. Not until the summer of 1994 were we notified that the change in the ordinance affected the legal status of our business. Why were we not notified when we — inquired previously about building permits? Probably because the nursery business is guided by the State and Federal government as an agricultural business...horticulture. Just as farming, greenhouses and... We feel that when the city changed it's ordinance, and zoning for — 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 A2 land in 1990, and error was made by not including landscaping nurseries and garden centers as an A2 permitted use. There are several other nurseries in the community still _ grandfathered in, in non-compliance with the A2 ordinance. The ordinance should have taken into consideration these families and businesses before it was adopted. The restriction should be the same for everyone. A2 is agriculture. This means Arboretums, nurseries, garden centers, farms...greenhouses, all of which may or may not include retail sales. The zoning is silent as to retail sales. Halla Nursery is a licensed landscaping nursery, game and poultry farm. We have been all of these for many years. Homes are permitted and usually are part of any agricultural business. My son and his wife live on the nursery property. The city staff has stated that there would be certain A2 zoning areas which are suitable for garden center nurseries, by Section 20-1 of the ordinance. Defining nursery means, an enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sales of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. Arboretum means a collection of plants. Is permitted in the A2 zoning. Is this not what a nursery is? Our Minnesota Landscape Arboretum is located on A2 land. It has a retail store which sells jewelry, trinkets, books, clothes, blankets, cards, quilts, housing items, and Christmas gifts to name a few. It is also, has a restaurant. They called their store a variety store in a conversation that I had with them last Saturday. They do not sell plants or plant supplies, except at all their fund raisers where nurseries, like us, donate products for sale to help fund the continued growth of this valuable asset. Nurseries are likewise a valuable asset and service to the community. They grow plants of many types and kinds, which are sold to beautify our homes and businesses. Nurseries must make a profit to survive. Unlike the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, we don't have the ability to get grants, volunteers and fund raisers to continue our existence. Nevertheless, we are a valuable asset to the community. Our nursery presently has 100 acres of land but we do not necessarily need all 100 acres for our operation. Recently we have been approved for a subdivision that would leave at least 12 acres for the nursery business and the remaining land for 2 1/2 acre average residential development. Charles Cudd Builders, a fine home builder now building Bearpath and Big Woods in Eden Prairie, has been working with us to create a development that makes the nursery like an Arboretum. A plus for the neighbors to enjoy that want to live in a country atmosphere among the peacocks and flowers. We are looking forward to being an attractive asset to this new subdivision, just as we feel we are for Chanhassen. Over the years we have donated trees and plants to the parks, the churches and other non-profit organizations. We raise over 20,000 perennials and annuals each year and we also grow thousands of shade trees and shrubs and ornamentals. These plants are grown to be part of the beautification of the world in which we live. And in particular Chanhassen. We hope the community grows and that we will remain an integral part of it. We are a third generation family business. We do not feel that it is our business, which has existed since 1962, is an interim use business. Because we have needs for another greenhouse and because city staff has complained to us that our nursery did not complain with the A2 zoning, we are requesting the ordinance amendment. In the October 25th memo 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 from planning, the planning staff listed certain conditions that would apply to retail and wholesale nurseries if added as an appropriated use in certain locations. We commend the — staff for their thoughtfulness and desire to develop the community in an organized and precise manner. However we feel some of these recommendations may be harsh and not particular to a business that has existed prior to the zoning changes. We would like to negotiate some of — these items with the city. Kay Halla, a registered landscape architect on our staff, has worked as a county planner in Howard County just outside Baltimore, Maryland. She would be pleased to work with the city to negotiate appropriate A2 requirements for a nursery and — garden center. Some of the items and conditions we wish to negotiate are, in your list item number 3. This should be line with regulations regarding businesses. Most nurseries, farms and greenhouses would have plant and yard areas within 100 feet of the street. The 500 foot -' setback of the yard building and storage would require a site of at least 27 1/2 acres. If you take 500 each direction, it comes to 1,000 x 1,000. Multiples out to 22 1/2 acres. Take the 5 acres in the middle and you have 27 1/2 acres required to do that. And wouldn't allow a home, which is permitted in A2, to be part of the nursery. Screening the nursery with a fence would make you think it's a junkyard, and located behind it. Not plants and supplied to beautified our homes and neighborhoods. Growing plants are attractive. They're not ugly or — repulsive. A nursery by it's nature is an outdoor store. Fencing is not required for farms or other A2 permitted uses which may include such things as manure piles, or junk equipment. Item number 5. If hours are set by the city, they should be in keeping with other businesses. Farms and the Arboretum that are permitted in the A2 zone. Large farms and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum have speaker systems. They should be permitted but controlled if too _ loud or abusive. As a family business, most farmers, nurserymen, and greenhouse operations along with the Arboretum, would not like to feel that they would have to close or liquidate their business unless the economics were such that they could not exist. Is it fair for the city _ to tell the landowner that he much sell his property and cease making a living? This is what an interim or conditional permit does. Most nurserymen and farmers are very good stewards of the land. They love working with plants and animals and enjoy the beauty of outdoor work and living. It is hard work. Most work 60 to 80 hours a week to earn a living in the 7 to 8 months in which we have to grow a crop. Their work benefits all of us through food production, beautification and helping keep our earth healthy and alive. Society needs to help and encourage all agriculture or we won't have a society. We need extra greenhouse space to help accomplish this. We want to cooperate and facilitate Chanhassen in it's growth into the next century and beyond. Thank you. — Mancino: Thank you. Don Halla: I believe Kay Halla has something she wants to say. Mancino: Thank you. Any other of the applicant would like to present? — 30 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Robert Bruno: Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Robert Bruno. I represent Halla Nursery and I want to make just a brief presentation for you here...on the definitions involved in this issue which I think aren't addressed in the staff report. ...from Don Halla's presentation, there's a great variety of commercial activity that goes on at the Halla Nursery and has gone on for many, many years. Since 1962. However when you attempt to apply what the city has defined as a nursery or a wholesale nursery or permitted uses that are described in the A2 zoning, you come up with very inconsistent results. One of the permitted uses in A2 zoning district is agriculture, and the city staff hasn't defined that for you in the staff report but I think it's a very enlightening definition. Agriculture, according to Section 20-1, the definition section of the City Code...commercial use of land. And I...commercial, whether they're raising a livestock poultry, growing and producing fruits, vegetables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms. And choose and cut Christmas trees sales. The term does not include commercial raising of fruit or any animals or the operation of riding academies, commercial stables or kennels. The way this issue arises, was out of the request to build the additional greenhouse, which at first blush would seem to be an agricultural use. However the staff has interpreted the definition of agriculture here to exclude retail sales or retail activity, even though it's not mentioned anywhere in the definition. And because there were going to be grown within that greenhouse products which would then be sold at retail, that converted it into something other than agriculture in the staffs mind and you see in the staffs report other definitions, depending upon what the issue might be, you see definitions for what a garden center is, and there's inference that the nursery would be a garden center. You see a definition of what a nursery is and in some respects...some parts of it are nursery. Not all of it. But I think you have to look at the definition of agriculture here to see that what we are requesting here really means a consolidation and a clarification of all of these definitions which I think are really conflicting. If you look at the term agriculture, it uses the word commercial use of the land. It doesn't — mean, it didn't say wholesale. It didn't say but not retail. It said commercial. It used the broadest possible language to define what agriculture meant and certainly...farmer who is growing crops, is intending to sell them. It's not intending to eat all their crops or compost them. They're engaged in a commercial activity to dispose of those crops by sales and certainly there are retail sales which occur on agricultural property...look any further than the orchards or in fact the Christmas Tree cutting is a retail activity which is contained right within the definition of agriculture. Eggs can be sold off of a farmer's place. There are many retail sales. I think the definition of agriculture implies that there is a retail component and there could be a retail component of it but I don't think that has really been brought up to this — body's attention in the staffs report. All of these definitions, depending upon what Mr. Halla wants to do with his property, the staff will point to another definition and say well, you don't _ really qualify on this. Therefore we can't allow you to construct your greenhouse. What we are attempting by this is to try to make some sense out of the patchwork of definitions that we have. To simply say that nurseries are a permitted use in the agricultural district, this is 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 an idea that was suggested to us by the city's attorney. By Elliott Knetsch who suggested that this makes a great deal of sense. That it's not outrageous to think that a nursery should be in an A2 zoning. You see it all over the place. It's not an idea that is repugnant really to common sense. And so as a means of trying to, instead of trying to deal with all of these definitions, try to make them all conform to each other. Try to make them exclusive — definitions, we would simply request that we allow as a permitted use nurseries which is what the applicant has requested here. And I think it certainly makes a great deal of sense for this body and for the city to give some direction to what is included in an A2 district rather than — leaving it to some court to try to sort through all the various definitions of nurseries and wholesale nurseries and garden centers and agriculture to try to decide what this body or this city means when it says that certain activities are allowed in the A2 and we can definitely — make that decision here and the City Council could make that decision by making the amendment that we've suggested to allow nurseries to be a permitted use in the A2. That's the only reason... — Mancino: Thank you Mr. Bruno. Mark Halla: Good evening. I'm Mark Halla. I reside at 770 Creekwood, Chaska mailing address. Right on the nursery property actually. Let me just first point out that we've been in business since 1942. I'm the third generation. That's important to me. We've been in — Chanhassen since '62. Agriculture is allowed by the current zoning. We are agriculture. No question about it. State and federal law considers horticulture an agricultural type of business. The entire agricultural gross product, horticulture is nearly half of that. That's corn, soybeans, — horticulture. We're half of the entire agricultural product of the nation. We're under federal law. Federal labor law as agriculture. We pay overtime different than standard businesses _ because we're agriculture. We were just recently, a couple weeks ago, down in South Dakota at their Ag...Career Day. It's a job fair. We've been invited two years in a row now. They're an agricultural college inviting us to go down there and hire their students. There seems to _ be a difference in opinion on retail. Exempting us from being agricultural. That seems in the past we've always come to that bone of contention. Because we were retail, we're no longer agricultural and I have to say that I strongly disagree with that. The agricultural industry as a whole, in the end at least, if not right up front, is a retail business. No question about it. Can't go to store and buy something that's produced from the farm without considering that a retail sort of business. The corn huts are allowed. They're a retail business. A farmer selling his goods and they're allowed to put up a stand and sell from a stand but the question in this case is, are we allowed to have a building or a greenhouse to sell our produce from. We want to be permitted by code. We feel we already are permitted by Code. You've heard the — definition of agriculture out of the code book. That permits us. We don't ask...difference of opinion is there. We're trying to bring this before you to get some feedback and get approval and hopefully get this resolved so it meets everyone's end. We realize the city is...folks for — 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 being here tonight and putting in their time and doing this. This is a good city. It's coming along really nice. It's a lot of struggle and a lot of work needs to be put in to see that it happens in the good way. We're growing this rapidly, it's pretty tough to control it. I'm starting to think that if we...process and try and work it out. The staff obviously has concerns in making an amendment to the ordinance of this magnitude. When you start saying okay, — we're going to change the whole thing. Everything A2. Now someone can come in and put in a retail business as long as...shrubs around it. I think that is a concern that everyone needs to understand and listen to. It's a little different when you've got a business that's been there — since before the city was a city. Back when we were a village. We've come along with the city. We've grown together. We'd like to think that because now the city is growing, that we're not going to be snuffed out. We're not going to say we're no longer allowed because things have changed. We think we've got a great business. I know Nancy's been out there. I don't know what you think. Hopefully you're pleased by it. We've got an awful lot to offer this city and it just seems to me to try to limit us or snuff us out is a disservice to the — community. Where's a gardener going to go? Basically you're saying okay Lotus, you get all the business. Halla's out of the picture. They're not allowed. By putting up a greenhouse that's not expanding our business. Not at all. In fact it's protecting our crop. We believe we've got State and Federal laws that allow us to do that. We have the crop and plant material that have a right to be protected. We'd like to continue to do so. I have some suggestions on how we can resolve this. The city may not want to simply change the ordinance. Maybe that's not what needs to be done. There's a couple of different things that could happen. Change the zoning to allow retail garden centers and nurseries...change the code and we're done with this. I don't know if that's the best resolution, and that's why you're here and hearing both sides of the issue. You could amend the ordinance to allow existing retail nurseries and garden centers to continue. Maybe that's the solution. ...what's existing at the time this code is enforced, let's amend it to say you can still continue. You're acceptable. — We're not going to say you're no longer acceptable and then every time I want to do something, I have a battle. We came to the city to ask on this building, even though it's in the present code book that a greenhouse...in your presentation talked about greenhouses being an agricultural building...a temporary structure...you're supporting our argument that we shouldn't be here tonight. We should have been simply said, go ahead. Build your building. Greenhouse. Temporary structure. It's agricultural land... So you could make it as simple as allowing the existing properties that are already there to continue. The other thing, and this seems a real simple solution. Is simply to agree that horticulture is agriculture. We're already allowed by the code, no different than the Arboretum...Thank you for your time. Any questions? Mancino: Thank you. No. Mr. Bruno. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Robert Bruno: Let me just add one thing. I would just discourage all of you from spending any time on the interim use issue because Halla is not at all interested in applying for an — interim use permit on his property. So there really are no applicants who are interested in applying for an interim use. Halla is not. So I think that would be a diversion from the issue here and I'd hate to see us waste the time trying to come up with a whole bunch of criteria — over what interim use should be when there's no one that really wants it. Mancino: Is there anyone else from the applicant wishing to present? Okay. Seeing none, — may I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please? Fanmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public heating was — opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to speak on this matter? It's open to a public hearing. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Gosh, lots of questions. Mike? Meyer: Yeah, just for the record, I'm going to abstain from this one. I do have a conflict of — interest so I'm going to step down for this vote. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Other commissioners, your comments and questions and maybe — even needing more information on this. Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: Well I think staff did a good job of analyzing the pros and cons and it's always — tough when issues are presented. A community grows. Neighbors come in. We will fill up. That's not an agricultural community anymore. It's going to be residential. What we're up here doing is trying to figure out how it becomes that way and sort of put some organization to it. It's hard to have it all ways. It's hard to be agricultural. It's hard to be retail. And it's hard to be residential. And you kind of have all of those and we have neighbors moving in and it's right now, we have an agricultural district but if you're here every two weeks, you see — how many new developments are coming in and not necessarily what I always wanted, but that's what has happened. Your neighbors are selling out and they're building other things. So what we end up doing is putting in ordinances to protect those people that are moving in, — and sometimes that doesn't feel like it's fair to those who have paid taxes and done a good job of doing a good business and in many cases are a source of community pride, which I think the Halla Nursery has always been that. So anyway with that aside, which took us no place. 34 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 I appreciate the report that staff did and I think the analysis is appropriate in my mind. What they did do. We are zoning for the entire area. We're not zoning for Halla. We're zoning for agricultural area and we, you know if nurseries, that agricultural area will, based on the landowners, turn residential. They're selling. That's the way it is. So what we have to do is make sure that our zoning codes reflect that long term. At this point in time, the only question, you know my hope would be, I have two hopes. One, I agree with the direction of the staff but two, at this point in time I really don't have a need to restrict the Halla operation. This is one of those issues that more than likely I wish wasn't here. And so at this time Madam Chair, what I'm telling you and the staff, I think their analysis is right. I don't have. Mancino: ...an interim use permit? Conrad: I think the logic of what they're doing, or how they analyzed this is appropriate. On the flip side of the coin, I don't really have a need to restrict the Halla operation at this point — in time. Hearing that interim use permit is not what they're requesting, I don't need to go forward with an interim use permit. So therefore. Mancino: So therefore what? Conrad: We're back where we started in my mind. We're not, you know I'm saying that I — need to know how, I go back to, how does that greenhouse impact anything? I don't know the business. I don't know why that is not allowed. I'd like to see how it could be allowed and not impact. Mancino: An ordinance. — Conrad: An ordinance change. Mancino: Staff, that's a good question. Aanenson: Herein lies the problem. It's a wholesale nursery. They've indicated they don't meet that criteria. We're of the opinion, and we made the interpretation, we've got different categories in the definition. Agriculture is one category but there's also, we differentiated wholesale nurseries from agriculture, from nurseries, from gardens. We gave different — definitions because we believe there are different types of agricultures. So if we go with the underlying standards and say it's a permitted use, we're trying to find some resolution to allow this to happen and that's why we recommended. If we say it's a permitted use and we go with the underlying district, do we let them add on? Not worry about parking spaces. The number of...underlying district and say, as long as you maintain the 10 foot sideyard setback, there's no criteria? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: No. Mancino: No, we couldn't do that. Aanenson: That's our concern with a permitted use. You open it up and then somebody — opens up and has farm property and they put up a building for retail purposes, and part of it has to do with shrubs and they're selling other things, but they're also for agricultural purposes, where do you draw the line? That's why we're trying to establish some criteria. — And the other problem, as we pointed out in the staff report is, you may want long term or people invest in more permanent type buildings and now we've got maybe 6 permanent type _ buildings out there and they leave the property. I'm not saying Halla's are going to leave. But let's say somebody else does this and they leave. Now someone buys the property and they've got 4, 5, 6 buildings in the middle of a residential district. The likelihood of that converting, and that's always the intent of the interim use is that it becomes something else, then we've got some of the retail in the middle of what may be residential. Conrad: Being grandfathered in Kate means what in terms of an interim use solution? Aanenson: Well the problem is, when they called for the agricultural building, it's not. It's a — retail building. Mancino: It is for retail sales? Aanenson: Right. And so we've got a building on that that's retail. Mancino: It's for retail sales of agricultural products. Aanenson: ...There's no review from planning staff as far as the number of parking spaces or — anything like that. Access. Those sort of things were never reviewed by the planning. There's building code issues but there's also planning issues so we're trying to separate those two. Unfortunately they just talked to the building people. It was never asked...but we're trying. We believe that we can work to some way to, we want to try to resolve it. There was another solution on the table and this was another option that was given by the attorney. The City attorney. It was never our recommendation that it be permitted. That we try to come up with some resolution. Some standards. Certainly if they want to sit down and meet and review some of these standards, we'd be happy to do that. Come up with some other criteria, as Mr. Halla indicated, we'd be happy to do that but I think we're uncomfortable saying carte blanche permitted. I mean that's, you can put a lot of intensity on a piece of property without any control and I think that's something we don't want. 36 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: So again, being grandfathered in gives them the right to do what they're doing today. Mancino: And not have any control. Aanenson: But they've improved that and now they have some non-conforming out there. They have a retail building. That's non-conforming. Mancino: Just wait please until we finish. Conrad: So basically they can be non-conforming. Do what they're doing today. Aanenson: You cannot expand a non-conforming use. Conrad: Okay. And the only one solution is to put the interim permit in place. Aanenson: Well to do some sort of it. They want to do the permitted use. We're saying we're uncomfortable with the permitted use. We'd rather do the interim use. Mancino: And then we can have the controls on it for retail. Aanenson: Or even a conditional use. You're kind of leaving it in perpetuity because it goes with the property so really the only temporary...and whatever length you give that interim use '- permit. Mancino: And the other wholesale nurseries right now, what is their sunset? Aanenson: Well like Holasek is in an industrial zone. Mancino: Okay, but Wilson's? Aanenson: I think that one's, I'm not sure... Mancino: Somehow I would like to know what the existing interim permits are for the wholesale nurseries. I'm sorry, I interrupted you. Conrad: No, no, that's good. That's good dialogue. I guess I'm thinking, taking it through. _ There has to be control. And I think my preference is to explore the interim use. And maybe some of these aren't appropriate in terms of the term, and I don't want to feel wishy washy on 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 that but I can, you know there's just some things that need clarification in my mind, like outdoor storage and things like that. — Aanenson: Certainly, and we'd be happy to meet to work some of those out. Conrad: And maybe that's what made me feel a little bit uncomfortable with it. I just didn't know how it applied and so I guess my recommendation is to again take the staff 100%. Take a look at the interim use permit process. See if staff and the Halla's can come up with — something agreeable, but also knowing we're not, I think I want to be a little bit sensitive to their needs to stay in business but also sensitive, I hope they hear, I hope you hear that you are running a retail business and that's a whole different thing. It really is and agriculture, I — know retail fairly well. And you're running a retail business which means you start, if you want to run that kind of business, then you have to live up to certain standards and that sort of goes with the territory. So if you want to do that, we have to make sure that those standards are there so, again I'm playing both sides of this Madam Chair but I think it's important that the Halla's know that that just sort of goes with the territory if you expand a business. We have to be, we're concerned with the safety and all that other stuff, so anyway. Mancino: What would you like to see? ...see something coming back? Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to table this tonight and see if they can look. And maybe the Halla's don't want the interim use permit. That's what I heard their attorney say. But to me, it's — probably suits them far better than any other solution. I don't know that we're going to be attracting any other nurseries into Chanhassen with the interim use permit but it might be a way that we give them to expand their business, yet have some degree of control. It's really almost to a degree spot zoning. It's not spot zoning but we're, in my mind I think we're being, it's a fair way to proceed. Mancino: Mr. Halla, if you'll wait until we're done then, thank you. Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I concur with Ladd. _ Conrad: Geez, what did I say? Skubic: I can't remember. Conrad: I don't know. Sorry about that. — Mancino: Is that all you have to say? 38 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Skubic: That's all. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: Just a couple of things... Definition of retail business. This isn't a court of law _ and Mr. Halla and his attorney can argue the definition of retail business and agricultural but that doesn't really take place here and our opinion on that is personal. There's no lawyers here... I've always considered, and they can comment about this...Ladd's definition of retail. You sell manufactured goods. You're not selling eggs out of the chicken coup. You're selling manufactured goods also, along with your organic crops. Those goods are not necessarily manufactured on site. You have a wholesale retail situation going on there and in defining what the restrictions are for retail...follows that. And you can't be kind of both but none of the above. I think therein lies the problem, as Kate said. I'm uncomfortable with doing broad based definitions of zones for one business and I agree with the way staff looked at this as an overall... I don't think that it is the intent that we...as a transition or sunset comes on agricultural products...urban area, obviously what Chanhassen's becoming. That...or to convert to another form of business that is allowed or permitted, and we could combine that with good planning that deals with the issues of retail sales, or whatever else we tend to come up with that fits the definition of being good for the community. I have no problem with that. I don't like the issue of going beyond and saying that this is a grandfathered use, you can go ahead and increase that usage. Just let us know what it's going to be. That's not good planning. And I think that the city is correct is defining, no you can't do that. We have other uses that are out there that are grandfathered, such as mining and some of the other ones that are not conducive to what is being planned for the city and we're saying that you can do this because you're already grandfathered in. We started this particular...you can't expand it. And I think that we pretty much follow that across the board. I don't recall ever us making an exception to that rule. So I think it's a good one to follow. And I am, I'm not sure what to do with it even if we table it because I've been told the applicant doesn't, isn't applying for what I see is the only solution for this issue. We can...so at this point...I'm not sure what useful information that we give back to the applicant other than sitting down with the city and trying to work out something that would apply to that overall definition. I don't think that, as I said, it would be appropriate for us to do a zoning for one business. Mancino: Well maybe by tabling it staff and the applicant can get together and kind of work through some of these. Farmakes: That may be and you're going to have to deal with the issue then obviously of the _ retail business and I'm not certain that I hear that. That that's going to be defined in City Hall. It's not going to be defined here, I know that. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: At this meeting. At this meeting. Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: I've gone through the staff report several times. I've heard what all the commissioners here have said, and I've listened to the applicant. All of it in various ways makes a lot of sense. What everybody's had to say. The result is, I'm confused. I don't mind telling you that. In the staff report we talk about temporary use, interim use, permitted use, conditional use. I guess I'd maybe kind of like to see some kind of a side by side comparison of these things and how it relates to the city and how it relates to the Halla Nursery. Something that we can look at and do a direct comparison. I'm having trouble sorting it all out. Especially in light of what Halla's goes and the comments we've heard from all of you. So again, I'm confused. — Mancino: And you would like to table it for direction? Mehl: Yeah, I think I would. I don't know what else to do at this point. I don't feel it's enough information I've heard for me to make a decision. Mancino: Excuse me. Mr. Halla, you wanted to make a comment? Don Halla: If you're done I would. Mancino: Okay, this is the one and only comment. Don Halla: We're not expanding the business. We're actually making it smaller. We've agreed to develop approximately....acres of our land. With the keeping of the 12 acres in the _ center. We're, by asking for a greenhouse, we're not increasing anything. We're just putting a roof over existing plants that are there are today that are growing outside. We want to be able to garden...better quality product, instead of starting after the thaw. When we put up the — new building in 1994, we took down a building. We eliminated a little over 5,000 square foot building and put up a 4,700 square foot, all... Even with that, you know working with the city to bring that up to B2 requirements. B2 requirements. Health and safety codes... — even to the extension of taking out our existing toilets and putting in new bathrooms in order to facilitate the new rules that are involved in the city. So we have been trying to cooperate. We have been working with the city. We've been trying to accomplish things that were — proposed of us. We've come to a stalemate about our greenhouses. Originally when we started talking to the city, they said give us a plan of what you want to do and we'll go ahead. They entered into a lawsuit with us over this building. They said if you do this...show us — what you want to do in the future. We'll agree to it and we'll do it. Those things are changing. Now they're saying it's going to go...we find that acceptable. We do want to condense our buildings... We do want to... We're willing to develop the 80 acres that are '- 40 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 there. We also have some of the top name developers that think this is a major asset. They want to use the nursery as an asset where people can walk through it. They do not look at it as a negative. They're talking about building homes of half a million dollars. They wouldn't do that if they thought the nursery was...thanks. Mancino: Thank you. Staff, do you understand where the commission is directing you to go? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: Do you feel you have clear direction? Okay. I really don't have too much more to add. I am one of those users, without question... It is a retail agricultural. I can understand the combination only because they get their perennials from out of state. They ship a lot of them in yet they grow from seed some of them here on their own property I'm sure in their greenhouses. I do feel, and I don't want see spot use zoning at all but I think that there are ways to have a nursery surrounded by residential. I think there would need to be very strict conditions. I have myself on our property, been the victim of I think it was Gardeneer who used the Middle School West as a place where they in the 80's had a lot of their landscape material and their equipment when they housed._.at the middle school. And at that time the City Council said fine. We're not, the middle school isn't open. If we're going to let other small businesses in the area, and use part of it for their landscape operation. And although we have probably 300 feet of woods inbetween our residence and the middle school, I can tell you that I was not delighted at 7:00 on Saturday mornings hearing the equipment going. And that was when they got all their plant material and they got their crews ready at 7:00 in the morning on Saturdays and actually worked there on Sundays too. So I do think that whether it's interim use, conditional use, that we think about these conditions for the adjacent properties and then for the businesses. So with that, do I have a motion? _ Farmakes: I make a motion to table. I'm not sure I'd call it an application at this point. But I'll make, this issue. I'm not sure which one I'm referring to here. I'd like to table, I'll call it an application dated October 25, 1995. Conrad: For landscape nurseries being permitted as a legal use in the A2 district, if you wanted to tag that in. Farmakes: That sounds very good Ladd. I'm not sure which one you're reading that from. Conrad: I found that someplace here. Mancino: Do I have a second? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: Yeah, I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table an amendment to the City Code for landscape nuiseiies being permitted as legal use in the A2 district. All voted in favor, except Meyer who did not vote, and the motion carried. Conrad: Can we have some discussion? Mancino: Sure. That was before the vote. Conrad: Yeah, I know. Did you say that? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: And I missed it, okay. Are we asking staff to review the interim use process as the prime vehicle to allow the applicant to get done what they'd like to? And are we suggesting that permanent zoning allowing nurseries as a permanent use in the A2, have we ruled that out? Aanenson: Ladd, what I got from Don, if I can interrupt, is that he wanted to see comparison — of the pros and cons of that and we'd be happy to do that. Farmakes: But I think there's...issue is the definition of retail agriculture. If you're in disagreement about that and disagreement...because somebody's particular operation might be a little different. It might be more than just growing trees and bushes. Mancino: You could have Frank's Nursery. Farmakes: Well I'm just saying that yeah. — Mancino: You could. You could have a Frank's Nursery. Aanenson: That was our issue. But we'd be happy to do a comparison. I think that's a very appropriate question that Don asked. We'd be happy to show you that. Mancino: That would be good. Appreciate that. Does that satisfy you? 42 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: I just want to make sure staff, no I want to make sure we were closing in, if we could, but I think...examine other alternatives. There are many alternatives. Mancino: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF APPROXIMATELY 61 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 3 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS, SITE PLAN REVIEW OF TWO 64,000 SQ. FL BUILDINGS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; AND VACATION OF AN EXISTING RIGHT-OF- WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5, CSM CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Murray Kornberg 2575 University Avenue, St. Paul Jim Paulet 12125 Technology Dr, Eden Prairie Mark Kusnierek 9369 126th Street, Savage Steve Schwanke 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Mtka. Howard Dahlgren 2360 Aquila Avenue No, Golden Valley Tom Rockford CSM Corporation John Dietrick RLK Associates Shaimin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? Commissioners? _ Commissioner Farmakes asked a question that could not be heard on the tape regarding the berm on Highway 5. Al-Jaff: The berm meanders between 4 and 6 feet. Mancino: But it doesn't show it meandering. Farmakes: Well yeah here, it covers up half the building. Mancino: So it's something we should ask the applicant. Applicant: I would be happy to address that. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions. The applicant will answer that for you. Farmakes: The tenant mix on this. Are you looking at the signage plan based on maximum tenancy or? Al-Jaff: They will have, at this point the only thing that we know is, they foresee 33% office space and the rest being office warehouse. Aanenson: When we first saw this plan, it's a little bit different than what we've seen in a traditional office. Basically what we've seen in the past is build to suit. Something that takes up the whole space. There certainly is a market nitch for this in the community. That was — one of our first concerns was, as you recall the history of when we had the Medical Arts building that came in. The signs went up. Nobody intended that to happen. We originally envisioned that to just say Medical Arts building and people would know. We certainly ` understand that their need on Highway 5 is a little bit different type of thing and you've got specific people that have kind of flexible spaces. People are going to be moving in and out. Maybe it's a start up company. Eventually find another place so we certainly understand the r market that they're trying to hit and believe if we can get the appropriate signage and the right scale, that it makes sense for this type of a building. So we don't know, as Sharmin _ indicated, all their users yet. But it's a tenant, at least my understanding, of flexible space. Some people may need loading spaces. Some people may not but. Farmakes: So I'd imagine we'd look at it based on maximum tenants for the maximum amount of signage. Aanenson: Right. Yeah, you're correct. And that's what Sharmin asked for and that's what she's saying that was delivered. We wanted to see that package. What ultimately was, if it - was maximized, what the sign band would look like. — Farmakes: The reason I bring it up is that we haven't quite seen anything like that on the highway at this point. Aanenson: Except for the Merit building. Farmakes: For the exception of a few buildings. If we go up 169, and we go up 494 we see it, quite a bit of it. Several small companies with the signage in a row lined up and down - that close to the highway. Since our drawings don't have that, and we're talking about — Highway 5 standards and the issue and intent of the design, what we're trying to avoid. It's something of a concern for me when I look at this because we always seem to run up against 44 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 the problem, it seems to me when I think about these things is, is it an office building or is it retail and now is it a warehouse or is it an office building and, but it looks like it's retail. Mancino: And it will have showrooms so it is going to be. Farmakes: Well several small, I don't know, how many did we count out there? Al-Jaff: Eleven. On the north side. Farmakes: So the general appearance would be similar, it would seem to me, like Byerly's or something where you've got several small signage in a row. Different colors. Different. Mancino: Type face. Farmakes: Type faces and logos and so on. Aanenson: Yeah, that was why we asked for the sign package. We saw that problem that you would struggle with that, as similarly we did, when it first came in but again, we feel like there is a nitch for this in the community. We support it but we all had the same concerns that you do and hopefully we can get the right standards there. Farmakes: When you looked at the berming in relationship to the Highway 5 standards and talking about the issues of putting parking adjacent to TH 5, this looks pretty good but when you're talking about the depths of the berm that you talked about, it seems like this is over enhanced. Mancino: No. That's a real. Look at those trees. Those are 40 foot trees. Farmakes: What are your feelings on that? Al-Jaff: I asked for the grading plan to be shown on those drawings and that's what the applicant has put together. The trees are 5 years old. Farmakes: I guess so, if I'm on the other side of the highway, perhaps standing in the drainage ditch. That's probably what it would look like... Mancino: And you can be very specific about these so. Any other questions for staff at this point? Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission or their designee. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Tom Rockford: Thank you Madam Chair and members of the commission. My name's Tom Rockford. I'm representing CSM Corporation, the applicant. I'd like to introduce at this time — other representatives of CSM and our consultants at this time. Murray Kornberg is here representing CSM. Murray is the Vice President of CSM. Mark Kusnierek is one of staff architects and he will be walking you through part of the building and site plan. And — representing our consultants, RLK are John Dietrick and Steve Schwanke and John will be walking you through the site plan and be happy to answer any of the questions or concerns you have that you've raised to date. What I'd like to do at this time is give you a brief — history of CSM. Kind of who we are and what we do and also a little bit of the history on this particular project. I did omit to introduce one other person who is here and that is Jim Paulet who represents DataServ. Obviously the owner of this parcel. CSM Corporation has — been in business for about 20 years. We're actually celebrating our 20th birthday this year. 20th anniversary. We were established in business as Colonial Services and Management back in 1975 and basically we are a real estate and investment firm doing business in about — 14 states across the country. CSM Investors was formed in 1981 as a vehicle to do the acquisition and development work. CSM Investors relies heavily on CSM Corporation for the property management of all the properties that we own. Over the last 4 or 5 years CSM has probably been one of the most active local developers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Over that period of time we've developed over a million square feet of industrial space. Very _ similar to the type of product that we're proposing for this site. Some of the projects that are ongoing that CSM is working on right now that you may be familiar with include the Golden Triangle Business Center in Eden Prairie, which is 150,000 square feet of office warehouse. _ This is located on Washington Avenue and 76th Street. Just north of the Minnesota Vikings practice facility at Winter Park. Again, it's a product that is very similar in what we're envisioning for the site here in Chanhassen. We're also just finishing up Vernon Shops which is a small 20,000 square foot commercial project on 50th and Vernon in Edina. Just have started Phase II of the shops at Lyndale in Richfield right on 494 and Lyndale Avenue South. About 107,000 square feet of commercial space. And in the process of kicking off probably — one of our biggest projects to date which is Boulevard Gardens in Minnetonka. A mixed use project that consists of about 250,000 square feet of commercial space, along with some multi-family. And that's located at 394 and Hopkins Crossroads. So we are quite busy. As I — mentioned, or as I probably haven't mentioned, we own and we manage all our real estate. And we are in it for the long haul. We are not someone who is in the business to make a buck today and gone tomorrow. We have been and will be around for a long time. Our current portfolio consists of about 3 1/2 million square feet of industrial space. Around 2 1/2 million square feet of commercial space, and upwards of 6,000 multi-family apartment units. We also have a small, about 160 unit hotel that we manage. That we own and manage. — Relative to this site we've been in negotiations with DataSery for probably 2+ years on this site here in Chanhassen. We've never developed any property in Chanhassen. We're very bullish on the site. We're very interested and optimistic of what we can do at the gateway to 46 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 the Eden Prairie, excuse me, the Chanhassen site there on Dell and Highway 5. And very proud of the product that we do and we feel very sure that you will be equally as proud of this product. I guess at that I'd like to turn it over to John Dietrick from RLK who can walk you through the site plan. And again, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. We'd be happy to answer them for you. John Dietrick: Thank you Tom. Is this an okay location for the board? Facing the cameras. Thank you. As Tom had mentioned, my name's John Dietrick. I'm from RLK Associates and _. we have worked with CSM, Murray in regards to laying out the site and being responsible for the site planning and...civil engineering and traffic reports that have been submitted to date. We are excited about the Phase I development at the northeast corner of East Lake Drive and Dell Road for the CSM property. The Phase I development as has been submitted is approximately 10+ acres, which is about 1/2 of the 21.3 acres that CSM is looking to eventually acquire from DataSery property, which is all north of East Lake Drive. This Phase I development is going to initiate a few items that need to be addressed in the overall site development for this eastern corner of Chanhassen. One of those is the replatting of the property, as Sharmin had indicated where we're looking to call it the East Chanhassen — Business Center. Secondly would be the storm water ponding down in the southeast corner of the site that will essentially pull a majority of the water from the CSM property and from the future DataSery property. We are working at this time with city staff for the actual configuration, design and location of how that property eventually looks so Outlot B as we are proposing it at this time may change a little bit, depending on the actual size of that pond. But it will be built to the NURP standards and Walker standards for the proper water quality and water quantity issues. Thirdly, it's going to precipitate the gateway statement for the city of Chanhassen. We're very excited about having an opportunity to start to set that stage for the gateway for Highway 5 as visitors and residents start to come traveling through Eden Prairie and into the site. Into the city, excuse me. And I will be quickly walking you through the site plan issues. Landscaping, parking arrangements, berming and screening and then I have some perspective sketches. The ones that were handed around to put on the overhead and I'll be happy to address any specific questions in regard to those. Mark Kusnierek will then address the architectural elements and the signage elements for the _ building and...proposed building materials at that time. The site design, as we've chosen to look at it, was to try and place the building a few feet below grade of Highway 5 so they are set down into the landscape and then utilize the space between the parking and the property line to the north for berming and proper screening of the parking. We realize the parking is a sensitive issue along Highway 5 and we've taken great care to look at how to break up those intimate parking lots, as we're calling them, with landscaping and with berming so that the buildings will read, the parking will be suppressed and that we have the ability to service the proper office users and clients of these buildings with easy accessible parking that would circulate around and through the site. Currently MnDot is about, owns property about 70 feet 47 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 in width from the edge of the roadway. The parking is set back from the property line 35-45 feet, which allows for some significant berming and then the buildings are set back — approximately 115 feet from the property line. In total the buildings are about 185 feet from the edge of roadway for the Phase I development. The landscaping that we have proposed on the perimeter of the site is where we will try to concentrate the key elements so that we can, -' the plant materials that have been chosen were from the pallet of the preferred planting list from the city where we're looking to use significant hardwoods of maples, oaks, hackberries, locust, shag bar hickories along with conifer plantings and low shrub massings. Trying to look at clustering of the plant material and utilizing ornamental and flowering crab apple trees so that we can have seasonal color along with the winter color of the evergreens. We also wanted to start setting up a pallet of a strong boulevard overstory planting tree that would encompass and ring the entire site. With this landscape we're excited about looking at extending out the gateway beyond our property line. I know the staff report talks about no _ planting or berming within public right-of-ways. We feel that's an issue that we should address and we should work cooperatively with the city and MnDot so that this gateway treatment of landscaping will be fully addressed, because MnDot currently owns property that goes 40 to 60 feet in from the corner and I think it would be a win/win situation to try and pull that landscaping out of the public right-of-way of course under close supervision and working with the city. We've also suggested extending the irrigation out to the back of the sidewalk along Dell Road so that we have an opportunity to maintain that landscaping and keep it green and beautiful throughout the year. Again, that's an image we want to present for the CSM project and we feel that's an image that the city would like to see also. In terms of the landscaping coming around the site, we're concentrating the landscaping more on overstory trees, especially along East Lake Drive. We have indicated we would do some additional conifer plantings in order to help screen some of the views coming off of East Lake Drive for the service and loading areas that are completely screened from Dell Road and Highway 5. The parking that we have looked at has been woven throughout the site with joint accesses between the two buildings and at the far western side. We anticipate that — would be a joint access for the future development of Outlot A. By having a one bay wide parking lot, we have maximized the area between the parking and the property line that we can provide screening so that those parking lots will be hidden. In terms of heights of berm, - we have a 4 to 5 foot high berm height along Highway 5. Along Dell Road we have a 6 foot high berm. Along East Lake Drive we have a 6 foot high berm in the areas of the loading dock and it goes down to about a 4 foot high berm in the areas between East Lake Drive and where the loading service areas are not located. The berm height is set so that the parked cars will be screened from view. It will screen a portion of the building. Approximately 3 to 4 feet up on the building. We feel that it's still an acceptable view shed for the building but — yet we can suppress the amount of cars that will be seen. The entire perimeter of the parking will not been seen along Highway 5. Perhaps upper edges of roofs would be seen in certain locations. Dell Road would be completely screened. The parking itself has a number of 48 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 peninsulas scattered along the north side of the property and also we're setting it up along the far western side between the future Outlot A. We anticipate this would be a major view shed corridor between the buildings where there'd be a much wider spacial dimension than what we have between the two central buildings at this time. We are also requesting to leave the central parking area and the eastern parking area as they are designed without adding landscape peninsulas within these two areas. We feel with the one bay width, we are meeting the intent of the ordinance by clustering the green areas and landscaping and screening the parking lot on the perimeter. With the overall site plan that we also look at the exterior lighting that will be done and be kept in scale with the building and we will use colors that will be compatible to the window emollient and with the signage colors that Mark will be addressing. With that I'd like to quickly just go through the perspective sketches and I'll be doing those on the overhead. There will be four perspective sketches that we will present. The first three will be looking west towards the site. East of Dell Road. Essentially at the Dell Road intersection for B. C would be looking more straight on to the building from Highway 5 and D would be looking east back towards Dell Road from the eastbound lane of Highway 5. A at this time picks up the existing oaks that are over on the Tandem site in Eden Prairie and starts to see how the building profiles will look as they're set into the landscape. Again the profile of the buildings are approximately 22 feet in height? Audience: 24 at the max. John Dietrick: 24 max. But the floor elevation is set down from the location, or elevation of the roadway to provide a little bit lower profile. The tree massings are probably more in the 5 to 10 year range. Not the 5 year range. When you're doing sketches, you take a 60 foot tree and show it at full view or when it goes in at you know 10 feet so you have to, there's a little bit of license here but I'd say the plant material has been set up to be in the 5 to 10 year time frame from the day of planting. But you can start to see the building hedge line and the roofing. Perspective B. Again, to look at how the site is going to be viewed from the _ intersection of Dell Road where you have the existing traffic signals out there and with the corner landscaping, we hope to keep that profile open. Again have the row of trees which are sugar maple to start to fill out and eventually provide a...and a backdrop to what that gateway concept for the landscaping will be. Perspective C looks at the building and how it's going to be read with the berm that will be running on the south side of Highway 5 and on the south side of the MnDot property. We again will be coming up on the building approximately 3 to 4 feet in that location and once we start putting in the clustering of plant material, the ornamentals and the conifers, there will be peaks and view sheds into the building so that there will be added interest to go along with that facade as the building has it's indentations and color scheme between the signage panels and the...The fourth perspective looks west. Is viewing east from approximately the eastern or western property line of the future Outlot A. The berm is higher at this location. The road and topography does drop from the 934 range 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 down to the 920 range by the time we get down to the Dell Road corner. The floor elevations are 923-925 and we anticipate Outlot A will also be stepping up. The berm here as seen from the eastbound lane will screen this building a little bit more as the grading plan is drawn at this time. Perhaps it's a little too high...these are the grades that are shown on the grading plan and this is the perspective that you would see with that grading plan as we are proposing it at this time. With that I would like to turn it over to Mark who will talk to the signage issue, or I would be happy to address any questions at this time also. Mancino: Any questions from staff at this time? I mean commissioners. Thank you. Mark Kusnierek: I'm Mark Kusnierek. I'm the project architect for CSM Corporation. On — the issues of the signage for the building, CSM as a corporation wants to provide signage for our tenants but make it pleasing to the eye. Our signs are of one single color. We do not allow multi color signs within those. I have brought examples of other projects and signs that we do provide. I'll pass them around. These signs, when they need to go up, the tenant will have to come in for their individual sign permit at that time. Your question about the multiple signs being along these elevations. We do not perceive a whole lot of signs because our tenants tend not to be of small square footage. The depth of these buildings, these will be large square footage... Within the staff recommendations I wanted to get into a little bit more with letter (h) where it states individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. We also propose that with our sign criteria that a logo of 30 inches in height. This would also be of the same color as the individual letter sign. We also provide as a back-up to the staff — report, how they would be constructed and lit. These are back lit signs which is a halo light that is approximately 3 to 4 inches of light that surrounds the individual letter and/or logo as the tenants would like it. That brings up the issue of letter (f) which no illumination signs within the development may be viewed from a residential section south and west. To the south we do not perceive any signs. To the west there is the possibility that signs would be along this edge. At this time we don't believe it is an issue because Outlot A is not — developed as of yet and we would like to bring it up at that time. Also the fact that DataServ's building would also be blocking some of the view from the west. The staff has explained the building exterior as well as the computer generated drawings show what the — materials will look like as well the material board... I do not wish to explain into that any further unless you any have specific questions towards that. Any questions? Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Seeing none, thank you. Mark Kusnierek: Thank you very much. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: Anyone else from the applicant wishing to address? Okay, thank you. Thank you for such a complete presentation. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please. Meyer moved, Fannakes seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do. Jim Paulet: Members of the commission, my name is Jim Paulet. I represent DataServ. We're located at 19011 Lake Drive East and we are the sellers in this land transaction. We've been working with CSM for a couple of years now and we would like to voice our support for CSM's plans. And I'd also like to add that in the time that we've worked with CSM, we've also developed a very favorable impression of CSM Corporation. And that is really my primary reason for getting up here. Getting up here to voice my support for the plan. There are however a few unresolved economic issues present in the report, which greatly affect DataSery and I'd like to point them out if I could for your consideration. The first one is really between DataSery and the CSM Corporation. I just wanted to point out that DataSery is currently working with CSM on the distribution of payment for it's surface water management plan. Second issue is DataSery would like to know, or needs to know that if, and this is in Section 2-1. DataSery needs to know if the replatting of our site south of Lake Drive East is required in this plan, will require the payment of a park dedication fee upon completion so it's just an issue we'd like to...unresolved, we'd like to talk about. We'd also like to know going forward how the city plans to finance the completion of Dell Road as it's also indicated in the plan that is a requirement that Dell Road be completed. Another issue is Section 2-5. We'd like to know more about DataServ's responsibilities concerning the applying for permits for storm water management. Since the substantial portion of the ponding is going to take place on our site, I guess we need to know what our responsibilities _ are, and those are still unresolved. I'd like to point out that DataSery does not want these issues to delay the approval of this plan. We clearly have an interest in the success of this project. We feel however that we would be remiss if we did not point out the need to clarify and ultimately resolve some of these issues going forward. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address? Tom Rockford: If I may, I'd just like to comment on the one point that Jim brought up relative to Dell Road. We did meet with Todd Gerhardt this afternoon and with Dave and we think we have come to an understanding as to how we can proceed on that. I'd like to address that in the development agreement that will obviously come an agreement. We don't view that as an issue. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: Maybe Mr. Paulet needs to know a little bit about that. Tom Rockford: Then we will certainly bring him up to speed on that. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. — Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Staff, a couple of the questions that were brought up. Who's responsibility will it — be for the storm water management and what's going to happen in that outlot? Or Mr. Hempel. Hempel: Madam Chair. We met today with Mr. Rockford and some members of CSM regarding the SWMP fees. What I call SWMP fees. Surface Water Management Plan. And we will be looking at those fees closer to determine the actual credits that they have coming when the final construction plans, as we get closer to that. To determine how much additional ponding they actually are providing. What size pipes they are providing. Those _ sorts of items so we can determine the credits back against the parcel. We would be crediting the individuals or applicant that is installing the improvement. We would credit the development that's before you tonight, Lot 1 and Lot 2. The remaining outlots, as they come in to develop would be responsible for their own surface water management fees at that time. Since the regional pond would be in place, the regional truck storm sewer would be in place, there would be no further credits to be given to those outlots as they plat. Mancino: Okay. And what about park dedication fees? Park and trail fees. Al-Jaff: They did not pay it originally. Mancino: They did not pay it originally? Aanenson: We don't know. Al-Jaff: We don't know that and they're not aware of whether they paid it or not. Mancino: So you need to check and get a hold of Mr. Paulet and let him know those issues, okay. Thank you. Comments and questions and recommendations from the commissioners. Commissioner Mehl. 52 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mehl: I think it's just a great looking project. At some point in time here in the staff report they referred to trash dumpster locations. I wonder where those are going to be and how — those are going to be hidden with wing walls or, are going to service several of the tenants. I just wanted to bring that up. Mancino: Okay. Mark Kusnierek: As far as the trash enclosures, they would be back within the truck port area, close to the buildings. They would be constructed of two wing walls coming out of the same material as that of the back, which would be rock faced block with a wooden gate of a decorative nature. So they would not be viewed from any room other than the interior truck lots. Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Mehl, do you have any other questions or comments? Mehl: Those blue pyramid objects on the roof, are those functional or decorative or, I'm looking at these photos here and I'm having a hard time really visualizing them with respect to their size versus the rest of the building. I'm trying to get a visualization as to. Mancino: Proportionally? Mehl: Yeah, proportionally. How they're going to look and there's one photo that doesn't show them on here and a couple of these photos just show partially and I'm just curious as to what their preference and I know we want to get some kind of a beveled roof element up there and I'm just wondering if this was an attempt to do that. Mancino: Okay. Mr. Kusnierek. Aanenson: I'll show it on one of the overheads. Mark Kusnierek: The elements that you're looking at are decorative in nature, to add a little bit more emphasis, to also fit within the Highway 5 overlay that has been established by Chanhassen. Mancino: But they are specifically on the east and the west. Mark Kusnierek: To define major corners within the building. We did not want to put the emphasis within the...area at that point because that has a secondary access within the project. When the full project comes into phase, or Phase II. We want to put the emphasis on the... 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: So that decorative would be just on one corner of the building? Mehl: Okay. So I understand that, it's going to be on the northeast corner and the northwest corner. Mark Kusnierek: There are two of them lying here and then there would be a single one down here. Emphasizing this, and... Mancino: And approximately how much proportionally will the pyramids be seen? Mark Kusnierek: The 3D photos are fairly good renditions of them. They are, I believe they — are about... Mehl: Okay, thank you. That's all the comments I have right at this point. I think it looks like a well done project. It's going to look great over there. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. — Farmakes: It's a nice quality building going in there... First of all I enjoy seeing the materials. I want to say that again how much I personally am thrilled that we actually have materials. And the, when I first saw this plat I was somewhat concerned about the issue of berming. That's why I brought it up earlier and the issue in regards to Highway 5. It's kind _ of a bit unfortunate that we see a string of again kind of quasi retail type signage up and down the highway again. That's what I thought we were trying to avoid. I'm not saying that this is that. The signage plans, same color. Same type signs that the applicant is saying that there won't be a maximum use but...argue that here. The one thing that I found that over the years that I've been here, typically that I'm most surprised of, is the actual berming. When we discuss the issue of berming. I have been dumb founded that either we have approved it — with the thinking that something's actually covered, and it wasn't. And on the opposite extreme, we approved something and it covers half of Carver County, in the case of Minnewashta Landings. I was surprised by the height of that berm, and I approved it. But I — guess what I'm saying is, when I look at berming as a form of shielding buildings, it all depends on where you're standing and what direction you're looking at. And hopefully that, coupled with the distance back from the highway, and a reasonable amount of time to get the landscaping to go, it's obvious that you've looked at that carefully and I can see that you've addressed that issue. I'm, short of getting out there and putting up a little height line, I'm going to trust your professional capabilities that that's going to be shielded and if you say this — is a reasonable expectation, what we're viewing here is factual, it seems to me that let's address that issue. The one thing I'm somewhat concerned about would be how it was shielded from the south, although as opposing to additional warehouse development and — 54 –. Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 primarily those large gaps in the southern exposure there with truck traffic coming in. I'm concerned that those are just basically a flat warehouse side. I'd like to see perhaps something up where if you had the trees and landscaping area, something again in the facade breaking up that square. More in line with what you're doing everywhere else on the building, or at least something to give that relief from the corners. Mancino: Are you talking about where the docks are? Where the trucks come in to the dock area? Farmakes: Correct. Mancino: Will those, if I'm not mistaken, will be bermed in front. Farmakes: Right, but what I'm saying is that if we're seeing the building itself from the top of the buildings, we're assuming that the building's going to be all covered up there. And getting back to my previous comment. I'm not exactly sure that that's the situation. That by time you get up to the roof level that that's going to be covered up. And that's quite an expanse...for the plans and look at the scope of that, that's quite a long straight line. And again the berm, according to the plans, varies considerably from the entrance there off to the side. So anyways. Ifs not something that I guess I'd sit down and vote to deny. So much of the rest of the building is following within the lines of the guidelines, except for that southern exposure there...I think it's looking quite well and the only thing, as I said, I was uncomfortable with was the parking along the highway, which is something I thought we were avoiding but you've addressed that issue I think to where I'm comfortable... Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: Let me just ask him. You're comfortable because of the berming that they've done there? Farmakes: If it looks like this plan, and I'm hedging that. I want to qualify that. I personally have had trouble over the years when we've look at these things, and I've been either surprised one way or the other. To give you an example, Byerly's. Supposedly we bermed that somewhat, the parking lot. You can see the entire parking lot. Except for the stop sign. That's the only thing that's probably bermed is when you're coming up to the stop sign. The Minnewashta Landings. I was surprised by the height on that. And as I said before, it's hard sometimes to in real terms get the scope of berming in relationship to the building. And the...looking pretty good. I don't see any cars there. In fact I see the majority of the building is bermed. You can do it two ways. You can either say no parking along 55 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Highway 5 or you can talk about the issue that staff believes that that's a significant berm and that's a representational issue. _ Meyer: Okay. Mancino: Any other comments? Meyer: Nothing else. Mancino: Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: I like it very much. Couple of quick questions. One to staff. Sharmin. Wetland analysis. Were the wetlands not on our map? Meaning are these not inventoried wetlands that we're talking about. And I'll say that, I'll tell you why. Somebody met with the Wetland Conservation Act's designated technical evaluation panel. And I thought we had an ordinance and so this refers to them and I'm kind of interested about how this played with our ordinance and therefore my next assumption was, this was not an inventoried wetland and under an acre and a half or whatever our regs are. Al-Jaff: There was, what Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Engineer looked at and said this is a wetland and wanted other professionals to look at it and confirm whether it is or not. And it was decided that no, it wasn't. And that's why the additional group of people were _ brought in. And through the panel it was decided that this is not a wetland. Conrad: Okay. It was not jurisdictional. What does that mean? Aanenson: It was exempt. Diane was concerned. There was some ambiguity whether or not it met the wetland criteria so she brought in another expert to validate whether it was or _ wasn't and the opinion was that it was exempt. Conrad: Okay. In terms of the, just a couple points in the staff report. What governs the _ height of the letters? And height of the logo. They would like a 30 inch logo and do we have a reg that says, it can only be this or was that sort of just staff saying. Al-Jaff: The applicants submitted a criteria for their signage. So we took it and put it in the form of a condition of approval. Because of the location of the building, that's the only reason why we did it this way. I mean if it was a planned unit development, then yes. We would develop our own criteria. But in this case, only because of the location of the building, this is going to be the first building that you see as you drive into Chanhassen and 56 _ Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 we wanted to make sure that there is some rhythm and rhyme to the signage as you drive down the highway. Conrad: Okay. Okay. So if we decide to allow a 30 inch logo, we're not breaking an ordinance someplace? Al-Jaff: No. Aanenson: This came from their direction. Conrad: Okay, good. When I came in here I was real worried about signage. That was probably my biggest concern and they did a very nice job, in terms of presentation. It really took, I was very worried we were going to have a smattering of different looks out there and it's very nice. At least if it follows, maybe the pictures that were floated around. That's some good quality stuff and I like that. If we can follow that, then I'd feel comfortable allowing a 30 inch logo if that's what they're thinking their tenants would like. Mancino: And the same color as the lettering. Conrad: Absolutely. Yeah. So again what I see is what I really like. It's real nice. I don't know what to say about the signage on the west side of the site. I don't know how to reword something there. I see a need. I don't know that we are impacting residents. I just, I don't know how to deal with that one. That's (f) in number 2. Mancino: But if we aren't impacting residents, they can have it. Conrad: That's pretty much my philosophy, but I don't. I guess that's a wording that somebody could probably put in there, yeah. The landscape peninsulas in number 3. Staff, could you tell me about that. Is that just breaking something up that we think needs to be broke up? Al-Jaff: Actually I'll discuss this very quickly. This is the area where the landscape island would need to go, according to our ordinance. We met with the applicant and they indicated that if they did locate the island, let's assume in those two locations, they'll end up using parking spaces. Losing parking spaces. The only other alternative for them to locate the parking would be back where the screening for the loading areas would be located. If it's an alternative between islands along the east portion of the site or berming to screen the loading dock, we'd prefer that this remain and just exclude those islands. We had to point it out because it's in ordinance. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Conrad: It is? Okay. I think that's it. I like the project. It's very nice. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: Yes. I think it's a very nice project also. Very nice site plan. Nice architectural — building. I like it and I certainly support industrial development in Chanhassen when it's done this well. The signage, I appreciate the applicants bringing in some photos of some comparable signs and also the renderings. It seems to me that the signage is going to be — obscured most of the year by the landscaping anyway. Couple things I'd like to get some clarification on. As I understand it, the land to the south of Lake Drive was retained by DataSery with the exception of Outlot B. Is that likely to be developed by DataSery or — somebody else? Or further subdivided in the future? Aanenson: Yes. DataSery will probably be building on that site. — Skubic: And it's not part of this subdivision? Aanenson: You're talking about the south of Lake Drive, correct? Yes. Skubic: And regarding the responsibility for the payment for the traffic signals, specified — developers and/or property owners. Is there somewhere in the process where they'll be further defined? Hempel: The language that we inserted here at the 12th hour on that condition. It's kind of an after our meeting this afternoon. We didn't know how much to put into security. As Sharmin mentioned at the beginning. We didn't know how long the security was going to have to be held. We didn't know, depending on the land use of what goes in out here. Even if a traffic signage will meet warrants at the year 2005, 2007, so there's a lot of what ifs out — there so we kind of threw in a blanket one here and said, if a traffic signal is warranted, the city installs it. We assess it back to the benefitting property owners. Benefitted ratio and this way they're open to that. We're able to assess them without a public hearing process. There's — no way to be more specific at this time. This meets our needs from a legality standpoint as far as being able to assess for the traffic signal in the future. Meets their needs of not having to put up security at this time. It seems to be a win/win situation. — Mancino: Thank you. Again, thank you for such a complete presentation. It answered so many questions and I think it's a wonderful design for the entrance to Chanhassen. And I — know that staff and the applicant have worked hard on this. A few of the questions that were asked I would just, so that Mr. Dietrick knows, I would support certainly enhanced landscaping in MnDot right-of-way but I can't grant it to you. In fact what does happen — 58 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 staff? Is that something that the applicant deals with MnDot on? Does the city get involved in that at all? Aanenson: We found out what happens when you enhance our landscaping. Mancino: Oh, what happened? Hempel: We got called when we did Perkins recently. They are very concerned about the landscaping in the right-of-way. That's something the applicant will have to work with MnDot and enter into a cooperative agreement potentially for that. Mancino: That's up to you but I just wanted you to know that I'd certainly support that. The landscape peninsulas on the east side that you asked about on Dell Road. I, like some other people, I mean this is hard. It's, this Block 1, Lot 1 building has three street sides, if you will. Three entrance sides that everyone can see. I would suggest, make a different suggestion to staff and that is that, we are obviously trying to buffer the parking lot. Overstory boulevard trees that are deciduous, do not really buffer the parking lot. So my suggestion would be that along the east side of Dell Road there, that the perimeter of that parking area be lined with a low arborvitae. Something coniferous. That's year round. It doesn't get any taller than 6 to 8 feet. Therefore you will screen the parking lot and you can still also have the deciduous boulevard trees next to Dell Road, and I think that that would work out well and not put in any islands. That would be my suggestion. Secondly, I too am concerned about, as Commissioner Farmakes was, about the berming and making sure that we don't see the parking area from Highway 5 because it was a major issue for us on the Highway 5 task force. And so again when I hear of a 4 foot berm, I know 4 feet doesn't cover the height of a car so I would like to see 5 or 6 berm and some of those, or a lot of the plantings be at the top of the berm and making the berm wide enough so that you can actually get trees, balled and burlapped trees in there. Also for staff and the applicant, I do see that the sizes of the trees are not what meets our ordinance. So there are coniferous trees must average 7 feet so that we get different height plantings. We don't have just 6 foot, and I know you'll refine that but just so you're aware of that. My concern from East Lake Drive is of the dock area, and again I would like to see berming there and a deciduous, or a coniferous tree coverage so that you can't see through the docks from East Lake Drive. And that could be the 12 feet on center or double row so that there is very opaque buffering. I don't think I have any other issues or any other questions that you asked us to look at. Those would be my only suggestions. Look forward to seeing the building. Motions. Let's see, we need a motion on the site plan review please. Conrad: I'll make a motion that the City Council approves, that the Planning Commission approves Site Plan Review #95-18 as shown on the site plan received October 2, 1995 subject 59 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 to the conditions of the staff report with the following changes. To number 2, letter (f). That the signage on the west side of the site will be allowed or declined based on visibility to the — neighborhoods residents. Change to (h). That in addition to what staff has, that the logos would be permitted to 30 inches, provided the standards are carried out for this signage that are comparable to the quality of the examples presented at tonight's meeting, and I'm sure there could be a better way of stating that, but that's the intent. Point number 3. Madam Chair, I buy what you said. I just don't know how to rework what's there so if you'd like to make a friendly amendment after I close, I think that might be appropriate. — Mancino: Okay. Conrad: Those are my comments for the site plan. Mancino: Friendly amendment to 3 would read, applicant must provide perimeter coniferous landscaping in the east parking lot, and I would say on Dell Road. And that the screening of the truck loading area along East Lake Drive, or both of them, must be increased and include _ coniferous double row screening the entire length of the dock area. Screening may include berms, ornamental and evergreen trees. Let's just say screening may include coniferous trees. And we'll go ahead and keep in extended peninsula parallel to the entryway. It could be considered. Farmakes: May I ask for clarification? Mancino: Yes. Farmakes: The issue on west side signage. If there's no frontage on the west side, are we violating any issues of ordinances? Al-Jaff: We're limiting each building to two frontages. To two sides. Farmakes: But if we have signage, if the signage is limited to two, even though there's no — frontage on the west side. Mancino: Street frontage. So they couldn't put signage on the west side anyway? — Al-Jaff: The ordinance reads. Farmakes: You may want to clarify that. Al-Jaff: One sign per street frontage. — 60 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Farmakes: Or we can add to that, if it doesn't violate other ordinances. Because I think we've denied other applicants. Aanenson: So say consistent with the city's sign ordinance. Conrad: Very definitely. Mancino: So we really don't even need. Conrad: My addition. Well. Mancino: Do you want to just keep it in there? Conrad: Based on, yeah. Let's keep it in but also we should add, based on ordinance. Based on our sign ordinance. Mancino: Okay. A second to the motion? Farmakes: I'll second the motion. Mancino: Any discussion on the motion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #95-18 as shown on the site plan received October 2, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 2. Signage criteria: _ a. Each building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages as shown on the sign plan dated November 1, 1995. _ c. All signs require a separate permit. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south. Signage on the west side of the building will be allowed or declined based on visibility to the neighborhoods residents, and consistent with the city's sign — ordinance. g. Back lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height, and logos shall not exceed 30 inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage. i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop _ sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. 3. The applicant must provide two landscaped peninsulas in the east parking lot and one in the central parking. Screen of the truck loading area along East Lake Drive must be _ increased to include coniferous double row screening the entire length of the dock area. Screening may include berms, ornamental and coniferous trees. The applicant must provide perimeter coniferous landscaping in the east parking lot, along Dell Road. _ 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. _ 5. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Additional fire hydrants will be required. One fire hydrant must be relocated. Contact Fire Marshal for exact changes and modifications. b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signage and yellow curbing must be provided. Contact Fire Marshal for exact "Fire Lane" areas. 62 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 c. P.I.V. (Post Indicator Valves) must be installed. Show on utility plans. d. A ten foot clear space must be provided around fire hydrants. 6. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 7. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss. 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water — Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. • 9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. The applicant shall upgrade/extend Dell Road south of Lake Drive East to the south city limits as well as install a storm drainage system from Lake Drive East to the regional pond site. All public utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water ponds in accordance with the City Surface and Storm Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control — Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. — 13. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 14. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. 15. A regional water quality and water quantity pond shall be provided on site to pretreat storm water runoff prior to discharging under Dell Road into the Eden Prairie wetland. The proposed storm water pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter, or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed to 60% to 75% phosphorous removal _ efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend into the landscape is recommended. 16. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 17. The proposed commercial development of 21.3 acres of which 10.23 acres are being developed shall be responsible for a water quantity and quality connection charges in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The final water quality and quantity connection fees will be determined based on final construction drawings. 18. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 19. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Rod is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost — participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. The traffic signals, when they meet warrants, will be installed through a city public improvement — project. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the properties. — 64 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 20. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. _ 21. The parking area for Lot 2 shall maintain a 10 foot side yard setback along the west edge of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: Second motion please for a subdivision. Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center as shown on the plat received October 1, 1995, with the following conditions as listed by the staff, 1 through 8. Aanenson: We added number 9. The cross over easement. Skubic: 1 through 9. Mancino: Second? Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center as shown on the plat received October 1, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. _ 3. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 4. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event, 24 hour duration. Individual storm — sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota — Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for — maintenance of the ponding areas. 7. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way for the upgrade of Dell Road. 8. The site with the DataSery building shall be shown on the plat as Lot 2, Block 1. 9. The applicant shall dedicate a cross-access easement over Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lot 2, _ Block 1 and Outlot A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: This will go onto City Council. Al-Jaff: On the 27th. Mancino: November 27th. Thank you very much. _ APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 1995 as presented. — CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: Final plat plans and specifications and development contract was given for Halla Great Plains Estates on the 23rd so we hope within 30 days that plat will be recorded. And then conceptual and preliminary plat was given for Autumn Ridge 2nd. That was the one 66 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 that's north of Galpin adjacent to Highway 5. I think we end up with a good mix of units and there were some of those in the 4, 8's and then there's some single loaded walkouts. Mancino: Were there any changes from what we saw? Aanenson: No. I don't believe so. But the good news is, I think we're going to get a portion of those, at least a third of those will be in the affordable range so that's good. Mancino: And affordable means? Aanenson: Which is around $115,000.00. Mancino: But none are rentals? Aanenson: No. They'll all be owner occupied. Mancino: Thank you. Aanenson: That's all. Mancino: Any ongoing items? Aanenson: I mentioned and we left it off the agenda but we still need to pick a Vice Chair. Because it was Ron. I think it would be appropriate if Nancy's gone and has to leave, that there's a Vice Chair. Mancino: Okay. Do we have nominations for Vice Chair? Conrad: It should be somebody new. Meyer: I nominate Don. Mancino: Okay. Any other nominations for Vice Chair? Would you be willing to accept Vice Chair? Mehl: Well I just question whether or not it's fair because I don't know what I'm doing yet. Mancino: And you think somebody else does? Conrad: Yeah I actually. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 Mancino: You learn a lot being. Conrad: But I think you should, and I don't want to be too contrary but I think somebody should be here for a little bit of time so you have some sense. I guess I'd nominate Jeff. Farmakes: I've done it already though. Conrad: That's okay. — Mancino: So Don I'm hearing you say you would rather not be Vice Chair. Mehl: I didn't say I'd rather not. I just said that, I'm just wondering since I don't have more than what, two meetings behind me here and I attended some during the summer, if the situation arose to do the job, fill your chair in two weeks, I'd have a problem with it. Mancino: Well thank you for being so open. Any other nominations. Do we do this by secret ballot? — Aanenson: You can draw lots. I'll put some of those sticks together. Mancino: So would you like to keep your name or? Mehl: For? — Mancino: For Vice Chair. Or would you like to take your name off. Mehl: I'll keep it on, sure. I believe in jumping in and getting your feet wet. Mancino: Two nominations. Jeff and Don. A vote was taken to elect a Vice Chair for the Planning Commission and Jeff Farmakes was — elected to serve as Vice Chair for 1995. The public portion of the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. The — Planning Commission then had open discussion on the following items: Industrial Lane Use Study, Livable Communities Act, and DataSemv Remodeling. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 68 — 5o CITY OF CHANHASSEN e‘i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: October 25, 1995 SUBJ: Livable Communities Act Attached is a memo to the City Council that was presented on Monday, October 23, 1995. The City Council has agreed to participate in the Livable Communities Act. The council will be holding a work session in the first part of December to adopt the goals. This report is for your information and to show you the direction of development and policy recommendations. Ultimately, the Planning Commission may have to make recommendations on the implementation strategies to achieve the housing goals. 6 CITY OF i rCHANHASSEN - \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ �'7 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director DATE: October 16, 1995 — SUBJ: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act - Housing Goals — BACKGROUND — About one month ago, I presented to the Council the Legislature's Livable Communities Act. I recommended that the city agree to participate because it could mean the loss of funding — through any state or Metropolitan Council disbursements, or it could mean the rejection of future expansion of the MUSA line. In order to participate,the City Council must adopt a resolution by November 15, 1995 (see model resolution attached) and adopt Housing Goals by December 15, 1995. It is my recommendation that the council adopt both at the same time if there is concurrence on the goals since they are the major components of the act. — I am proposing that the council review the housing goals and give staff input as to whether or not they are acceptable. The city has until June 30, 1996 to summit an action plan as to how we will — implement our goals. As part of that implementation, the council will then have to budget $50,795 towards affordable housing in 1997. In attendance at the Council meeting will be the two assigned Metropolitan Council staff, Don Bluhm and Bob Paddock. They will be available to answer any questions that you may have about the Livable Communities Act. ANALYSIS In order for the council to decide if the goals are acceptable or even achievable, we must examine the housing trends of the city. The City of Chanhassen is being compared with 20 other Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 2 communities in Sector 8 of the Metropolitan area(see attachment 2). If you average all of the affordable, diversity, and density numbers for the 20 communities in the sector, you would arrive at the benchmark numbers for Sector 8 (see Attachment#2). After arriving at a bench mark for the areas of affordability and density,the city was measured against these areas to determine the city index. The goals the city is trying to achieve is for the period 1996 to the year 2010. The city has 15 years to work toward these goals. Development is cyclical. Recently the city has seen more multi-family development. As explained by the Met Council staff,the objective for the city is to turn the course of the ship for housing development. It may be impossible for the city to accomplish the change of course (achieve all of the goals)within this time frame. The process is then threefold. The first step is to pass a resolution to participate in the process and set goals. The second step is to develop implementation strategies to achieve these goals. The third step is to allocate Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Opportunities Amount(ALOHA) dollars for affordable housing in the city's 1997 budget. This makes the city eligible for the three funding accounts: Tax Base Revitalization, Livable Communities Demonstration, and Local Housing Incentives. The Met Council has estimated that the number of new households for this period will be 5,784 (see attachment 2). Staff estimates that the current number of households is 5,907. The Met Council is assuming that based on available land,the city will double the number of households in the next 15 years. This is assuming a 6 percent growth rate. The Met Council projections can be compared to the projections made in the city's 1991 comprehensive plan. Table 1 Household and Population Projection Composite Source: 1991 Comprehensive Plan Basis Type 1990 2000 2005 2010 TH. 212 Household 3,800 5,600 6,500 7,400 TH. 212 Population 10,800 15,300 17,500 19,250 4.75 - 5.5% Household 4,113 6,586 8,609 11,250 4.75 - 5.5% Population 11,105 17,782 22,814 29,813 6% Household 4,235 7,583 10,149 13,582 6% Population 11,435 20,474 26,895 35,992 Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 3 — Some of the assumptions made in the earlier projections include the household size at 2.7 persons per unit(2.65 after the year 2000) The current household size is estimated at 2.92, which is reflected in the number of young families in the city. Another assumption in the projections is that all property would be developed. Staff finds the projected household numbers possible only if all available land in the MUSA develops, which is unlikely. There are all large tracts of property in the current MUSA that may not be developed by the year 2010. These properties include Prince, who has 156 acres guided for low density development, and Eckankar, which has — 60 acres of property, guided for high and medium density. The three areas the city has to address in affordable housing are Life-cycle, Density and Affordable. • Life-cycle housing is made up of two components. The number of non-traditional housing or percentage of housing that is not single family detached. The other component is the ratio of owner occupied units to renter units. — • Density compares the number of units to the acres of development. This ratio is applied to low density and multifamily. — • Affordable is that percentage of new housing units that will be affordable. The Met Council considers those owner occupied units under$115,000 affordable. Rental affordability is the — percentage of rental units with rents under$625. In order for the Council to assess a goal carefully, staff has reviewed developments in the city — since 1991 to evaluate development trends. - Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 4 Table 2 Residential Development Statistics Source: Chanhassen Planning Department GROSS ROW WETLAND PARK NET TOTAL GROSS NET NOTES CASE PROJECT NAME ACRES ACRES ACHES LAND -ACRES UNITS DENSITY DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED - 3i--1 SUB Highlands of Lake SL Joe 36 0.4 11.54 0 24.06 33 0.92 1.37 Shoreland district 33-4 SUB Windmill Run 17.92 3.37 0 0 14.55 35 1.95 2.41 farm field 19j331310 SUB Royal Oaks Estates 13 22 0 0 10.8 23 1.77 2.13 farm field SUB Lotus Lake Woods 4.47 0.32 0.30 3.85 7 1.57 1.82 wooded/wetland 33-11 SUB Oaks atMinnewashta 35.83 9 3 8 15.83 45 1.26 2.84 3'3-12 SUB Tower Heights 7.1 0.6 0 0 6.5 13 1.83 2.00 793-14 SUB Shenandoah Ridge 11.5 3.50 _ p 8 20 1.74 2.50 - - 3_15 SUB Church Road 3.3 0-- 0_ 0 3.3 41.21 1.21 33-16 SUB TJQ 1.06 0 0 _0 1.06 3 2.83 2.83 13-25 SUB Minger Addition 9.95 2.08 0 0.15 7.72 17 1.71 2.20 1941 SUB Minnewashta Landings 19.7 1.7 0 0 18 27 1.37 1.50 beachlot/shoreland district 4--3 SUB Ofivewood 25.95 4.6 14.8 0 6.55 9 0.35 1.37 shoreland district 94-4 SUB Shadow Ridge 15.99 2.15 1.9 0 11.94 17 1.06 - 1.42 3.9 acre outlot yet to be platted )4-5 PUD Mission Hills/Single-family 7.1 0 0 0 7.1 16 225 2.25 T7 SUB Shamrock Ridge - 37.9 3.67 6.7 0 27.53 45 1.19 1.63 94-94-8 SUB Creekside 39.5 4.2 5.7 5 24.6 44 1.11 1.79 10 SUB Brenden Pond 23.3 3.6 72 0 12.5 21 0.90 1.68 )4-13 SUB Point Lake Lucy 18.15 1.63 5.62 0 10.9 19 1.05 1.74 4-14 SUB Lake Ann Highlands 35.1 9.2 0 0 25.9 92 2.62 3.55 14.8 acres of MF to south 94-15 SUB Hobens Wild Woods Farm 1.87 0 0 0 1.87 3 1.60 1.60 95-10 SUB Forest Meadows 202 22 0 5 13 _19 0.94 1.46 11)2-4 PUD Meadows at Longacres 95 10 24 0 61 112 1.18 1.84 13-2 PUD Trotters Ridge 32.5 7.44 5.6 0 19.46 49' 1.51 2.52 1-3 PUD Willow Ridge 30.3 4 8.39 0_ 17.91 37 122 2.07 92-1 SUB Stone Creek 81 10.04 0.96 8 62 141 1.74_ 227 12-4 SUB hhilien Addition 9 1.8, 0.9 0� 63 17 1.89 2.70 12-5 SUB Bluff Creek Estates 61.45 7.9 19.7 0 33.85 78 1.27 2.30 3 PUD Woods at L '-- - _ - - ongacres 96.77 13.1 10.87 0 728 115 1.19 1.58 93.6 PUD Rogers/Dolejsi 80.8 202 0.5 5.3 54.8 134 1.66 2.45 SUBTOTAL 871.71 128.9 127.68 _ 31.45 583.68 1195 PERCENT 15% 15% 4% 67% AVG 1.37 2.05 MULTI-FAMILY T94-5 PUD Mission liis/Multi-family 47.18 11.6 5.87 _ 0 29.71 208 4.41 7.00 4-18 PUD Autumn Ridge 11.5 _ 0 0 0 11.5 46 4.00 4.00 2-3 PUD Oak Pond/Oak Hills 24.19 2.0.9 1.8 0 20.3 147 6.08 724 _ 7 SP Prairie Creek Townhomes 4.6 0 0 _ 0 4.6 24 5.22 5.22 87-3 PUD Powers Place 9.7 0 0 0 9.7 48 4.95 4.95 5-7 SP Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 7.29 0 0 0 7.29 34 4.66 4.66 5-8 SP Centenial Hills 2.2 0 0~v - 0 2.2 65 29.55 29.55 X5-1 PUD North Bay 52.1 2.92 8.66 26.38 14.14 76 1.46 5.37 • - -- I SUBTOTAL 158.76 16.611633 26.38 _99..444 648 -- PERCENT 10% 10% 17%` 63% AVG_ 4.08 6.52 TOTALS 1030.47 145.51 144.01 57.83 683.12 1843 PERCENT 14% 14%_ 6% 66% AVG 1.79 2.70 Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 5 — Table 3 — 1991 Comprehensive Plan Land Uses Source: 1991 Comprehensive Plan ent Households Units/Acre Percentage of Residential Commercial 272.50 2% Office/Industrial 1,110.43 8% Office 13.48 0% Parks/Open Space 2,302.42 17% Public/Semi Public 1,056.79 8% Residential Large Lot 1,523.95 10% 295 0.19 2% Residential Low Density 4,344.86 33% 7,083 1.80 59% _ Residential Med. Density 507.88 4% 3,047 6.00 23% Residential High Destiny 210.39 2% 1,683 8.00 13% Mixed Use 82.63 1% 413 5.00 3% Study Area 1,145.98 9% Undeveloped 772.53 6% Total 13,333.84 100% 13,241 1.99 avg. 100% — DENSITY GOALS — As Table 2 indicates, the city has been averaging 2.05 net units an acre on the single-family (low density) and 6.52 units and acres on the multi-family (medium and high density). In — Chanhassen, low density includes twin homes. The North Bay project which is developed as a single family detached project does not increase the density in the single family detached land use because the land use is guided high density. This highlights an issue the Planning — Commission has been raising for a long time—if the city allows development to occur below the designated density, then where does this lost density occur. The benchmark the city should be trying to achieve in the single family detached is the 1.8-1.9 units/acre. In Chanhassen, because of the number of wetlands, staff has asked to have the net — density used in calculations. Currently, the city index is 1.5/acre. I believe a goal that is obtainable is 1.8 units an acre net density. In the multifamily district, the bench mark is 10-14 units/acre. The city index is 11 units/acre. Staff is recommending a goal of 9-10 units per acre. _ This number is based on 1990 data. As indicated earlier, this number has moved farther from the benchmark because of the number of projects approved at the medium density range. The only Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 6 way to achieve the density benchmark in the multifamily land use would be to build developments at the maximum density permitted. In cases where the development is appropriate, give density bonuses as permitted in the PUD ordinance. The city currently has limited high density development. The majority of projects are being developed at 6 units an acres,therefore, a significant number of developments will have to be built in excess of 14 units an acre to increase the multi-family units per acre density to achieve the benchmark. Table 4 Housing Goals Agreement Single -Family Detached 1.5/acre 1.8-1.9/acre 1.8/acre net Multifamily 11/acre 10-14/acre 9-10 LIFE CYCLE GOALS The method for determining life-cycle housing is to look at the future number of households the Met Council has predicated for the city in the next 15 years and establish what percentage of owner to renter the city will try to achieve. The type of non-single family includes apartments, townhouses, 3 and 4 plexes, etc. Assuming the Met Council prediction of 5,784 new households, staffs recommended goal of an 80%owner to 20%rental mix would mean that 4,627 units should be owner occupied and 1,157 should be rental units. In the 1990 comprehensive plan, the approved housing goal was for 34% of the housing units to be non-single family detached. I believe this still is a reasonable goal. With the types of owner occupied and rental there is a large variety of housing options. I believe it would be impossible to achieve a higher level of rental to owner occupied units because there has only been two rental projects built in the city in the last 10 years. The proposed Met Council benchmark is 67/75 and 25 / 33 ratio of owner to renter. The city index _ according to the Met Council is 85 / 15. The Heritage Park Apartments, with 60 units, was built in 1989-90 and in 1995-96, Centennial Hill (Senior Project),with 65 units is being built. Even at 1,157 units over the next 15 years it would mean 70 units a year. The important number to keep in mind is for every eight units of owner occupied, the city should be developing two units of rental. Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 7 Table 5 Housing Goals Agreement _ Type (Non-Single Family 19% 35-37% 34%* 1991 Comp Detached) Plan Owner/renter Mix 85/15% (67-75)/(25-33)% 80/20 AFFORDABLE The definition of affordable owner occupied units are those units under$115, 000 in homestead valuation. Affordable rental units are those units with rents under$625 a month. To determine the number of affordable ownership,the first step is to determine the number of owner occupied units. As stated previously with an 80 /20 ratio of owner occupied units to rental units, the number of owner occupied households over the next 15 years could be 4,627. The number of rental could be 1,157. The bench mark the Met Council is recommending is 60-69% ownership _ affordable and 35-37% rental affordable. The city is currently at 37% affordable rental, according to the Met Council and the County Assessor(see Table 6). According to 1995 data, 32% of Chanhassen homesteaded homes are affordable. I believe a 50% goal is more realistic. That means that 50% of all new homes constructed in the next 15 years should be under the $115,000 in valuation. Table 6 Chanhassen Homestead Valuation January 2, 1995 Source: Carver County Assessor $0-$72,000 225 5% $72,001-$115,000 1,111 27% $115,000-$150,000 1,436 35% $150,001-$200,000 741 18% $200,000-$250,000 304 7% _ $250,001+ 320 8% Total 4,140 Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 8 Table 7 Housing Goals Agreement Ownership 37% 60-69% 50% Rental 44% 35-37% 35%. RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting input from the City Council as to the proposed goals. The resolution and goals should be approved at the November 13, 1995 meeting. The next step in the process is to provide the Met Council with implementation strategies that will be used to achieve these goals (due June 30,1996). Strategies staff is considering are reviewing the PUD ordinance to allow zero lot line homes and density bonuses, working with the City's HRA and Carver County HRA for another housing development, examine the use of CDBG dollars for affordable housing, down payment assistance, requiring all developments to meet the comprehensive plan densities, providing additional mixed use opportunities, and investigating commercial/industrial/office contributions to affording housing fund. Attached is the Housing Goals Draft Agreement and Resolution for your input and consideration for the next Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Model Resolution 2. Sector 8 Housing Data 3. Draft Housing Goals •„, ,4s IA g� ../ -" IMO ISO RESOLUTION NO. - QO RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM - UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1996 - WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(1995 Minnesota Laws Chapter 255)establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area — defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121;and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund,comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account,the Livable — Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentives Account,is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities;and WHEREAS,a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup finding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under — Minnesota Statutes section 473.254;and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each munici- pality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide;and WHEREAS,by June 30, 1996,each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals;and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Council must adopt,by resolution after a public hearing,the negotiated affordable and life- cycle housing goals for each municipality by January 15, 1996;and WHEREAS,a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Pro- gram must do so by November 15 of each year;and WHEREAS,for calendar year 1996,a metropolitan area municipality can participate under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 only if:(a)the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1995;(b)the Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully negotiate affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality;and(c)by January 15, 1996 the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each municipality; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the [specific municipality] hereby elects to participate in the Local — Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during calendar year 1996. By: By: Mayor Clerk 13 h ^ No N b_ Nt so < r h eh .-. h f+1 N N N P CP P b O• h , P N Q N O y= 7 G r a •t ri L N ---i-- :4:- _ N U o y O E. V N T I7 G C y 3 N v � C7 % y o rY V Q - - < Q r - O C CC i�v hO O 4 y P Y W c. u C U d as 0 L4 •- °o V Y a !:!: IIIIIIIi1IIi VN O e hNte P T Z C/. iic V IiII'IIiIIIIiuluIiiI O IIII1H1UIIII1IIIIII�'� T r i d 1111111IIIIIIIIIIIN 7 U t Q iIiiiiiIiiiiIIIIiI1 -f-. G h P y N� 1 1111 C - - 1!III n` — cc r .Y U Y Y T .t Y . _ c 3 c c Q u E. o o Y r[ > i i DRAFT HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PRINCIPLES — The city of Chanhassen supports: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. — 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. 4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while — striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. 6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. — GOALS To carry out the above housing principles, the City of Chanhassen agrees to use benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as - affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the period 1996 to 2010, and to make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make — progress toward these benchmarks. CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL — Affordability Ownership 37% 60-69% 50 76 Rental 44% 35-37% 315 /D Life-Cycle ! — Type(Non-single family 19% 35-37% 3L170 detached) l(ill Com p(!Yl — Owner/renter Mix 85/15% (67-75) / QQ/Z-0 (25-33)% Density Single-Family Detached 1.5/acre 1.8-1.9/acre I.6 Multifamily 11/acre 10-14/acre (1—/0 To achieve the above goals, the City of Chanhassen elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit — a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996, indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals. CERTIFICATION Mayor Date OCTOBER 1995 AMERICAN F. °, - PLANNING ASSOCIATION Shedding Light on the Urban Landscape By Fay Dalnick hum rq re luminaire r r —-� r i brd cubfF luminoire r `- bbl cubR peck condlepv re i , _- i , cis - NO CUTOFF LUMINAIRE LUMINAIRE WITH LESS THAN 90°CUTOFF 90°CUTOFF LUMINAIRE The amount of cutoff provided in a light fixture protects against excessive glare and light trespass.A cutoff luminaire (right) ensures that no light is emitted above a horizontal line parallel to the ground.A luminaire with a cutoff of less than 90 degrees (middle)completely shields the light source from an observer five feet above the — ground at the point where the cutoff angle intersects the ground. — Exterior lighting has seldom been a priority for planners, produce light by passing an electric current through a gas.Very who often are not knowledgeable about the subject.This few communities in the United States still use incandescent aspect of the urban environment more often has been lamps for street lighting because,although they produce a soft, handled by engineers,public works officials,and lighting trade and white,attractive light, they are both costly'and wasteful of utility company representatives. Decisions concerning lighting types energy. One community that does—Kennebunkport, Maine— �• and design often have been made by those public officials who pay is discussed below. the bills and must face the grim reality of cost containment. HID lamps include mercury vapor,high-pressure sodium But all that is changing. Several factors play a part in what (HPS), low-pressure sodium (LPS),and metal halide. Mercury seems to be the general public's increased interest in the visual vapor lighting produces a harsh yellow light that is aesthetically — environment. These include a heightened awareness of the unappealing but cheap to maintain. It was used widely in the aesthetic value of their communities,consciousness of United States until the introduction of sodium lighting in the environmental pollution,and increased fear of crime.These 1970s. HPS has now become the nation's main source of concerns have complicated the basic purpose of light—to exterior lighting. - illuminate and provide security—and can create situations in Because of its strong illumination and because it distorts which these purposes are at odds with each other. color less than LPS, law enforcement officials prefer high- Most communities have to recognize and deal with the pressure sodium. For them, identification of suspects is crucial. problem of glare. Light trespass from one land use to another Citizens have also come to prefer it as their fear of street crime needs to be regulated. Residential neighborhoods must be intensifies. Some lighting professionals, however, feel that the protected from glare from parking lots,sports facilities,and other safety feature has been overrated and that the glare produced by recreational events like outdoor concerts. Streets need to be lit well HPS is a hazard in itself. — enough to give residents a feeling of security.The lighting must Metal halide produces a warm white light that is akin to also be attractive enough to make commercial and recreational incandescent lighting,is aesthetically pleasing,and produces facilities inviting and create a lively and prosperous setting. excellent color rendition.But it suffers from high maintenance costs This issue of Zoning News reports on communities that have owing to a lower lamp life. "Group relamping rather than spot - produced inventive lighting plans and ordinances and have relamping is the answer to this problem,"says Nancy Clanton, • taken a holistic approach, addressing lighting in all areas of the president of Clanton Engineering in Boulder,Colorado.Clanton communiry and involving a cross-section of citizens in the says most of the costs of replacing lamps are labor costs and that process. It also looks at some good regulations and the measures replacing whole areas of lamps at one time regardless of whether or they take to control glare,protect privacy,and promote safety. not all are burned out is a cost-efficient maintenance scheme. Lighting Glossary Lighting Plans — Exterior lighting types fall into two main categories— Kennebunkport,Maine.This town has"one of the two best incandescent lamps (the type used to illuminate most homes) lighting ordinances in the United States,"says Tony Dater,a and the more prevalent high-intensity discharge(HID) lamps. consultant in Biddeford, Maine. His other choice:Tucson, Incandescent lamps produce light by heating a filament to high Arizona. First developed in 1970 by a committee of citizens and - temperatures through an electric current while HID lamps planners chaired by city engineer Peter Talmadge, the ordinance has been updated regularly, most recently in 1992. It sections. HPS lights were installed in one and metal halide in the — is short and simple and uses ample graphics. other.The city surveyed residents, business people, and Its unique feature is that it controls glare and light trespass community officials and found that all groups felt that the new by regulating the height of the luminaire(light fixture) and its streetlights were an improvement. Residents and business people setback from the property line.The height of the luminaire may were evenly divided, however, in their preferences for metal — be increased to 25 feet as it moves away from the property line. halide and HPS. Community officials,perhaps because of lower In conjunction with this,a full cut-off shade,which allows no maintenance costs, have decided to install HPS lights. direct light above a horizontal plane, is required for light over a Nancy Clanton, whose firm designed the program, is pleased — certain degree of brightness.According to Talmadge, this that Kansas City is using this pilot to help develop a lighting plan system is easier and cheaper to enforce than the more conven- for the whole city. Clanton feels that cities too often approach tional method of regulating glare by measuring footcandles(a their lighting piecemeal instead of looking at the overall context. standard measurement of illumination over a surface area of one She hopes the experiment will interest other cities. — square foot),which requires the enforcement officer to be Toronto.Last fall,Toronto, the last major North American equipped with expensive light-calibrating instruments. city to be served almost entirely by an incandescent lighting Talmadge is one of the many lighting professionals who feel system installed after World War II,completely retrofitted its strongly that, in the interests of security, most communities street lights. Yearly costs approaching$4 million impelled the — r require too much brightness. city to seek a cheaper system. 1 This results in dazzling glare, The choice became a hot political issue. Not surprisingly, the I ' Communities lack' g' i which is in itself unsafe. commissioner of public works preferred HPS because of its low _ full-scale-lighting ', Kennebunkport has found its capital and operating costs. But strong opposition within the plans still must raft incandescent lighting community led to the formation of the Street and Lane Lighting economically viable because it Sub-Committee consisting of citizens,council members, and pprovisions t rotect> � � keeps the wattage low, representatives from the planning and public works departments — 1 _motorist and 0)Although the original and Ontario Hydro.The committee initiated test installations .�desmons' rom t 'decision to retain and recommended warm-white metal halide lights (the closest hawwFds of lare.an incandescent lighting still in character to incandescent lighting) in the traditional acorn- restrict light Fresoas holds, the possibility of LPS shaped lamps already in use. — t•s ( lighting is being discussed "Metal halide costs more, but we made a decision that it is ` pQFtICUIa Y n@pk with the Central Maine worth more," says committee member Alfred Holden. The city 'r'sldentialro e p P � Power Company.Talmadge installed 40,000 of these high-efficiency lamps,expecting ro LL ' emphasizes that 35-watt LPS reduce electric bills—by about$2 million annually—as well as — _ii!______... i lamps provide good light. carbon monoxide emissions from generating stations. Ontario Most utility companies disagree,bur Talmadge feels that a Hydro's Street Smart Program will reimburse the city for 25 dialogue on this subject can be productive. percent of the cost of replacing existing fixtures. The entire — Tucson. In 1972, Tucson passed the first light pollution project is expected to cost approximately$15 million. code in the nation. It has undergone regular revisions, most Des Moines.The Riverfront Lighting Master Plan in Iowa's recently in 1994. In 1974, Pima County produced a virtually capital is the product of a cooperative endeavor by planners, identical ordinance, and many other Arizona communities have engineers, transportation engineers, parks and recreation officials, — adopted all or parr of this code.The ordinance prohibits and outside landscape and lighting professionals, architects, and mercury-vapor lighting altogether and HPS and quartz lighting power company representatives. Planning department staff led for most outdoor uses. Uplighting on billboards is also banned the Riverfront Lighting Committee,which wanted to realize the — in somc areas; in others, it must be turned off between 11 p.m. riverfront's potential as a major recreational source and reverse and sunrise. It also prohibits searchlights and laser-source lights public perception of the area as unsafe.The committee chose to for outdoor advertising. Lighting for parking lots and sports ban high-intensity floodlights,choosing a combination of HPS facilities must be fully shielded so that no light is emitted above lamps over bridges and metal halide lamps on the Des Moines — a horizontal plane. LPS lighting,which is essentially all one River esplanade.The city council adopted the plan in 1992, but color, has been adopted throughout the community. it has been only partially implemented due to difficulties in The proximity of the Kitt Peak National Observatory obtaining funding. Nonetheless, it is an example of a lighting influenced the development of this ordinance.The telescopes in plan in which engineers and planners were part of the same — use in observatories cannot filter out the broad-band lighting in process and could endorse what they felt was a solid workable HPS,and astronomers have successfully argued against its use in plan in which they agreed on aesthetic and maintenance issues. surrounding communities.They prefer the monochromatic lighting of LPS, which the telescopes can filter out. Basic Ordinance Provisions — Kansas City,Missouri. Like many cities across the nation, Communities lacking full-scale lighting plans still must draft Kansas City is phasing out its mercury-vapor lighting in favor of provisions to protect motorists and pedestrians from the hazards of more efficient HPS streetlights. Last fall, the city and Kansas City glare and restrict light trespass,particularly near residential Power and Light Company initiated a Neighborhood Streetlight property. In The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook(Center for Demonstration Project in two neighborhoods in an attempt to Urban Policy Research, 1989), David Listokin and Carole Walker determine the best kind of lighting for an urban residential recommend that communities follow standards provided by the neighborhood. The neighborhoods included single-and Illuminating Engineering Society(IES) or use a plan designed by — multifamily residences, businesses, churches,and schools. One the utility company. However,some lighting professionals feel that high-crime area was chosen because the perception of safety was utility companies routinely pressure for excessive illumination. In deemed important.This pilot area was divided into two 20-block any case, Listokin and Walker recommend that lighting be •2 Resources Organizations Publications Cutoff Type Luminaire: a unit of Dc Chiara,Joseph and Lee Koppelman, illumination with elements such as Illuminating Engineering Society Site PlanningStandards,New York shield, reflectors, or refractor of North America McGraw-Hl, 1978. panels that direct and cut off the 345 East 47th St. light at a cutoff angle less than 90 New York,NY 10017 Kendig,Lane,with Susan Connor, degrees. 212-705-7913 Cranston Byrd,and Judy Heyman, Footcandle:a unit of illumination — International Dark Sky Association Performance Zoning,Chicago:APA produced on a surface,all points of 3545 North Stewart Planners Press, 1980. which are one foot from a uniform Tucson,AZ 85716 Listokin, David and Carole Walker, The point source of one candle. Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook, New England Light Pollution New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Glare:light emitting from a luminaire Advisory Group Urban Policy Research, Rutgers with an intensity great enough to Daniel W.E. Green University, 1989. reduce a viewers'ability to see and, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Smith,Thomas P., The Aesthetics of in extreme cases,causing momentary — 60 Garden Street Parking, PAS Report No.411, blindness. Cambridge,MA 02138 Chicago:APA 1988. Light Trespass: the shining of light R.E.S.V.Inc. produced by a luminaire beyond the Debra L.Sachs—Principal Investigator Definitions boundaries of the property on which — Michael Munson Cutoff: the point at which all light rays it is located. 11 Pearl St. emitted by a lamp, light source,or Luminaire:a complete lighting unit Essex Junction,VT 05452 luminaire are completely eliminated consisting of a light source and all 802-879-0605 (cut off) at a specific angle above the necessary mechanical,electrical,and — Urban Consortium Energy Task Force ground. decorative parts. Chittenden County Regional Cutoff Angle:the angle formed by a line Planning Commission drawn from the direction of light rays at All definitions are from Performance P.O. Box 108 the light source and a line perpendicular Zoning, except definitions of light — Essex Junction,VT 05453 to the ground from the light source, trespass and glare, which come from the 802-658-3004 above which no light is emitted. Kennebunkport,Maine, ordinance. provided at intersections, along walkways,at entryway's,between Glare and Light buildings, and in parking areas.They also advise more lighting on Below are some examples of zoning ordinances that regulate commercial than on residential streets.As to the spacing and glare and light spill by prescribing a combination of luminaire height of light fixtures, they suggest: height,cutoff shields, and precise footcandle measurements. — • Spacing of standards shall be equal to approximately four Greenwich, Connecticut, requires that,with some exceptions, times the height of the standard. all light sources be shielded so that, "[a]djacent to business uses, the light source shall not be visible at a height greater than five a The maximum height of standards shall not exceed the maxi- (5) feet above ground level" and "[a]djacent to residential uses, — mum building height permitted,or 25 feet,whichever is less. the light source shall not be visible at ground level or above."Any • The height and shielding of lighting standards shall provide type of uplighting that is not lighting buildings, trees,shrubs,or proper lighting without hazard to drivers or nuisance to residents. site surfaces is prohibited.This ordinance does not differentiate between residential and business zones except that perimeter The authors do not specify standards for shielding, but many lighting in residential zones must be limited to 0.1 footcandle lighting professionals say only full cutoff shields,which allow no anywhere along a property line. light above a horizontal plane,are acceptable. Lane Kendig, in Vai4 Colorado,requires that developers submit an outdoor — Performance Zoning(APA Planners Press, 1980),says a light lighting plan"separately from the site plan or landscape plan, ands fixture's maximum height should depend on the amount of show the location, the height above grade, the type of shielding provided. illumination (such as incandescent, halogen, high-pressure sodium etc.), the source lumens,and the luminous area for each — Many uses have the option of providing a lower light post with source light which is proposed."A pole light may not be higher a noncutoff type luminaire or a higher pole, up to sixty(60)feet than 35 feet in a commercial area,eight feet in a residential area, with a luminaire that totally cuts off light spillover at a cutoff or eight feet in either if"affixed to vegetation." In commercial angle smaller than ninety(90)degrees. areas, all light sources higher than 15 feet must be fitted with a Kendig exempts outdoor lighting for night sports facilities full cutoff shield.All flashing lights are prohibited. such as baseball diamonds, playing fields,and tennis courts Eatontown,New Jersey.The light pollution ordinance but requires that the illumination source be shielded at a 90- requires that, "at the property line of subject property — degree angle. illumination from light fixtures shall not exceed 0.1 footcandles on residentially zoned property or 0.5 footcandles on business r The IES recommends two footcandles of illumination for zoned property, measured on a vertical plane." IES pedestrians to have good perception obstacles more than 50 recommended levels are to be used in roadway lighting, parking feet away on a street or sidewalk. It recommends two lots, and recreational and sports facilities. Shielding is required footcandles for attendant parking in a commercial area and one for self-parking. In Site Planning Standards,De Chiara and on almost all outdoor lighting. Koppelman concur,but some parking consultants advise that Bronxville,New York, is still lit mainly by incandescent the real or perceived dangers of parking environments require lighting. Provision is made for some fluorescent and metal g. an average of five footcandles for adequate safety. halide lamps, but high-and low-pressure sodium, mercury- - 3 vapor,and neon lights are prohibited,as are flashing lights, The New England Light Pollution Advisory Group searchlights,and cobra head fixtures. Metal halide fixtures in (NELPAG) is based at the Smithsonian Astrophysical — parking lots, pedestrian paths,and building perimeter areas Observatory in Cambridge,Massachusetts,and directed by must be fitted with full cutoff. In those areas, lamps with Daniel Green,who argues that reducing wattage and fully decorative fixtures may not exceed the equivalent of 150 watts shielding lamps are more important than the choice of lighting _ (incandescent). type. NELPAG has also produced an information package for Juneau,Alaska,relates the height of light fixtures to"the writing city and town ordinances and lobbies for state lighting lamp size, the type of luminaire which is being used, and the reform legislation. purpose of the lighting." Heights range from below eye level Planners may find it rewarding to develop a clear sense of — through 10 to 15 feet in malls and walkways to 60 feet and 100 purpose about public lighting and to become more involved in feet for large-area lighting such as parking lots and highway its design and regulation in their communities. Community interchanges. Shielding is required on all outdoor lighting under lighting often grows to inappropriate and unnecessary levels, 35 feet to reduce hazards from glare. Lighting intensity producing energy waste, rising fiscal costs,and glare. It is guidelines are: 1.5 footcandles in parking lots; three in advisable to consider sources beyond the local utility company, intersections; 0.2 in residential developments;and one along the for other excellent resources exist. Communities are most perimeter of property lines. successful when they receive input from a cross-section of the _ community, including planners,public works officials, utility Other Developments company representatives, interested citizens,and lighting design No national standards for outdoor lighting exist in the U.S., but professionals,all engaging in constructive dialogue. states are getting involved.A Maine law bars use of state funds — to replace any permanent outdoor lighting fixture unless state- mandated guidelines for the design of the fixture are followed. The guidelines say that any new or replacement fixture must be equipped with a full cutoff shade. Connecticut has passed ZONING Reports legislation controlling glare,and Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,and Texas are considering doing so. In Vermont, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission has hired Michael Munson,of the Research Adult Entertainment Study — Evaluation Specialists of Vermont, CO prepare a manual, "A Site Bookstore, Department of City Planning, City of New'York,22 Reade Lighting Guide for Vermont Municipalities."The commission St., New York,NY 10007. November 1994. 96 pp. $5 plus$1 created an Urban Consortium Energy Task Force with funding postage. 41 cents sales tax unless ordered with tax-exemption form. — from the U.S. Department of Energy and other sources. The As reported in Zoning News last month, New York City is in task force aims to educate communities on general principles of the midst of revamping its adult use zoning regulations • good lighting and to help in crafting workable ordinances. citywide. This study was part of the planning effort that Three communities (urban,suburban, and rural)will be prepared those regulations and contains a good deal of — selected for case studies as part of this process.APA's Northern interesting data on patterns of adult use concentrations New England chapter and the Vermont Planners Association throughout the city. It is also valuable to planners and zoning are cooperating in this venture. administrators elsewhere for its review of major adult use studies . Much of the impetus behind the banning of HPS lighting in in other cities across the country, as well as for its history of — the Southwest has come from the International Dark Sky legal developments in this field and of the evolution of adult - Association, formed 13 years ago by David Crawford,an uses in relation to advances in cinematography. The study - astronomer at the Kitt Peak Observatory. San Diego,which notes, for example, that$100 films have now become$5 _ modeled its ordinance on Tucson's, has since bowed to pressure videotapes, altering the marketing of adult movies. - from law enforcement officials and the public and reinstalled HPS lighting in some areas. Crawford and his colleagues view • this as evidence that they need to intensify their public education Fortress America: Gated and _ efforts.The organization has helped communities nationwide Walled Communities in the prepare light control ordinances and also has focused attention United States - on the problem of light trespass in urban areas. Edward]. Blakely and Mary Gail Snyder. Lincoln Institute of — Land Polity, 113 Brattle St., Cambridge, MA 02138. 1995. 63 pp. $10 plus$3.50 shipping and handling(50 cents shipping for Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. each additional copy). Subscriptions arc available for 545(U.S.)and$54(foreign).Michael B.Barker,Executive Director;Frank S.So.Deputy Executive Director;William R.Klein.Director of Research. Acknowledging a dearth of scholarly analysis to date on the — Zoning News is produced at APA.Jim Schwab,Editor;Fay Dolnick.Scott Dvorak,Michelle subject of gated communities, this working paper attempts an Gregory,Sanjay Jeer,Megan Lewis,Marya Morris,Marty Roupe,Laura Thompson. investigative study drawing heavily on journalistic sources and Reporters;Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor,Lisa Barton,Design and Production, interviews with focus groups. Illustrating a trend toward Copyright C1995 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave.,Suite withdrawal from the larger society, the authors raise serious 1600.Chicago.IL 60603.The American Planning Association has headquarters — offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave..N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. questions about the segregative impacts of walled communities All rights reserved.No put of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any and even the viability of democratic government where citizens • form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording. have erected such walls. Going well beyond planning and .- or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing — zoning questions about the phenomenon it studies, this paper From the American Planning Association, attacks the very philosophy that undergirds the growing trend Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber and 10%poscconsumer waste. ® toward enclosure. I. 1 AMERICAN PLANNING _ P A SMemo ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 1995 ASignisaSi n: 3 Recent Developments • ',1( ~'' . F in the Courts By Jon C. Sutterlin and Eric Damian Kelly,AICP ' ' _ _-'•i •'°'' ..,,ril t This article provides an update to the legal analysis contained in ••i'"`^ ' �uiu+eR ,e i1 1.KwuAmxM, Sign Regulation for Small and Midsize Communities, Planning ., .:.*:.-1.:::,........' -:' ., Advisory Service Report No. 419, 1989, by Eric Damian Kelly '}.i t .• ^2+ yRpOL AIe and Gary J. Raso. The first portion of this article contains a brief y— :;-:' • ;, restatement of the conclusions of that earlier work, but the + I [[ interested reader should refer back to the original report for the t i %. ;,dpi + „ • a — details. This article brings that legal analysis current through mid- i ill , rt.:'`� •-••• . 0' 1995. ,r,".+ , nl, ;,i. ' The most important message from the legal chapter in Kelly t ',~ ' t and Raso's Sign Regulation for Small and Midsize Communities •' t' , 't, '• •!14 '•i" .,,T: .1t r `•«_- - was "a sign is a sign."The conclusion of that chapter t• r... i+'r'='""€', = ill .F• _ summarized the law some six years ago: i q:'`'; ,�' (..4.;.... 4 i;i:-2,'- :'��,•�,, , ..4, r .......-., In short,the law supports local governments in regulating signs. % r• - — ,,; — Manycourts accept both traffic safetyand aesthetics as valid 'ii ,„,v,•at.ti ,414.�i . grounds for sign regulation.The U.S.Supreme Court has found Al.' Csr t41;-f-••• •'+'1' that traffic safety is so clearly an issue in sign regulation that no / Fi i; ' d•' �+�4' J' "� 0.-..r.` + proof on the issue is even necessary. • i ) -.7 ''- pi's g I • ry' , -die' -;:;;,,.i' ;. : -_ Local governments have faced the greatest difficulty in defending - _ -� . r :+ sign regulations in cases in which theyhave regulated similar sign • 6.14 s '''a �""�'�"'�+" with different messages differently,without having a valid .,Ves.. ti'•i,=.,.: ^4`�; " • ;: aesthetic or traffic safety reason for doing so.Attempts to regulate ys'�. t, Z', !'14,.t, .',• �: billboards as off-premises signs have been particularly difficult to -_ . '41:--;,14 1 ..4•"�!•',• ;:it •• :•: iiii: defend and are probably unconstitutional in almost every case r :::,r,^r•'.. ?P's rs 'it 4:.x1-'-r. ;'�. ._-!.' because of the practical effect of such regulations in eliminating . -• most noncommercial messages. gr"••S,:' ' moi l: •t4avi,!itre'r,: .. • Lower courts and state courts have struck down local sign ordinances that impose time limits on political signs. • . . . it is impossible to distinguish a political _ sign from a real estate legal areas,the courts have been very supportive of local sign sign, a gas price sign regulations and have had little difficulty in sustaining limits on size,height,location and design of signs. from a business identification sign, or All of that remains true today. A great deal of the an on-premises sign litigation over sign regulations in the last six years has from an off-premises involved regulation that is content-based. As the earlier • report explained, it is impossible to distinguish a political sign, without sign from a real estate sign, a gas price sign from a business considering content. identification sign, or an on-premises sign from an off- premises sign, without considering content. Communities that heeded the warnings in the earlier report, and have The other sign regulation that is most likely to result in a legal eliminated or significantly limited content-based distinctions challenge is a requirement for the removal of nonconforming in their ordinances, should be on solid legal ground. signs.Some states prohibit such a provision in local regula- _ dons;where state law allows amortization provisions,the Basic Principles primary issue in the courts is how long a period of amortiza- Two of the cases cited in that report are so central to the tion is reasonable.With the exception of these two difficult constitutional law of sign regulation that it is important to _- review them again here. In Central Hudson v. Public Service Central Hudson and its progeny address the issues Commission, 100 S.Ct.2343, (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court involved in regulating signs with commercial messages. In held that: Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 101 S.Ct. 2882 (1) commercial speech is protected only if it concerns a lawful (1981), the Supreme Court struck down regulations that it activity and is not misleading; found to place greater restrictions on noncommercial speech than on commercial speech. The case, which involved A government restriction on such protected commercial speech is billboards, is complex and the full discussion of it is left to — valid only if: the original report. The important message here, however, is (2) it seeks to implement a substantial government interest; that signs with political and other noncommercial messages (3) it directly advances that interest;and, are entitled to at least as much constitutional protection as — (4) it reaches no further than is necessary to accomplish that are signs with commercial messages of the sort addressed in objective. the Central Hudson line of cases. The effect of these tests and the interplay between them is The Central Hudson test has remained the yardstick of illustrated in a federal court decision handed down about the courts faced with a question of whether a specific sign regulation time that the earlier report was published. In National is lawful. If the advertising is not misleading and concerns a Advertising Co. v. Town of Babylon, 703 F. Supp. 228 (E.D. lawful activity, the burden of proof in a challenge to a NY, 1989), National Advertising sued several towns and _ regulation shifts to the local government,which must prove that villages asserting that their sign regulations violated the its regulation is valid under the last three parts of the test. company's First Amendment right to free speech by prohibiting commercial billboards within their jurisdictions. The regulations of several defendants had no stated basis and — the court easily found their regulations unconstitutional The safest form of under the second part of the Central Hudson test. Two regulation is one based defendants had stated purposes for their ordinances ("the enhancement of the Town's physical environment," "the _ on the location, size, reduction of traffic accidents," "improving the aesthetic and design of the sign, environment of the Town," and "the reduction of motorist not on its content. distraction"); and the same court, in the same action, found — the regulations of these defendants to satisfy the second part of the Hudson test. Unfortunately, even these otherwise- constitutional regulations were found to have an This fourth part of the Central Hudson test was probably unconstitutional impact in their application to — effectively modified by the decision in Ward v. Rock Against noncommercial speech. The court found that the regulations Racism, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (1989),a municipal noise,ordinance permitted "accessory signs" (signs related to business on the case. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the proper sign site) but did not permit noncommercial signs, thus standard for review ofa"time, place and manner" restriction is improperly restricting noncommercial speech. — whether the restriction is"not substantially broader than necessary" to achieve the desired legitimate goals, rather than The Supreme Court Protects Political Signs the old test of"no broader than necessary."This subtle shift in A yard sign about the size of a typical real estate sign, but _ emphasis apparently permits regulations that are somewhat but reading "Say No to War in the Persian Gulf," triggered the "not substantially" broader than necessary to accomplish a litigation in City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 114 S.Ct. 2038 (1994). specific purpose. There the Court found that the community's broad ban on The Supreme Court cited Ward v. Rock in its most recent signs, tempered by 10 exemptions, was overbroad and — decision on sign regulations, so it is fair to assume that this unconstitutional. Among the exemptions was one that would modified test applies to sign cases. As a practical matter, have allowed a "for sale" sign on Gilleo's property. In this there is rarely scientific evidence that sign regulations are recent decision, the Court issued an almost passionate precisely as broad as necessary to accomplish the purpose. defense of the use of inexpensive yard signs as a medium of — Courts have upheld height and size limits on signs as communication in political campaigns and on political necessary to protect both the public safety and the public issues. In doing so, it clearly and logically distinguished its welfare without inquiring as CO whether a slightly taller or decision in City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for _ slightly larger sign might be allowed without unduly Vincent, 104 S.Ct. 2118 (1984), noting that the Los Angeles threatening either. Thus, the new and somewhat relaxed test ban on political posters applied only to public property. In amounts to a restatement of the practical approach that Vincent, the Court cited the wide variety of alternative courts have taken. forums available to groups prohibited from posting bills on — public property. In contrast, in the Ladue case, the Court noted both that "special respect for individual liberty in the Jon C. Sutterlin is a partner in the Pueblo, Colorado, law firm of home has long been parr of our culture and our law," and Raso &Sutterlin. He is a member of the bar in Colorado and that "residential signs are an unusually cheap and convenient Tennessee. Eric Damian Kelly,AICP, is Dean of the College of form of communication," and it cited the lack of alternatives Architecture and Planning at Ball State University, and a member meeting those criteria. of the Colorado bar. Kelly was a member of the predecessor firm to The Supreme Court ultimately determined that Ladue's _ Raso&Sutterlin;its other shareholder was his co-author on the ordinance was overbroad,but it also considered an alternative earlier PAS Report cited here. argument that the ordinance was under-inclusive because it 2 prohibited political signs while allowing(as exempt) signs of Arlington County Republican Committee v.Arlington County, similar size, type,and location that referred to sale or lease of 790 F. Supp. 618 (E.D.Va. 1992), involved a limit of two the property or to the identity of its occupants. temporary political signs per residential property,and a formal permit application with a waiting period for issuance of the In the Mind of the Beholder? permit.The court in that case concluded that the two-sign limit Although the Supreme Court ultimately did not resolve that was inadequately related to the stated purposes of the ordinance question, such discrimination against political speech appears and that the delay in the permit process amounted to an — to violate its earlier decision in Metromedia(which the Court unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. cited several times in this case). Lower courts and state courts Another recent decision of the Supreme Court arguably have struck down local sign ordinances imposing time limits involved content-based regulations, although the ordinance on political signs (such as "not more than sixty days before there was struck down because there was so little relationship an election") without imposing similar time limits on real between the effect of the ordinance and its stated purpose. In estate signs in the same location; in doing so, they have cited 1989, the City of Cincinnati issued permits to an the content-based discrimination against noncommercial educational cable channel and a real estate advertising firm, speech. See, for example, McCormack v. Township of Clinton, 872 F. Supp. 1320 (D. N.J. 1994), involving a 13-day time limit (10 days before "the event" and three days after) on f political signs. The $ - political candidate r — : challenging the - - - -__- _ - _y_ ordinance won a �; __ preliminary injunction `I;�T,-`-. -- — against enforcement of r,- the ordinance. d ? r _ t In Collier v. City of - ,• i _-fig. I� — Tacoma, 854 P.2d � �__� 1046 (1993), the "=te=' -0-4r.. � ai[*E7 4��` AVAILABLE 6667500 – Supreme Court of ..._7.... "tu ""�' _ � Washington State held - - ! •&I-5- �` J ,� • A unconstitutional a �' _ , 4". ��s' ( y ; w r regulation that allowed —~ 'l. .4'' ' real estate sale yard `~� al— � , f il:- signs but prohibited \l. ;-s-- - - _Era ;r ei;-., ;. political yard signs _ ! L if -- • - _-E .• �' more than 60 days �•'� `� V ! ..-.-., < prior to an election. - _ ! . F h t Courts have long upheld aesthetic • .-- ucn ' �I -';II I:regulations—including sign controls :' •`_ _,J;` ;, S�S t t 1., ;I r aimed at reducingvisual clutter—on the ` - :,;.,=5'. _ .- + �' ' t; — basis that such regulations protect the : 'y i I .S L :,IyiE.h, t : '-, �'� �' general welfare ofa community. +.-1- 4 - ... - • '_- i F a „u ^' • ^ :� 1- �i a l' S� (_ . I r ;E — Accepting the argument of the city that the regulation was ' ' it A 4,1 ' ; the PAS Report), where it held that the local government has example, "real estate signs not exceeding 3 square feet on the burden of establishing a "reasonable fit" between the each side" or"not more than one sign per construction — desired ends and the means chosen to achieve those ends. project announcing the name of the contractor and the One of the most interesting of the recent opinions on architect." In contrast, the model ordinance in the PAS political signs is that of a federal court of appeals in Rappa v. Report takes a much safer approach, subjecting such signs to New Castle County, 18 F.3rd 1043 (3rd Cir. 1994). In regulation but allowing them without application for a — considering broad local and state bans on political signs in a permit. Exemptions in the ordinance are reserved for public variety of locations in Delaware, the court,after a careful notices, signs inside buildings, works of art, holiday lights, analysis of the Supreme Court decisions,held: and traffic control signs on private property—none of which are within the logical scope of an ordinance regulating signs — Thus,we conclude that when there is a significant relationship on private property anyway. between the content of particular speech and a specific location or its use,the state can exempt from a general ban speech having that Conclusion content so long as the state did not make the distinction in an In finding unconstitutional Cincinnati's ban on certain — attempt to censor certain viewpoints or to control what issues arc newsracks (based essentially on the contents of the periodicals appropriate for public debate,and so long as the exception...is substantially related to advance an important state interest that is at contained in them), the Supreme Court noted: least as important as the interests advanced by the underlying The fact that the city failed to address its recently developed regulation,that the exception is no broader than necessary to concern about newsracks by regulating their size,shape, advance the special goal,and that the exception is narrowly drawn. appearance or number indicates that it has not"carefully The requirement that a sign be significantly related to the calculated"the costs and benefits associated with the burden on _ property can be met in either of two ways.First,the state can speech imposed by its prohibition.City of Cincinnati v.Discovery show that a sign is particularly important to travelers on the Network, 113 S.Ct. 1505,at 1510. nearby road—for example,a directional sign or a sign conveying the nearest location of food.Second,the state can show that a sign Similarly, in the Ladue case, the Court noted that it was better conveys its information in its particular location than it "confident that more temperate measures could in large part could anywhere else—for example,an address sign.18 F.3rd satisfy Ladue's stated regulatory needs." 114 S.Ct. 2038,at 1043,at 1065 2047. Further, in that decision the Court acknowledged, as it has before, the substantive need for sign regulation: — The issue of distinguishing among sign types based on their Unlike oral speech,signs take up space and may obstruct views, content, however, remains a risky one. This comment of the ti Supreme Court in a case involving a ban on newsracks distract motorists,displace alternative uses for land,and post belon — ging to two publishers parallels comments of the authors other problems that legitimately call for regulation.It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical of the PAS Report regarding signs. The Court said: characteristics of signs.Id.at 2041. The city has asserted an interest in aesthetics,but respondent publishers'newsracks are no greater an eyesore than the Despite some court decisions adverse to local newsracks permitted to remain on Cincinnati's sidewalks.City of governments, sign regulation remains alive and well in the — Cincinnati v.Discovery Network,Inc.,113 S.Ct.1505,at 1514 United States. Local governments can easily avoid the (1993). constitutional defects cited by the Supreme Court and other The PAS Report authors wrote: courts in striking down a variety of local regulations. The _ model ordinance provided in the PAS Report remains a The issue that most planners and others drafting local sign viable and apparently constitutional approach to sign regulations miss is that a purple-and-orange-striped political sign regulation, but local governments that follow the guidelines is every bit as distracting to a driver and every bit as ugly to those suggested here and there can find others. Perhaps the most — who do not like purple and orange as a purple-and-orange-striped important guideline is the simplest one, however—the business sign at the same location. simplest and most defensible sign regulations are those that The message from both is the same:The safest form of recognize that a sign is a sign, regardless of its message. regulation is one based on the location,size, and design of the sign, nor on its content. A sign is a sign. To Exempt or Not to Exempt The Supreme Court decision in Ladue contained a warning that The PAS Memo is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory Service, ' may be little-heeded elsewhere but that should be familiar to a subscription research service of the American Planning Association:Michael B.Barker, users of the PAS Report. The city of Ladue made certain classes Executive Director;Frank S.So,Deputy Executive Director;William R.Klein,Director of Research. of signs, such as residential real estate signs, exempt from — • The PAS Atemo is produced by APA staff in Chicago.Research and writing by Research regulation. The Court noted: Department staff:Marya Morris,Editor.Production by Publications Department staff: Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor;Lisa Barton,Design Associate. Exemptions from an otherwise legitimate regulation of a medium Copyright©1995 by American Planning Association,122 S.Michigan Ave.,Suite 1600, of speech may be noteworthy for a reason quite apart from the Chicago.IL 60603.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 —.. risks of viewpoint and content discrimination:they may diminish Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. • the credibility of the government's rationale for restricting speech All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form in the first place. 114 S.Ct.2038,at 2044, or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording,or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing from the ,. American Planning Association. — Many local sign ordinances exempt various categories of Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber signs, bur impose conditions on the exemptions—for and 10%postconsumer waste. 4 —