Loading...
02-5-92 Agenda and Packet -FII, — AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1992 , 7: 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 1. Organizational Items - Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 1992 . PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 . Wetland Alteration Permit for the realignment of Minnewashta Parkway and the mitigation of approximately .76 acres of wetland, City of Chanhassen, Engelhardt and Associates. OLD BUSINESS 3 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning PUD Residential Standards. (Note: Discussion limited to 5 minutes maximum per Commissioner by Planning Commission resolution. ) NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 4 . Hwy. 5 Corridor Study Update - Discussion and new direction. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF _i_ . ,041 CHANHASSENi ,.._ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: January 9 , 1992 SUBJ: Organizational Items a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair The Planning Commission should make nominations and select a Chair and Vice Chair for 1992 . b. Adoption of Planning Commission By-laws The By-laws should be reviewed and adopted every year by the - Planning Commission. The Commission should discuss any comments or changes they feel necessary at this time. c. Liaison Attendance at City Council Meetings In the past, a schedule has been formulated where all the Planning Commissioners would rotate attending the City Council meetings. However, in 1991, Steve Emmings elected to attend all City Council meetings. The Commission should discuss whether or not to elect one person to attend or to schedule _ all commissioners on a rotating basis during the year. d. Liaison Attendance at Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meetings The Planning Commission has not had a person attending the HRA meetings since the resignation of Jim Wildermuth. The Commission should discuss whether they wish to have a person attend these meetings. tog, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER BYLAWS - PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN The following bylaws are adopted by the City Planning Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a commission established by the City Council pursuant to the provision of Subdivision 1 , Section 462 . 354 Minnesota State Statutes anotated . SECTION 1 - Duties and Responsibilities - Planning Commission: 1 . 1 The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the City Council through carrying out reviews of planning matters . All final decisions are to be made by the City Council . 1 . 2 The Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the City and recommend on amendments to the plan as they arise. 1 . 3 The Planning Commission shall initiate, direct , and review the — provisions and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations and report its recommendations to the City Council . 1 . 4 The Planning Commission shall review applications and proposals for zoning ordinance amendments , subdivisions , street vacations , conditional use permits and site plan reviews and make their recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance . - 1 . 5 The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on development proposals as prescribed by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances . 1 . 6 - Establishment of Subcommittees The Planning Commission may, as they deem appropriate , establish special subcommittees comprised solely of their own members . _ SECTION 2 - Meetings: 2 . 1 - Time Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the first and third weeks of each month at 7 : 30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers , 690 Coulter Drive , unless otherwise directed by the Chairman , in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members . Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 11 : 00 p .m. which may be waived at the discretion of the Chairman . All unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular Planning Commission meeting . When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there shall be no Planning Commission meeting. 2 . 2 - Special Meetings Special meetings shall be held upon call by the Chairman , or in his absence, by the Vice-Chairman or any other member with the concurrence of four other members of the commission , and with at least 48 hours of notice to all members . Notice of all special meetings shall also be posted on the official City Bulletin Board. 2 . 3 - Attendance Planning Commission members shall attend not less than seventy- - five ( 75% ) percent of all regular and special meetings held during a given ( calendar) year, and shall not be absent from three ( 3 ) consecutive meetings without prior approval of the Chairman . Failure to meet this minimum attendance requirement shall be cause for removal from the Commission by action of the City Council . SECTION 3 - Commission Composition, Terms and Vacancies : 3 . 1 - Composition The Commission shall consist of 7 voting members . Seven members shall be appointed by the Council and may be removed by the Council . 3 . 2 - Terms and Vacancies The Council shall appoint seven members to the Commission for terms of three years. Vacancies during the term shall be filled _ by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall before entering upon the charge of his duties take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. All members shall serve without compensation . 3 . 3 - Quorum Four Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business . Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting. -2- SECTION 4 - Organization: 4 .1 - Election of Officers At the first meeting in January of each year , the Planning Commission shall hold an organization meeting. At this meeting, the Comission shall elect from its membership a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. This shall be done by secret ballot. Each member shall cast its ballot for the member he wishes to be chosed for Chairman. If no one receives a majority, balloting shall con- tinue until one member receives the majority support. Vice-Chairman shall be elected from the remaining numbers of the same proceeding. If the Chairman retires from the Planning Commission before the next regular organizational meeting, the Vice-Chairman shall be Chairman . If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman retire, new offi- cers shall be elected at the next regular meeting. If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman are absent from a meeting, the Commission shall elect a temporary Chairman by voice vote . 4 . 2 - Duties of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman The Chairman or in his absence, the Vice-Chairman, shall preside at meetings , appoint committees from its own membership, and per- form other such duties as ordered by the Commission . The Chairman shall conduct the meeting so as to keep it moving rapidly and efficiently as possible and shall remind members , witnesses and petitioners to preserve order and decorum and to keep comments to the subject at hand. The Chairman shall not move for action but may second motions . SECTION 5 - Procedure: 5 . 1 - Parlimentary Procedure Parlimentary Procedure governed by Roberts Rules of Order Revised shall be followed at all regular meetings . At special work session meetings , and when appropriate, the Commission may hold group discussions not following any set parlimentary procedures except when motions are before the Commission . SECTION 6 - Public Hearings: 6 . 1 - Purpose of Hearings The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for the Commission to develop a rational planning recommen- dation for the City Council . 6 . 2 - Hearing Procedure At hearings the following procedure shall be followed in each case: -3- a . The Chairman shall state the case to be heard . b . The Chairman shall call upon the staff to present the staff report. Required reports from each City Department shall be submitted to the Planning Commission before each case is heard. c . The Chairman shall ask the applicant to present his case . d . Interested persons may address the Commission, giving infor- mation regarding the particular proposal . e . Petitioners and the public are to address the Chairman only, not staff or other commissioners . f . There shall be no dialogue among the Commissioners , giving information regarding the particular proposal . ( The Planning Commission members may ask questions of persons addressing the Commission in order to clarify a fact, but any statement by a member for any other purpose than to question may be ruled out of order . ) g . After all new facts and information have been brought forth , the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not be heard again . Upon completion of the hearing on each case , the Planning Commission shall discuss the item at hand and render a decision . The Planning Commission if it so desires , may leave the public record open for written comments for a specified period of time. h . The Chairman shall have the responsibility to inform all the parties of their rights of appeal on any decision or recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. 6 . 3 - Schedule At meetings where more than one hearing is scheduled, every effort shall be made to begin each case at the time set in the agenda, but in no case may an item be called for hearing prior to the advertised time listed on the agenda. SECTION 7 - Miscellaneous: 7 . 1 - Planning Commission Discussion Matters for discussion which do not appear on the agenda may be considered and discussed by the Commission only when initiated and presented by the staff and shall be placed at the end of the agenda. 7 . 2 - Suspension of Rules The Commission may suspend any of these rules by a unanimous vote of the members present . -4- 7 . 3 - Amendments Amendment of these bylaws may be made at any regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission but only if scheduled on the meeting agenda in advance of the meeting . 7 . 4 - Review At the first meeting in January of each year , these bylaws shall be read and adopted by the Planning Commission. Adopted: Date : Chairman s -5- C IT T 0 F PC DATE: 2/5/92 \ 1 CHA1UAE1 CC DATE: 2/27/92 CASE #: 92-1 WAP By: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for the Construction of Storm Water Ponds Within 200 Feet of a Class A Wetland F- ZLOCATION: Three ponds located on the westerly side of Minnewashta QParkway adjacent to Lake St. Joe APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen 11. 1.. _ Q PRESENT ZONING: • __✓ 7)6:14 ACREAGE: _ DENSITY: c s-5 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N 5 - E - - W - tilt WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : F 2000 LAND USE PLAN: ACATHCART PARA' B 41/NNEWASH TA HE/GHTS PARK o o o o o § o o o 0 o o o 0 o o o (.., o a) CO r•- 0 1 re) cv 1 0 V re) le) re) 0 re) re) re) 1 0 v7 cri ro -..._. 0 -,..matilININ. ....aiuv,un ;,- .. — , cz„,yilipill -jitiga ti ST IPPII - a asilar 1111.11111601Nati ' 0— — — ' mwslinsw 4 AtiVeist si IE-;r. .. IsAiiiik V/R67N/A f-7 / ! / VII rall 0 ' ... ... W-.7 .. _y _ • i=vis A , I CZP 1 41 pzi . . ASTER CAI* ., / 11;, c.,A, Quo • - - .., ,.....„ .....:„..„, • , 4 t, 0it* Iti\ •, 7. 7 4ste, - eA%* A..* ..,.,,if.....,. ,-q. D • • ,. i • ; ,64r LINTRY! — /:' LAKE .:.. 1 COUNTR? s :•- R , - -IF -, OAKS ROAD illP le>- • — ____§.TRATFOR s 411 r.,;••• Al / NEWASHTA -N\i • D- BOULE‘ARO / 'N STRATFOR) '__"•,1NE , 1 SUBJECT) RINGS ROAD ' IM l','' • t, ( - •••••F SITES]] , , 7 I...Ii -,_ < N.' • 0 aiuit . I m ,__ (L41(1— - 4! 13;71.11.07-7•1111ra.-1—\•?-*- . )--- z t57.10£ - sialb: - ,..,•71,c,,L. ,,a „-__ ._.>___;_____, z, 111041. . IrVilidiunim60 -‘.: _ .-, . _t ?- Einaiiiiii : 1 2 -,i 1 - -- - 1 416 r4 P it..) mEWASHTAa AA •ilkiN4o • q COURT li ro in( I i . . .. ..........11i x, ,s• ./ •• 4 CIR nmain 1.\ ( V 1/4 7 .. 111111b4ft °1;\' 111.111f 1--- -- 1 1-i s . illi --___ 1 zil, it Ora b \ WS pP4A 1 •%---- -. 1 iliMi _ , Oitr , f' . 'WO ------------- --* II'll.6041 , --- ---_, w ' Atitvt:A., N - tt Minnewashta Parkway WAP February 5, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The city is in the process of improving Minnewashta Parkway. Construction is scheduled to begin this spring. The street will be slightly widened, provided with a sidewalk, have a new solid roadbed, and incorporate safety improvements. Included in the improvements is the provision of a storm sewer system and storm water retention areas. Currently, Minnewashta Parkway does not have a storm sewer system and untreated runoff from the street goes directly into Lake St. Joe and Lake Minnewashta. The storm sewer system will allow for the collection and pretreatment of storm water prior to it entering Lake St. Joe and Lake Minnewashta. There is a total of four storm water ponds being developed as part of the storm sewer system. Three of the most southerly ponds, Ponds A-C, are located on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway adjacent to Lake St. Joe. These ponds are being provided to remove sediments prior to the storm water entering the Class A wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe, Lake St. Joe, and eventually entering Lake Minnewashta. Ponds A and B are located within 200 feet of the Class A wetland surrounding Lake St. Joe. Pond C is located on the edge of the Class A wetland with a small portion of the pond impacting the wetland vegetation. The Zoning Ordinance requires a wetland alteration permit for any alteration within 200 feet of a Class A wetland and for any alteration within a wetland. The fourth pond, Pond D, is not within 200 feet of a Class A wetland, nor does it impact any wetland area. Therefore, Pond D does not require a wetland alteration permit. Attached is a memo from the _ city' s engineering consultant which details the storm water system. Ponds A and B have been designed to perform NURP functions to effectively remove a large percentage of the sedimentation from the storm water prior to it entering the wetland and Lake St. Joe. Proposed conditions are minor due to the level of staff input in developing the plans. However, we are recommending that the construction plans be revised to include landscaping around the structures and ponds to preserve the area's visual quality. The size and location of the ponds are such that they will not impact the existing wetland located adjacent to Lake St. Joe. Pond C has been designed to be a larger pond than Ponds A and B to be even more effective at removing sediment from the storm water and to also allow it to take on more of a wetland quality. The design of the pond is such that the southeast corner of the pond is impacting a small portion of the edge of cattail vegetation of the Class A wetland. The proposed new ponding area of Pond C is 5, 735 square feet and the impacted area is 1, 355 square feet. Therefore, the altered area is being fully mitigated. Minnewashta Parkway WAP February 5, 1992 Page 3 Staff has worked closely with the engineering consultant to have the least amount of impact to the existing wetland while allowing the storm water to be treated prior to entering Lake St. Joe and Lake Minnewashta. The resulting ponding areas are only impacting a small area of cattails along Lake St. Joe and the creation of the four ponding areas greatly improves the water quality entering Lake St. Joe and Lake Minnewashta over what exists today. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-1 with the following conditions: 1. Type III erosion control shall be used around the construction area of Ponds A-D. 2 . The city shall receive all permits required from the DNR and Watershed District. 3 . Plans be revised to incorporate landscaping around the ponds and structures. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from William Engelhardt and Associates - Details of the storm water system. 2 . Ponds A-D. 1 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTRODUCTION: As the storm sewer system for Minnewashta Parkway was being designed , careful consideration was given to both minimizing the environmental effects of planned construction and mitigation of the envi ronmentally detrimental characteristics of the existing developed system . Preliminary discussions with both the DNR and MCWD added to the scope of the system and contributed significantly to the — final system design . The system evolving from the planning and scoping process was designed in the spirit of improving — the water quality of three important water bodies : Lake St . Joe , Lake Minnewashta , and Lake Virginia . OVERALL MANAGEMENT PLAN: As previously stated , the overall plan was to incorporate various mechanisms by which the effect of Minnewashta Parkway and adjacent development on Lake St . Joe , Lake Minnewashta and Lake Virginia will be minimized. Since the natural flow of water in this chain of lakes is from St . Joe to Minnewashta to Virginia , it was decided to discharge the storm sewer into Lake St . Joe where possible . In fact , four of the six storm sewer lines discharge into St . Joe . The remaining two lines discharge into the creek connecting Minnewashta to Virginia . There are no direct discharge locations into Minnewashta . Rather than discharging directly to the receiving waters , sedimentation ponds will be constructed at five of the six discharge points . In addition , the final structure in each line will be a sump structure . This structure will trap coarse sediments prior 2 to discharge into the sedimentation pond . As an added treatment mechanism, runoff from development along West 77th Street , Minnewashta Highlands , Maple Shores Drive , Red Cedar Point , Stratford Lane , Stratford Ridge , Glendale Drive, and Linden Circle will be conveyed to the treatment ponds by storm sewer . Further , the existing discharge into Minnewashta via the Stratford Ridge detention pond will be removed thus eliminating the existing erosion problem. The final treatment mechanism underlying all the aforementioned is the installation of concrete curb and gutter on Minnewashta Parkway . This allows runoff to be routed to the ponds . In contrast , existing street runoff sheets directly — into St . Joe and Minnewashta . DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT PROCESS: The following narrative describes the method by which the ponds will improve the quality of the storm runoff entering the receiving waters . First , the storm water enters the storm sewer line and eventually arrives at the sump — structure . At this point , the larger gravel and rock sediments transported , in the line , settle to the bottom of the structure . Upon discharge into the sedimentation pond , the finer gravel particles and flocculated clays and silts will settle from the water . At this point , the water passes through a skimmer structure and into a pipe discharging into the receiving waters . The skimmer structure is designed to prevent oils and other floatables from entering the receiving waters . — The mechanism of a settle pond is simply gravity settling of an object in a fluid media . The pond itself can be envisioned as a bulge i.n the pipe . As water enters the bulge , the area of flow increases . As the area increases , 3 the flow velocity decreases . This decrease in flow velocity provides the time necessary for a particle to settle to the bottom of the pond and hence , be removed. Combined with the outlet skimmer , the pond becomes an efficient means by which to control the sediment and petroleum product load on the _ receiving water . Removal of these constituents of storm runoff reduces the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) , nutrient load and organic load transferred to the receiving waters . WETLAND ALTERATION: Based on the latest survey information , the only pond requiring alteration of a wetland is Pond C. Construction of Pond C will include placing embankment on 1 , 355 square feet of the wetland adjacent to Lake St . Joe. To compensate for the loss of wetland , there is an area of excavation of 5 , 375 square feet below the OHW of Lake St . Joe. In addition , it should be noted, while the ponds encroach upon wetlands , the nature of the pond will improve the water quality received by St . Joe . This reason, coupled with the difficulty of constructing an adequate storm sewer system should be considered when reviewing the overall environmental impact of this project . �, .\ .SN. - N1.--.....- /.2 LAKE ST. JOE - \ • / •. /i - \ • ' EDGE OF WATER / � ...\--.-- ....------ _ _ , 1 _ /t: ,.......... \\ , POND A ..„-- z, / \• EDGE OF CATTAILS \ __ 1 \\ /0,43 r . \ ' i i - -- - - -- �� ` � \ i i i - isk-_o/J — _,. RETAIN! L • PREPARED BY' WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC.- _ CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1107 HAZELTINE BLVD., SUITE 480 • CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-8838 i-z-1/1"' \/-EDGE OF WATER LAKE ST. JOE • \ .l-EDGE OF CATTAILS \ 76 , f \ - 1 t_ POND B 996 , -- PREPARED BY WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES , INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS - 1107 HAZELTINE BLVD., SUITE 480 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-8838 __ Z -v---- POND C , - / • f........5<. Z /111.11111k \\ / \\ EDGE OF CATTAILS-'I/ ' ./ ` N• - / . - • •• ..**4‘ / // /le /' ' t 4 ....p.,..,:: :,,. . ___ --,. -... , . .. . •. _ ..... _ _____ \_.,..--„,.. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � ` ` < _.,______ < - ) - - n 4 ) - --I-... - I - "I,,,, WETLAND ALTERATION AREA `,,,,,,, MITIGATION AREA PREPARED BY= WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. - CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1107 HAZELTINE BLVD., SUITE 480 • CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 - (612) 448-8838 1 / I I / II 1 '/ 4___„/ \ I 1 �1 POND D I �I i / I ' I. asp\ /{/ \ l � \ \ 1 \ I \ i \ \\ I 1 "/ \ I N 1 / \ I I l \ ,/ I I ( , I • `� / , V I . / 1 i I N k. -- ---, % / ^, I /� 99p 946 1 i \ . ••--• / , / - - - �\ / , -� \ lila ,,T � i � i r --/ f\ � I t/ - / i \ \ i ' • , 06_ f I/ 1 / _ / - -" 50- • � 9 /, / \ / N. 7 1 / / 1 1 - PREPARED BY WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES , INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1107 HAZELT I NE BLVD., SUITE 480 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-8838 CITY 4F i , CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: December 31, 1991 SUBJ: Draft Ordinance Changes/Residential Components of the PUD Ordinance UPDATE At the January 15, 1992 , meeting, the question of drafting the section of the PUD ordinance relating to single family developments was again reviewed. As has been the case in meetings since last summer, the most important question being asked is, "Will Chanhassen allow lots containing less than 15, 000 square feet under any circumstances, and if so, how small should they be allowed to be, and what standards should be applied?" In the materials outlined below, staff indicates a belief that this can be done effectively and further believes that the proposal has merit, even has some merit if a minimum 15, 000 square foot average lot size must be maintained. However, we do not want to beat a dead horse and while we think this proposal has merit, if it does not have support by the Planning Commission and City Council, we prefer to find that out once and for all and be able to put this question to rest. At the last meeting, there continued to be a feeling that small lots have caused us problems in the past and there was some indication that there was not sufficient support by the Planning Commission to push this idea further. I related to you conversations I have had with the Mayor and Councilman Wing indicating that they were concerned with the proposal to lower lot area standards and probably would not be able to support it if this came to the City Council. Due to the absence of two Planning Commission members who have been some of the primary people involved in previous discussions of this ordinance, action on this item was delayed to February 5th. The premise under which this was done was that each Planning Commissioner would be allowed no more than five minutes each to lay out their position and a vote will be taken. I would encourage you to keep to this self imposed guideline for two reasons. Other items on the agenda are important and will take a substantial to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Draft Residential PUD Ordinance December 31, 1991 Page 2 amount of time and I am not at all certain that further discussions would prove to be fruitful. In the attached memorandum, I have repeated materials that were presented to the Planning Commission at the last meeting, as well as minutes from the two previous meetings for your review. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY At a series of meetings over the past year, staff has brought proposed changes to the PUD ordinance before the Planning Commission. As you will probably recall, the bulk of the PUD ordinance which pertains to non-residential development in the community was adopted last fall and is now in use. The ordinance is in use as evidenced by Ryan's Chanhassen Business Center PUD. In fact, we even used the ordinance in a residential context for Lundgren' s Lake Lucy Road project. However, this did not involve any lots smaller than the 15, 000 square foot RSF standard. At that time, however, because a consensus could not be reached on standards pertaining to residential PUDs, this section of the ordinance was not adopted. Staff has been attempting to resolve outstanding issues for the Planning Commission since that time. The Planning Commission 's primary concerns stem from the use of the PUD ordinance to allow lots smaller than 15, 000 square feet. We have attempted to present evidence that we believe allows one to conclude that lots smaller than 15, 000 square feet are: 1. Highly buildable. 2 . Represent the potential for high quality residential neighborhoods. Local evidence is Lundgren's Near Mountain project. 3 . Are cost effective. Economic result from lower land cost and reduced costs for roads and utilities. 4 . Can be used to require higher quality, more sensitive development. In exchange for PUD flexibility and cost savings, the city can expect more from the developer. 5. Can be handled in such a manner as to avoid the problems that have occurred in the past with some small lot developments in the city. Past problems include lots poorly designed to accommodate homes, expansions and decks within setback areas. Staff believes this can be addressed by establishing comprehensive development standards. Last summer, we believed that we had reached agreement on allowing lots down to 9 , 000 square feet under certain circumstances, as long as there was a mix of lot sizes in the balance of the development. When this last came before you in September, it was clear that our belief that a consensus had been reached for 9, 000 square foot lots was in error. This memo and the materials attached herein represent our most recent attempts to clarify this matter so that Draft Residential PUD Ordinance December 31, 1991 Page 3 we may move on to other issues. We firmly believe that the PUD ordinance offers significant advantages to the city as well as the developer and should be used more often in the future. We are presenting two variations of the ordinance for your review and comment. The first is the ordinance that you reviewed at the September meeting. It is unchanged except that the minimum lot size has been increased from 9, 000 square feet to 10, 000 square feet. We made this change for two reasons. It seemed more consistent with the Planning Commission's intent. Secondly, we recently reviewed a preliminary development concept that used the same sized lot quite effectively. Staff supported this ordinance in the past and we continue to do so believing that this sort of development can be handled in an effective and sensitive manner. The second alternative is to allow lots down to the same 10, 000 square foot minimum but require that average lot size meet or exceed the 15, 000 square foot minimum provided in the RSF District. We believe that this approach adds some flexibility, although not as much as the first option. However, it does result in average project densities that are consistent with development elsewhere in the community. Staff has recently spoken to a potential developer on land located near the intersection of Galpin and Lyman Boulevard. On this project, the potential developer, Hans Hagen Homes, would like to utilize reduced sized lots in the open field area closest to the public boulevards. They would like to balance this by using larger sized lots in a forested area located to the north and west. In these areas, the larger sized lots could receive a better price on the market and allow for a lot more sensitivity in tree preservation and to minimize grading. We think _ this concept has a tremendous amount of merit even though the average lot size is still being maintained at better than 15, 000 square feet. Staff is at a loss as to how to pursue this matter further if a consensus is not reached on one or the other alternatives at the next meeting. If further analysis is desired, your direction is requested so that we may further clarify the issue. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission select one of the alternatives for adoption by the City Council. * Denotes second alternative * CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows: Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Detached Residential PUD's. a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. * Average lot sizes for the project must meet or exceed 15,000 square feet. * The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60 ' x 40 ' building pad and 12 ' x 12 ' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard of 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet. Front Yard - 20 feet. Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet. Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These 1 areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site' s natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval . The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If - an attached garage is to be converted to living space at 2 some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Section 20-507 . Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Attached or Cluster-Home PUD's. a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5, 000 square feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. c) Setback Standards/Structures and Parking: PUD Exterior - 50 feet Interior Public Right-of-way - 20 feet Other setbacks - Established by PUD Agreement d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site ' s natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted 3 lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation and Yard Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. f) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, - dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Section 2 . Amend Section 20-505, Required General Standards, by adding the following: (m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. 4 The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential . To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to 50%. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. 5 Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 25 supposed to be 6 slips , now because they had 14 that 's okay . Is that what you 're saying? Because these are your neighbors . If you go back to 6 boats to what they 're supposed to have , wouldn 't that create a problem? Emmings : You mean they ' ll burn my house down? David Tester : You live right next to them . Emmings: No , I know . Yeah I 'm putting all that out of my mind . I 'm not going to sit here , I 'm sure my neighbors would hate me if I said I 'm not in that neighborhood technically but I live right next door to a lot of them , I know a lot of them and they 're going to hate me for saying well back to _ 1982 level . I have no doubt about that but that 's not going to influence me . But maybe they hate me already for other reasons . Now they have another one . Is there any other public comment here on this? Okay . . .and I seconded it and just so we 're all on the same page because I forgot , we 're doing the version of the ordinance that uses an 1982 baseline . Is there any discussion on this in light of the public comment? Then I 'll call a question . Conrad moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission approval adopting the ordinance using the baseline document of the size and extent of the recreational beachlot in the summer of 1982 . All voted in favor and the motion carried . EmmingE : When will this go to the City Council? Aanensor : The 10th . Emmings: 5o if you 're interested in this , follow it on up . Conrad : I think just as a footnote . When these start coming in and if they come before us , we should know , and I think there 's some common sense that has to guide what we do but we should have a feeling for how the current ordinance would deal with a particular situation and I don 't know , which means if under the current ordinance if they have x number of boats - or picnic tables or whatever . I 'd like to know that . And probably the other thing is we should be looking at the site when it comes in . The idea of the beachlot ordinance is for a lot of things . It 's called safety and _ protecting the neighbors and some real common sense type stuff . And sometimes you can have real unsafe situations on big lots and safe situations on small lots . I think we have to take a look at them and again apply some common sense stuff and I think we all hear what you 're concerned - with . The people that are part of the association or the beachlot . I would be fighting for my rights too just like you but I think on our side we can apply some common sense guidelines that make it work . In some cases it 's not going to turn out totally the way you want but I think we should be able to reach some pretty good decisions . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS . Emmings : I 'm very disinclined to do this with the absence of Tim and Brian - because they both had a lot of good things to say about this but I don 't Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 26 — know if they 'd have additional things to say . Maybe we 're all kind of talked out on this issue . I don 't know . Ahrens: The PUD , I think so . Emmings: But Brian and Tim have been particularly interested in this item and I don 't know what to do . What do you want to do? Conrad: I wouldn 't mind talking a little bit about it and then tabling it . • Emmings: Okay . Ahrens: I 'd rather talk about it now or table it and talk about it later . I mean we 've talked about this a lot . Emmings: And have we gotten anywhere? I go round and round. Ahrens : I mean I can talk about this forever tonight and then talk about _ it again another night because there are a lot of issues involved . . . Conrad: I just have a real quick question basically and it will last longer . Jeff , you go ahead . I 've talked more. — Farmakes : What basis are we using from the 9 ,000 to the 10 ,000? What is the basis that you picked that figure? — Krauss: It 's highly scientific . Farmakes: This isn 't like 3 trees is it? Because it 's more than 2? — Emmings : Because he feels resistence at 9 ,000 . Farmakes: Is there a financial or glass ceiling or whatever with the developer? I need a 60 x 40 base pad and I need this much square footage . Krauss: To be perfectly honest , Kate and I saw a concept that had been prepared by somebody who 's thinking of proposing what is it a 160 lot subdivision over off of Galpin near Lyman and the premise behind that was , it 's in the Volk . Yeah , the Volk Farm where the Cellular telephone tower — is . And in the open areas he wanted to build a parkway with a number of cul-de-sacs and in those areas where it 's just open field he figured that he would put in the lowered priced home on the smaller lots and those he _ proposed at 10 ,000 square feet and when he got up into the forested hills near Timberwood he came up with 15 ,000 to 25 ,000 . Well 25 ,000 to 30 ,000 square foot lots which fit in quite well with the terrain and the desire to protect those trees . Because if you plowed in your normal 15 ,000 square — foot lots on a suburban type pattern , you 're going to plow down most of those trees . I thought the trade off made some sense . It seemed .to be from a topological tree preservation standpoint it seemed to be an ideal — candidate to do and that one used 10 ,000 square foot minimum lots . And the average lot size was in excess of 15 ,000 . It seemed to be a reasonable plan and I said well , I 've tried this 3 times before the Planning — Commission . I 'll try another time . Now your comments about Commissioner Batzli and Erhart are accurate . They have been somewhat the leading Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 27 proponents or opponents of this . I 've had some conversations since with the Mayor and Councilman Wing . I think that they 're somewhat , well they can speak for themselves but they 've indicated to me that they 're not in favor of the decreasing lot sizes . We 're getting to the point where some guidance would be nice . We 're getting asked the questions a whole lot . If it 's 15 ,000 , it 's 15 ,000 . If you have flexibility , we do . Farmakes : I still have just one question with the basis of understanding this . If you don 't give up some lot size , what is the advantage to the developer doing this? Krauss : Well there isn 't much . If you don 't give up lot sizes you have _ what I think is a highly unusual situation which was the Lake Lucy Road/ Lundgren proposal where it made sense to do it as a PUD because conventionally configured lots didn 't fit because of all the wetlands . That conventionally configured streets didn 't fit because of the wetlands and the PUD gave us the flexibility to do that . But that average lot size , granted between useable and non-useable , I think it was 30 ,000 square feet was the lot size and 18 ,000 to 20 ,000 square feet was the useable site . - Those are pretty unusual cases . Is that ever likely to happen again , I don 't know . Maybe . _ 'Farmakes: Well I , in that particular development , I guess I thought it was a nice development except for a couple of lots and those were the smaller ones . I still , if you were looking at 10 ,000 or 12 ,000 square feet , I mean again it seems an arbitrary number . I haven 't seen the development that you 're talking about and I 'm having trouble understanding if you had an attached garage with a pad that size , you 'd be looking at about a 40 x 40 house and attached garage wouldn 't you? Krauss : We tried to define that a little bit more here . Farmakes: A 60 x 40 building pad is , if you put an attached garage to it , that doesn 't leave you much left for the house . Krauss : Well yeah , if you have a 60 x 40 pad . Each house in Chanhassen is - required , well most houses in Chanhassen are required to have a 2 car garage . Farmakes: 20 feet for that and subtract that from . Aanenson : What we 'd suggest is that you come in with some specific models but a lot of homes have the punch out garage with the floor space behind . Krauss : What we tried to come up with was a reasonably sized home pad plus a reasonably sized deck plus a reasonably sized unencumbered back yard . - You can 't play baseball in it but . Ahrens: I think we know that they can do it . I mean they did in Near _ Mountain and then we know that they can have decks on houses and we know that they can have the right sized garage . I don 't think that 's really an issue . I think the issue is just what we want . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 28 -- Farmakes: What I was getting to after that would have been what percentage_ difference ercentage— difference do you see with a house like that next to a house on a 35 ,000 square foot lot? Percentage wise and pricing . Krauss: See I don 't think pricing is , well I wouldn 't sell this to you , in— the past the City 's gotten burned and you got burned in the Pheasant Hills and Foxpath and a couple of others where these things were sold on the premise . The builder came to you and he said , let me put these things on — 9 ,000 or 10 ,000 square foot lots and I 'll give you cheaper homes . I don 't know if they intentially lied but they weren 't cheaper homes . The homes got bigger as the market allowed it to get bigger and the City had no protections in there to make sure that the homes could fit and that decks _ could fit and that people had reasonable back yards . It 's a pretty tough situation . I think some of you have gotten calls from Willard on the Board of Adjustments and it 's because he 's seen almost monthly he sees the — results of those PUD 's . I think you can do it without it . Now what are the reasons people buy a somewhat smaller sized lot . There 's lots of them . Yeah , maybe they are a little less expensive . Maybe the lot price is — $25 ,000 .00 or $30 ,000 .00 instead of $40 ,000 .00 or $50 ,000 .00 . I can 't guarantee it butit 's reasonable to think it might be . I know in the case of the developer we talked to , he clearly intends to make his big ticket purchases on the nicer lots up on the hill , which makes sense . It lays out well . You also have people that don 't want lots that are that big . Most people move out to this area because they have an imagine of what they want but not everybody wants to mow a third or a half an acre or whatever every — Saturday . They want something a little smaller . Not everybody has 3 kids . I mean there 's a lot of reasons people do a lot of things and we 've heard some people coming to us at Board meetings like you should have protected _ me from myself . You should never have let me buy this lot . Well , I have a - little bit of a tough time with that . You buy what you buy because that 's what you think you want . But having said all that , I mean I think the flexibility from the design standpoint , the ability to save trees . The — ability to work around water features . The ability to lay in streets nicely . The ability to have some variety is a real big benefit . Can we develop without that? Sure . You have in the past . You will in the future . And we 're not here to you know , I think there 's a valid case to be made for using PUD 's but if there 's not a comfort level with it , then let 's move on and work with it the way we have it . Emmings: And that 's the problem . The way I feel like , I 'd like to look at everything as a PUD and none of them as a straight subdivision really because you feel like you have some flexibility . I don 't know if you — really do wind up with any but you feel like you might and at least the potential is there . That 's why in a way I 'd just like to say we 've got net density , or densities we want to see depending on the zoning of the property . Design whatever you want . Just give them a density and say here , you design whatever you want . Conrad: That was my question. Why didn 't we go with a gross density — versus? Emmings: If you want to maximize creativity and give them incentive to do — things , the trouble is Ladd I think , and maybe I 'm wrong . You can probably answer this better than I but I 'm afraid if that developer does get Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 29 creative and has some 9 ,000 foot lots , he 's going to wind up bringing that in and it 's not going to get approved because there are some people who just plain don 't like small lots . Even though it preserves a lot of open space . I don 't know that but I think I 've had some people call me this week who said just that . I think Brian has argued that , whether he meant it or not . Whether he was being a Devil 's advocate or really meant it . Conrad : Well Brian is the advocate of protect me from myself . - Emmings : Well a little bit but he doesn 't want a little lot , and I think there are a lot of people who feel that way . And I wouldn 't want to dangle that out in front of a developer . But if we want PUD 's , we 've got to offer them something . We 've got to make it attractive to them and I think the way we do that is by saying you 've got a density figure to work against . We 're going to be watching you to see that you preserve things we like and _ that you don 't destroy the natural topography and everything else . Do your best and bring it back and take a look . Krauss : You could work it that way . I 'd still stick in the provisions - though where we mandate that the developer has to demonstrate to your satisfaction or the Council 's satisfaction that every lot that 's created , bar none , can accommodate a reasonably sized home , deck and a back yard . When you 're talking about some creative developers , I don 't know that that 's the right adjective for . . . Emmings : Well wait . What if a guy wants to do zero lot line stuff? Krauss: Oh well , I think that 's a different . This is an animal of a different color . We cover that in here . Zero lot line homes are certainly - a valid housing concept . They 're in demand in a lot of areas . Emmings: Or what if you want to do a retirement thing where you have maybe _ 3 or 4 units that are hooked together on a cul-de-sac with a whole bunch of open space around it . How do we encourage people to do some things like that? - Krauss : Well , you can encourage that and the ordinance does provide for those to go in areas guided for medium density housing . Most communities have trouble chewing on that kind of a concept . Being allowed to go - anywhere in a single family neighborhood . Even though I fully agree with you that the density cap is the same , that number of units isn 't going to increase over the normal style . It looks like a different style of development and a lot of people object to having that next to their single family home . So most of the time you find that those zero lot line developments are segregated somehow . Oftentimes they 're in a higher density area . That 's the way it 's done in most the communities I know . Ahrens : I think we should look at creative development . I like PUD 's and I think there 's all sorts of advantages for cities to look at that but the only , you know I look at the Lundgren development over in Near Mountain and if you drive behind it in Pleasant. View , it looks okay . The houses that sit on the little lots . But if you drive inside of it to the front of those houses , it 's crowded in there . You just get a feeling of being crowded in there because the houses aren 't small . The houses are nice Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 30 sized and you get on this little curved street and all of a sudden it 's crowded . And there 's barely room for cars to park between . If you have , — I mean in suburbia everybody 's has lots of cars right? Especially when you have teenagers . There 's no room to park even between the houses let alone on the street . It 's really small . It 's really tight in there and I think we have to think about not only will a house fit on a lot . Well sure . You can get a house to fit on a lot and some people don 't want to have to mow the lawns and stuff but how does it look and how is it going to look 20 years from now when we have a lot of big houses on little lots? I don 't know . I don 't know if aesthetically that 's going to be too great and if it 's going to be useable for people who have more than two cars and they can fit them nicely into their driveway. I mean it is crowded in there . I _ don 't know if you 've ever driven in there but it is . And the houses look nice now because they 're brand new houses . I mean it looks okay now . I don 't know . I don 't know how it 's going to be . I think I 've changed my position on the small lot size . I didn 't think it was a bad idea at first — but the more I look at those lots in Lundgren , I 'm not sure that it 's the best kind of setup for Chanhassen . I don 't think it 's so great if you have a bunch of houses developed in just a little area and then you have a nice — park 3 blocks away . Is that a better development than having all 15 ,000 square foot lots? Emmings: What are you saying? That you think there should be a minimum lot size then? Ahrens: I do . — Emmings : And what is your figure? Ahrens: I think it should be 15 ,000 . Emmings : Okay . Now if we did that , if we said we want a minimum 15 ,000 square foot lot size , would there be any incentive except for the odd piece of property like Lundgren ran into over here . Would there be any incentive for a developer to us a PUD? Basically he 's working in the subdivision ordinance . — Krauss: A PUD is a rezoning . Cities have a lot of leeway as to what kind of conditions they apply on a rezoning action . Developers are business people . They 're not going to plat . If the developer brings you a plat without any variances , you 're obligated to approve it . No if 's , and's or but 's . You can add some reasonable conditions but you can 't be arbitrary or be creative or whatever words you want to use . The PUD opens the door — to the city saying I want more parkland and I want you not to build where these hills are . I 'd like you not to build where these trees are . Whatever . — Ahrens: You can 't say that if a developer comes in and you say , you 're required at 15 ,000 square foot lots we can 't say you can 't build on that crest of that hill and you can't , you have to have so much parkland . We do that row . Krauss: Yeah , but the suburban development pattern is an improvement over — the grid system that you see in Minneapolis, Not much . I mean it 's 1920 's Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 31 technology versus 1940 's technology . You know curvalinear streets help and . you like to think that when you have a 15 ,000 square foot lot or better you 're able to save a few trees that you don 't have to tear down when the house gets built but basically it 's a very land intensive and often abusive way to develop . Emmings: This underlines , Brian said facetiously I think . Maybe not . Raise your minimum lot size in the subdivision ordinance to a half acre and then we 'll have all PUD 's that we can do what we want to . That 's not a bad idea maybe . This is like quitting smoking . You do like 100 times . Conrad: There 's a good article in the planning , whatever the planning magazine is that we get on this same thing . I don 't know if anybody read it . I guess the forecast is going to , people wanting big lots in the past and the forecast going to smaller lots and how creative PUD 's can be handled . Emmings: How small is small? Conrad: I don 't know if they really said a number . Yeah , I don't know . But it was really appropriate in light of this thing . I 've vacilated because I 've always been a large lot proponent but on the other hand , over _ the years I 've seen less and less advantages to the large lots . If you can preserve some of the other stuff you get around but we 've never been able to figure out how to preserve this other stuff . You open up some land , what are you going to do with it? Farmakes : Demographics are changing and the market . We're all getting older . Emmings: Not all of us . Farmakes: Well I 'm not but you guys are . Ahrens : But is 15 ,000 square feet really that big of a lot? I mean we 're not talking about . Krauss: It 's a highly personal choice . I mean you know what you bought and you know why you moved here and it was a personal decision for you and your family to decide . I can tell you that from the metro area standpoint , we 've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area . Now Minnetonka , one of our neighbors , has the largest one but there 's not a home built in Minnetonka today for under $350 ,000 .00 . Emmings: But the reason 15 ,000 is significant only because that 's in the subdivision ordinance . I mean that 's why you can move the numbers around - but they are arbitrary and 15 ,000 has significance only because that 's the number in the subdivision ordinance . Ahrens: Right but everyone talks about 15 ,000 as a large lot . Emmings: No , it 's only significant because it 's in the subdivision ordinance . I think that 's the only significance of it . Big and small , - that 's all relative . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 32 — Farmakes: What about 12? I mean I 'm still getting back to my original question when you picked 10 because you saw a development you 'd like . -' Would 15? 12? Is there a commercial level where it no longer makes sense for a developer? Krauss: I don 't know. Maybe in fact there is . If they do their proformas and they find out . Any decrease in lot size theoretically allows them to save on linear street frontage . To save on linear utilities and to theoretically , if you allow them to and we didn 't plan on it but if you wanted to get more lots in , then they make more money . That 's the way the developers all see it and we 've had people come in the door saying you 're not going to let me cram 10 ,000 square foot lots on this cornfield with no — amenities . Chaska would let me do it . We 've told them to leave because we weren't interested in that kind of development . The only context we saw was getting the higher quality . I don 't know what the break point is — though . The presumption that we 've had is that the developer may in fact get some additional lots out of it , especially when you 're at the lower end but everytime we 've considered the lower lot sizes it 's been with added conditions like more open space and we 're going to protect more of the — trees and we 're going to do this and that . So it 's always been a trade off . Developers also don 't like to have all their eggs in one basket . You don 't like to have only 15 ,000 square foot lots to sell . You like to have — .a variety of home sites . Emmings: The market may change during . That makes sense . I don 't see how_ we can , it seems to me we 've got to offer them something and if it isn 't lot size , I don 't know what it is . Otherwise I think we 're wasting our time . On the other hand , I don't like 10 ,000 square foot lots . Farmakes: You don 't have to accept it in the development proposal though right? If you don 't like the way it works out in the percentage , then this is a guide correct? — Krauss : Well , under the PUD you have a great deal of latitude . It just occurred to me too when you 're talking 12 ,000 square foot , the ordinance up until the time we start tinkering with it allowed PUD 's on 12 ,000 average — lot size? Emmings: No , wasn 't it minimum? — Olsen : 13 ,500 . Emmings: Wasn 't that a minimum and they still had to maintain over 15 or over average? Olsen: I think it was like 13 ,500. Krauss: And did anybody , did we determine that nobody used that? Or does that predate Lake Susan Hills? The PUD 's that you had in town predated the_ imposition of that 13 ,500 average . I think they did in the later phases but they predated . . . Emmings: Lake Susan Hills was never a PUD . You 'll never convince anybody — who was up here at the time that that was a PUD . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 33 Olsen : And you didn 't pass it . - Emmings : Planning Commission didn 't . City Council did . Conrad : Well it 's sure sounding that there 's lots of folks that say we _ don 't like the small lots . We 've got two people missing that we know that 's their posture . Joan for sure . Jeff you 're sort of bordering . Farmakes : I think it 's a dilemma for me because I think it 's a very smart - idea to do this . However , the problem is that if you don 't offer them something to do it , why would they do it? It makes no sense . Conrad : That was the point of looking at the PUD ordinance . Nobody was . doing it under the past ordinance . It was motivating nobody . Farmakes : It could be very mutually beneficial though with certain types of properties . And if you don 't give them that smaller lot size , again they 're not going to do it . - Conrad: See I persuaded myself to go along with the 15 ,000 foot on average and the 10 ,000 minimum because the 15 protected what we 've been running with and we 've been going a pretty good job no matter what . Sometimes _ 'there hasn 't been a terrific amount of creativity but overall I think it 's really not bad what 's been going up . So the 15 in my mind was to maintain what we had . And the 10 , I think you can still do things in the future at 10 ,000 . It 's cramped . It doesn 't meet my style . I wouldn 't like it but I - think some people would and if that 's what they would like and if I preserve what I 'm trying to and that is the openness of Chanhassen , then I 'm not going to get in their way of a small lot . What I was concerned - with before , the way the ordinance is written , is we simply downsized the lots and I felt that sooner or later becomes a standard . But now that we have a 15 ,000 square foot average , that still may not be motivational enough to the developer . I don 't know but it may appease me . That was when my question came in , why don 't we play with overall density versus a specific because the overall density has been quite nice? And I don 't care how somebody bundles it together . Farmakes : Have you gotten a response from any of these developers talking about the 10 ,000 square feet? Krauss : We haven 't really waved it around . Ahrens : Having an average lot size , that means that you could have like 6 - huge lots and a whole bunch of little tiny ones right and still meet the? Krauss: If by little tiny you mean 10 ,000 , yes . Conrad : But you could solve that problem Joan in the intent statement . The intent statement could say that Chanhassen is looking to maintain such _ and such a character but would compromise to smaller lots . So what you 're doing is telling a developer you 're not looking to have 3/4 of the development and 10 ,000 square foot lot sizes balanced by 380 ,000 square foot lots . You could communicate what you 're looking for upfront in an Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 34 attempt but signal the fact that we could go down in lot sizes to accommodate . Farmakes : Aren 't you telling them that though with the average lot size . You 've got to be able to figure out how many units to put on that thing . Doesn 't that determine a percentage like this? Conrad: I 'm not sure . It probably does , yeah . — ( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. ) Emmings: . . .all these 10 ,000 square foot lots in one area leaving . Conrad: But you wouldn 't have a problem dealing with that if it came to you because if the intent statement is there , we know what we 're looking for and we all have this grandiose , cluster this over here . Open up this space over here . We just don 't know how to get there so what I want to make sure is that we 're communicating to the developer so he or she has a — concept of where we 're going and we 're not leading them in the wrong direction . They come in and say oh , that 's not what we 're looking for at all . Ahrens : But then we have some people saying , well I kind of like that and I kind of like this but that 's not really my idea of what it should look like . I mean you know it 's so subjective that way because a developer 's — standing there saying well , we still have a 15 ,000 square foot average lot size . Emmings : But I think Joan, if you 'd want to take the subjective element out , you put it on a grid and you squash the creativity . If you want to maximize creativity but -you want to encourage some clustering and leaving larger tracts of open space , I think you 're always going to have the — subjective element to deal with . And I think good developers are going to do it right and you 're going to know it when you see it . Ahrens: True but we 're not always going to get good developers . We 're going to get anybody who has the money to come in and develop the land . Emmings: But on a PUD . — Krauss: You have a lot of latitude to object . Also two other things . First of all the intent statement , the way it 's worded right now and this — is language I think we got from you Ladd last time it came up. The intent statement says that the applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions , preservation of natural_ featuresand open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will concurrently be approved with the PUD . Jo Ann also points out that you can put a ceiling on what will be counted . The size of the lot that will be counted towards the average . You can say — nothing over 20 ,000 or 25,000 square feet will be counted towards your average lot size . There 's no basis in making a one acre lot . Farmakes: Is that buildable square footage? Planning Commission Meeting - January 15 , 1992 - Page 35 Krauss: Well we 've got stuff in here about that . Now maybe the way , you know . Farmakes : But we got into a little bit of the argument with Lundgren on the issues of the one up on Lake Lucy Road . He had the plot marks going out to the middle of the wetland . - Krauss : Yeah . Your buildable square footage concern 's a valid one but it 's not just valid in PUD 's . I think we should address that for every lot in the city . Subdivisions , PUD 's or otherwise . Farmakes : I agree . I agree because it 's really deceptive . I mean it may or may not be the intent but when they 're coming up and when they did those graphs and so on , as I said you were looking at lot lines that go down to - the middle of something that no matter if they build it on a PUD or normal development , that they could not build on . And it seemed to me like they were trying to sell that in figuring out what the lot sizes really were . Which they weren 't . Emmings : Well they were using that two ways . On the one hand they 're saying we 're preserving all this open space and on the other hand they 're saying this lot has this many square feet and they 're counting some of that open space and it just seems real contradictory to me . — Krauss: We made Lundgren though break out , the table got quite exacting . I mean it said this is a 30 ,000 square foot lot . 20 ,000 of it 's outside the wetland . We figured the average both ways in fact . Emmings : Yeah . I know you did on that one . And maybe it 's okay as long as that puts everything right up front so there 's no deception there . - Farmakes : On the one table I figured out , besides the wetland there 's the setback back from the wetland plus . - Krauss : But that 's useable back yard area . Farmakes: Right . That 's what I 'm saying . But it 's useable , how much _ useable square footage that lot was really. going to be and I figured , just guesstimating that the one was under 10 ,000 feet . Krauss : But that 's for the building footprint . But for your kids running — around playing frisbee or whatever . Bar-be-que pit or whatever you want to do , that 's all high dry ground . Farmakes : Still , anything outside of that you 're going to need a variance for it right? Krauss : To build a structure . Farmakes : Yeah , air conditioning unit , whatever . — Conrad: That 's too bad Brian and Tim weren 't here because we 'll probably repeat this same conversation . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 36 Emmings : We 've done it 12 or 15 times haven 't we? Conrad: I know . Ahrens : Are we finished on this? Conrad: This is going to be close . We do have to wait for them to come back . Farmakes: This is still , the latitude that you 're saying to reject this or reject these plans , do you feel from a practicality standpoint that we can basically reject just about anything? Krauss: Unfortunately Roger was going to be here tonight . He 's stuck in his driveway . He could answer that question more directly than I , but yes . You 've got a great deal of latitude . Emmings: We 're supposed to listen to a guy who gets stuck in his driveway? Krauss: With a Volvo . — Farmakes: If you do get a developer with a lot of integrity and really does meet the intent of what that 's going to be , he can do something really 'nice with that and it could be very beneficial to the community . But the thing that makes everybody nervous is how small these lots come in . If small lots and a developer with little or no integrity is, like you said , _ you 're going to build one 35 ,000 square foot lot and the rest are all going to be 10 ,000 . Krauss: You 've got a great deal of latitude on rezoning actions that you — don 't have on a subdivision approval . Emmings: Okay . That 's important insurance . That makes me comfortable . — Does anybody else want to beat this dead horse? Conrad: We should do it . Emmings: We should do what? Conrad: Table it . — Emmings: I like that . What a decisive person . Alright . Do we need a motion to table it? Krauss: No . I 'm used to it . Ahrens: Should we save these so you don 't have to reprint all of these — again? Krauss: No , I 'll have to reprint anyway . - — Mayor Chmiel : . . .Robert 's Rules of Order . Emmings: We don 't follow Robert 's Rules of Order here . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 37 Conrad: It 's Emmings ' Rules of Order . Emmings: We permanently suspended our rules when I became Chairman . • Krauss: It 's probably going to be a month before we bring it back on . That 's because our next meeting we have one action item . 90% of the meeting 's going to be devoted to the TH 5 corridor . I 've got Bill Moresch who Steve knows from the University coming over with his folks to give you a presentation on what that task force . . .that we 're looking at in terms of broad concepts for TH 5 . I think this is going to become basically the Planning Commission 's baby from here on out . We need to make some decisions on how to structure the program . Set some goals for it and get going on it so that will be our next meeting . The meeting after that looks like a very heavy agenda . We 've got Rosemount is coming in for a large - expansion . We have potentially a PUD , an industrial one . The one in front of Timberwood . The office park . It 's looking like that 's coming in . That 's going to be a very complex proposal . Well , that will be next week so we 've got a few things cooking so we 'll get this back on as soon as we can . Farmakes: I was just wondering if you had heard how Grand Met was being - met by McGlynn is basically the operation in Chanhassen here . How that was going to affect their operation . Krauss: I 'm not sure . We really need to contact them because they 're most curious about it . They 're not going to vacate the facilities . I understood the article is they bought the facility because it 's the most efficient baking operation in the country . But McGlynn 's also has 35 acres that 's been on the market and I 'm not sure if that stayed within the McGlynn family or if Grand Met owns it and if they 're going to be more disposed to sell it now . It 's a very important corner visually from TH 5 — standpoint . Emmings : As far as this goes , we could maybe approach it this way . That folks should just come in . Next time this is on the agenda , just let people state what their positions are on it in 2 minutes or less and then have a motion and pass or don 't pass something . But we 've talked about it enough . So put it on and then we 'll just make sure , we 'll sit here with an alarm clock . Farmakes: Egg timer . Emmings : An egg timer . That 's in Robert 's Rules of Order isn 't it , an egg timer? Alright . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4 , 1991 were noted by the Chairman as presented . - CITY COUNCIL UPDATE . Emmings: We 've got a report from the director that says there 's nothing to - report . Except he wants to talk about goals . Then there 's this , what 's the map Paul? I mean I recognize it as Chanhassen but what are you showing us? Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 20 — Emmings: Ladd . Conrad: No . • Emmings: Annette . Elison: No way . Emmings : Brian . Batzli : It should go somewhere way down the list . Emmings: Okay , Jeff . Farmakes : Somewhere down the list . — Emmings : Okay , and I 'd say no . Why don 't you run that straw vote by the City Council and see if they want us to spend time or if they want you to — spend time on it . Then we 'll go from there . Willard Johnson: Some gentleman mentioned 2 1/2 acres . Erhart : That was no gentleman . That was me . Willard Johnson: . . .when we were granting variances to the southern part — of the city there for building . . .we pushed them to one side of the lot . Erhart : Not anymore . It used to be that way . Willard Johnson : We encouraged them to push to one side of the lot becaus.. some day you 're going to develop and can 't afford to keep the property . Well this guy can decide to put another place behind him and then he sells off the other and it could perpetuate a number of homes . Just a small development on 2 1/2 acres . . .so I just thought I 'd throw that at you people . I 've seen so much . Thank you . — Emmings: Yeah , thank you . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Elison: I have a question . What 's an over story tree? Krauss: It 's a deciduous tree with a crown on it . Ellson: Oh! I thought it was big enough to reach the topstoryof the house or something . Krauss: Hopefully it will be . Erhart : Just throw these terms in once in a while to keep us jumping . — Emmings: Yeah . What did we call those tr.ees in our landscape ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting — October 2 , 1991 - Page 21 Krauss: Trees . Batzli : Trees from Catagory A? Erhart : Canopy trees. It used to be canopy trees . Emmings: I wondered about that . Krauss: You can call them deciduous . I think we did call them deciduous . Although there are deciduous trees that are , I mean a birch tree is a deciduous tree . Ellson: Those little poplars that are narrow and tall and skinny and stuff wouldn 't be considered an over story one . Emmings: Alright . I 'd like to ask you , in your Section 1 in A and also again in another place . On page 3 at the bottom there and then in paragraph D . It says in no instance shall project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines . I know the answer to this but I just want to see if you do . What does that incorporate here? It incorporates obviously the comprehensive plan guidelines for density but what are we saying when we say that here? . Krauss: For example the comprehensive plan designates the low density -' designation as 0 to 4 units per acre . Maximum 4 units an acre . If you used 9 ,000 square foot lots , and let me see if my math is 18 , you can theoretically get more homes on a site than , you could have more than 4 units per acre . Emthings: Right , but you 're not going to let them do that is what it 's saying here . Krauss: Right . Ellson: Is that the answer you wanted to hear? Emmings: Yeah . Ellson: You passed . Conrad: I don 't know . So the plan says 0 to 4 units . Emmings: Is low density . Conrad: I guess my problem with A , as soon as you say 9 ,000 square feet , that 's your standard . Emmings: No . Down to a minimum of . Conrad: I know . Ellson: You say we 're just going to get a bunch of 9 ,000 's . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 22 — Conrad: Well and they can 't do it but it says to a developer that 's the — potential . That 's our standard . Whereas there 's a difference . Really ou standard is bigger than that . So my problem , our standard is typically lo, sizes in a subdivision or whatever are coming in at 17 ,000-18 ,000 square feet . That 's really what we 're comfortable with in Chanhassen based on — history . Batzli : You mean in a regular subdivision? — Conrad: Yeah . Emmings: In our subdivision ordinance . Conrad: Yeah . But even a PUD . You 're coming in at , and I don 't know that for sure but most of themare above the 15 ,000 on an average . My problem — is the way this is worded . It says our standard is 9 ,000 . It says a minimum and I understand that but I see no reason , you know I feel real comfortable allowing . I feel not real comfortable . I feel comfortable — allowing usto go down to 9 ,000 . square foot lot sizes but that is not our standard . Batzli : Whereas I would agree with everything you said except I 'm not — comfortable with 9 ,000 . Conrad: Yeah , you don 't like the 9 because that seems pretty small . See — and again it becomes a mix and I want to give developers the opportunity t build down to that 9 ,000 and have some open space but still the way , you know you leave in with PUD and maybe you say minimum lot size 9 ,000 and _ that becomes what they 'll come in at 10 or 11 , although Paul is saying comprehensive plan guidelines says 0 to 4 . I guess I 'm still a little uncomfortable with that one . Ellson: I think that thing is what 's going to make sure we don 't get too many of those . Conrad : But 0 to 4 , we 're getting what , 1 .8 units per acre? Krauss : 1 .7 gross . Emmings: That 's gross? Conrad: That 's kind of what we like and I don 't see changing that . — Ellson: Unless you know you could leave that huge area of wooded and push a little more over here . Conrad: Right . So that 's where I 'm still comfortable with in that mix an..., if somebody wants to free up open space with that gross density , then I 'm comfortable going down to that 9 ,000 . — Emmings: Well is that part of what 's being incorporated by the saying comprehensive plan guidelines? — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 23 Krauss: Well it is but I don 't think it 's achieving what Ladd wants it to achieve . The comprehensive plan theoretically allows up to 4 units an acre . What Ladd is saying is right . Our average single family project is 1 .7 . We 're giving them additional latitude here to increase density . That 's true . It could . On the other hand , the penalty or what you need to do to achieve it increases with the increase in density in terms of the amount of open space you have to reserve and our expectations of what kind of a project we 're going to get out of it . PUD 's also incorporate slightly _ greater setbacks around the perimeter of the PUD to help buffer it from adjoining properties . Conrad: Well I don 't understand that Paul . I guess I don't mind where we 're going but I don 't know how we 're going to get there with this . So the penalty for being in a PUD , and you come in with the 15 ,000 square foot lot size , you 've got to dedicate 1 ,500 feet to open space . So in other words , if this is the same as having a 16 ,500 square foot lot , which .we already have bigger lot sizes in our PUD 's and subdivisions already . So there 's not much of a , what we 're doing , instead of having a 16 ,500 square foot lot coming in , we 're going to say no . 15 ,000 over here and then let 's start a little kitty over here of 1 ,500 . Emmings: Where 'd you get the 1 ,500? Conrad: 10% of 15 ,000 square feet . Emmings: That 's 15 ,000 though . That 's not the 9 ,000 . Erhart : Right . But that 's my question too . Conrad: 1 ,500 . 10% of 15 ,000 is 1 ,500 . Erhart : But ask the same question of the bottom one . Why isn 't it , if it 's 9 ,000 square feet average , why isn 't for every lot , why isn 't there . 6 ,000 feet set aside for open space? Conrad: Yeah , that 's where . Erhart : I mean that 's the big discrepancy . Why isn 't it 40% which would be 6 ,000? Actually it 's not the 15 ,000 . It 's the bottom one . 25% . Why isn 't it 40%? So if you take , you 've got a 15 ,000 square foot . Krauss: You want to carry the same ratio throughout . Erhart : No , no , no . I 'm just saying what are we trying to accomplish? If it 's 9 ,000 square foot average . Isn 't there a goal if we have 15 ,000 square foot lots . The guy wants to make a 9 ,000 square foot lot . Then doesn 't 6 ,000 go to some kind of open space? Conrad: See that rationale works for me . Emmings: Everybody here kind of likes the idea of clustering but every time something comes in that will allow to do it , everybody gets scared . Conrad : Because we 're trying to make sure' we know . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 24 - Emmings: Because it 's scarey . - Conrad: Well yeah but you 've got to know how this looks . Ellson: But don 't forget , we always get to approve these things . You 're thinking once it 's written . Conrad: Well you can change it but boy . But you kind of have a sense for- what this is going to feel like or look like once it comes in . And on the other hand , do you want to encourage developers to do this? That 's what our last PUD ordinance didn 't do . It was not encouraging . You 've got to - give them something to get something that we want , yet most people here it town really aren 't crazy about smaller lot sizes . If you went out and polled , you 're going to find very few that want to go down smaller . Very few . You 're talking . — Batzli : Then raise our minimum lot size to a half acre . Keep the PUD 15 ,000 and you 're set . You want them to use PUD , everybody will use PUD . - Erhart : Average net lot size , is that net of the open space? Krauss: Excluding designated wetland . Erhart : And open space? Krauss : No . Erhart : It includes the open space? - - Krauss : Yes . Keep in mind what qualifies as open space here is listed in E I think . The idea with the PUD , I mean I went through what was it , the Saddlebrook subdivision today . We had people from Moody 's Investors - Service here today . Erhart : The guy 's got to have 25% open space . How can he possibly get tc- 9 ,000 square feet? Krauss: It 's not the lot that has it . It 's the project . Erhart : I know but if you 've got 100% and 25% of it 's open space , you 've got 75% less . If your minimum lot size is 9 ,000 and you 've got to add another 25% , you can 't possibly get to an average net lot size of 9 ,000 . - Krauss: Yeah you could . You 're assuming that everything 's going to be split up as it is in Saddlebrook in individual lots and there is no public- or private open space in outlot designations or some other non-residential lot . Erhart : No , I 'm saying you can 't get down to 9 ,000 . Krauss : Sure you could . If you have 100 acres , you can have 49 ,000 square footlots and the rest of it open space . - Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 25 Erhart : But I thought you said that open space was included in the acreage , included in the net . That 's net of the open space? Krauss: No . The open space percentage , maybe we could clarify that . The average net lot size is , after we exclude wetlands , what is the average lot size they 're giving us . Erhart : Oh okay . That 's average lot size . Okay . Alright . I was thinking that was the density figure . Okay . Krauss: And the open space percentage applies on the entire project area . Erhart : So then you have 9 ,000 . Why aren 't we just taking 6 ,000 and putting that in open space which would be 40%? Krauss : Well , I approached it differently I guess . Erhart : You 're saying to go to a PUD there 's going to be an inefficiency . That inefficiency is that 15% . So in fact what we 're getting is 9 ,000 times 1 .3 so we 're really getting 12 ,000 . If you took then all 9 ,000 square foot lots , you add the 33% which yeilds 25% open space , then your average lot size , including the open space , is 12 ,000 square feet . That 's what you 've got . Krauss: That 's if you , so you 're going back and you 're aggregating the entire area? law Erhart : Yeah , I 'm just trying to see what our average lot size is . Krauss: I think another way to get at this same issue and I think the one that maybe Ladd was leading to , was when you go back into A where we say the cap on this thing is the comp plan . What I 'm hearing you say is that the comp plan cap which , you know the comp plan just talks about density . I mean if you have a 100 acre tract , you can build Cedar Riverside on there and still have the same density . Density that 's consistent with that . Maybe you want to look at lowering the allowable densities in single family residential PUD 's . Erhart: No , but do you understand what I came up with? Brian? Batzli : No . Erhart: I 'm just trying to rationalize the 25% . If you take 9 ,000 square feet and have a whole development and your average lot size was 9 ,000 square feet , you 'd be required to set aside 25% of the good space . Now that 's 25% of the whole development though isn 't it? Conrad: No . Erhart : It 's 25% of the net . Conrad: Of the average lot size . Emmings: No . 25% of the whole development . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 26 Erhart : Of the whole or net? Net of wetlands? Krauss: Of the whole . Erhart: That 25% can mean a lot from one parcel to the next because one — parcel might be 50% wetland yet he has to provide , he gets a few lots and still has to provide 25% of the whole parcel where the next guy may have 100% developable land and he has to provide 25% . — Emmings: Well wait . It says wetlands and other water bodies protected by city ordinance and permanent easement . It can also be used to satisfy up to 25% of the standard . 25% of the 25% if we 're looking at the 9 ,000 line Erhart : It gets very complicated . Krauss: The idea is to crank out additional open space out of this thing . Emmings : So we should be winding up with more than the 25% . — Krauss: Well I think you did in the Lundgren/Lake Lucy when you went with 41% . Erhart : Yeah but some of that , anyway . Conrad: But how do you administer that Paul? You know the PUD comes in — and it 's got some 9 ,000 . Some 11 ,000 . Some 12 ,000 . Some 15 ,000 and how do you end up with an overall project open space amount? You 've got to apply a percentage times each parcel . Ellson : No , the average . Krauss: You come in with 100 acres . You 've got 33 lots . The average lot— size is 10 ,000 square feet . You owe us 22 .5 acres of open space . Batzli : So if he doesn 't have that built into his lot already when he — comes in . He may have to reduce lots and then that number changes again . Erhart: I think maybe I can explain what I was trying to get to . Take the ideal situation where 100% of the land is developable . Emmings: No wetlands . Erhart : No wetlands . The guy just comes in with a bunch of 9,000 square foot lots . Emmings: Only 9 ,000 square foot lots? Erhart : Only 9 ,000 . Krauss : The ordinance says you can 't . Erhart : We can 't . Then how can you get to the average? How can you get — the average net lot size to 9 ,000? Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 27 Krauss : I supposed it could be thereotically . Ellson: It could be one . You never know . Emmings : It can 't because on an acre we can only have , what is the comp plan going to limit it to? Krauss: Well the comp plan limits you to 4 so on an acre , that 's 36 . Emmings : Thousand out of 45 ,000 square feet . Erhart: You could be a medium density area which allows what , 6 per acre? Emmings: Let 's talk about . Erhart : Now you bring up a good point . Can 't you get to the average of 9 ,000? Krauss: I don 't know . I don 't know that you theoretically can . Erhart : Then why even have this in the table? ' Ellson: We had that thing with the church over here and they wanted to put something in there and it was just one . It 's a possibility . Erhart : Where does it say you can 't get to 9 ,000 . What 's the role I 'm missing here? Krauss: A requires that you give us a mix of lot sizes so even if you come . in with 9 ,000 , they 're going to have to come in with something else . Emmings: They can 't just come in with 9 ,000 . Ellson: It says right there . There are a mix of lot sizes . Erhart : Which line? Ellson: A . The third line down . _ Erhart : Okay , but we don 't really define mix so if they came in with one 9 ,500 then . Krauss: But you can throw it out . You can do whatever you want to in a PUD . Erhart : Okay , let 's assume they are all 9 ,000 100% developable . Then what you get is on an average over . that 100% developable area a 12 ,000 square foot average lot size when you add back in the 25% open space . Then the question is , does that seem right? That goes back to our old ordinance . I guess maybe the number where we got that number was the old ordinance allowed us to go to 12 ,000 square foot minimum lot size right? Krauss: I could lie and say that . . . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 28 Erhart : That you figured that all out right? Krauss : That 's a lucky one there . — Erhart : Well that 's a . . .does that seem right to us? I don 't know . Emmings: That doesn 't talk about roads or anything else . That doesn 't seem like you 're accomplishing any one thing to me . But I don 't think that 's what 's going on here either . Erhart : Well what 's going on here is you 're not going to have 9 ,000 and maybe you 're going to have 11 ,000 average but then you 're only going to yeild 20% . So when you take 11 ,000 times 1 .25 and your average lot size — now is 13 ,750 when you add that back in . Krauss : But I think one point we keep overlooking is the one that you _ touched on about the advantages of clustering . In a straight subdivision that 's all roped off and fenced off into people 's backyards . There 's no public good . There was no ability to preserve stands of trees . There 's no ability to preserve promontory . . This gives you flexibilty to rope off 22%— of the site or whatever ratio it is and do good things with it . And still keep the densities relatively low . Conrad: But higher overall than what we 've been used to . Ellson : And that 's the carrot that you get them to use . We talked about it before . — Conrad: So you don 't mind Annette , instead of coming in at .2 units per acre , which has been our standard . You don 't mind coming in at 2 1/2 unit.. or 3 units per acre? Ellson: Well number one I 'll be able to see it . Although probably not me_ but the idea behind a PUD is they don 't tell you I 've met everything . You have to take it no matter what we choose which is the problem with . Conrad: They 're going to come in and say I met your standards . Ellson: But at the PUD , we 're the ones who decide if we like it or not . We don 't have that choice in some other things . — Batzli : But then they 'll say fine . We'll do it under your regular ordinance and tough luck . Emmings: Then we say fine . Ellson: Then we 'll say fine . Then we 'll get what we wanted possibly — instead but we have a chance to deny it if we think they 're trying to rape the system or use it in a way we don 't like it . We get that shot . Conrad : I tell you Annette . I ' ll play the record . They 'll look at the ordinance and say the ordinance allows it and you 're within the guidelines of the ordinance and we 'll say go ahead . Planning Commission Meeting — October 2 , 1991 - Page 29 Ellson: But Paul will be looking at it and he 'll say , this isn 't what we want out PUD 's . We wanted that nice wetland and that nice view . Why don 't you clear up that space and do whatever . He 'll see it first and make that recommendation . • Batzli : Let me make a general point here as a person who lives in a PUD . We 're talking about very lofty , fine goals here . Conrad: It doesn 't give you any more credibility . Batzli : It doesn 't but just let me express : Conrad: You 're an outcast in that group anyway . I 've talked to your neighbors . Emmings: I don 't even want to sit next to him . Batzli : Let me just express , we have very lofty goals here and we think we 're: doing public good but I think if you wandered into a PUD and asked the people in the PUD what do you want . They 'd look at you and say , I want bigger lots so I can do the regular stuff that everybody else in the whole , pardon my french , damn city can do on their lot . Erhart : What don 't you buy a different lot then? Batzli : Well but they don 't know . Ellson: Whit about the people who say I want a 5 minute front lawn? Batzli : They don 't know . People moving in to these lots are typically , and I 'll gross over generalization and simplification . These lots are typically cheaper . Maybe Lundgren Bros . builds high priced lots but the other people can come in here and they build starter homes on some of these things . In a lot of cases . They don 't know any better . Even .somebody such ae myself who probably should have known better didn 't know any better . I didn 't realize what the difference between a PUD and a regular lot size was . They don 't recognize the fact . You know you 're looking at a 9 ,000 square foot lot and if that 's a corner lot , you 've got about 2 ,000 square feet to do something on and that includes putting your house and driveway and everything else on there which leaves barely any room on it at all . And before you start talking about global good and wonderful open • spaces and everything else , consider that the people that move in don 't give a rip if there 's a park there because they expect a park there whether they 've got a regular lot size or a small lot size . They don 't care . They don 't want to hear that well we 've got a park for you . They 're going to say yeah , and you gave me this dinky lot that I can 't do anything on and you should have given me a park anyway . If we keep on saying Chanhassen is supposed to be good and wonderful , make them put in normal sized lots and get the park in addition . That 's my final and only comment on this . I can 't believe we 're thinking of going down to any 9 ,000 square foot lots . Erhart : Do you have 9 ,000 square foot lots in your PUD Brian? Batzli : I don 't know how big they are . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 30 Emmings : Just his . Batzli : Just mine . I got the corner lot . I got the corner lot and I 'm — stuck with it . No but seriously . I do think that if we do this , and you know something 's going to happen and I can see it coming down the tracks like a train just about to run me over here . But I would like to propose — that at least we require the developers that are putting these in to tell people what they 're getting . They have to tell them what the square footage of the lot is and what the setbacks are on the sides of the homes ._ Give them a sheet . I don 't care . Informed consent . I think we should dc that much for some of these people . Erhart : Let me ask you . Let me clarify what you said . Are you saying wE- should never allow 9 ,000 square foot lots or an average of 9 ,000 square foot lots? Eatzli : I wouldn 't allow any . Erhart : Any at all . Conrad: What 's your minimum? What lot size would you go down to? Ellson : He just said the half acre . — Eatzli : Whatever the smallest lot size is in the city now , there 's a reason for that . Emmings: Yeah , there 's a reason . Batzli : Whatever the reason is that we 've chosen that . — Erhart : Throw a dart at a board . Batzli : Okay , then we should throw the same dart at the board for the PUC My recommendation is , if you want control over developments , you increase the minimum lot size and you put the minimum on that you would otherwise have expected as the minimum in the PUD. Don 't be compromising your — standards to get a little bit of clustering and a park that you should hay gotten anyway . That irritates me . Emmings: If we did what Brian is proposing and raised this to our subdivision standards of 15 ,000 square feet , would we ever see a PUD? Krauss: You just did . Emmings: Right . That 's right . Lundgren Bros . Well maybe Brian 's . I was kind of liking this until Brian . Erhart : We were sold on the 9 ,000 square foot lots because we got a few of them up there in Near Mountain and I -don 't know . I guess I haven 't personally gone and looked at them'. You 've got a few slides and you can 't tell much from that but staff seemed to think they were okay . Ellson: And I really believe that the market is going to . . . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 31 • Erhart : There 's a big difference between having a few 9 ,000 square foot lots and having a development where the average lot size is 11 ,000 square foot in my mind . Emmings: But if you say I 've got 100 acres and I 'm going to put 10 lots , ten 9 ,000 square foot lots and leave the rest empty , I take if you have no objection to that . Erhart : No , but that 's not what you 're saying . Emmings: No , I know it 's not but it isn 't the lot size . It 's the ratio to open space per lot size . I can see , we all like clustering . At least we all talk about it . We don 't really know what it is but . Erhart : I 'm not sure if you get 100 9 ,000 square foot lots all together and then you 've got another 25 acres sitting or 50 acres sitting someplace off to the side . Emmings: We 'd never approve that though . Now you 're painting a picture . Ellson: A worst case scenario . Emmings: No , not even a worst case scenario . It can 't happen because it would run afoul of our comprehensive plan and it would run afoul of the intent that we have in having a PUD ordinance . Batzli : Okay , so make them all 11 ,000 square feet . Erhart : I just wonder if we shouldn 't delete some of those lines down there like 9 and 10 and maybe even 11 and give us another , raise our basement line a little .bit here . In other words , yeah you can have some 9 ,000 square- foot lots but don 't even think about coming in here with a 9 ,000 average . Maybe we set a 12 ,000 average . See what. I 'm saying? We 're kind of inviting a lot of 9 ,000 square foot lots the way we have this table here . Conrad: I 'd sure try to do . Emmings: You 'd never have an average 9 ,000 though . We keep coming back around to that . It can 't happen . Only if they came in with only 9 ,000 - square footlots could you ever have that . Conrad: So let 's take that worst case scenario because we will see it . Emmings: It isn 't possible . Conrad: Why not? Okay , let 's take it . Let 's take -the 10 ,000 . Emmings: Do you agree? Krauss : I agree that it 's not possible . Conrad: Then we shouldn 't have it there . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 32 Krauss: But you know I keep going back to the fact that we had an ordinance on the books for years that said there 's an average lot size of 12 ,500 square feet . Nobody used it because . — Conrad: That was a minimum . That was a minimum lot size . Krauss: No it was an average wasn 't it? Conrad: No , minimum . Emmings: That was a minimum . Conrad: We 're talking here now . I get real concerned when we talk averag versus minimum . I am real comfortable allowing some smaller lot sizes but boy that 's not the average . That 's the average , I really don 't want to compromise the average . _ Emmings: But again , maybe we 're getting too specific here . Shouldn 't we be saying to people look . Here 's our subdivision ordinance . Here 's what you can do . An option you 've got is the PUD ordinance . Under the PUD ordinance you 've can do a whole bunch of things . One of the things you ca do is have lots that are smaller than what is required under the subdivision ordinance but if you come in under that , expect to have open — space requirements that are going to go up as fast as your lot sizes go down and don 't really expect to have a smaller or a greater gross density . Batzli : Well you wouldn 't be able to have a larger gross density because of the comp plan right? Emmings: Right . Well tell them right up front . Don 't expect to get a larger gross density . And if you 're going to come in below what our subdivision ordinance allows for lot sizes , then as that goes down , the open space requirement 's going to go up . And don 't put the numbers in — there . Then let them figure out how they 're going to cluster and bring us a plan to look at . Krauss: So now put in new criteria? Emmings: Yeah . Then if they want to go with zero lot line or if they want to go with a small lots with detached houses or whatever they want to do , — let them figure that out . Batzli : We 're going to be arbitrary and capricious . _ Emmings: Yeah but within the PUD I think you can . Erhart : It sure helps the process to have some guidelines . Ellson : Yeah , I like Paul 's thing . Plus people come and go reading this . Emmings: You don 't really like it because you want to erase a lot of things . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 33 Erhart : I just don 't think we should think about less than 12 . I don 't know why I 'm picking 12 . I guess because it 's the old number . I would never think about having average lot size of less than 12 ,000 . Emmings : But this really stiffles . These charts to me kind of stiffle the creativity that you might allow somebody to have. Why not let them figure it out? Conrad: Let 's just remember . I 'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth but that 12 ,500 minimum didn 't encourage anything in our old PUD ordinance . It did not motivate anybody so I think Paul 's putting out a carrot here to say hey , let 's motivate them to do this . I 'm just wanting to make sure that we motivate them but we 're not giving away the integrity of the community . And I can 't understand what we are getting . I guess what I 'd like to see is some sketches of what this does . I 'd like to see somebody lay out how this would be applied and that doesn 't mean we hire a designer but I need to see what this might look like if somebody came in . And we haven 't , you know Tim 's point is still on the table . It 's still valid . He 's saying to go down to 9 ,000 square feet , we 're giving up 6 ,000 square feet below a standard that we 've set for a subdivision but we 're only getting 2 ,250 feet out of it in open space . Is that the lure? Is that — 3 ,500 foot , the developer has a net gain on that one of 3 ,500 square feet . Is that what it takes to get a PUD? And then the question is have we gained anything with that PUD? What have we really gotten . I 'm throwing those things out but I guess I still have a tough time visualizing what this formula does for us . I don 't want to kick it out yet . I 'd rather have it in there because it might be a good guideline but on the other hand I want to know what it does before I approve it . I want to know how it , I 've got to see it and feel it and I can 't right here . Krauss: Well we can sure take a crack at doing that . I guess a couple things have happened too . I think we 're talking about a couple different goals for the use of the PUD . I think in the Lundgren proposal we saw that there was a rationale and a benefit to coming to using the PUD ordinance _. for a subdivision whose lots averaged 31 ,000 square feet . • Erhart : Hold it there . 31 ,000 square feet included a lot of water . Krauss : Yeah . Well and that 's why I threw in the language here excluding designated wetlands because there was an issue with that in the average lot size . Erhart : Average real lot size is dinky . Krauss : But that 's normal . You look at subdivisions around Chanhassen , they 're all like that . Bat-in : Yeah , I know . That 's what I was saying earlier . I don 't like it . Krauss: I think one of the things I 've been tossing over is maybe we need a minimum net buildable standard for all lots in the city . I mean you could have a 100 ,000 square foot lot if you can 't accommodate a 5 ,000 foot square foot building area , it 's no good . We might want to consider that as an ordinance amendment in the bigger picture . I think it 's certainly Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 34 warranted . That 's why we started giving you tables and we can 't do anything about it except give it to you but giving you tables now where we— say here , it 's a 18 ,000 square foot lot . 5 ,000 square foot of it is wetlands . In fact it was one of the things you requested in Lundgren but we 're starting to do that in everything . Farmakes: If you did that though , wouldn 't you eliminate about 3 of those lots that they were proposing there? Krauss: Well again , against what standards Jeff because the lots that are in there are bigger than we normally get and everywhere you go in Chanhassen we have wetlands . That 's a very common situation . — Farmakes: But what Tim said though , a majority of those lots , at least some of those lots were wetland . Standing water and he made a point when he was here arguing that you had to look at the lot all the way out to the lot point in the middle of the skunk pond which I didn 't understand . Why? Krauss: Because you 've done it in every other subdivision in the city . Batzli : So Paul says develop a new one that says you need at least a certain minimum area where you can put some building on it or something . — Krauss : And not come back , doesn 't say it needs variances because you can 't put a house on it . Now we 've tried to do that . We 've gone through in the last couple years and we 've tried to figure out what we think a — buildable size is and tell the builder that that 's not legitimate but we have no guidelines to do it . If it doesn 't look right , we try to make them fix it . But I think it 's appropriate to , I mean we can do some research you like and come back to you but I think an ordinance amendment and it would apply to any lots created in the RSF , RR or A-2 and PUD have to contain a minimum buildable area regardless of how big they are . — Farmakes: I think you would avoid what a person is designing that out . There would always be 2 or 3 lots and that many homes that you 're going to have to force just as a matter of economics that you 're going to try to ge in there on whatever 's left over . When I look at that Lundgren , you can almost pick them out with looking at it for 10 minutes as to which ones were , what they had left over and what they were going to try to make a lot- out of . Krauss: Yeah I know what you 're speaking to but every lot in there has a _ legitimate building site to the extent that we know what legitimate building sites are and we don 't have a criteria . I know that the building sites that are on those lots , even though some of them have quite extensive wetlands , are bigger than we find on a lot of other lots in regular RSF subdivisions . Farmakes : Most of them did . There were a few that seemed to me as far as_ useable space were on the bottom end of this list here . Krauss: They were tighter and will probably require designed home to fit . So as far as this , I mean I have now become a believer that there 's some — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 35 use for PUD 's , residential PUD 's that don 't lower our average lot size at all . • Erhart : That was the question I had . Why , if• a guy has a 15 ,000 square foot average , why are we making him set aside any open space? The only reason would be if , yeah I mean why? Conrad: That 's true . A subdivision we 're penalizing so anything 15 ,000 and under however I think we should be getting something in return . That 's where we 're bending our standards . Erhart: Yeah , I always thought that we were taking 15 ,000 square foot let 's say , this idealized lot and if a guy wanted to make it 9 , the city gets 6 for open space and there 's no inefficiency . Right now we 've got a lot of inefficiency . Batzli : What 's the developer 's advantage to doing that rather than they might have shorter stubs? Conrad: Clustering utilities . Erhart : Clustering . Make them more creative . You might want to get rid of , like up here we let them use less than the standard setbacks . That was a major thing for that . I remember that presentation . That was a big deal that he wanted those houses 20 feet from the street . And so he got that . Emmings: Another flexibility . Krauss: Well and we 're working with Lundgren now on that Johnson-Delache piece between TH 41 and Galpin . There you 're talking 90 or 100 acres . I don 't know what it is and if we look to that . Emmings : Would you do it as a PUD? Krauss: Yeah . Now maybe as a PUD in there , it 's big enough that Lundgren will probably try to market to different prices of homes . Maybe they will have a bunch of 11 ,000 square foot lots . Further on where the land gets a little nicer and more rolling , they may have a bunch of 30 ,000 square foot lots . And your average lot size will probably still come out to be better than 15 ,000 . At that point you don 't look at varying your standard at all . You maintain your average lot size . Emmings: So then you don 't get any . Erhart : So that 's why you 're saying at 15 we should still take 10 because there 's going to be bigger lots that 's going to offset smaller . Okay , now I understand that . Batzli : Would all the open space may be on the larger sized lot end of the development too and then you 've clustered , for the sake of clustering the smaller homes . Emmings: Yeah , do we want to do that? Should they have to have open . If they 're going to have 11 ,000 square foot lots , even though they 've got a Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 36 bunch of 30 ,000 to offset it , bring the average to 16 or 17 . If they 're going to have those 11 's , do you want to have to create open space that — isn 't owned by another lot . Krauss: Well we said they were willing to accept . Keep in mind when we 're saying open space , the way this ordinance is structured , that 's not soccer fields . I mean if the city wants a park , a percentage of that area can be used to qualify . Emmings: What are we talking about when we say open space? Krauss: You may be talking about . Emmings: Places where there aren 't houses . Krauss : Yeah but it could be portions of somebody 's lot . On the Lundgren deal that 's going to Council in 2 weeks , the tree preservation areas where we 've said there 's no cutting and we 're going to take a conservation easement , that 's all on what will be private property but it 's protected b-- a permanent easement . We said that qualifies . Emmings: Yeah , and you 're going to have that same opportunity on the new _ one because that all butts up against a wetland too on the south side . Batzli : I just think it 's small comfort for a person on an 11 ,000 square foot lot to know that a quarter of a mile away they preserved a stand of — trees on somebody elses private property . Now that person may walk into that knowing full well what they 're purchasing . Maybe they do , maybe they don 't . Maybe as a city we don 't care . I 'd like to take a little bit more— paternalistic attitude . Krause: I don 't know where you want to draw the line . I mean somebody _ walks into a Chevy dealer , they don 't expect to walk out with an Oldsmobil you know . Someplace people have to understand what the limitations are . Clearly in the past . Batzli : We 're looking at the ordinance and we don 't understand it . Do yo expect somebody to come into the city buying a lot and say well , I 'm purchasing a PUD . Explain to me all the rules and regs . Would you have _ the time and effort to explain it . Emmings: No , but I think Paul is saying if you 're buying a lot you ought to know the size of it . — Batzli : I understand that but . Krauss : Also in the past I think there 's been almost total , I mean these things haven 't been done . Nobody 's done a residential PUD here in 5 years . We still have one building built out but you have a very comprehensive _ PUD ordinance now where a lot of things have to be demonstrated and filed with property and made clear and we 're going the extra step like in the Lundgren thing where we 're requiring monumentation of the wetland setback areas and things like that . We can do a lot that puts the owner on notice Now if the owner chooses not to read anything or not to call , then we have Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 37 a concern . Now I know the issue Brian that you gave us the letter on the deck . Under the ordinance now as this is written , that wouldn 't have happened . Batzli : Yeah , I understand that . I still have a problem with corner lots , their ability to be 9 ,000 square feet and then you 're looking at , like I said , you 're looking at 2 ,000 square feet potentially of space on the lot other than the setback . I guess I understand buyer beware but after having lived in the community now of 100 homes in my little PUD and talking to most of them and it 's their fault . They don 't read the local paper.. They don 't care . They don 't know . They don 't want to know but the minute they want to do something with their property , then suddenly they get into it and the question is , do you want to protect these people or not . Is the dam City getting something and is what the City 's getting worth raising the eyre of a lot of people moving into the community . Maybe they should have known better but I guarantee you less than 1% will find out that they 're living on a substandard lot that the City things they got a tree preserved a quarter of a mile away in exchange for their substandard lot . That 's my point . Conrad: Those people are happy to move into a 10 ,000 square foot lot . Ellson: Who are we to tell them? Erhart : I think if they don 't like it they can always sell it and move to a bigger lot . Ellson: They 've got the choice going in . Erhart : It 's not like they don 't have options and I realize it 's inefficient . Ellson: If something has to be marked off for them or some sort of _ notification that a lot of people don 't realize they 're within the setback of the wetland and all these other kinds of things and too many come forth and say oh , I didn 't know . That 's why I filled it all in . That kind of thing . They 'll ignore that anyway even though they 'll still say they never heard about it . If they want to do it , they 're going to do it . And you having easements on those protected things is mightly strong now versus a convenant in the past which were worthless in protecting . Krauss: That happens on 2 acre lots too . I think you 're going to have to answer the fundamental question , because I 'm not sure . Do you want , I mean I think we 've demonstrated that the PUD has some validity beyond allowing undersized lots . Now you may well want to allow some freedome for undersized lots instead of minimum but require that the average is consistent with other city neighborhoods . Is there a desire to grant flexibility below the 15 ,000 square foot average or ' should we structure this so that doesn 't happen? Conrad: When you say average , the 15 ,000 square foot average . That 's the minimum so I 'm not sure what you 're saying Paul . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 38 — Krauss: What I 'm saying is you could 'change this around so that you might_ have a 9 ,000 or a 10 ,000 or 11 ,000 . Whatever you want to set as the minimum lot area that you allow in a PUD . That will give a developer. flexibility to put in some smaller lots where those are appropriate . But require that the average lot size meet or exceed 15 ,000 square feet . Erhart : That 's our old ordinance . Krauss: Yeah and before we had the Lundgren thing come down , I wasn 't toc sure that anybody , nobody had used the old ordinance . Now the old ordinance was a bad deal for everybody . It was a bad deal for the buyers ._ It was a bad deal for the city and the city never got what the developers promised which was more affordable housing . There were no guidelines and no standards . But in an area like this Johnson-Delache piece the flexibility that the PUD may give a developer to take like the open — cornfield area and do the smaller lots and preserve the larger wooded hilltops for the larger lots and average it out , maybe that 's a worthwhile exchange . I don 't know . Conrad: Let me interrupt you . I know you 've got a thought maybe . Batzli : Which is new . — Conrad: But it 's real easy to agree with Tim 's comment . I can understand what Tim is saying because it makes real good mathematical sense . If we — have a 15 ,000 square foot subdivision minimum , now we 're going to break that rule for a PUD . You can go underneath that down to a minimum lot size of what we ever agree . Whatever Brian feels comfortable with but then you take the difference between the 15 ,000 minimum and what they just went doi to and you plop that into open space . Emmings : Not on somebody else 's lot . Conrad: No . See all of a sudden , now I 've solved my density . My concern about increased density for the overall deal because I 've allocated that — same 15 ,000 . It 's either going to be there in a subdivision or a PUD but I 've allowed the developer to go down and cluster some utilities and save some money but the difference is I 've taken what he 's saved landwise and _ I 've put it in our little bank over to the side called open space . Now that one I can visualize and feel comfortable with . But I can 't , I still have a tough time with our formula that we 've got because I can 't tell what 's going to happen . I don 't know if it 's , I just don't know. Now — Paul 's comment could be , hey that 's not going to motivate the developer tc do it and that 's a valid . That would be a real valid . Erhart : Yeah , because I think the incentive is still there because he get to put some 9 ,000 square foot lots . Conrad: See I would too but I don 't know that . — Erhart : I think it 's very hard to get the average down below 14 ,000 or 13 ,000 . I think it 's more likely you 're going to see the averages above — 15 ,000 , even despite the fact that you may have some 9 's and 12 's in there Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 39 Conrad: See the word average bothers me . Again I 'm talking about minimum and going below a minimum . We 're not talking about , well . Emmings: That is a problem because if your average gets over 15 ,000 , now there 's no requirement to set aside any open space . Erhart : Well that 's the question I 've got . Now hang on . That 's not the way I read this . I read this as any time you go in a PUD you 've got to put 10% open space period . Is that what I 'm reading? Krauss: Well , we just changed that to 15 ,000 square feet or above . Erhart : So then anytime you have a PUD you have to put aside 10% open space . Is that what you 're saying? Is that what we want? Elison: No . I want a lot more than that . Erhart : I mean if a guy comes in at 16 ,000 or 17 ,000 square foot , should we require them to set aside 10%? • Krauss : What are you requiring of the individual who does a straight subdivision? Ellson: You 're getting at least . Krauss: No , unless the city wants a park there which is the 10% , they give nothing . Erhart : You don 't have to have park fees or parks with the PUD? — Krauss: Yes you do . Erhart : Maybe I misunderstand your question . If a guy comes in with a PUD because he wants to have some setbacks , special setbacks for something . Who knows whatbut yet his average lot size is 20 ,000 square feet , we 're still going to make him provide 10% open space? Is that what we want? Krauss: I think that 's the theory that we 're getting to here but you 've got to ask yourselves , what if Orrin Thompson wants to do a 1950 subdivision here and the city doesn 't want a park on the property? He 's not giving you a square inch . Batzli : Giving you pretty good fees but you 're right , no square inch of open space . Erhart: Do a 1950 's what? Elison: Cracker box , cracker box . Krauss: Yeah , your usual suburban subdivision . Straight subdivision . Straight platting . Unless the park board says they need park space there , you don 't have a single foot of open space . Erhart : No , but they 've got to pay a fee . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 40 Krauss: Right . Well so these people are paying fees too . They 're paying identical fees . — Batzli : You know how these problems are solved? We just move the minimum lot size in R5F to 20 ,000 square feet . Done deal . Everybody just smirks when I say that . I don 't understand why it 's such a sacred cow . Emmings : Well , it isn 't . Conrad: It costs a lot of money . Batzli : People will come in and do PUD 's then . If you want PUD 's , that 's— the way to get them to do PUD 's . But we can 't even decide what we want th PUD to bc . Conrad: This is not easy. Ellson : Where do we go from here? Erhart : I 'm still trying to understand why , if a guy comes in with an 18 ,000 foot average . The big question is , why might he want a PUD? Krauss: For the reason we found on the Lundgren proposal is that if you throw 30 foot front yards and 75 foot rear yards and 50 foot or 60 foot rights-of-way at them , you have a very difficult time making a legitimate development out of that thing . He got the flexibility . — Erhart : The price you pay then for that is a 10% of it goes to open space . Krauss: And in his case it 's 40% of open space . Batzli : Not under the ' new formula . Krauss : No , I haven 't applied the formula . Of the 12 . something acres of open space , 8 of it 's wetland . So you would give them 2 acres of that . Batzli : Get 2 acres , yeah . Emmings: I tell you , well . You guys are always arguing for specifics in — ordinances and I 'm always arguing to keep them vague but all the problems are created by trying to come up with a formula and I don 't know why we can 't just avoid it . I don 't know why you would want to . Ellson: You 're saying spell the intent out clear enough . Batzli : But if we can 't decide on what 's fair now , how are we ever going — to decide the minute a developer walks in unless you have at least an "acceptable range" . You will be expected to provide within this range for open space . 10% to 20% . Emmings : I could go along with that . Batzli : Yeah , I could go along with that . — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 41 Emmings: A statement in a range I could live with very easily . Batzli : The developer will be expected to provide between 10% and 20% open space . End of it . Emmings: Another statement . If you go below 15,000 feet , expect to have a greater requirement . To the extent you have lots below 15 ,000 square feet , _ expect to have greater requirements for open space . Krauss: For individual lots or average density below that? Emmings: See I tend to go to the individual lots . Conrad: Individual lots . Emmings: Because otherwise I don 't want to see , you know he 's got prime land over here and he 's got 1 acre lots and he 's got a whole bunch of little houses down here where Brian lives . Those are 10 ,000 square feet . Those ,people are getting screwed . To me . I agree with Brian . It 's no comfort . There may be a certain market for people who want to live in those houses . Krauss: Well but face it . These people probably paid $30 ,000 .00 for the lot when the guy up on the hill paid $80 ,000 .00 . I mean you 're getting something different for a difference in price . Emmings : Yeah , I don 't know . I guess I don 't find comfort in that but I guess I could be persuaded if there 's a market . Maybe there are empty nesters who want a small place and don 't want to spend their time taking care of a yard . We have people starting out who want to get into a house like that . Batzli : See but most people , and I 'll say this and you don 't have to give me sympathy but this is the reason . Most people move in and they expect the community to have minimum standards . Most people don 't understand what PUD is . They don 't understand that what they 're getting is below the minimum community standards in other parts of the city . They don 't understand that . Conrad: But they know what they 're getting . Emmings: They know what they 're getting . Batzli : No they don't . Okay they know they 're getting a 12 ,000 square _ foot lot . They don 't know that the minimum throughout the rest of the entire city is 15 ,000 . Emmings: Why do they care? Batzli : Well the question is , why should the city relax the standard? Emmings: To provide that person with something that he wants and can afford . Planning Commission Meeting — October 2 , 1991 - Page 42 Batzli : I don 't buy that that house is any cheaper than the 15 ,000 square foot lot . I don 't buy that the PUD is necessarily providing that but that 's just me . Emmings: I think that 's the reason the person bought it . I mean they 're dissatisfied with their house because they moved into a 12 ,000 square foot lotand find out most other people in regular subdivisions have 15 ,000 square foot lots? Batzli : No , they are . Well , I don 't know how to say this but they move — in . It 's a substandard size lot . It 's not necessarily , and under this ne subdivision things are changed a little bit but they still have setbacks and things applied against them and they don 't understand the nuances of the PUD . That 's my only point that they 're getting a smaller sized lot an_ they 're not necessarily gaining any benefits from it and I 'm not convinced necessarily that the city got anything so I 'm looking at it from a lose lose perspective . The people that are moving in . They don 't understand — that they 're going to have a strike against them the minute they try to do something on the lot . The City 's really not gaining anything . My question is , who 's getting something other than the developer who had relaxed the — standards to do the development . Now if you can convince me that we 're providina a different housing market and people are getting cheaper houses and that 's why we 're doing that , then that 's a good enough rationale but I don 't know that that 's why we 're doing it here tonight . — Emmings: Now presumably a builder won 't build a house unless he can sell it . There 's got to be a market or he 's not going to sell the house . — Batzli : Right , but the question is , who 's winning with this ordinance? I%s the City winning? Are the people moving into the city winning , which is , _ you know when we 're looking at it I think we have to look at it from two points of view . Is the City getting something like open space or a park o helping to preserve additional wetlands other than what our ordinance alread;' does . It does comfort me at all that Lundgren preserved wetlands — that were already preserved . I mean that just really irritated me . That yeah , we get to count the whole wetlands here as open space . Well you had to do that anyway . I don 't give a rip . You know , so the City doesn 't — really win under that scenario . The people if it 's a , and again don 't fee sympathy but people moving in I don 't think feel they win . So you 've got the people moving in . They 're unhappy usually with the city because they go to the city . The city says you can 't do anything with your lot so — they 're unhappy . The city didn 't get anything . Who won? The developer . My question is , let 's build an ordinance . Make sure we have an ordinance where the people moving in win. The City wins and the developer gets a — fair shake and I don 't think that 's happening under this one . Emmings: You know one way maybe to avoid this problem of a developer putting up , having a bunch of big lots in one area and a bunch of little ones in another area which scares me about this . Would be to put somethin, in here that they 're going to have to mix their lots to some extent . And what are you going to do , set up a formula for that? I don 't even know ho— you do i t . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 43 Conrad: I go back to the overall . Just real simply , I don 't have a problem . Let 's take a 100 acre parcel . Based on today 's development pattern , on a 100 acres . Somebody could probably put in 200 units on 100 acres . I don 't have any problem taking those 200 units and putting on half of the property and leaving the other half open . Taking the minimum lot ._ size down to 4 units , you know putting it up to 4 units per acre . That 's fine because what I 've done there is we 've got open space and we 've kept the standard that we 've been kind of floating along with . 2 units per acre , even though comprehensive plan says 0 to 4 , practicality has dictated we 're coming in around 2 . Emmings: Or 1 .7 . Conrad: Or 1 .7 so that 's why I want to be able to get . Emmings : I think everybody here would agree with that . Conrad: But I 'm not sure I know how to get there . Emmin ;z : Paul won 't . He flexed his eyebrows . Krauss : No , I see . . .45 minutes ago . Conrad: Well we 're missing things . Emmingz. : But what 's the difference between what Ladd 's saying and what we 're doing here? Krauss : Because what we 're doing here would allow densities in excess of what we normally experience . Emmings: Does anybody want that? • Ellson: I think I could be won over if I looked at it . Erhart : In excess of what? Emmings : In excess of the 1 .7 . What we 've historically done with subdivisions . That 's why I asked right off the bat , it says in no instance shall the project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines . I wonder if we were incorporating that 1 .7 right there . • Krauss : No . Emmings: Well I wonder if we want to . Krauss : Well you might . _ Conrad: That would make me feel comfortable . That- one , and Paul mentioned it before , average consistent with other subdivisions . That one -statement. gives me the leverage to talk to a developer and then I can throw everything else out . But that one statement gives me something to say , hey I don 't like it because it 's not meeting what we 've seen in 'the past in the overall design of the subdivision . Planning Commission Meeting — October 2 , 1991 - Page 44 Emmings: And then could you throw out this open space table? Couldn 't yo get rid of all that? Krauss: You could , well . Conrad: I 'd like to give them a way to . Emmings: To what? Conrad: I 'd like to force the open space . — Emmings: But if you 've got your gross density set . If he wants to cluster , you 're going to wind up with open space . You 've set the gross _ density for the whole project . Conrad: Yeah . It could still end up looking like a PUD . Or like a subdivision . End up looking like a subdivision though . Emmings : But then if it is a subdivision , he goes under the subdivision ordinance . We don 't care if he. does because we think we have one that 's — okay . Erhart : You can cluster . You can still cluster and use the 9 ,000 square foot lots . Overall density is . Emmings: Is 1 .7 . Erhart : For the low density is one number . Medium density is another number and high density is another number . Emmincs: Right . Here 's the framework . You 're stuck with . Erhart : That would really serve the same purpose as this . Emc:ings: Do what you want . Bring it in and we 'll take a look at it . Batzli : But they wouldn 't have to necessarily provide open space . They — could just make bigger lots . Emmings : But if they want that approach Brian , why wouldn 't they do a subdivision? Batzli : No , if they could put a couple 9 ,000 square foot lots in there and just put 37 ,000 and end up with the right density . They wouldn 't have — provided any open space that isn 't privately owned .' Emmings : Okay , would that bother anybody? — Erhart : That 's what you 've got here too. I mean this open space is based on average . Batzli : That 's right . Erhart : So you can do the same thing with this . — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 45 _ Batzli : Right . I understand that . Well I don 't like that aspect of this either . I mean that 's why I 'm viewing this as the developer wins . The city loses . The people that move in lose except for the people on the 37 ,000 square foot lots and they didn 't have to move into a PUD anyway if they didn 't want to . Conrad: I don 't perceive it that way . Ellson: I don 't either . Batzli : I know but I 'm just , somebody 's got to argue against it because otherwise this whole commission . . . Ellson: Were you here the night they gave that presentation of all the different ones? There were a lot of win situations there . Batzli : I gave you Tootsie Pops to soften you up but it didn 't work . Emming.s: Order in the court . Jeff , you haven 't said anything . Farmakes: I think it should be 1 .7 and I think that that point was made quite a while ago . Conrad: The rest of us missed it . Farmakes : It 's still going to become quite cloudy whether or not it 's in , it seems to nye that the advantage of a PUD is financial anyway . One way or _ the other for the developer . Why would a developer develop a piece of property if it wasn 't in their financial interest? Emrriings : They wouldn 't unless they 're stupid . Farmakes : Going on that basis , I think if 1 .7 is the average size , if that 's what it works out to , I think that still gives them the leverage . That still gives them the leverage to utilize pieces of property . Because of the terrain , will develop otherwise . Emmings: What would be the gross density on the Lundgren one that we just went through here? Krauss: 1 .4 units an acre . Erhart : Why don 't we just ask them to go back and look at that . We 've spent a lot of time discussing this . We 're obviously not going to pass anything tonight . Look at that approach versus this approach . Krauss : Would you like me to get , you only heard from one developer . There 's a lot of them out there who have worked in this community . Should we get a panel of them together? I mean we can get real assenteric and dig this thing real deep and come up with an ordinance that makes absolutely no sense to somebody working out in the field . If they 're not going to do it , we ought to know about it and just drop it . Planning Commissi'on Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 46 Emmings: But wouldn 't they want , you know if I 'm a developer and I come to you and I say , how can I develop and you show me a subdivision ordinance . _ I say okay , I don 't like it . What alternatives do I have? You say okay well you can develop it the same density but we can give you lots of flexibility in your road construction and your setbacks and your ability to cluster , you can develop your property any way you want to as long as you don 't exceed this number and as long as we like your plan . It makes sense for the property and we can protect some trees and things like that . Wouldn 't a developer be interested in that? — Ellson: How 's that different than our own? Emmings: If it was that vague? Krauss: A developer like Lundgren that 's fairly perceptive and understands that and is design oriented , yeah they will . But you 've got to realize — when you 're going through a PUD you 're asking a guy to go through a rezoning which they really wouldn 't have to do . It exposes them to any 3/5ths . They need a super majority to approve the rezoning . They only — need a simple majority to approve a plat . It 's a lot more work for them t come up with all this stuff . I don 't know if it 's worth it for them . I honestly don 't . Emmings : Why don 't you ask? Rather than getting a panel of them together why don 't you just run the ideas past them some and tell us what they say . I think . I don 't know , what do you think? You 're talking about another — presentation here otherwise? Krauss: No . You 've had the presentation . I think come up with a version of this ordinance or leave it the way it is and tell them what other thins you 're thinking about and say the Planning Commission would like to hear front you . Your reaction to this . I mean clearly if the idea is just to motivate , is the motivation that we had with the earlier PUD 's which was — crank out more lots . People get less building space . The City gets absolutely nothing out of it and with a vague promise that it 's going to lower the price of housing when obviously it didn 't , who cares . We don 't — need to do anything . But I found going through that one with the Lake Luc Road one , a rather unique experience because it really proved where the PUu was completely valid when it didn 't in any way encourage undersized lots . Emmings: Okay . We 're going to table this . Erhart : There 's some other things here though. I 've got a question here ,— moving right along here . Your computer printed out some double sentences . Did you notice that? Bottom of the page . ( e ) , bottom of page 1 . You 've got some repeats of sentences and lines . Okay , then on ( f ) . We go to 1 , — boulevard plantings . Is this on top of our new ordinance for landscaping'? I mean all of a sudden I 'm reading this and all of a sudden we 're requires . Krauss: No , it 's not on top of it . Your new ordinance for landscaping — applies in subdivisions . It doesn 't apply in PUD 's . Erhart : It doesn 't apply in PUD 's. So we 're requiring . — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 47 — Krause;: Well I guess maybe it is redundant because you have to come through with a plat with the PUD . Emmings: Well shouldn 't it apply? Krauss : Well definitely it should . I put it in here to make sure , I wasn 't double hitting . It was to make sure it applied . Erhart : You 've got a lot of requirements here . Your rear yard shall contain at least 2 over story trees . That 's not even in our landscaping . Emmings : Foundation plantings . I don 't remember there being requirements for foundation plantings . Erhart : Where 's this landscaping? Kraus: That 's new . Bitz2 i : We talked about this . Ellen : We talked about this though . I remember . Batzli : Us PUD dwellers talked about it at , well it was meetings and meetings ago now but it seems like yesterday . _ Ellson : I remember too a budget or something was going to come out but yeah , we wanted it to apply to that sort of thing . Batzli : These were some of the things that we were going to get from having a PUD in there . It wasn 't going to be a one to one transference of open span to 15 ,000 square feet . The kind of a deal like you were saying . We were talking about amenities in the PUD . Emmings: Maybe this section Paul , the overall landscaping plan. Maybe you ought to incorporate our other landscaping plan and then add anything we 're going to add like foundation plantings . Krauss: Yeah , keep in mind too that this was originally drafted in the spring and we 've since gone on and the landscaping stuff has jumped ahead of this and we 've finally got that figured out so there 's a lack of consistency for that . Erhart : I guess the whole thing hits me here is that the whole idea of the PUD was to allow creativity and now all of a sudden , bam . We 're going to have 2 over story trees in the rear yard and we 're going to have boom . We 're going to have foundation plantings . We 're going to have boulevard plantings . All of a sudden we 're getting real specific . Batzli : But we didn 't get any creativity . We haven 't got any . - Erhart : Well we haven 't done any . I don 't know . Batzli : Yeah but nobody wants to do them . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 48 Erhart : I 'm just surprised . I was surprised when I read this . Batzli : I agree . I think it should be creative . I mean I think this should be win for people who move in . Win for the city . The developer . I should be attractive to them and I don 't see that we 're doing that yet . Erhart : And then beyond that . Batzli : The only people that ever do them are Lundgren . I mean you know — and they do it for a different reason . Erhart : Maybe I missed the meeting on this . I was just really surprised . Gee we get the architectural standards . I don 't remember talking about . — must have missed that meeting . Is that what we said at a meeting we want architectural standards , and again we don 't even , we 're talking about lots here . We 're not talking about site plans . — Ellson: The.se are the things that . . .remember this exactly . For this reason they could have the street signs could be a tad different and all _ these . . .They were going to get bushes when they moved in . Just a bare minimum . Erhart : Let me go on here for a minute . Again , if this goes as a PUD we 're going to put guidelines on placement of air conditioners? Do you se the contrast of how it jumps from what concept of creativity to all of a sudden man we 're dictating specifics . The whole thing just hit me like — what are we doing? Yraucs. : Yeah , but are we talking about 9 ,000 square foot lots or are we talking about 30 ,000 square foot lots? — EmmingE : Right . And we 're also talking about maybe some zero lot lines or some , or even some 5 ,000 square foot lots . — Erhart : But that 's in another section which that also confused me . Now all of a sudden we go to Section 20-507 . Now we 're back to the minimum 251. gross area . Am I reading this right? Plus those two pages don 't , page 3 doesn 't go to page , let 's see . Bottom of page 2 does not fit with the top • of page 3 . There 's something . There 's at least 6 inches at 4 feet in ' height can of the PUD , the plan should be developed . There 's something — wrong here . A typo . Am I the only guy who saw this? Conrad: Yeah , you 're the only one . I read it and it sounded right . Erhart : Well anyway , it 's confusing to me . Elison : Brian 's usually the one that finds those . — • Batzli : I didn 't get past A . • Erhart : In Section 20-507 relates to these zero lot line things? Is that it? Krauss : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 49 Erhart : Okay . And those you 're suggesting that we maintain just this 25% gross area of the PUD to be set aside in these protected areas . Am I reading that? Krauss: Yes . We 're talking about fairly intensive . . . Erhart : Oh , I understand . Well because the pages didn 't meet , maybe I thought there was an extra page in there . I 'm just checking . Okay , I 'll stop . Emmings: Are we kind of worn out on this for tonight? Conrad : Yeah . Emmings: What can we do? Ellson : I like his idea . Ask some of the developers . Emmings: Do you think you can make anything out of the pages and pages of comments you 're going to have in the Minutes? Krauss: I can make a lot out of it . The question is , will that bring it to resolution the next time . I still don 't understand if there 's a desire to allow individually or collectively lots below 15 ,000 square feet . Emmings : Yeah . Conrad: Yes . Emmings : I have no problem with that . Kraus:: Brian you still do? Batzli : I don 't if that 's average . ErhLrt : If 15 's average? Batzli : Yeah . Emmings: Alright , if I have 100 acres and I 'm putting on four 9 ,000 square _. . foot lots , you 're against that? Batzli : That 's it? That 's all you 're doing on 100 acres? What else , the rest an outlot? Emming: My average lot size is 9 ,000 square feet so I don't think you mean what you say is what I 'm saying . Batzli : Well that 'd be wonderful I suppose if they did that . Emmings : It 's silly obviously but I don 't think you mean that you 're against an average of 9 ,000 . Under certain circumstances it could be alright . It 's not what we want . It 's not what 's going to happen but it 's Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 50 not , we shouldn 't just throw it out I -don 't think . I think we should leave it up to the developer . I really do . -' Elison: Yep , I do too . Let us see it . We know what we like when we see it . - Batzli : But under this current one . Conrad: But that 's unfair to the developer . Emmings: No it 's not . Conrad: Yeah it is . If we say we like an average 9 ,000 square foot lot size . Batzli He 'll bring it in . Conrad: Nobody here would really like to see that . Emmings: Don 't say it . Batzli : If for example they did a single road in . They had a little - • cul-de-sac in the middle , which would probably be against our rules becaus it 'd be over 1 ,500 feet or something , but they have a little cul-de-sac . They 've got four 9 ,000 square foot lots and the rest of it is an outlot alL the way around it , would any of us really be that against it? Emmings : No . E1_ 1Cn: Nice secluded little thing . Emmings : That 's clustering . _ Batzli : That 'd be great . But who in the world is going to do that? Well Lundgren could because each one of those 9 ,000 square foot lots would be _ worth about TlOOK and they 'd just say , well it 's all fair . Elison: The deer farm that 's behind here . Farmakes : Centex did that in Eden Prairie .. They call them Village Homes . Emmings : How did it work out? Farmakes: Just what you described . They offered a variation in price of about 25% from the smaller lot single family homes . Basically they 're a retirement house . You wouldn 't have to mow more than about 5 feet around - the house . Elison: Yeah , and I think that 's a viable option . . .Brian that there are - people that don 't want the bigger lot . Emmings: Sounds great to me . Alright , now you asked a question . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 51 — Krauss: I think you 're saying that you are willing to consider lots below 15 ,000 . Non Emmings: We 'll consider anything . We 'll consider zero lot lines . We 'll consider 5 ,000 . 9 ,000 . Krauss: But do you still want to put a ceiling in what you could see? Emmings: Yeah . Erhart: In terms of density? Krauss: Yeah . Emmings: That 's what I want to do . Conrad: Yeah . Patzli : I would say , if you put density limitations on there , I would also like to see open space that isn 't privately owned . I would like to see that which I don 't think is part of your density scenario . Emmings: Who owns it? If it 's not privately owned , who owns it? Batzli : Outlot . _ Krauss: But who 's going to take care of . . .? Emmings: Who 's going to take care of it? Who 's responsible for it? Batzli : Well that 's never bothered us before . Why are you going to start now? Do you really think these people in the Lundgren lots are going to be out there fixing their monuments? Get real . Grow up . Come on . Emmings: Brian , I want you to put both feet back on the floor . You jumped from outlet to monuments somehow and that was quite a leap . Batzli : That 's what they used to do. I mean basically my development has an outlet with a monument on it that 's owned by some guy that lives in Cuba or something . It 's not going to be taken care of . So Lundgren comes in and says we 'll fix that . We 'll make it part of this guy 's lot and he 's got a covenant to fix the monument . Come on . We 've done it in the past . Why are we worried about it all of a sudden right now? Emmings: Let 's please not talk about monuments. That 's a different problem . Batzli : It 's part of their open space . Krauss: But if there 's a need for public open space , shouldn 't that have been . . . Emmings: That 's park . That 's got nothing to do with what we 're talking about here . That 's separate . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 52 Batzli : Okay , then make all the open space park . Then I 'd be happy with that . — Emmings: And now it 's the citizens responsibility to take care of it . The. we 're not going to like that . Batzli : Why? Ellson: What about that same . . .that was behind the people? — Batzli : Well all they do is , then don 't grow any grass . Put some trees on it and let it grow . Krauss : That 's not the way it works . Batzli : Why? — Krauss: You get demands for totlots . You get demands to cut the weeds . You get demands to pick up the garbage . — Emmings: Right . No , I don 't think we want . If it 's not parkland and it 's not privately owned in part of the lots , what then? Conrad: I think it 's the Emmings Foundation . Batzli : Then make it a requirement that there 's a neighborhood associatio and it 's owned to all the units in the lots . Commonly owned . Let them take care of it . But give them a vehicle to take care of it by requiring the association . Erhart : I think the problem is when you 've got this privately owned wooden area that you 're preserving , if it 's privately owned the guy can post things and nobody can walk in it . — Batzli : That 's right . I mean what 's the good of , well open space is good visually . Preserve it but it would be better I think if it was useable — because they 're basically and again you guys don 't like this but they 're giving up lot size to get it . Emmings: They 're not . Batzli : Well I view it differently because I live in one . You view it as a detached commissioner not living in one of them . I 'm saying this is wha the people in them view it as , and you can accept it or reject it . You guys all clearly reject it but that 's how they view it . Emmings: It sounds like a detached retina . Conrad: I like the detached chairman . Ellson: I think another night with the Planning . Batzli : I 'd simmer down by then . — Planning Commission Meeting • October 2 , 1991 - Page 53 Emmings: Yeah , can we talk about this another night when Brian 's not here? Ellson: Yeah , special meeting . Don 't let him know . Emmings: Well . I don 't know . Conrad: They 're really good comments . Emmings: No, I think we 're talking about a lot of important stuff but I think we 've worn ourselves out for tonight . Batzli : Thanks for making me feel good . Emmings : Brian , you 're responsible for bringing up all of the most important things that we talked about . Not let 's see . Minutes . Oh , we 're going to table this and you 're going to figure out . Krauss: Exactly what you said . Emmings : Do it . Just do it . Erhart : This is your commission . Krauss : Well Steve , isn 't this one of the places where you jump in and volunteer? Emmings: I 'll rewrite the ordinance tomorrow afternoon. Conrad: You could make it pretty vague I have a feeling . But I think this would be a case where the Planning Director and the Chairman of the Planning Commission might just get together . Emmings: You never did . Conrad: I know . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 4 , 1991 were so noted as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Emmings: Let 's see now . Lundgren they put off deciding it . Surface Water Management . Is there any of these anybody wants to talk about? I 'm glad they 're going on the grandfathered recreational beachlots . And you see , Comrade Farmakes has been appointed to the sign ordinance task force . That actually exists at this point in time? Krauss: It will , yes . It does . Emmings: They will be starting to meet . That 's going to be tough . MEW Farmakes: New signs are going up I noticed . Krauss: Oh , on the building? Yeah , they are . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 1992 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:40 p .m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad , Steve Emmings , Jeff Farmakes , Joan Ahrens and Matt Ledvina - MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; and Kate Aanenson , Planner II Emmings: We 're going to save item number one until the end of the meeting . Those are all basically organizational items and we 'll get right onto the public hearing . - PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR SCREENED OUTSIDE STORAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED BF , FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR PROGRESS VALLEY - STORAGE , LOCATED AT 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE, GARY BROWN AND GARY DUNGEY . JoAnn Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . Emmings: Gary , do you have anything to add? - Gary Brown: No . That 's fine . If we go with outside storage , you want it screened? Is that correct? If we do not go with the outside storage , the same with the truck rentals , do you still want the screening? Olsen: We 're just asking for the additional landscaping . There is no specific requirement for , as part of the conditional use permit for truck and trailer rental , there 's no specific requirement that it has to be completely screened . We are asking for additional screening from the residential for the truck and trailer rental and complete screening for any other outdoor storage . Gary Brown: Now , the only question I guess I would ask then is , are you going to make the parking lot owner across the street here , the hardware store , are you going to make him screen that all the way around? Emmings: We 're not looking at that . We don 't have to answer that . Here , Gary I 've got one question for you . Gary Brown: Sure . - Emmings: Last time you were here you mentioned to me that as far as the truck and trailer rental goes , that you could live with a limit on the number of trucks and trailers . 20 trucks , 4 trailers and no trucks over 26 feet or something like that . Gary Brown: I 've got no problem with that at all Steve . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 2 Emmings: Okay , that didn 't get in here and I guess I 'll just throw it out — for consideration . If some people think there ought to be a limit and the other thing is if your business expanded and you wanted those limits changed , we could look at it again . But anyway , okay . The reason I 'm not — going to have the staff address the parking lot across the street . That 's not your property and we 're here tonight to talk about your property . I think we all know there 's something going on in that parking lot that 's not allowed by ordinance . That doesn 't mean we should allow that to happen someplace else . So that 's the short answer to that and we 're not going to talk about it anymore . Gary Brown: That 's fine . Emmings: Okay . Anything else? Gary Brown: The only other thing I 'd like to ask is , on number 3 here it says that we shall have a letter of credit to be submitted to cover the cost of material installation for a year . Does that mean you 're going to — want to hold that letter for a year? Okay . And how much do you ask for that? Olsen: 110% of the cost . That 's typical for what we do with any site improvement . Gary Brown: Okay . I don 't think I 've got any problem with that . Emmings : Okay . So as far as the conditions go on all three of these items , it 's okay with you? Is that right? — Gary Brown: Yeah . . . Emmings: Alright . This is a public hearing . Is there anybody else here that wants to address any of these issues? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens: In practical terms , does it really make that much of a difference if these , the screening requirement . If he 's going to have 20 trucks . What did we talk about? 20 trucks , 4 trailers . Emmings: Maximum yeah . Ahrens: If that 's visible to the outside neighborhood and from the street , — is that any different from having other kinds of storage visible from the street really? Are we nitpicking here or is this a significant difference? Olsen: We discussed the last time that the truck and trailer , those are actually outdoor storage and how do we treat that . The way that we looked at it was that the ordinance specifically designates truck and trailer rental as a conditional use permit and doesn 't require that it has to be completely screened . That other miscellaneous outside storage does and that 's just to be consistent with what we do throughout the other Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 3 districts . It 's a difficult one yeah because . . .naturally screened . Ahrens: We 're just trying to fit this into our current ordinances? Olsen: Trying to be consistent as best possible . Ahrens: But in practical terms it really didn 't make much of a difference . I remember when we went through this last fall . I guess I don 't have any , I 'm going to go along with the staff recommendation on this . I think that - the request is reasonable and the conditions are reasonable . Emmings: Okay , Jeff . Farmakes: I 'm going to go along with staff on this . I think we 've discussed it enough . Emmings: Do you want to get your feet wet? Ledvina : Sure . I had a question as to the Phase III . It says here that the outdoor storage will be removed when Phase III is completed . Is there a time line for that? Gary Brown: When we need to put Phase III in . I 'm hoping in the next 2 years . We 're just constructing our fifth building down there right now so there 's room for 3 more buildings . And if things keep going good , yeah . . . next few years will build out . Ledvina: Okay . Otherwise it looks reasonable . - Emmings: Alright , Ladd . • Conrad: Everybody 's so brief . That 's just terrific . My intent at the last meeting was to challenge staff and say what does outdoor truck rental look like . And as I read my Minutes , I couldn't tell what I said . But I 'm still , truck rental and trailer rental is something that you have outdoors and people pass it and it sort of stimulates that 's where it is . I guess I - kind of thought we were going to look at that to decide if we had the right parameters for truck and trailer rental in terms of our ordinance . And based on what the staff report came back and said is , we don 't have any guidelines and therefore we 're going to , we don 't have any guidelines right now . My point last time we talked about this was , should there be? Are we trying to screen truck and trailer rental and I never thought it should be _ personally but we didn 't have a reaction from staff on those points and I don 't know if we all thought about it but my posture was that if there 's a place in Chanhassen for this kind of operation , it 's down where Gary has his operation . A specific question that I couldn 't tell based from the - staff report , and JoAnn maybe you can tell me , you 've got the truck and trailer rental screened in the southwest corner and that is from a neighborhood standpoint? Olsen: From the residences . Conrad: So I guess the question that I pose to the Commission is , that 's sort of a token type of thing and I don 't know how much , that 's not a Planning Commission Meeting _ January 15 , 1992 - Page 4 significant screening effort is it? What 's your perception of what that would take? Olsen: To screen it? Conrad: To screen it on the southwest corner . We 're talking evergreens over 6 feet and we 're talking 10 evergreens or any idea JoAnn? Olsen: There 's some existing landscaping there now . We just wanted them to add to it . It is going to take the evergreens . My intent I don 't know that we could possibly have it totally screened , even from the residential — side . The way it 's located and the fact that it 's in the middle of a large open site and the site has just the chainlinked fence at this time . So the existing conditions really kind of limit how far we can go . — Conrad: So we screened it to a degree from the one or two neighbors . There aren 't many neighbors down there . Residences but still , and then one happens to be one of the owners . Gary Brown: I was going to say . The part that we 're screening is where my partner lives . — Conrad: He could sell his house . Gary Brown: I guess now that we talked about this , it kind of refreshes my memory too . I would like to ask one thing . When we planted all the evergreens the first time , we planted I don 't know a dozen or 15 six footers which we were able to save one out of all . We planted 50 or 60-3 — footers and we never lost one . Emmings: What year? _ Gary Brown: We put them in 1987 . Emmings: So that was the dry years , '87 and '88 that you had the problems? Gary Brown: Yeah , we replanted a couple of the 6 footers the following year . We couldn 't keep enough water for them because it 's all sand down — there . Emmings: Yeah . We talked about that last time you were here . — Gary Brown: Yeah . We 'll do our best to make them grow but we could have a little problem there making those 6 footers . Ahrens: I think we should be more flexible . Emmings: Yeah . — Gary Brown: 3 footers I know we can make grow . Emmings : Well and this doesn 't specify . It specifies that you have to have a landscaping plan that 's acceptable and I guess if you make that point at the time you make your landscaping plan , I think people will be Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 5 reasonable about that . If you had luck with that soil with 3 footers and not 6 footers , it 's kind of dumb to have you plant 6 footers . But anyway , go ahead Ladd . Conrad: Is our posture in the city that if you have a truck rental or • trailer rental operation , that it should be screened? Is that what we 're going to do with a car lot? We 'll screen the cars? When a new dealership comes into town , same thing . They 're selling cars . Primarily they 're going to be inside , if there is one coming in . I don 't really know if that 's happening anymore . Same operation . I guess it 's a little bit dissimilar but is our posture to screen? ▪ Emmings: Isn 't it to screen to the extent necessary depending on the site? Isn 't that what we 're doing here? That 's what I thought . Conrad: I think the policy to screen from the neighborhood is just absolutely right on . Even though it 's one of the owners , I think if we do a little bit of screening , I think that makes a lot of sense . My question is , right now in general , and it doesn 't really pertain specifically . • Well , in general what 's our philosophy on screening truck and trailer rentals? The ordinance says screen them all the way around . - Emmings: No it doesn 't . Olsen: That 's outdoor . Conrad: Well you classified this as outdoor storage though . Emmings: No . No we 're not . Ahrens: No . That 's what I don 't understand . — Emmings: I think what we 're saying here is this is more like a retail service . Conrad: Right . It should be . am Emmings: It 's not like , even though you 're storing big items , this is not outdoor storage . It 's a retail service and since it 's a conditional use , we 're always going to have an opportunity to look at it and screen it to the extent that 's necessary depending on the site . That 's the way I 'm looking at it . Now I don 't know if that makes sense . It 's a pretty fine line between a truck as some kind of retail service . Conrad: But wouldn 't you want to have an ordinance that would tell you how to treat truck and trailer rental in terms of . Farmakes: How 's it any different than a new car parking lot? New car lot . - Conrad: Jeff , yeah . I don 't know . Emmings : Here 's the thing though . If we 've got , if we know there 's going _ to be some screening associated with these when they come in as a conditional use . Now we 're back to our old. argument that we get into every Planning Commission Meeting — January 15 , 1992 - Page 6 time . Some people want things very specific and itemized in the Statute and some of us like them very vague so we can deal with the problem that arises . I always tend to like the vague better . That 's why I want a principle . Principle is , if you 're going to have this kind of retail service and we 're not going to call it outdoor storage and not make you completely screen it , then I want to have the ability to tell you how much you 've got to screen it depending on the site . _ Conrad : So you don 't like standards associated with truck and trailer rental? Emmings: Yeah . Conrad: There are no standards? — Emmings: The standard is , it 's a conditional use and it 's going to be screened to some extent but the extent will depend on the site . That 's the _ way I like it . If you 've got residential all around you , well you 're probably not going to be able to have it at all but if you did across the road or whatever , we might want to screen that completely , at least on 3 sides . But I think down where Gary is , it just doesn 't matter that much . I think it 's a good idea to beef up the screening a little bit . Just on general principles but I don 't think you have to do anymore than that . Conrad: I think the staff report for this particular application is acceptable . Emmings: Are you afraid it 's going to limit us in the future? Conrad: It 's just sort of willy nilly . Emmings: Maybe it 's site dependent . Conrad: I don 't know . Why? Retail stores are not , they have standards _ for retail , commercial . Here 's another application for a retail use . Emmings: Where else can we have truck and trailer rental? Olsen: I think it 's just the BF . Emmings: BF . — Paul Krauss: It also must be the BG . In fact Market Square , when they go over , they 're going to be bringing their rental but it 's conditioned in the _ PUD agreement that it be in a masonry enclosure behind the building . Emmings: What? Paul Krauss: The rental business . Conrad: So we have no ordinance , no standards that might govern something — that 's happening down the block? Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 7 Paul Krauss: If I could interject something . I think Comissioner Ladd has a point . We have a number of conditional use permits that ideally when you review a conditional use permit , you want to review it against some kind of coherent standard and then when you flip the ordinance to refer to a standard it 's blank . And you just have the mom and apple pie stuff and the general guidelines to go by . All the conditional use permits that we 've , we haven 't done that many but the IUP 's and CUP's that we 've done over the last couple of years have very specific standards attached to them . That would be my preference in the future . Yes , we do exercise control in the site plan too . We sure do . Emmings: If you could write a standard for a truck and trailer rental service dealing with screening , what would you say? Conrad: Generally they could be very ugly and generally . Emmings: Screen as appropriate depending on the site and can 't we do that now? Conrad: I don 't know . Ahrens : Isn 't that what it is now? Conrad : Yeah . Emmings: I 'm comfortable with that but I don 't think you are . But I don 't know how else you 'd say it . Ahrens: We either have to go with total screening . Conrad: You could have different landscaping requirements . You can have minimums . You know you 're talking about minimums and maximums or how many ._ trucks that could be parked in one spot . I think there are some things that might be different than we 're used to . I guess what I 'd like to do , again I think what the staff has designed here Gary is probably appropriate for your facility . I don 't think it 's detrimental to your operation financially as I looked at it . I think it 's probably some common sense stuff so I think to get off the dying here , I think what I 'd like to do or I agree with the staff report but I would like to have the Planning -- Commission spend a few seconds one night discussing whether we should take a look at any kind of guidelines for truck and trailer rental later on . Emmings: Why don 't we just do that . Krauss: Add it to the list? Emmings: Yeah . I think we should . If it causes us to talk about it this much , than it 's worth talking about it and getting it settled . Conrad: Everybody else was so brief , I had to . Emmings: I don 't have anything more to add . I would like , under the truck and trailer rental thing , to put down a fourth condition . That there will be no more than 20 trucks or 4 trailers and no trucks exceeding 26 feet as Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 8 a condition of that approval . Otherwise I don 't have anything else . — Conrad : And you like that because why? Just because if the operation expanded you 'd like to take another look at it? Emmings: Yeah . And we might want to do more screening then . If it 's going to be bigger . Size changes the character of things to me . This is something kind of new to me and I feel more comfortable having some kind of a limit . I don 't even know if it 's a reasonable limit but it 's not going to cramp his style , it gives us some kind of a limit so it doesn 't become trucks from one end to the other . Alright , is there any more discussion on this? If not , is there a motion? Ahrens: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of _ Conditional Use Permit #87-2 for the rental of trucks and trailers with the conditions listed in the staff report plus a condition number 4 limiting the trucks to 20 and trailers to 4 and that no trucks be larger than 26 feet . Is that what you said Steve? — Emmings: Yeah . I 'll second it . Is there any discussion on this one? Conrad: Joan , you mentioned you didn 't like the 6 foot high evergreens . You 're leaving that in? Ahrens: Well it says a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning — Commission . I assume that you 're not going to hold him to the 6 feet? Olsen: It 's still in condition number 1 but we should . . . — Ahrens: Oh I see . Yeah , I 'd go along .with taking that out . Do you want to just say a landscape screen with evergreens? Okay , anything else on _ this? Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-2 for the rental of trucks and trailers with the following conditions= 1 . The applicant shall provide a landscaped screen with evergreens along — the fence line at the southwest corner of the site . 2 . The storage of the trucks and trailers shall be confined to the area as shown on the site plan and the area shall have a gravel surface . 3 . The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning Commission and a letter of credit shall be submitted to cover — the cost of material installation and one year warranty . 4. There shall be no more than 20 trucks and 4 trailers and no trucks can — exceed 26 feet in length . All voted in favor and the motion carried_ Emmings: We 'll go onto the Zoning Ordinance Amendment . Is there a motion? Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 9 Ahrens: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #92-1 to add Article XX , BF , Fringe Business District , the following to Section 2( 775 , Interim Uses as it reads in the staff report . - Conrad: I 'll second that . Emmings: Okay . Also under that on Joan there 's an amendment to Division 4 . You 're moving for everything that 's in the staff report there under that recommendation? Ahrens: As Steve says . Emmings: Well I ' ll second that . Ahrens moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #92-1 to add Article XX, BF , Fringe Business District, the following to Section 20-775, Interim Uses: ( 3 ) Screened outdoor storage . Amend Division 4 , Standards for Business, Office , Institutional and - Industrial Districts by adding the following: Section 20-294 . Screened outdoor storage . The following applies to screened outdoor storage: ' ( 1 ) All outdoor storage must be completely screened with 100% opaque — fence or landscaped screen . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings: One more item here and that 's the Interim Use Permit for screened outdoor storage . Is there a motion? - Conrad: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit #92-1 to permit outdoor storage with the conditions as listed on the staff report . Emmings: I 'll second it . Any discussion? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92-1 to permit outdoor storage with the following conditions: 1 . The outdoor storage shall be completely screened by a 100% opaque fence or landscaped screen . -- 2 . The area for screened outdoor storage shall be improved with a gravel surface . _ 3 . The outdoor storage will be removed from the site upon completion of phase 3 of the mini-storage facility . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 10 4 . The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning Commission and a letter of credit shall be submitted to cover the cost of material installation and one year warranty . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings: This goes to City Council on February 10th . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS AND TO RECEIVE A NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT . — Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Emmings : This is not a public hearing or was there a public hearing on this before? Aanenson: You had the public hearing and the hearing was closed . Just the — ordinance itself , the passage was tabled . Emmings: Alright and now though you 're recommending this alternative — ordinance and was there ever a public , is this the first time this has come before us? I missed the last meeting . Krauss: No , it was published and had a public hearing that you opened in December I think it was . Aanenson: December 4th , yes . Krauss : The alternative is a modification of the original . The public notice would be no different . We also did take great pains to notify _ everybody . We sent copies of both ordinances to all homeowners associations . Emmings: Okay . So the only difference between the one that you 're — recommending now and the one that was on the table before is using 1991 as a baseline instead of 1982? Aanenson: Correct . Emmings: That shouldn 't hurt anybody . That will make them happier than anything I assume . Krauss: We should also add Commissioner Emmings that we did make a lot of modifications to the ordinance itself based upon comments we received but — that 's in either alternative . Emmings : Okay . I was wondering if there were any , do you feel that you — have to do the same thing for each beachlot? They 're all going to have to have a baseline of the same year? Krauss: Yeah , I think equity demands that you do . Ahrens: What were you thinking? Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 11 Emmings: I just wondered if there were any beachlots for which you felt you had good information , whether it was from 1982 , 1985 or 1988 , why • wouldn 't we use that information? • Olsen: We discussed doing that because there are a couple of cases where ▪ we do have the documentation but again Roger was saying it is difficult to treat them differently . He just felt it would be difficult to do . . .choice do you have? That was one of the things that we discussed of being able to do . Emmings: Okay . So it 's just kind of out of some sense of fairness . Aanenson: Yeah , equity . Emmings: Is there anybody that has any comments on this? Is there any discussion on this? Conrad: I do . Because I don 't know what we 're , as we changed that date , on the surface it seems something that we have a better grasp of so .1 understand staff 's comments . Yet on the other hand , I don't know what that does . If I 'm voting to allow a use that I think is real inappropriate then I 'd feel real uncomfortable doing that . If on one particular day we ▪ surveyed a beachlot that had 8 boats on it and it was appropriate for 4 or whatever and beachlots that had come under the ordinance and met those standards over the last 10 years , or whatever the number is . I have a hard _ time grandfathering in something that wasn 't appropriate for that lot so on one hand I like the idea of having something more substantial to document it . On the other hand , I don 't know what we 're doing . So before I could vote for this , I would have to know what I 'm sanctioning . Olsen: Well yeah . We got that documentation . . .the expansion of the beachlot . . . Emmings: It 's sort of my impression that the situation is what we 're , we 're getting a handle on it as soon as we can but what I hear them saying is we can 't go back . If there was a level of use that would be inappropriate under the Statute today , and that level of use was there in 1982 , there 'd be nothing we could do about it . Is that right? Aanenson: Yes . Emmings: But I think what Ladd is saying , if the level of use would even be appropriate under the Statutue in 1982 but since then has grown to a level that 's inappropriate , it doesn 't seem fair to those that have come under the Statute and complied to allow this one to come in that now has built itself up to a level that isn't appropriate . That 's why I was asking , that was part of the reason I asked questions in the beginning . If there was data that showed , if we had good data for a level that was there in 1986 , I 'm just picking a number out of the air . I don 't see why we couldn 't use it because the principle again is getting your hands around it as early in time as you can . Ahrens: I agree . Why do we have data on some and not on others? Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 12 Aanenson : Have what? - — Ahrens: Why is the data incomplete from 1982? Aanenson: It 's not that it 's incomplete . It 's just that it was field 's checked on that one specific day and we can 't guarantee that all the boats were in the slips the day that someone went out and field checked it . So the process is they come in and say this is what we say and the staff says — this is what we have inventoried and then we listen to who 's information is better on each one . Emmings: Why doesn 't that same argument apply to 1991? Aanenson : Because we 're assuming that almost all of these have increased at least a little bit so we 're giving them the benefit of the doubt . Allowing them to maybe slightly increase and therefore there should be less argument . Emmings: But you sat down with all of them . Aanenson : We 've met with each of the homeowners associations and passed _ out the information as to what we had in 1982 , 1986 and 1991 . Emmings: Do they agree with the numbers? They all agree with the numbers you have for 1991 . Olsen: What they were going to do is send us back that form with what they . . .what is out there . So it 'd be kind of . . .the data but also from what— they documented they had . . . So it still is kind of . Aanenson: To answer your question , no they haven 't commented on that . We haven 't heard whether or not they agree with that information . Emmings : Do they have , when will that? Aanenson: That 's the process of meeting with each individual association . Emmings: And presumable will we get to the heart of that through the — application process? Aanenson: Right . After we adopt the ordinance . Amended the ordinance . Olsen : And there 's only one beachlot that we do have good information on and . . . Emmings: That 's on Trolls Glen . Olsen: Yes . And all the other ones , no . It 's just one . . . Emmings: Let 's take depositions of all of them . Olsen : But that 's the only one we have good information on . The rest are . . . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 13 Conrad: Well I 'd like to see , before I could vote on this , I guess I 'd like to see what the non-conforming lots would be allowed to have . Emmings: On each one? Conrad : On each one . Emmings: But what is it , you want to see the number of boats? Conrad : Whatever it would be that they would be , that would be going over our beachlot ordinance requirements . I need to know what that is . In other words , if the beachlot ordinance under today 's rules it says you can •_ have 4 boats docked in a day and they 're coming in at 12 , I would feel real uncomfortable that I could allow that . Because of 1991 data . I don 't think I could go along with that . Emmings : And what would be the alternative? Conrad: The alternative is as we 've discussed it in the past . Here 's what we believe . Here 's what 's grandfathered in as of 1982 . You have to prove to us that it was really something different and it was up to them to prove . If they can 't prove it , then it would be our best records . Emmings: Do you have the overhead projector down here so we can all look at that at once? Olsen: We can make transparencies . Aanenson: I could make copies really quick . Olsen: Another concern we 've got is requiring them to prove what was there . I think the burden comes down to us to prove it . We 're just admitting that we really don 't have the documentation to really have a good case . Conrad: So for something to be grandfathered in is our proof? Krauss : We 're the enforcing agency . If we issue citations . If we took them to Court , we 'd have to make the case . Now we 're not unwilling to try . Our data may be as good as anybody else 's . Maybe it 's not . Conrad: See I don 't know what we 're talking . I really don 't know . At _ this point in time I don 't have a clue if we have a problem out there . We have a problem on a couple beachlots probably and most of them are being handled quite well but on those couple , I just don 't have a clue what we 're saying here . Krauss: The fundamental data we have here is 9 years old and it was based upon a one time survey that was never opened to scrutiny . It was just done and put into the files is my understanding . Conrad: For the 2 or 3 beachlots that we have a problem with , I don 't really have a problem bringing them in . I don 't know . Maybe we do have a problem proving something . I 've sat through some cases on Lotus Lake where Planning Commission Meeting — January 15 , 1992 - Page 14 people were proving they had docks and they had , but in that case the burden of proof was always on them . I didn 't recall the City proving that it wasn 't there so I guess I 'm amiss in not understanding how something gets grandfathered in . But you know Steve , I don 't know how you want to -- handle this . My preference would be to have staff point out , we could do it now or we could table the thing and go through it after we took a look at the specifics and they 're right here . But I hesitate to go through something while the meeting 's open that we haven 't looked at before . Emmings: Let me ask this . In 1982 somebody did a survey and in 1991 there was a survey done . — Olsen: And in 1986 . Emmings: '86? What was done on that occasion? Olsen: Same thing . . . Emmings: And is the problem with the 1982 and 1986 data , is that the same? You 're not willing to rely on it . What makes it different than the 1991 data? I know you now have videotapes but apart from that , what makes that — information any more suspect than what you 've got? Olsen: Again I don 't think we 're just , I think we 're saying that that data is the same . That we were going to be as part of the application . . .what is listed in 1991 . So it wasn 't necessary . . . What we 've got from 1991 but we 're still going to work with them to come up with a compromise and agree . If they say that they 've got 14 boats out there now and we saw 13 or — whatever , we 'll . . .the 14 . Krauss: But we will be able to , and we 'll probably ask them to provide us — written verification from everybody that was out there . This is not 9 or 10 years ago . This is today and these people who have had docks there and boats there are presumably available and are going to be able to demonstrate somehow that those are the ones that we saw out there . Emmings : Can you tell me off-hand , what 's the greatest number of boats that any one of these non-conforming? Aanenson: It 's like 16 at one of the Minnewashta . Emmings: Is that the Minnewashta Heights? Aanenson: Yeah . Emmings: I 've lived next to that one since 1983 and I know it 's grown . I 'm 3 houses away from it and it 's obviously grown but I have no idea how much . Olsen: That 's one that 's 3 times as big . Ahrens: And we 're going to say that 's okay? I mean is that what we 're _ being asked to do? If they had 16 boats in 1991? Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 15 Olsen: That 's a case where they agree that they 've expanded so . . .pull them back to what they were . Ahrens: Which is? Aanenson: Six . Six dock slips . Conrad: Well there are 2 or 3 in here that I just don 't see acceptable . I just have a terrific difficulty in accepting that until I 've heard what 's going on , compared it to the land that it was being done on . I know a couple of the cases and it just doesn 't seem like appropriate use of the land . Mow Emmings: Minnewashta Heights is the example of that Ladd . I don 't know how wide the lot is but I think it 's 25 feet of lakeshore . But I don 't know that . I could be wrong . Aanenson: It 's 50 . ▪ Emmings: Oh is it 50? With 14 boats in front of it so I don 't know . Ahrens: But they 're saying that 's unacceptable . That they have to go back ▪ to the original 6 that they agreed on . Emmings: The other thing we could do here I suppose is , if people are interested in the alternative ordinance that uses 1982 as the baseline , then we have , we go through the application process and do the negotiating on the number of boats that will be there and if we 've got good information on some of them , we can stick to it and if we don 't , maybe we have to • compromise . The question of whether you want to start with the 1991 data or start with the 1982 data , is that a fair way to look at it? Krauss: That 's basically it . But you almost need to make that decision before we can bring anybody in here . We 're asking people to apply for a permit that doesn 't exist until you process the ordinance . Emmings : Right but there are two ordinances here in my packet . One uses 1991 and one uses 1982 and that 's what we 're talking about . Krauss: One thing we should also add , and it might complicate things too much , is that the Council approved an ordinance that came through the Planning Commission last fall for water surface use . Councilman Wing advocated , there was always a dock setback area . That now applies to moored boats as well so if you have an exceedingly narrow beachlot , the extended property lines of that beachlot out into the water , there can 't be any dock or boat moored within that 10 foot setback on either side of the property line . Now somebody 's really pushing it if they 're in front of somebody else 's property with a dock or overhang that area . That 's another problem that they 'll have to face . And that isn't related directly to this ordinance at all . That 's a separately enforceable standard . Emmings: And there 's also limits on the length of the dock . But is there _ a limit on the length of a dock on a beachlot? Sure . Sure there is isn 't there? Wouldn 't the dock ordinance apply to a beachlot as well as any Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 16 other property on the lake? Out to 4 feet . A certain number of feet in — length or out to 4 feet , whatever is necessary . Okay . So those , on narrow ones , the side yard setbacks as it were or the dock ordinance is going to limit them to some extent . Okay , you 've still got the floor believe it or not . Conrad: I don 't want it anymore . Just the last comment . There aren 't that many problems here . There are only a couple . Emmings: Yeah, right . Matt . Ledvina: Nothing . Emmings: Okay , Jeff . Farmakes: No comments . Emmings: Joan . - Ahrens: Well to tell you the truth , I 'm kind of confused as to whether there 's a problem or not . I mean I really don 't have any idea . Ladd seems_ to think there 's a problem . I don 't know what that 's based on . I don 't know how inaccurate the information is from 1982 . To tell you the truth , I wouldn 't have a problem going back to the 1982 standard if anybody feels more strongly about that . Feels more comfortable about that . I guess I 'm — vacilating this issue because I don 't know if there 's a problem or not . I don 't know . Farmakes: Isn't there some question as to how reliable your 1982 information is? I mean that 's just what you said . Somebody filled out a card and put it in a drawer somewhere . Nobody knows who and the City 's willing to back that up . Ahrens: But I don 't know if that 's for 2 of the beachlots or 3 . . . Farmakes : Or is that just the problem lots? Olsen: It 's all the same for all the surveys were the same for . . .whatever — happened to be out at that time we marked down . Boats that were being moored there . . .so it 's the same for each . All three different surveys . Ahrens: The information is the same for all three? — Aanenson: I think she 's saying the margin of error is probably the same . Because you did a one day check and the boats may or may not have been — moored at the dock . Ahrens: So you 're saying the 1992 information is probably as inaccurate as_ the 1982? Aanenson: Except that the time lapse isn 't so great so there might be more personal recordation . Like Paul 's saying you can verify who had their boat in last summer and get them to give us a written letter or whatever . People may not have moved and that sort of thing . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 17 Emmings: But you 've also got a video tape and the video tape is going to show somebody 's gone with their boat during the time the person 's there , you 're going to see an empty slip . Or something like that . Or a space anyway where a boat would go . But I think that 's probably a little better information . Farmakes: It 's based on a slip correct? Not the fact that there happens to be a boat parked in it . Aanenson: No , it 's just how many boats are there is what we counted . We measured the docks . It 's hard to tell how people are tying up their boats . The fishing boats , people just tie them up on the side of the docks . People have slips if it 's a motor boat . And then there 's canoe racks and sailboats and all that sort of thing too . It 's hard to tell whether or not there 's actually a sailboat that 's being . .� Emmings: It looks to me like we have two ways to go on this . Or three maybe . I 'd be inclined to say , if we 've got data from 1982 , and if that 's when the grandfathering takes place , I don 't know why we 'd ignore it . I realize that bothers people that 's come to town since and have a boat . But still just from looking at the problem and that seems , and then as we 're looking at each one separately under the application process , if we feel that our information isn 't good , we may have to compromise and go with the 1986 data or even the 1991 data . But I don 't know why we wouldn 't start with the 1982 data . Ignoring what we have doesn 't seem to accomplish much to me . But one thing we could do here was to distribute the information that we have . Show us what information we have for 1982 , 1986 and 1991 . Now is that what 's here? Aanenson: Yes . Emmings: If anybody thinks that will change the way they 're thinking about this , we could table this and look at that data for the next meeting and look at it then . My personal preference would be to take some action on this . This is one of those decisions that has a lot of political kind of overtones to it and may be better handled at the City Council on that decision but we can tell them what we think about it . The City Council , I can imagine there will be some people who for sure will want to have it at the 1991 levels because they 're higher . But I don 't know . Let me just WIMP ask , is there a motion? Conrad: I would make one Steve . The only motion I would make is that we use 1982 data to establish the criteria for grandfathering . Other than that , I 'm trying to figure out which . Emmings : That would be the second one of the two? Conrad: Yeah , that would be my motion . That the ordinance be updated for non-conforming beachlots per the second example we have in our kit . Emmings: Okay , I 'm going to second the motion and I guess the way I would see this working . The second is with the understanding and I don 't know if _ you see this the same way . That we 'd start with the 1982 baseline and if we felt that , as each one of these comes . Each one of these is going to Planning Commission Meeting . ` January 15 , 1992 - Page 18 come before us , is that right? With the application and at that time we can negotiate anything that we want to based on how sound. we feel our information is . Is that right? Krauss : That 's true . Just as a point of order . You technically held the public hearing on this in December but , and the ordinance is somewhat different but I know there are a number of people who came tonight probably_ wanting to comment on this . They haven 't been able to yet . Emmings: Well , it 's not a public hearing . Do you think it 'd be appropriate? Krauss: I would think from a more technical . Yeah , technically I think you 've continued the public hearing . _ Emmings: Oh did we? Ahrens: I don 't think so . Krauss: You closed it fully? Ahrens : Yeah . Conrad: You might want to take a few brief comments . . . Emmings: Let 's do this . I 'll open it up for public comment . I think it 's a good thing to do . If people would just state their position . I think you can see what the issue is and why don 't you give us , come up here and give us your name and your address . If you 're a member of a beachlot , I 'd like to know which one . Tell us that and then let us know what you think . Does anybody want to do that? _ Peter Warhol : My name is Peter Warhol and I live in Pleasant Acres . I guess my question is , some of these docks that are out , new properties or _ new developments weren 't here in 1982 . Does that mean they don 't get anything? And as far as we are , we expanded and we 'd like to go with the 1991 . Emmings: Sure . Now when you say there are docks that weren 't there in 1982 . Peter Warhol : Like Stratford Ridge you know . There wasn 't any houses there in 1982 and there wasn 't any docks and now there 's about 4 or 5 boats on the dock there . I 'm just wondering what happens to those people . Emmings: Okay , let 's just talk about that one . Stratford Ridge , do they have a beachlot? Aanenson: Yeah . Emmings: And they came in under the new ordinance . Olsen : They got a conditional use permit . . . They 're not grandfathered in , they 've got a permit . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 1 Peter Warhol : And we 've got 150 feet of lakeshore and we have like 16 I think , boats there . Emmings: And under the present ordinance , you 'd have to have 200 feet of lakeshore and you 'd get one dock and 3 boats . Peter Warhol : I mean we were grandfathered in . I don 't know what the grandfathering was back in 1982 or 1986 . I didn 't live here then but I do have a boat down there . I 'd be anxious to know what 's going to happen . I Imm mean it 's a pontoon boat and it 's not one that I , that you take in and out each time . So if it isn 't tied up on the dock , then it 's probably not , I 'm not going to have it . There 's a couple others that probably won 't have one either . It 's too big to monkey with . But I mean that 's my comment . Emmings : Thank you . Anybody else? Yes sir . John Merz : My name is John Merz and I live at 3900 Cedar Lane . I am a member of the Trolls Glen Homeowners Association . I also own property adjacent to my house which is on Hawthorne Circle so I have the unique position of being able to address this issue from both a riparian and a non-riparian position . I strongly urge , and I won't go into the lengthy . . . that I wanted to but I strongly urge the adherence to the 1982 baseline . I 'm a member of the Homeowners Association and as such I have the same rights as all the members of the Association . It would be an injustice in this case to deviate from the 1982 baseline . It 's clearly documented by a _ lengthy court process which we endured last year and the 1982 baseline would say that we have one dock and 2 boats at that time . I happened to be present when the 1981 survey . It was done in 1981 by Scott Martin . I happened to be there when Scott did that survey . When that survey was done on Trolls Glen there were no boats and no docks . I happened to own a boat at the time I moved into Trolls Glen and I chose not to put one there and shortly thereafter my neighbor , Dr . Tester and I purchased the property on - Hawthorne Circle . So from one perspective I would look at it in saying that yes , I would love to have boat rights at Trolls Glen Association . I personally don 't think that that 'd be the case . It 's far from being conforming . It 's only 65 feet wide . It 's got tapered property lines which come out at a point of 200 feet from the departure of the high water mark . There 's no property left because they tapered in and this particular case if we went to the 1991 baseline , would be an injustice from the standpoint - of safety of use of this piece of property . Environmentally it 's not only am I concerning with Lake Minnewashta but I was here in these chambers when the ordinance was passed on the park and believe that was a long and arduous discussion heated from both the lakeowners and non-lakeowners . The people involved with the park as to the water useage . Quite truthfully on Lake Minnewashta we have a 650 acre lake which under the DNR guidelines calls for 1 non-riparian boatslip for every 20 acres of water . Simple mathematics tells you that 's down to 32 I believe and in the park presently we originally under the park ordinance , conditional use permit it was issued for 10 boats on the upper parking lot and 25 in the new lot . Since - that time it 's my understanding that that 's been increased to 50 . For the lakeowners on Lake Minnewashta , and I wish I could address this for not just Lake Minnewashta . I wish I could address it for all lakes because _ it 's environmentally a very important concern to all of us . I 'm certain that the condition on most of the other lakes in the city of Chanhassen is Planning Commission Meeting _ January 15 , 1992 - Page 20 similar to the Minnewashta case . The growth since 1982 has been significant . We 've all seen it . We can all turn our heads and hide from it but the intent of those long and lengthy debates in these fair chambers were that we 'd stop it in 1982 and it 's grown beyond it 's bounds . It 's not just for the John Merz ' or the people of this generation but we as a planning committee and body have to look out beyond our own personal needs and say hey , this is for we have a beautiful little lake in Lake Minnewashta and I wish I could address the rest of them in Chanhassen but it 's a jewel . It 's a jewel in Minnesota . It 's a jewel in the whole world . To go beyond what it 's technical limits and capacity of holding boats but expanding these beachlots and abandoning what people in 1982 fought long and hard for , to my position would be a terrible injustice and I 'll cut my comments short at that . Thank you very much for your time . Ann Cathcart : I 'm Ann Cathcart . I 'm the president of Trolls Glen . Live at 3895 Lone Cedar . We bought the lot in 1985 . Built in 1986 . Moved in in 1987 . We bought the lot because we knew expressly that we could dock a boat . There was a dock there . There were 2 boats there . There was room — for more boats . It was a quirk of fate that the people who owned the lot before we bought it didn 't have a boat there . I think they lived in Tennesee or they lived somewhere else or they had their boat on another -- lake or something . So I look at it that way . Just fate that there wasn't a boat , 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 boats there in 1982 because all the lots weren 't built even though it stated specifically in our Covenants that we _ had rights to more boats . It 's part of our deed . It goes along with our property values . Mortgage companies know this value . So it 's expressly indicated in our mortgages and our values and in our deed that we have the right to moor . I know for a fact that we couldn 't moor a 50 foot yatch . We can 't have six 30 foot boats . Speed boats . We can 't have 10 boats . There 's not room . We have what , 69 feet of lakeshore so there is specifically only a certainly amount of room . We as an association have _ goverened ourselves I think very well over the past , well since I 've lived there anyway . We 've kept up the beach . We haven 't had accidents . We 've used our boats prudently . There are small children so safety is a great concern . I think the 1991 ruling I feel is more equitable basically — because the lake has grown in population . It is now fairly stable , especially with the recession going on . There isn 't a lot of building . The planning is done . We know what 's going to be there . What 's going to — be for sale as farmland on the western side of Minnewashta Parkway has been up for sale . We know what kind of beach is going to come up there . If it would be conforming or non-conforming . This is a specific non-conforming _ beach and it was sanctioned by the City in 1977 . The covenants were and it was subdivided to the point where there were 12 association members . 5 are on the lake and 7 are not . It said specifically that we do have a right to moor our boat and that is our goal . Thank you . Emmings: Okay , thank you . Bernie Schneider : I 'm Bernie Schneider . I live at 7501 West 77th Street in the Trolls Glen Addition . It has always been my understanding that when the city of Chanhassen approved the Trolls Glen subdivision in 1975 , they also approved the Declarations of Covenants and Conditions . And with that we were granted boating rights . Mooring rights . So whether we are grandfathered in or not , this is a right under the Abstract . That 's what I Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 21 believe should be considered . It 's admirable that John Merz is concerned about the ecology but he also has 3 boats on his dock and I think if any boats should be removed then possibly he should start thinking about cleaning up his own act . We have a letter here to the Planning Commission stating our position and I will leave that with you so you can take this into consideration at the time we apply for the permit . But again we have 7 people that have need for a lake access and mooring rights . Not all of them want it but at the same time , it 's still their right to moor the boats there . I have one question also on the hearing that states that property owners on the lake be notified in writing of proposed hearing on the ordinance . Emmings: Bernie , tell me what page you 're looking at? What are you looking at? Bernie Schneider : I 'm looking at . Emmings: Hold it up so we can identify what you 're looking at . Bernie Schneider : I don 't have it with me but on the notice of the ordinance here it 's stated that notice shall be mailed to all property owners on the lake and this was a considerable expense . As I understand it , there 's over 2 ,000 property owners and if everybody has to be notified of a Trolls Glen hearing , the expense is going to be in excess of what , $400 .00? $500 .00? Emmings: Who does that notice? Is it required of the applicant? And is it notice to everybody on the lake? — • Krauss: Well , what we normally do is we require the applicant to give us a list of names and addresses and we send them out . But there 's only 5 ,000 properties in the entire city . We 're not talking anywhere near that kind of number . Bernie Schneider : Well I don 't know . It says property owners on the lake so I have no idea . Krauss : On that specific lake . - Bernie Schneider : Yeah . A figure was tossed out that it was 2 ,000 . Over 2 ,000 . Emmings: Paul 's point is that if there are 5 ,000 lots in the city , 2 ,000 of them are not on Lake Minnewashta . It 's probably a substantial smaller number . I 'm sure it is . �- Bernie Schneider : I should also mention that in 1981 the Trolls Glen Association passed a resolution authorizing 4 boats to be moored at the dock . The Association dock . This resolution was passed and so prior to - your City ordinance , one year prior to the ordinance we already had authorized the 4 boats . If additional boats would be required in the future we would make provision for that but this is on record prior to the 1982 ordinance or the amendment now . So I will leave this with the . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 22 Emmings: Sure , just give it to staff . Thank you Bernie . Anybody else? Ivan Underdahl : Ivan Underdahl , 7502 West 77th Street . I 've had a cold and have somewhat of a voice problem but I do wish to add a little _ something . One is I think when John Merz was up here stating that he has rights within the Trolls Glen Association the same as the other members , that is technically not correct because at the moment he doesn 't have any rights . He doesn 't have any voting rights . He doesn 't have any right to the outlot at all because of not having paid assessments that were assessed quite some time ago . He was the one who initiated the lawsuit and we encountered a lot of expense in fighting that lawsuit and succeeded in having it thrown out . So when he speaks of having those rights , he doesn 't have them . I have lived at 7502 since 1977 . The lake outlot wasn 't really prepared for use until some years later . It was just kind of wild . _ Eventually it was cleared and I think from the time we put a dock there in 1981 and put boats alongside , I don 't think anyone has spent any more time in keeping up that outlot than I have . We did have this rule established in 1981 and that 's part of the Declaration of Covenants that was accepted — and we were to regulate our own outlot so that becomes a part of our governing documents and to comply with that this past summer there were 5 people who had boats and would have wished to have them at the dock . I kept my boat in storage all last summer so we would abide by our own regulations . And I feel I probably have as much entitlement to a boat at that dock as anybody . However I relinquished by position for the other 4 _ people who chose to have their boats there . I personally don 't feel either that the 1982 is a fair and equitable allotment for our association because again as Ann stated too , not all of the lots were built upon . It was everyone 's understanding when they did build that they would have the right— to have a boat there and that was definitely my purpose in purchasing that lot in the first place and I 'm sure it was with most of the rest of them . I think we would be unfairly penalized if we were to be restricted to the — 1982 allocation that was there at that time . Thank you . Emmings : Thank you . Terry Johnson: My name is Terry Johnson and I 'm also part of the Trolls Glen Association . I live at 3898 Lone Cedar . I would agree that the 1982 should be the baseline . At our association we have good documentation to — show that there were 2 boats at the time . I guess my point would be that it was non-conforming at the time for what the city thought was safe and to expand upon that to the 4 or 5 or 6 or 12 boats that the association or _ some of the members of the association would like to me would be very unfair and unsafe . To me that is the main issue is the safety of it . It 's a 60 some foot lot and when you start adding 3 , 4 , 5 boats there and they 've got water skiers coming in there and of course there 's a lot more — boats in there on Saturdays and Sundays , weekends and people are wanting to drop off their skiers on that 60 some foot lot , it 's a very , very unsafe situation . I border the lot on one side and there have been numerous — situations pertaining to me and my wife and my children and I know of other situations with other neighbors where it 's been very unsafe and very hazardous . Some of them have dealt with some of the individuals that have just talked to you that managed to ignore to tell you about that . But I understand that they want more boats there . I understand that every association is going to want to have more boats there . Mainly even if Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 23 they 're not using the boats , if they go to sell their homes it increases their value . Some people have said it 's worth $40 ,000 .00 or $50 ,000 .00 to - the value of their home . I understand that and- I hate to be the one to try to deprive them of that and I know it 's a tough question that you 're having to deal with . But two of the individuals that have been up here already have stated that they plan on leaving . Moving their homes as soon as this ordinance is passed . It 's telling me that they don 't want this non-conforming issue expanded for their own use . It 's for the sale to increase the value of their home . And I guess because of that and the fact. that it is non-conforming , it seems unfair to the rest of the property owners on the lake . Thank you . - Emmings : Thank you . David Tester : I 'd just like to speak to the issue . Emmings: And what 's your name? David Tester : David Tester . I 'm in the Trolls Glen Association and I 've been there since 1976 . I moved in in 1977 and I was a joint owner in that lot with John but we had an uncomfortable situation in the neighborhood . There 's been a lot of acrimony because of the lot but really actually the beachlot doesn 't get used an awful lot . I don 't think I saw water skiers down there maybe once or twice last year on the beachlot . It 's not a high traffic area . The people who use it are considerate of the people around . I think it 's not that we 're trying to increase the value . We 're trying to maintain what we have . I mean we feel like something 's being taken away if we 're not given this because it 's really something that 's subtracting . It 's not that we 're trying to maintain this . I know before Terry moved in , - Terry moved in in 1985 but in Terry 's present house Chuck Crompton was a . member of the association . He was secretary of the association before he moved to Indiana and there wasn 't a lot of problems there but I think recently since there 's been the last lots have been built on , that 's maybe created the feeling that where 's it going to stop and these people are maybe expecting more boats but we tried to govern it . I think the most boats that have been there have been 4 . And if I understood your saying before that Minnewashta Heights has 50 feet and they 've got 8 or 6 slips . Well we 've got 70 foot of frontage or 69 .5 foot of frontage and it 's always been , it hasn 't been overused . I mean there 's not a lot of activity down - there . I just guess I would think it would be sad if we had this taken away from us because it 's something that 's on our title and our abstract and it 's not something we want given to us . We just don 't want it taken away because we feel that we were in the right . Emmings: That 's obviously the issue . Going back to 1982 levels is going to feel like the City is taking something away from people that they presently have . But if you turn that around and look through it from the other end , when something is grandfathered in it 's grandfathered in at the level of use at the time of the grandfathering . So to the extent that - there 's been expansion of the use over the level at the time of the grandfathering , you 're taking something in a sense that you didn 't have a right to . So like I say , you look in one end and something 's being taken _ away . You look in the other end and you 're taking something you weren 't entitled to and that 's , for that reason it 's a very , very difficult issue . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 24 I don 't think the City wants to take anything away . I think the comments — about , I know on Minnewashta , I don 't know if it 's happened on other lakes . John mentioned the fact that the DNR did a study of the lake in deciding how many boats were going to be allowed in at the Regional Park . They looked at the level of the use of the lake and said we 're going to restrict the number of slips because the lake can 't handle more so allowing • beachlots to increase is also overloading that lake in a sense . And I live on that lake too so it 's particularly near and dear to my heart in a — personal sense . And I have to also say we 've got a number of beachlots on our lake and even at their present level I don 't thinkthey cause problems. on the lake . I live within 3 houses of one that 's very over developed in a_ sense . 50 feet with 16 boats or whatever it is and it doesn 't bother me . But that 's not the issue . The issue I think , well . The City has to decide whether it wants to preserve what exists today or whether it wants to go _ back and enforce what existed at that time of the grandfathering . And from my part here I 'm going to say we should go back to the time of the grandfathering but I can well see the City Council may feel differently about it . But anyway , is there anybody else that wants to talk . — Ivan Underdahl : When the application is made for the permit and there could be negotiating at that point but are you implying that it cannot be — in negotiating above what it was in 1982? Emmings : No . I guess when I say that I 'm thinking that if there 's data from 1982 that 's very sound . That we 're very comfortable with , I guess — there 'd be less inclination to compromise . If we don 't think that our data is good or our homeowners association could show us that it was inaccurate for some reason , then we might compromise going up . I guess from the — City 's point of view it seems to me that we want to put some of the burden on the recreational beachlot owners to get us to have an upward departure rather than starting high and trying to get people down lower . We 're going_ to oing— to have a lot less luck with that I 'm sure . But I think it should be done on an individual basis . I think we have to look at each one of these . Ivan Underdahl : . . .negotiating from a standpoint of what is equitable for — that situation . Emmings: Don 't know . Probably . I mean when it seems equitable , how can I say no to that? You 're putting me in a position where I 'm going to say I want to do something that 's unfair . I guess you can either take a very legalistic point of view and say if 2 is what you had in 1982 , that 's what you get . Unless you want to come in under the new ordinance . If you have enough land and everything else to come in under the new ordinance , maybe you can get 3 but sure . You want to do something that 's fair but I don 't think , if you 're going to treat everybody the same , then you 've got to — approach them all the same . And it wouldn 't be fair to say well , we like you better so we 're going to give you more boats or you 've got more land so we 're going to give you more boats . I don 't know that we 'd want to get _ into that . I don 't know . David Tester : I just wanted to say , you talked about Minnewashta Heights . If they had 6 slips at that point in time that they were supposed to be — using it , if they were down to have 6 and at the time it was done there 's 14 boats there but now because in 1982 there 's 14 boats there and there was Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 25 supposed to be 6 slips , now because they had 14 that 's okay . Is that what you 're saying? Because these are your. neighbors . If you go back to 6 boats to what they 're supposed to have , wouldn 't that create a problem? Emmings: You mean they 'll burn my house down? David Tester : You live right next to them . Emmings: No , I know . Yeah I 'm putting all that out of my mind . I 'm not going to sit here , I 'm sure my neighbors would hate me if I said I 'm not in that neighborhood technically but I live right next door to a lot of them , I know a lot of them and they 're going to hate me fqr saying well back to 1982 level . I have no doubt about that but that 's not going to influence me . But maybe they hate me already for other reasons . Now they have another one . Is there any other public comment here on this? Okay . . .and I seconded it and just so we 're all on the same page because I forgot , we 're doing the version of the ordinance that uses an 1982 baseline . Is there any discussion on this in light of the public comment? Then I 'll call a question . Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission approval adopting the ordinance using the baseline document of the size and extent of the recreational beachlot in the summer of 1982. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Emmings: When will this go to the City Council? Aanenson: The 10th . Emmings: So if you 're interested in this , follow it on up . Conrad : I think just as a footnote . When these start coming in and if they come before us , we should know , and I think there 's some common sense that has to guide what we do but we should have a feeling for how the current ordinance would deal with a particular situation and I don 't know , _ which means if under the current ordinance if they have x number of boats or picnic tables or whatever . I 'd like to know that . And probably the other thing is we should be looking at the site when it comes in . The idea of the beachlot ordinance is for a lot of things . It 's called safety and protecting the neighbors and some real common sense type stuff . And sometimes you can have real unsafe situations on big lots and safe situations on small lots . I think we have to take a look at them and again apply some common sense stuff and I think we all hear what you 're concerned with . The people that are part of the association or the beachlot . I would be fighting for my rights too just like you but I think on our side we can apply some common sense guidelines that make it work . In some cases it 's not going to turn out totally the way you want but I think we should be able to reach some pretty good decisions . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Emmings: I 'm very disinclined to do this with the absence of Tim and Brian because they both had a lot of good things to say about this but I don 't Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 26 — i know if they 'd have additional things to say . Maybe we 're all kind of — talked out on this issue . I don 't know . Ahrens: The PUD , I think so . Emmings: But Brian and Tim have been particularly interested in this item and I don 't know what to do . What do you want to do? Conrad: I wouldn 't mind talking a little bit about it and then tabling it . Emmings : Okay . — Ahrens: I 'd rather talk about it now or table it and talk about it later . I mean we 've talked about this a lot . Emmings: And have we gotten anywhere? I go round and round . Ahrens: I mean I can talk about this forever tonight and then talk about it again another night because there are a lot of issues involved . . . Conrad: I just have a real quick question basically and it will last — longer . Jeff , you go ahead . I 've talked more . Farmakes: What basis are we using from the 9 ,000 to the 10 ,000? What is the basis that you picked that figure? — Krauss: It 's highly scientific . Farmakes: This isn 't like 3 trees is it? Because it 's more than 2? Emmings: Because he feels resistence at 9 ,000 . Farmakes: Is there a financial or glass ceiling or whatever with the developer? I need a 60 x 40 base pad and I need this much square footage . Krauss: To be perfectly honest , Kate and I saw a concept that had been prepared by somebody who 's thinking of proposing what is it a 160 lot subdivision over off of Galpin near Lyman and the premise behind that was , — it 's in the Volk . Yeah , the Volk Farm where the Cellular telephone tower is . And in the open areas he wanted to build a parkway with a number of cul-de-sacs and in those areas where it 's just open field he figured that he would put in the lowered priced home on the smaller lots and those he proposed at 10 ,000 square feet and when he got up into the forested hills near Timberwood he came up with 15 ,000 to 25 ,000 . Well 25 ,000 to 30 ,000 square foot lots which fit in quite well with the terrain and the desire to — protect those trees . Because if you plowed in your normal 15 ,000 square foot lots on a suburban type pattern , you 're going to plow down most of those trees . I thought the trade off made some sense . It seemed to be _ from a topological tree preservation standpoint it seemed to be an ideal candidate to do and that one used 10 ,000 square foot minimum lots . And the average lot size was in excess of 15 ,000 . It seemed to be a reasonable plan and I said well , I 've tried this 3 times before the Planning — Commission . I 'll try another time . Now your comments about Commissioner Batzli and Erhart are accurate . They have been somewhat the leading Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 27 proponents or opponents of this . I 've had some conversations since with the Mayor and Councilman Wing . I think that they 're somewhat , well they can speak for themselves but they 've indicated to me that they 're not in favor of the decreasing lot sizes . We 're getting to the point where some guidance would be nice . We 're getting asked the questions a whole lot . If it 's 15 ,000 , it 's 15 ,000 . If you have flexibility , we do . Farmakes: I still have just one question with the basis of understanding this . If you don 't give up some lot size , what is the advantage to the developer doing this? Krauss : Well there isn 't much . If you don 't give up lot sizes you have ▪ what I think is a highly unusual situation which was the Lake Lucy Road/ Lundgren proposal where it made sense to do it as a PUD because conventionally configured lots didn 't fit because of all the wetlands . _ That conventionally configured streets didn 't fit because of the wetlands and the PUD gave us the flexibility to do that . But that average lot size , granted between useable and non-useable , I think it was 30 ,000 square feet was the lot size and 18 ,000 to 20 ,000 square feet was the useable site . Those are pretty unusual cases . Is that ever likely to happen again , I don 't know . Maybe . ▪ Farmakes: Well I , in that particular development , I guess I thought it was a nice development except for a couple of lots and those were the smaller ones . I still , if you were looking at 10 ,000 or 12 ,000 square feet , I mean again it seems an arbitrary number . I haven 't seen the development that you 're talking about and I 'm having trouble understanding if you had an attached garage with a pad that size , you 'd be looking at about a 40 x 40 house and attached garage wouldn 't you? Krauss : We tried to define that a little bit more here . • Farmakes : A 60 x 40 building pad is , if you put an attached garage to it , that doesn 't leave you much left for the house . Krauss: Well yeah , if you have a 60 x 40 pad . Each house in Chanhassen is required , well most houses in Chanhassen are required to have a 2 car garage . Farmakes: 20 feet for that and subtract that from . Aanenson: What we 'd suggest is that you come in with some specific models but a lot of homes have the punch out garage with the floor space behind . Krauss : What we tried to come up with was a reasonably sized home pad plus a reasonably sized deck plus a reasonably sized unencumbered back yard . You can 't play baseball in it but . Ahrens: I think we know that they can do it . I mean they did in Near Mountain and then we know that they can have decks on houses and we know that they can have the right sized garage . I don 't think that 's really an issue . I think the issue is just what we want . Planning Commission Meeting _ January 15 , 1992 - Page 28 Farmakes: What I was getting to after that would have been what percentage— difference do you see with a house like that next to a house on a 35 ,000 square foot lot? Percentage wise and pricing . Krauss : See I don 't think pricing is , well I wouldn 't sell this to you , in the past the City 's gotten burned and you got burned in the Pheasant Hills and Foxpath and a couple of others where these things were sold on the premise . The builder came to you and he said , let me put these things on — 9 ,000 or 10 ,000 square foot lots and I 'll give you cheaper homes . I don 't know if they intentially lied but they weren 't cheaper homes . The homes got bigger as the market allowed it to get bigger and the City had no — protections in there to make sure that the homes could fit and that decks could fit and that people had reasonable back yards . It 's a pretty tough situation . I think some of you have gotten calls from Willard on the Board_ of Adjustments and it 's because he 's seen almost monthly he sees the results of those PUD 's . I think you can do it without it . Now what are the reasons people buy a somewhat smaller sized lot . There 's lots of them . Yeah , maybe they are a little less expensive . Maybe the lot price is — $25 ,000 .00 or $30 ,000 .00 instead of $40 ,000 .00 or $50 ,000 .00 . I can 't guarantee it but it 's reasonable to think it might be . I know in the case of the developer we talked to , he clearly intends to make his big ticket purchases on the nicer lots up on the hill , which makes sense . It lays out well . You also have people that don 't want lots that are that big . Most people move out to this area because they have an imagine of what they want but not everybody wants to mow a third or a half an acre or whatever every — Saturday . They want something a little smaller . Not everybody has 3 kids . I mean there 's a lot of reasons people do a lot of things and we 've heard some people coming to us at Board meetings like you should have protected — me from myself . You should never have let me buy this lot . Well , I have a little bit of a tough time with that . You buy what you buy because that 's what you think you want . But having said all that , I mean I think the _ flexibility from the design standpoint , the ability to save trees . The ability to work around water features . The ability to lay in streets nicely . The ability to have some variety is a real big benefit . Can we develop without that? Sure . You have in the past . You will in the future . And we 're not here to you know , I think there 's a valid case to be made for using PUD 's but if there 's not a comfort level with it , then let 's move on and work with it the way we have it . _ Emmings : And that 's the problem . The way I feel like , I 'd like to look at everything as a PUD and none of them as a straight subdivision really because you feel like you have some flexibility . I don 't know if you really do wind up with any but you feel like you might and at least the potential is there . That 's why in a way I 'd just like to say we 've got net density , or densities we want to see depending on the zoning of the — property . Design whatever you want . Just give them a density and say here , you design whatever you want . Conrad : That was my question . Why didn 't we go with a gross density versus? Emmings: If you want to maximize creativity and give them incentive to do — things , the trouble is Ladd I think , and maybe I 'm wrong . You can probably answer this better than I but I 'm afraid if that developer does get Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 29 creative and has some 9 ,000 foot lots , he 's going to wind up bringing that in and it 's not going to get approved because there are some people who 'WI just plain don 't like small lots . Even though it preserves a lot of open space . I don 't know that but I think I 've had some people call me this week who said just that . I think Brian has argued that , whether he meant MEV it or not . Whether he was being a Devil 's advocate or really meant it . Conrad: Well Brian is the advocate of protect me from myself . Emmings : Well a little bit but he doesn 't want a little lot , and I think there are a lot of people who feel that way . And I wouldn 't want to dangle that out in front of a developer . But if we want PUD 's , we 've got to offer them something . We 've got to make it attractive to them and I think the way we do that is by saying you 've got a density figure to work against . We 're going to be watching you to see that you preserve things we like and that you don 't destroy the natural topography and everything else . Do your bestand bring it back and take a look . Krauss: You could work it that way . I 'd still stick in the provisions though where we mandate that the developer has to demonstrate to your satisfaction or the Council 's satisfaction that every lot that 's created , bar none , can accommodate a reasonably sized home , deck and a back yard . When you 're talking about some creative developers , I don 't know that that 's the right adjective for . . . Emmings: Well wait . What if a guy wants to do zero lot line stuff? Krauss: Oh well , I think that 's a different . This is an animal of a different color . We cover that in here . Zero lot line homes are certainly a valid housing concept . They 're in demand in a lot of areas . Emmings : Or what if you want to do a retirement thing where you have maybe 3 or 4 units that are hooked together on a cul-de-sac with a whole bunch of open space around it . How do we encourage people to do some things like that? Krauss: Well , you can encourage that and the ordinance does provide for those to go in areas guided for medium density housing . Most communities have trouble chewing on that kind of a concept . Being allowed to go anywhere in a single family neighborhood . Even though I fully agree with you that the density cap is the same , that number of units isn 't going to increase over the normal style . It looks like a different style of development and a lot of people object to having that next to their single family home . So most of the time you find that those zero lot line developments are segregated somehow . Oftentimes they 're in a higher density area . That 's the way it 's done in most the communities I know . Ahrens: I think we should look at creative development . I like PUD 's and I think there 's all sorts of advantages for cities to look at that but the -- only , you know I look at the Lundgren development over in Near Mountain and if you drive behind it in Pleasant View , it looks okay . The houses that sit on the little lots . But if you drive inside of it to the front of those houses , it 's crowded in there . You just get a feeling of being crowded in there because the houses aren 't small . The houses are nice Planning Commission Meeting. January 15 , 1992 - Page 30 sized and you get on this little curved street and all of a sudden it 's crowded . And there 's barely room for cars to park between . If you have , I mean in suburbia everybody 's has lots of cars right? Especially when you have teenagers . There 's no room to park even between the houses let alone on the street . It 's really small . It 's really tight in there and I think we have to think about not only will a house fit on a lot . Well sure . You can get a house to fit on a lot and some people don 't want to have to mow _ the lawns and stuff but how does it look and how is it going to look 20 years from now when we have a lot of big houses on little lots? I don 't know . I don 't know if aesthetically that 's going to be too great and if it 's going to be useable for people who have more than two cars and they can fit them nicely into their driveway . I mean it is crowded in there . I don 't know if you 've ever driven in there but it is . And the houses look nice now because they 're brand new houses . I mean it looks okay now . I — don 't know . I don 't know how it 's going to be . I think I 've changed my position on the small lot size . I didn 't think it was a bad idea at first but the more I look at those lots in Lundgren , I 'm not sure that it 's the best kind of setup for Chanhassen . I don 't think it 's so great if you have a bunch of houses developed in just a little area and then you have a nice park 3 blocks away . Is that a better development than having all 15 ,000 square foot lots? — Emmings: What are you saying? That you think there should be a minimum lot size then? Ahrens: I do . Emmings: And what is your figure? — Ahrens : I think it should be 15 ,000. Emmings : Okay . Now if we did that , if we said we want a minimum 15 ,000 square foot lot size , would there be any incentive except for the odd piece of property like Lundgren ran into over here . Would there be any incentive for a developer to us a PUD? Basically he 's working in the subdivision ordinance . Krauss: A PUD is a rezoning . Cities have a lot of leeway as to what kind — of conditions they apply on a rezoning action . Developers are business people . They 're not going to plat . If the developer brings you a plat without any variances , you 're obligated to approve it . No if 's , and 's or _ but 's . You can add some reasonable conditions but you can 't be arbitrary or be creative or whatever words you want to use . The PUD opens the door to the city saying I want more parkland and I want you not to build where these hills are . I 'd like you not to build where these trees are . — Whatever . Ahrens : You can 't say that if a developer comes in and you say , you 're -- required at 15 ,000 square foot lots we can 't say you can 't build on that crest of that hill and you can't , you have to have so much parkland . We do that now . Krauss: Yeah , but the suburban development pattern is an improvement over the grid system that you see in Minneapolis . Not much . I mean it 's 1920 's Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 31 technology versus 1940 's technology . You know curvalinear streets help and you like to think that when you have a 15 ,000 square foot lot or better you 're able to save a few trees that you don 't have to tear down when the house gets built but basically it 's a very land intensive and often abusive way to develop . Emmings: This underlines , Brian said facetiously I think . Maybe not . Raise your minimum lot size in the subdivision ordinance to a half acre and then we 'll have all PUD 's that we can do what we want to . That 's not a bad idea maybe . This is like quitting smoking . You do like 100 times . Conrad: There 's a good article in the planning , whatever the planning ▪ magazine is that we get on this same thing . I don 't know if anybody read it . I guess the forecast is going to , people wanting big lots in the past and the forecast going to smaller lots and how creative PUD 's can be handled . Emmings: How small is small? Conrad: I don 't know if they really said a number . Yeah , I don 't know . But it was really appropriate in light of this thing . I 've vacilated because I 've always been a large lot proponent but on the other hand , over the years I 've seen less and less advantages to the large lots . If you can preserve some of the other stuff you get around but we 've never been able to figure out how to preserve this other stuff . You open up some land , MINDwhat are you going to do with it? Farmakes : Demographics are changing and the market . We 're all getting older . Emmings: Not all of us .' ▪ Farmakes: Well I 'm not but you guys are . Ahrens: But is 15 ,000 square feet really that big of a lot? I mean we 're not talking about . Krauss: It 's a highly personal choice . I mean you know what you bought and you know why you moved here and it was a personal decision for you and ▪ your family to decide . I can tell you that from the metro area standpoint , we 've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area . Now Minnetonka , one of our neighbors , has the largest one but there 's not a home built in Minnetonka today for under $350 ,000 .00 . Emmings: But the reason 15 ,000 is significant only because that 's in the subdivision ordinance . I mean that 's why you can move the numbers around but they are arbitrary and 15 ,000 has significance only because that 's the number in the subdivision ordinance . Ahrens : Right but everyone talks about 15 ,000 as a large lot . Emmings: No , it 's only significant because it 's in the subdivision _ ordinance . I think that 's the only significance of it . Big and small , that 's all relative . Planning Commission Meeting _ January 15 , 1992 - Page 32 Farmakes: What about. 12? I mean I 'm still getting back to my original question when you picked 10 because you saw a development you 'd like . Would 15? 12? Is there a commercial level where it no longer makes sense for a developer? Krauss : I don 't know . Maybe in fact there is . If they do their proformas and they find out . Any decrease in lot size theoretically allows them to save on linear street frontage . To save on linear utilities and to theoretically , if you allow them to and we didn 't plan on it but if you wanted to get more lots in , then they make more money . That 's the way the developers all see it and we 've had people come in the door saying you 're — not going to let me cram 10 ,000 square foot lots on this cornfield with no amenities . Chaska would let me do it . We 've told them to leave because we weren 't interested in that kind of development . The only context we saw was getting the higher quality . I don 't know what the break point is though . The presumption that we 've had is that the developer may in fact get some additional lots out of it , especially when you 're at the lower end but everytime we 've considered the lower lot sizes it 's been with added — conditions like more open space and we 're going to protect more of the trees and we 're going to do this and that . So it 's always been a trade off . Developers also don 't like to have all their eggs in one basket . You don 't like to have only 15 ,000 square foot lots to sell . You like to have a variety of home sites . Emmings: The market may change during . That makes sense . I don 't see how we can , it seems to me we 've got to offer them something and if it isn 't lot size , I don 't know what it is . Otherwise I think we 're wasting our time . On the other hand , I don 't like 10 ,000 square foot lots . Farmakes: You don 't have to accept it . in the development proposal though right? If you don 't like the way it works out in the percentage , then this_ is a guide correct? Krauss : Well , under the PUD you have a great deal of latitude . It just occurred to me too when you 're talking 12 ,000 square foot , the ordinance up until the time we start tinkering with it allowed PUD 's on 12 ,000 average lot size? Emmings: No , wasn 't it minimum? Olsen : 13 ,500 . Emmings : Wasn 't that a minimum and they still had to maintain over 15 or over average? Olsen: I think it was like 13 ,500 . Krauss : And did anybody , did we determine that nobody used that? Or does _ that predate Lake Susan Hills? The PUD 's that you had in town predated the imposition of that 13 ,500 average . I think they did in the later phases but they predated . . . Emmings: Lake Susan Hills was never a PUD . You 'll never convince anybody who was up here at the time that that was a PUD . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 33 Olsen : And you didn 't pass it . Emmings: Planning Commission didn 't . City Council did . Conrad: Well it 's sure sounding that there 's lots of folks that say we don 't like the small lots . We 've got two people missing that we know that 's their posture . Joan for sure . Jeff you 're sort of bordering . Farmakes: I think it 's a dilemma for me because I think it 's a very smart idea to do this . However , the problem is that if you don 't offer them something to do it , why would they do it? It makes no sense . • Conrad: That was the point of looking at the PUD ordinance . Nobody was doing it under the past ordinance . It was motivating nobody . _ Farmakes : It could be very mutually beneficial though with certain types of properties . And if you don 't give them that smaller lot size , again they 're not going to do it . ▪ Conrad: See I persuaded myself to go along with the 15 ,000 foot on average and the 10 ,000 minimum because the 15 protected what we 've been running with and we 've been going a pretty good job no matter what . Sometimes • there hasn 't been a terrific amount of creativity but overall I think it 's really not bad what 's been going up . So the 15 in my mind was to maintain what we had . And the 10 , I think you can still do things in the future at 10 ,000 . It 's cramped . It doesn 't meet my style . I wouldn 't like it but I think some people would and if that 's what they would like and if I preserve what I 'm trying to and that is the openness of Chanhassen , then I 'm not going to get in their way of a small lot . What I was concerned — - with before , the way the ordinance is written , is we simply downsized the lots and I felt that sooner or later becomes a standard . But now that we have a 15 ,000 square foot average , that still may not be motivational enough to the developer . I don 't know but it may appease me . That was when my question came in , why don 't we play with overall density versus a specific because the overall density has been quite nice? And I don 't care how somebody bundles it together . Farmakes: Have you gotten a response from any of these developers talking about the 10 ,000 square feet? Krauss : We haven 't really waved it around . _ Ahrens: Having an average lot size , that means that you could have like 6 huge lots and a whole bunch of little tiny ones right and stillmeet the? Krauss: If by little tiny you mean 10 ,000 , yes . Conrad: But you could solve that problem. Joan in the intent statement . The intent statement could say that Chanhassen is looking to maintain such - and such a character but would compromise to smaller lots . So what you 're doing is telling a developer you 're not looking to have 3/4 of the development and 10 ,000 square foot lot sizes balanced by 380 ,000 square foot. lots . You could communicate what you 're looking for upfront in an Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 34 attempt but signal the fact that we could go down in lot sizes to — accommodate . Farmakes: Aren 't you telling them that though with the average lot size . — You 've got to be able to figure out how many units to put on that thing . Doesn 't that determine a percentage like this? Conrad: I 'm not sure . It probably does , yeah . ( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . ) Emmings: . . .all these 10 ,000 square foot lots in one area leaving . Conrad: But you wouldn 't have a problem dealing with that if it came to you because if the intent statement is there , we know what we 're looking for and we all have this grandiose , cluster this over here . Open up this space over here . We just don 't know how to get there so what I want to make sure is that we 're communicating to the developer so he or she has a — concept of where we 're going and we 're not leading them in the wrong direction . They come in and say oh , that 's not what we 're looking for at all . — Ahrens: But then we have some people saying , well I kind of like that and I kind of like this but that 's not really my idea of what it should look _ like . I mean you know it 's so subjective that way because a developer 's standing there saying well , we still have a 15 ,000 square foot average lot size . Emmings: But I think Joan , if you 'd want to take the subjective element out , you put it on a grid and you squash the creativity . If you want to maximize creativity but you want to encourage some clustering and leaving — larger tracts of open space , I think you 're always going to have the subjective element to deal with . And I think good developers are going to do it right and you 're going to know it when you see it . Ahrens: True but we 're not always going to get good developers . We 're going to get anybody who has the money to come in and develop the land . Emmings: But on a PUD . Krauss : You have a lot of latitude to object . Also two other things . First of all the intent statement , the way it 's worded right now and this is language I think we got from you Ladd last time it came up . The intent statement says that the applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions , preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will concurrently be approved with the PUD . Jo Ann also points out that you can put a ceiling on what will be counted . The size of the lot that will be counted towards the average . You can say nothing over 20 ,000 or 25 ,000 square feet will be counted towards your average lot size . There 's no basis in making a one acre lot . Farmakes : Is that buildable square footage? Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 35 Krauss: Well we 've got stuff in here about that . Now maybe the way , you know . Farmakes: But we got into a little bit of the argument with Lundgren on the issues of the one up on Lake Lucy Road . He had the plot marks going out to the middle of the wetland . Krauss : Yeah . Your buildable square footage concern 's a valid one but it 's not just valid in PUD 's . I think we should address that for every lot in the city . Subdivisions , PUD 's or otherwise . Farmakes: I agree . I agree because it 's really deceptive . I mean it may or may not be the intent but when they 're coming up and when they did those graphs and so on, as I said you were looking at lot lines that go down to the middle of something that no matter if they build it on a PUD or normal development , that they could not build on . And it seemed to me like they were trying to sell that in figuring out what the lot sizes really were . Which they weren 't . Emmings: Well they were using that two ways . On the one hand they 're saying we 're preserving all this open space and on the other hand they 're saying this lot has this many square feet and they 're counting some of that open space and it just seems real contradictory to me . Krauss: We made Lundgren though break out , the table got quite exacting . I mean it said this is a 30 ,000 square foot lot . 20 ,000 of it 's outside the wetland . We figured the average both ways in fact . Emmings: Yeah . I know you did on that one . And maybe it 's okay as long as that puts everything right up front so there 's no deception there . Farmakes : On the one table I figured out , besides the wetland there 's the setback back from the wetland plus . Krauss: But that 's useable back yard area . Farmakes: Right . That 's what I 'm saying . But it 's useable , how much useable square footage that lot was really. going to be and I figured , just guesstimating that the one was under 10 ,000 feet . - Krauss: But that 's for the building footprint . But for your kids running around playing frisbee or whatever . Bar-be-que pit or whatever you want to do , that 's all high dry ground . Farmakes: Still , anything outside of that you 're going to need a variance for it right? Krayss: To build a structure . Farmakes: Yeah , air conditioning unit , whatever . Conrad: That 's too bad Brian and Tim weren 't here because we 'll probably repeat this same conversation . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 36 Emmings: We 've done it 12 or 15 times haven 't we? Conrad: I know . Ahrens : Are we finished on this? Conrad: This is going to be close . We do have to wait for them to come back . Farmakes: This is still , the latitude that you 're saying to reject this or reject these plans , do you feel from a practicality standpoint that we can basically reject just about anything? Krauss: Unfortunately Roger was going to be here tonight . He 's stuck in his driveway . He could answer that question more directly than I , but yes . You 've got a great deal of latitude . — Emmings: We 're supposed to listen to a guy who gets stuck in his driveway? Krauss : With a Volvo . Farmakes: If you do get a developer with a lot of integrity and really does meet the intent of what that 's going to be , he can do something really nice with that and it could be very beneficial to the community . But the thing that makes everybody nervous is how small these lots come in . If small lots and a developer with little or no integrity is , like you said , — you 're going to build one 35 ,000 square foot lot and the rest are all going to be 10 ,000 . Krauss: You 've got a great deal of latitude on rezoning actions that you don 't have on a subdivision approval . Emmings: Okay . That 's important insurance . That makes me comfortable . — Does anybody else want to beat this dead horse? Conrad: We should do it . Emmings: We should do what? Conrad: Table it . — Emmings: I like that . What a decisive person . Alright . Do we need a motion to table it? Krauss : No . I 'm used to it . Ahrens : Should we save these so you don 't have to reprint all of these again? Krauss: No , I 'll have to reprint anyway . Mayor Chmiel : . . .Robert 's Rules of Order . Emmings: We don 't follow Robert 's Rules of Order here . - Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 37 Conrad: It 's Emmings ' Rules of Order . Emmings: We permanently suspended our rules when I became Chairman . Krauss: It 's probably going to be a month before we bring it back on . That 's because our next meeting we have one action item . 90% of the • meeting 's going to be devoted to the TH 5 corridor . I 've got Bill Moresch who Steve knows from the University coming over with his folks to give you a presentation on what that task force . . .that we 're looking at in terms of broad concepts for TH 5 . I think this is going to become basically the ▪ Planning Commission 's baby from here on out . We need to make some decisions on how to structure the program . Set some goals for it and get going on it so that will be our next meeting . The meeting after that looks - like a very heavy agenda . We 've got Rosemount is coming in for a large expansion . We have potentially a PUD , an industrial one . The one in front of Timberwood . The office park . It 's looking like that 's coming in . That 's going to be a very complex proposal . Well , that will be next week so we 've got a few things cooking so we 'll get this back on as soon as we can . ▪ Farmakes: I was just wondering if you had heard how Grand Met was being met by McGlynn is basically the operation in Chanhassen here . How that was going to affect their operation . Krauss: I 'm not sure . We really need to contact them because they 're most curious about it . They 're not going to vacate the facilities . I understood the article is they bought the facility because it 's the most _ efficient baking operation in the country . But McGlynn 's also has 35 acres that 's been on the market and I 'm not sure if that stayed within the McGlynn family or if Grand Met owns it and if they 're going to be more disposed to sell it now . It 's a very important corner visually from TH 5 standpoint . Emmings: As far as this goes , we could maybe approach it this way . That folks should just come in . Next time this is on the agenda , just let people state what their positions are on it in 2 minutes or less and then have a motion and pass or don 't pass something . But we 've talked about it enough . So put it on and then we 'll just make sure , we 'll sit here with an alarm clock . Farmakes: Egg timer . Emmings: An egg timer . That 's in Robert 's Rules of Order isn 't it , an egg timer? Alright . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4 , 1991 were noted by the Chairman as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE . Emmings: We 've got a report from the director that says there 's nothing to report . Except he wants to talk about goals . Then there 's this , what 's the map Paul? I mean I recognize it as Chanhassen but what are you showing us? Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 38 Krauss : I was trying to scare you actually . Emmings: Have those properties disappeared? Krauss: No . What I wanted to do , for the entire time we 've been doing the _ Comprehensive Plan , since then I 've been telling you that you 're going to get confronted with a whole lot of stuff in the very near future . . . The properties that I outlined in black are those which people have been talking to us about developing . Either we 've seen a development proposal — or we 've approved one or we 've started talking to people in-house or they petitioned the City Council for an extension of utilities . Now that 's not to say everything is going to happen in 1992 but it 's looking like a good bit of it may . Ahrens: Where is that map? Krauss: It 's attached on the back page of the Report from the Director . Emmings: It 's a lot of important property . What do you want to do on — this? Krauss: I guess I felt rather good writing this thing . I was able to spout off a paragraph about all the stuff we 've accomplished in the last couple years and it 's been quite a bit . I seriously do believe that you 've got to be proud of yourselves because we 've used the last couple years , which have been slower in terms of new development , to the city 's best advantage . I mean this is not the community it was in terms of planning . It 's not the community it was in terms of the goals that the Planning Commission , the Council and the HRA had for the city anymore . The — expectations are raised and our ability to regulate developments- is greatly improved . But as the last page indicates , it 's coming . It 's going to be taking a lot more of your time to work -with that kind of stuff over the next year . In terms of goals for the year , we do have our ongoing issues — list . If that suffices as what you 'd like us to be doing for the coming year , I 'm just asking you to re-examine that . That 's fine . We 'll try to work on these . — Emmings: What we 've done in the past I know is put together a list and then send it to the City Council for their reaction to see if there are _ things they 'd like added to the list or whatever . I don 't see why we can 't do that with our ongoing issues list . If anybody else has any issues , we can add it to there . Send it up to them saying here 's our ongoing work list . If there are things that should be moved up in priority , let us — know . What do you think Ladd? Conrad: That 's fine . I don 't have anything . I think we 're working on the rightstuff . And it 's listed . Emmings: Is that alright? Krauss: Yep . Ledvina: Does the order represent* a priority? — Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 39 ▪ Emmings: No . Except maybe , well up here . Those Comprehensive Plan issues , at least number one is a high priority item and some of the rest of those are done . I don 't know why they don 't get off there . I hate seeing things on a list that are already done . Krauss: We knock them off every month or two . ▪ DISCUSSION OF SIGN ORDINANCE ISSUES. Emmings: Next thing I 've got here is an issue paper on the sign ordinance . Aanenson: I was just going to make a couple comments to that . We were supposed to start meeting in November . Unfortunately we didn 't get this to _ you until this agenda . What I 've done is just outline some of the major issues that we 'll be looking at Ohen the committee gets together . I know Jeff 's on that committee . Some of the major issues that we 're going to be looking at is what 's currently in place . There 's no , as far as the • acreage , the size of the parcel . No compatibility with the size of the sign . That 's a big issue and that needs to be addressed . Also for like a plan center or multi-tenant building , there 's no regulation as far as compatibility of the signs . Whether they all go to chain letters or if they go with box style so it 's kind of a compatibility . And they come in with a sign package . We 're looking at them now when we do a PUD like we did with Ryan on that industrial park . That they come in with a sign package . You have to have it uniform so when you come into a plan center or industrial park you know that they all belong in the same area . The other thing we 'll be looking at is some of the new technology . Canopies , neon lighting , windows and that sort of thing . And then also just our own administrative policy . The way that we 've been reviewing signs in house . So this is for you just to review some of the issues we 'll be looking at if _ you have some comments . Some areas of concern that you wanted the committee to be looking at . I 'd like people 's comments . Emmings: It looks like you 've done a lot of work . . . .a very cursory reading I 'll admit . I didn 't study it in detail but it looks like you 've done a lot of work thinking about this and it looks like these are , this like lot sizes will just go round and round about . I just wish you good ▪ luck . It 's tough . I 'm glad Jeff 's on the committee and not me . Conrad: Are there any problems with temporary signs in Chanhassen? I _ haven 't heard many . Aanenson: I don 't know if we 've had too many . What we 're looking at is trying to limit those to like Grand Openings because they do serve a - function . Special event kind of things . Krauss: The way that it 's handled now it 's tough to administer and it becomes quasi-permanent . If my memory serves , each tenant in. a multi-tenant building is entitled to it for a certain period of weeks every year . - Aanenson: 3 weeks I believe . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 40 Krauss: So Joe gets it these 2 weeks . Mel gets it those 2 weeks . The flower shop gets it and Ahn-Le gets it and then let 's go back through the list again and it 's there all year you know . That 's not the idea . They 're ugly and sometimes you 've got to get after them because they pull it out onto a sidewalk and that kind of stuff . Then you 've got temporary signs hung on the rental trucks in front of Merlyn 's . Farmakes: You have the inflatable signs that are sometimes multi stories tall . — Aanenson: That goes back to the center concept . I think what we 'd like to go with more of a plan center . Ahrens: . . .What did I tell you? First we talked about having the big ear on the building and now it 's the vein on the building . I knew it would be all downhill . — Farmakes: One of the things I 'd like to discuss when we get into this is not only the signs themselves but how many . How many is necessary . — Aanenson: Yeah , I talked a little bit about that too . Farmakes: If you get signs for each story , you 've got 40 stories , you 've — got a lot of . . .with plexiglass sitting around . The question is how many sight rates do you really need and how many sight lines do you really have to look for to be a competent business presentation to identify a store . — Krauss: I think we 've also been talking a lot about a downtown image . Does the downtown have a special sign criteria? Another question that _ we 've come up with is , do we all agree with Brad Johnson that an office building is so many retail tenants waiting to be seen . Ahrens : No . - — Farmakes: It depends on where the market is at the time . How they want to sell it . Ahrens: Speaking of Brad Johnson , when 's the ground breaking for the? Krauss: You know , it 's getting awfully close . Ahrens: I find that hard to believe . Krauss: We all have but the bank , they 're supposed to have started closing procedures today . On the loan which means they could break ground in several weeks . Except I have to finish writing the sign covenants . It 's on my desk . Conrad: What 's the concern with a sign communicating to TH. 5 traffic the next turn is downtown Chanhassen? We have the Chamber of Commerce sign out there with all their little listings which is pretty bad . But do we have a Chanhassen sign and is that governed by our sign ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 41 Krauss: Well the HRA has an ongoing program that next summer you 'll see it . In conjunction with TH 5 improvements , all the major entrances into the community are going to be landscaped , monumented and signed and it 's going to say Chanhassen. It 's not going to say., Joe 's Mighty Fine Snowblowers you know . The importance here is that you 're coming into Chanhassen 's downtown and you should know you 're arriving and you should know where to go . Farmakes : They touched on that on the TH 5 proposal a little bit didn 't they? Krauss: Right . Barry Warner from Barton-Aschman was the fellow who designed the work and the features , common elements . Silhouettes of the towers . The same kind of stone work that you see in other parts of town that they sometimes where there 's room they have landscape amenities with benches where you can sit . I think one has a fountain . It 's going to be quite nice . Conrad: Jeff , monument signs are neat if we do them right . We don 't have anything in town , we don 't have anything that looks good saying here 's Chanhassen so maybe this is solving the problem . My concern was that our ordinance allows it . It did save a little bit of stuff we 've got to prevent but it 's like Lundgren coming in and their comment is real valid . make a statement with a sign . They like to cluster their stuff and make things look big and impressive and there is something to that philosophy . If you don 't do it with signage , especially with the Chamber of Commerce sign , that 's not helping Chanhassen and it 's not helping the businesses either . That 's a waste of their money . Farmakes: I think it touches on a really important point . One as I said - before , there 's a difference between identification and advertising . I don 't know if we 've really discussed that maybe with some of the business people here in town because there 's differences of opinions there as to where your best buck lies . And as to where you 're going to get your most effective use . Same thing with these boats . You 're going to be hitting there what 's in their interest as best as they can . That 's understandable . I would too . You 're going to want to advertise , if you 're competing in the market you 're going to want to advertise anyway you can . Just what is reasonable and have a goal in mind rather than just plaster up as many signs as you can get . Conrad: Well the point on TH 5 is to have a foot high sign for traffic going 50 mph . And they 're charging the members for that? What we want to do is say , Here 's Chanhassen . Come on in . Krauss: You may well want to prohibit , I don 't know . . .pylon signs on TH 5 . Every property owner is going to make an argument as to why they need a 25 - foot high pylon sign that says whatever and it 's going to be bigger or placed so the next one down doesn 't cover it up and you wind up with one of those University Avenue types of vistas . That 's everything we don 't want - to have happen here . When I look at the sites that you have in downtown Chanhassen from the time that you hit the garden center going through past Holiday and everything that 's going to happen in that area . Around past a new shopping center now out to Burdick 's where Burdick has 12 lots there . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 42 Every one of those develops and every one wants their own pylon sign bordering on Th 5 . That 's a real visual impact . Ahrens: Speaking of visual impacts . Is the landscaping done on the Rapid Oil Change building? Is that what it 's called? — Olsen: Valvoline? Krauss : Valvoline , yeah . Ahrens: It is done? You know I was just laughing to myself as I was driving by the other day . We spent so much time on the landscaping plan for that building . I don 't know if you 've noticed it but it sits way up on a hill and the plantings all look like they 're 2 1/2 inches high . It looks like it 's going to be 50 years . It looks ridiculous . I mean it really — does . It looks like , we thought this was going to be some great landscaping design that we worked so hard on . Emmings: The City Council beefed up the landscaping . Farmakes: If you go back to the Minutes , his response to questions about hanging banners , that they wouldn 't be putting any up . They 've been opened now for a while . Those banners have been up . They 'll be there for a year . Krauss: There shouldn 't be any . Farmakes : I think that 's a mode -of operation for them because they use it in their other franchises . They open up those bays and in there is sitting those big hanging banners . Same effect . Ahrens : . . .the Valvoline shop on the hill . It 's like . Krauss: What made that site look a lot tougher too , or it really changed the perspective is when they sliced into the hill for the new lanes for the highway . Also their grading plan turned out to be in error . They put the _ building in where it was supposed to be and then they found they had to build a retaining wall against the west side . A stone retaining wall there and that wasn 't on the original plans . I think the building turned out to be 3 feet higher or something like that than it was supposed to be . — Ahrens : Well it 's bad anyway right at the entrance of Chanhassen . It looks really tacky . — Conrad: Yeah , it 's not a pretty picture . But we allowed them , we did it . Ahrens : Yeah we did it . Farmakes: Visually that may change or soften up a bit when that development comes in farther down . I think the natural area it seems to enter Chanhassen will be there . Krauss : Well the Red-E-Mix and Taco , are coming down this spring and — there 's going to be a lot of open space and plazas as you approach that . There 's also a very good chance that we ' ll be able to get some improvements Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 43 - hopefully to the facade , certainly to the landscaping on the Hanus building which really dominants the thing . And the building behind that . Then on the corner by Amoco/Holiday there is one of those entrance features . Ahrens: It 's going to be a plaza where the Taco Shop is? _ Krauss: There 's a lot of open space there where , actually where Taco is it 's going to be a road . Ahrens: Yeah , that 's what I thought . Krauss: But just beyond that , the road kind of hooks and turns this way and there 's a big open space . It will be a big open , publically owned area for landscaping . In fact there 's several of them around that intersection . Ahrens: Okay . I don 't have anything else to say . Conrad : We can move the old City Hall down there . Emmings: Turn it crooked . I should talk . I can 't talk about that thing because I turned my house crooked on my lot . Sort of like they did to that thing . Okay . The last thing we 've got here is organizational items . ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 1992. Emmings: I 'm a little disturbed about this . Again without Tim and Brian being here because in my mind there 's a logical new Chairman and Vice - Chairman between the two of them . So I don 't know what to do . Conrad: Steve , we 've all fetl comfortable with your leadership so I 'm going to , no I 'm not . • Emmings: I 'll gavel you down . Directly to your forehead . Conrad: Publically I think you 've just done an outstanding job over the last year . Ahrens: I think you did a really good job too . Conrad: For the 3 people who are watching , I 'd like to applaud Mr . Emmings . Emmings: And I 'd like to sing a song . - Conrad: But no , just a fine job and would be comfortable if you led the Commission another year . However as we 've talked , I think it 's always a good opportunity for other people to lead . Emmings: I would like that to happen . _ Conrad: But I say that and then the 2 people who are probably the ones that might be next who I still feel are competent in leading the Commission are not here so I guess the debate is , shall we do something without them or defer? We more than likely could take it up as a first item on the Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 44 agenda at the next meeting if those two are here and solve it at that time . Emmings: Is that agreeable with everybody? Ahrens: That 's fine . Emmings: The way I 'm thinking about this is , I think it ought to be passed on . I think it 's something that 's worthwhile doing after you 've been here a while . I think everybody ought to do it and I would sort of like to — advocate a system of you know Tim is Vice Chair . He 's been Vice Chair for 2 years . If he does have some time constraints and maybe doesn 't want to be Chair for that reason but that aside , if he does , I would just assume see Tim be Chair and maybe Brian be Vice Chair and the next year have Brian be Chair . I don 't know if we want to go to that system . I lot of organizations do it that way . We can do whatever we want . Conrad : There 's some real logic to what you 're saying . On the other hand , if I guess we don 't feel the commitment by those other two members to be here Steve , I would sure hope that you would consider taking the Chairman . — Emmings: Or you . Conrad: No . I 've had my time . But I think you would , I 'm very — comfortable with you leading us so I guess they 're not shoe in 's right now . They kind of have to sell me that they can do the job . They 're going to be here . And if they can 't , then I 'd like to think that you could still — manage the group . Emmings: Okay , we 'll take it up next time when we come . Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: January 29 , 1992 SUBJ: Report from Director At the City Council meeting of January 27 , 1992 , the following actions were taken: 1. The City Council approved staff's proposal to revise the official fee schedule to allow the city to bill developers for consultant time related to water quality reviews. During reviews of developments over the past year, the city has become much more aware of and sensitive to the needs to maintain and improve water quality. As you are aware, we are using the firm of Bonestroo and Associates to work with us on our surface water program. Recently, we have begun a fairly regular procedure wherein Bonestroo staff is consulted to review water quality proposals made by developers. In the instance with the Lundgren/Ortenblad/Ersbo proposal, this review was quite extensive and resulted in incorporation of a series of modifications. What we requested, and got approval for, was the ability to charge back this time to the developer rather than ask city tax payers as a whole to bear this burden since it is directly related to the development proposal. 2 . The City Council approved a resolution calling for a public hearing on modification to Redevelopment Plan No. 11, and to the plan for Economic Development District No. 2 , which would allow the city to acquire the middle school site at Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard for the Chaska School District. As the Planning Commission is aware, development of a school on this site is an intrinsic part of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. City staff is represented on a work group, established by Superintendent Dave Clough, to develop a plan for the future for the school district. This plan is to include an accurate forecast of the school expansion needs. In addition, we are also working with a developer who is proposing an office industrial park in the area between Timberwood Estates and Hwy. 5. Although the Comprehensive n �01? PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission January 29, 1992 Page 2 Plan shows this area as low density residential, the City Council incorporated language that would allow for the inclusion of an extremely high quality office park in this location contingent upon several things, one of which is preservation of a school site. Ryan Development is currently preparing and refining plans for this proposal. We are working with the school district' s architect to further refine their school site needs and ensure that it can be accommodated in this area. We will keep you informed as to the status of this effort. 3 . The Mayor requested reconsideration of ordinance amendments that were recently adopted dealing with the mooring of watercraft. This ordinance had been approved by the City Council and was actually published, but has not been signed by the Mayor. Questions have arisen regarding several aspects of the ordinance including the ability of a homeowner with lake frontage to allow friends and family to utilize his or her dock as long as the allowable number of watercraft is not exceeded. The way the ordinance is currently drafted, it would appear that this would be precluded. Discussion will be raised regarding this matter at the next City Council meeting. 4 . Planning Commission goals. It has become regular practice for me to submit your list of ongoing items to the City Council for review and comment. This was done at the January 27th meeting. The Council made several suggestions on this list. The list currently incorporates a proposal that our group home ordinances be re-evaluated in light of changes in legal status and recent court rulings. The Council indicated a desire that this be done. The Council also requested that ordinances pertaining to sexually oriented businesses be evaluated. I have taken the opportunity to add this to your list. The annual City Council goals setting meeting has been established for Saturday, February 29, 1992 . No doubt these and other matters will be discussed in more detail at that time. 5. Councilman Wing requested that the City Attorney prepare an overview of the potential of placing a development moratorium along Hwy. 5. Councilman Wing has been a leading proponent for the undertaking of a corridor study to ensure higher quality development along the Hwy. 5 corridor. He is concerned that the pace at which the city is receiving development proposals along the highway has been rapidly accelerating and consideration of a moratorium may be warranted in light of this fact. The City Attorney prepared a memorandum with the City Manager to respond to this request. In citing a recent court ruling on a case in Woodbury, the manager and City Attorney suggested a moratorium may be difficult to uphold and may result in financial damages to the city. In any event, upon further discussion, the Council as a whole did not seem highly interested in pursuing this matter further. S CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: January 27, 1992 SUBJ: Moratorium, Highway 5 Corridor Councilman Wing asked that this item be placed on to this City Council agenda. It is my belief that Councilman Wing' s primary concern is that premature development may occur along the corridor prior to our having in place ordinances/overlay zones to control that development. The City Attorney, Roger Knutson, is recommending that the city not use a "moratorium" as a means to control premature development. As can be seen from the attached court decision, Woodbury will pay a very high price as a result of making that same decision approximately 4 years ago. In essence, the court ruled that the city' s moratorium was in fact a "taking" for which the owners should be compensated. This decision does not include the city's legal expenses, which probably totaled $10, 000 to $20, 000, nor does it include costs of an appeal . By contrast, Roger noted that virtually all of the properties along Highway 5 between Lake Ann and the Arboretum will require: - Replatting, - - Extension of municipal sewer and water, - Approval of interior streets, and - Subdivision/site plan approval. Although some of the approvals noted above would be difficult to deny if the other approvals had been received, i.e. site plan approval, generally each of the approvals, if given, are a "privilege" rather than a "God-given right. " Accordingly, the city has significant discretion in terms of whether it wishes to see phased extensions of sewer and water, phased rezoning of properties to ensure orderly growth in conjunction with the Land Use Plan, etc. The best advice from the City Attorney is to use these tools as a means to ensure that premature development does not occur within the corridor. t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mayor and City Council January 27, 1992 Page 2 [Note: For those not able to attend the Highway 5 Task Force meeting in December, I would strongly recommend that you attend the Planning Commission meeting on February 5. Bill Morrish and Lance Neckar of the University of Minnesota have nearly completed the initial concept plans for the Highway 5 Corridor. The concept plan developed has considered input from the Task Force during the series of meetings held during 1991. To state that I am excited about the concepts presented in that plan would be an understatement. I truly believe that this document will mature into a vision for Chanhassen's future, and lay the foundation for specific ordinances and overlay zones to be developed by the Planning Commission, which will ensure that future development meets our long range goals. ] CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Jan 22 ,92 12 : 10 No .007 P .02 . STATE OF MINNES TA DISTRICT COURT COUNTI. Olr' WASHINGTON TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Woodbury Place Partnere, a Minnesota general partner hip, ,JUDGMENT Plaintiff, FILMO. CO-38-3249 Vs. F Why-I►wOt; F •;1 , • ."- City . City of Woodbu , Minnesota, a municipal corpo ation, 1991 t, Defendant r:JUir', J'd�.,j,Y i D Ar ,!1. 0 rosy The above- ntitled matter came on for trial before the honorable J.C. Cass , Judg of District Court, on September 27 , 1991, at the Washington Coun y Government Center, Stillwater, Minnesota. Anthony J. Oleekel, Esq. and Christopher Penwell, Esq. , appeared on behalf of th Flaintiff. Pierre N. Regnier, Esq, , and James G. Colembeck, Eaq. i appeared on behalf of the Defendant. . Based upon . the files, records , the argument$ of counsel and the memoranda subm1 ted, and the proceedings herein, the Court made ft$ ' Findings Of Pao , Conclusions Of Law, Order and Order For..Judgment , Now, There ore, Pursuant to said Findings Of Fact, Conclusions • Of Lair and Order For Judgment; t ' IT IS BERRY ,ADJIJDGSD; DETERMINED AND DECRELDs. 1. That a !peremptory Writ of Mandamus shall issue directing Defendant City of Woodbury to commence condeciation proceedings a ain't PlaintiAV riijuj PIM Mai CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Jan 22 .92 12 : 11 No .007 P .03 2. That Plaintiff is awarded costs and disbursements in the mount of , to be hereafter taxed, allowed and inserted, makin a total judgment amount of DATE!: Decemb 18, 1991 BY THE COURT Marie Sunlitis 1 .Court Administrator • peptic,'• -- • • - CAMPBELL , KNUTSON, SCOTT 8 FUCHS, P.R Jan 22.92 12:11 No .007 P.04 STATE OP XINNE O A DISTRICT COURT Co 'wTY OF WASH GTON 'TEXTS JUDICIAL DISTRICT Woodbury Place artaere, a ,INDINCB OX PACT Minnesota general partnership, CONCLDa;ONs OF LI►W tinralin Plaintiff, 22OR FOR Manta Va. Pile 1a. 00-e0-324I • City of Woodbury, Xiaaeaota, , • a munioipel oorporatioa, L DEC 1 1991 Defendant. r. • ^tl The above-entitled matter came on for trial before the undersigned, tre Honorable J. E. Cass, Judge of the above-named Court, at the Washington County Government center, Stillwater, Xirn•sote, on September 17, 1991. Anthony J. oleekel and Christopher Penwell appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Pierre N. R•gnier and James G. Golembeck appeared on behalf of Defendant. - • The Court, after considering the arguments of counsel and the menoranda submitted, and based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings her in, makes the following; ?rNDIWGB _0F !ACT - s 1. The parties submitted the matter to the Court upon two { sets of stipulated facts. Each party agreed as to the accuracy of *etch ••t of felts, but objected to the opposing party's set on grounds of releiancy. _ 2. Plaintiff'• set of stipulated facts focus on the tact that Plaint; t I llIll" Aw.ml.,r• s- n• aw III1 . . ... .k4 • •yet • • • i • from March 23, 966 to March 23, 1990, as the result of the City of Woodbury's ens tment of a moratorium. 3. Deft dant's set of stipulated facts focus on the reasonableness of the moratorium enacted by the City of• Woodbury. The Court fins the reaeonablenes8 of the moratorium to be I irrelevant. 4. Plain iff's version of the Stipulated Findings of Fact, attached, is incorporated herein by reference. 5. Plaintiff has not 'unreasonably delayed asserting a known right to the prejudice of others. Based on a foregoing, the Court makes the following: CONCLae!o G b!LAMLA! 1. P1aintiff's 'alaim is not barred by the doctrine of laches. 2. The mo atorium effected a oompansable temporary taking of Plaintiff's lend from March 23, 1989 to March 23, 1990. 1 Based on t e foregoing, the Court makes the following: OM, 1. A peremptory Writ of Mandamus shall issue directing Defendant City of Woodbury to oomMence condemnation proceedings against Plainti f's property involved herein. 1 2. Plaintiff is awarded its Costs and disbursements. ' 3. Robert Beedle,' C.J. Kabis, and Timothy J. McKenzie, With James L. Currel_ and Robert Lafayette as alternates in that order, each of whom is a disinterested person and resident of Washington County, Minnesota, are hereby appointed as Commissioners to i ascertain and report the amount of damages that were sustained by Plaintiff as a ,result of one temporary taking desorlbeQ hQxBTh, The first meetngof said Commissioners shall be held in the 2 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Jan 22 .92 12 : 12 No .007 P .05 MORAXIUM- Re; !Qvdbypy ? acejrtnefs y. city _of Woodbury Court Tile )o, Coss-324' Plaintiff wns property located within the City of Woodbury (the City) . P1 intiff submitted an application for a Special Use Permit, approve of preliminary plat, and site plan review to the •• City on Tabruary 16, 1988. The application complied with all applicable aoniiltg and subdivision ordinances, but was inconsistent with proposed r clsdway improvements. The application was revised to . 1 be consistent i 1th these improvements and submitted to the City f prior to March 3, 1988 . The City Council, pursuant to Minn. Stat. *462.355, eubd. 4, on March 23, 1988 adopted a moratorium restricting development within a certain area, including Plaintiff's property. Although the moratorium provided for variances, Plaintiff was twice denied a variance from the moratorium. Thl moratorium expired on March 23, 1990. Plaintiff commenced this otion on August 1, 1968. The only remaining claim is that the mor torium effscted•a temporary--taking of Plaintiff's property, regui ins compensation. The parties have stipulated that i Plaintiff was d Hied all economically viable use of the property from March 23, 1988 to March 23, 1990, as a result of the moratorium. Th parties have also stipulated that the moratorium was reasonable ind neoesaary to protect the planning process and - the health, sat ty, and welfare of the city's citizens. Th. United States Constitution, Amendment S, ana Minn. Const. I - Art. 3., 113, state that private property shall not be taken for public use without lust oompenaatiQn. A government re dation which works a telporary taking upon property is treated the same as Jan 22 ,92 12 13 No .007 P .06 _ CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P . I if it had been) a permanent taking; the landowner is entitled to compensation 'ftpr his loss of use during the temporary taking. F st 4ya English na u at ch ar - 1 Las to ., rr..«h ' 482 U.S. 304, 91$ (198 ) . riret Egg tch involved a situation Where a building moratrium was imposed due to flooding. The court held that, assuming the moratorium worked a taking upon the land, plaintiff was entitled to compensation for that temporary taking. IA. et 322. The feats f ftrAt English ere very similar to those presented here, and plat tiff is entitled to compensation if the moratorium Constitutes a taking. There are two situations in which a general I zoning law Can! effect a taking: 1) it the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimatestate interests; or 2) if application of the ordinance denies the owner economically viable use of his la 'd. Agins., v, Tikurvu, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1990) ; ;arrant, . _ . _ • - - r •. , 425 N.W.2d 585, 590 (Minn. ct. App. 1988) J Ths parties have stipulated that the mo t'lttorium I'• — denied Plaintiiff all economically viable use of the land. Therefore, under ACina and ?irst ED.g .br the moratorium worked a temporary taki of the land for which compensation is Owed. Defendant argues that there can be no taking since the i moratorium was implemented under the City's police power and was reasonable in purpose, duration, end scope. It is true that the 1 exercise of a city's police power can properly limit the Uses to which property Tan be put, but it ie also true that the exercise of such police power constitutes a Compensable takin5 if it deprives the Property ofi611 reasonable use. MCSY GfFAYtY 1hata♦t 292 H.W.ad 253, 257 Minn. 1950) , siting .xea2ty 2 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Jan 22 ,92 12 : 13 No .007 P.07 • ,C.Q" 272 U.B. 365 (1926) ; ThOmn®on y i�_ty r Ren Wj g 455 N.W.2d 512, 516 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) . Constitutional rotaCtiona _ p were . designed to cora111 ensete landowners for otherwise proper interference ' with their land; which amounted to a taking. 7J. ; Eegliah at 315. The moratoria 1er°, although reasonable deprived p Plaintiff of the use of its Zane), for which - int - con - ionally required to be Compensa d. AI Dated; 11 "fi S. 4ei i i Ilir • E. Cass Judge of District Court r _ • • _ 1 . •t . • • • ' 3 I i) C I TY OF -- 4 ,.. iolor , CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 e ✓ Aw A MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager — FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer V 1 -a1-qz DATE: January 22 , 1992 SUBJ: Establish Fee Schedule for In-House Engineering Information Services and Private Development Surface Water Management Program Review Services In May of 1991, staff received notification from Carver County of their newly established fee schedule for over-the-phone lot size and fax copy requests (see attachment) . It is my understanding that this fee schedule resulted from an increased demand for these services for which associated staff time and reproduction costs were reaching a significant level . In discussing this matter with my staff, it is apparent that the City Engineering Department receives a sizable number of these types of requests which require staff personnel time and reproduction costs on the part of the City. Therefore, it would seem appropriate for the City of Chanhassen to also establish a fee schedule similar to that of Carver County to recover costs that are incurred in providing this service. The following is a proposed fee schedule for Engineering Information Services: 1. Plats and Registered Land Surveys (RLS) - A. 81/2x11 to 11x17 plat and RLS, $2 . 00 per page for a non- certified copy. B. Full-scale 22x34 non-certified plat or RLS, $5. 00 per copy. 2 . Fax Copies - Flat charge of $5. 00 plus the copy cost of the copies. IS t li, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth January 22 , 1992 Page 2 3 . Lot Size Requests - Over the phone lot size requests will be charged a flat fee of $2 . 00 per lot. When a phone request is made the caller will be asked to provide the company' s name for billing purposes along with the individual ' s name requesting the lot size. At the end of the month each company (or individual) will receive one invoice listing of all requests made. If an individual wishes to visit City Hall to acquire the information, the only costs incurred would be the standard duplicating costs per page for copying services. 4 . Lot Releases - Flat fee of $10. 00 per lot. Postage and mailing costs will also be billed. All requests for any of the above services will be denied if all invoices are not paid in a timely manner. - I would propose that the Engineering Department will keep track of all the information to the requests and services provided during the month and submit a monthly tabulation of billings to the Finance Department for invoicing. Water Quality Plan Review Fees, Planning Director Last year there was a significant revamping of developer fees that was adopted by the City Council. At that time, the fee structure that was adopted had a flat fee for each request, such as a variance or rezoning. We also added in fees for work completed by the City Attorney relative to the filing of documents related to the development. You may recall that in the past the city lost control over the official filing process of documents with the county, and as a result, a number of conditions of development were either missed or deliberately avoided. In having the City Attorney responsible for this, we have start to end control over the entire process. You agreed to have Roger's time billed on an hourly basis to the particular applicant. Since that time, we have become more involved in water quality improvement programs. As they have become developed, we have often sought assistance from Bonestroo Engineering, the city's consultant on our water management program. They have provided highly useful input into several projects. However, the time involved in preparing their input is not covered by their on-going consulting contract with the city, and is billed on an hourly basis. I do not believe that this work, which is related to a specific development request, should result in the entire Surface Water Utility Program being billed, but rather would recommend that we be in a position to place these costs back on the particular development request. Therefore, I am asking the City Council to approve a modification in the fee structure that would allow staff to bill consultant time for surface water management issues on an hourly basis against the project. If you agree, we will modify the fee schedule accordingly Don Ashworth January 22 , 1992 Page 3 as well as our application form. We will attempt to make a practice of getting a written estimate of the costs of the work, plus the approval of the particular applicant prior to having the work undertaken. Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the aforementioned fee schedule be approved effective January 1, 1992 . ktm Attachments: 1. Carver County letter dated May 17, 1991 from Carl W. Hanson, Jr. 2 . Memo from Dan Remer dated January 21, 1992 . c: Jean Meuwissen, Treasurer Dan Remer, Engineering Technician DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment a. $500 b. $100 Minor MUSA One for failing on-site sewers 2. Conditional Use Permit a. RSF uses - $75 b. All others - $400 3. Grading Permits a. Under 50 cubic yards $0 b. 50-1000 cubic yards $50 c. Over 1000 cubic yards - processed as IUP-use UBC 4. Interim Use Permit a. RSF uses - $75 b. All Others - $400 5. Notification Signs $50 rental $100 damage deposit 6. Planned Unit Development a. Concept Plan b. Preliminary Development Plan c. Final Development Plan $750 (a-c) d. Amendment Minor Amendment - $100 Major Amendment - Same As PUD 7. Rezoning - $500 8. Sign Permit a. Temporary - $35 b. Permanent - $50 9. Sign Plan Review $150 (if separate from site plan) 10. She Plan Review a. $250 + $10 per 1000 sq.ft. of building area for commercial and industrial districts + $5 per dwelling unit in residential districts b. Administrative Site Plan $100 11. Subdivision Ordinance a. Create less than 3 lots $150 b. Create over 3 lots - $400 + $15/lot c. Final Plat - Included in one time fee d. Metes and Bounds Division $150 + $50/lot over 3 lots e. Consolidate lots - $100 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements $100 13. Variance - $75 14. Wetland Alteration Permit a. Single Family Residence - $75 b. All other uses - $200 15. Zoning Appeal - $0 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - $0 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Costs a. Recording Documents $10 + County Fees b. Recording Plats & Related Documents 1) 1-3 lots $100 + County Fee 2) 4-10 lots $125 + County Fee 3) 11-30 lots $200 + County Fee 4) 31 + lots $350 + County Fee Attorney's time to ensure proper drafting & documentation 18. Consultant Fees Consultants required by the Cost will be billed to developer City to review development proposals including but not limited to traffic and water management issues — � -K c'or,4, — CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE Office of 1 COUNTY RECORDER'REGISTRAR OF TITLES ` 600 EAST 4TH Carl W (Kelly) Hanson Jr. ��N c:' POCHASBOX KA,157 MINNESOTA 55318 Phone 448-1205 Fax 448-1206 COUNTY OF C1QVEQ RECEIVED MAY ? 0 1991 C17 r yr chANMASSEP TO: All Customers FROM: Carl W. (Kelly) Hanson Jr. , County Recorder DATE: May 17, 1991 SUBJECT: Fees for Lot Size Requests and Fax Copies Please pass the following on to all members of your company or firm. Effective June 1st fees for lot sizes requests and fax copies will be as follows: 1 . LOT SIZE REOUESTS: A $2 . 00 fee per lot will be charged for phone requests on lot sizes. When a phone request is made, you will be asked to provide the company' s name for billing purposes along with the individuals name requesting the lot size. At the end of the month, each company (or individual) will receive one invoice listing all requests made. 2 . FAX COPIES: A flat $5. 00 charge plus the copy cost of _ the copies will be the new fee for fax copies. For regular users and upon request, we will bill you once a month again listing each fax request. Otherwise separate invoices will be mailed within 24 hours of the fax. All requests for either of the above will be denied if all invoice ' s are not paid in a timely manner. Should you have any questions, please call Debbie Bergstrom at 612-448-1205. Affirmatne Aarn/Equal Opportunity Emploier Printed on Ret rled Paper CITY OF ,_ oili , 01P4 , CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 N MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Folch, City Engineer FROM: Dan Remer, Engineering Technician DATE: January 21, 1992 SUBJ: Fees for Lot Size, Plats and Registered Land Surveys I have put together the following fee schedule for the various items we handle through our office using Carver County's fee schedule as a guide. 1 . Plat and Registered Land Survey (RLS) copies: $2 . 00 per page (82)(11 to 11x17) for a non-certified xerox portion of a plat or RLS $5. 00 per plat or RLS (22x34) for a scaled, non-certified copy 2 . Lot Size Requests - A $2 . 00* fee per lot will be charged for phone requests on lot sizes. When a phone request is made, the caller will be asked to provide the company's name for billing purposes along with the individual 's name requesting the lot size. At the end of the month, each company (or individual) will receive one invoice listing all requests made. *I think this should be raised to $5. 00 to cover time and materials. All requests for either of the above will be denied if all invoices are not paid in a timely manner. If you have any comments or would like to discuss this further, please let me know. ktm Attachment: Carver County fee schedules. iv Orr PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER REVISED JANUARY, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1. * 1995 Study Area (North) Several meetings held with task and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study force. U of M Program to wrap up by January 1. Working to structure more in depth corridor study to begin in February. Presentation to PC on February 5. 2 . 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow. OTHER ITEMS 1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated information for Planning Commission direction. 2 . * Sign Ordinance Work group established. Issues paper reviewd by PC January 15, 1991. First meeting in February. 3 . Tree Protection Ordinance MnDNR completed mapping program Mapping of significant and will work with city to vegetative areas develop. New ordinance to be developed in 1992 . 4 . Wetland Ordinance/Surface First meeting held October 7. Water Management Program Video surveys of lake bottoms Task Force established. underway. Application submitted to MnPCA for Clean Water Action Grant for Lotus Lake. 5. Shoreland Ordinance In January we received notification from the MnDNR that we are a priority community with a 2 year deadline. 6. Group home ordinance 1991/inactive/CC indicated desire to pursue. 7. Rural Area Policies Approval granted by Metro Council. Ordinance revisions required. 8 . * PUD Ordinance Residential PUD standards to PC on January 15, 1992 . Future meetings required. 9. PC input in Downtown 1991/ongoing Planning and Traffic Study 10. Review of Architectural 1992 Standards to Promote High Quality Design 11. Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line Greenway Preservation ordinance, CC referred item to Park and Recreation Commission. Staff working with Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District to develop joint Bluff Creek corridor program. 12 . * Modifications to beachiot Ordinance passed by PC on ordinance - Re: Non- January 15, 1992. Send to CC conforming beachiots on 2/10. Scheduled for 12/4/91 agenda. 13 . Ordinance amendment to PC approved. City Attorney to Non-conforming use section redraft. to clarify ordinance. 14 . Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance revisions to follow. 15. Truck and trailer rental Request by PC. standards. 16. Sexually oriented Review requested by CC. businesses * Change in status since last report -10i1- � CITY OF CHANHASSEN t i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • AN AS 5E39MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 1900 FAX 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: January 31, 1992 SUBJ: Highway 5 Corridor Study Backgro ndiOverview 1992 , meeting, Bill Morrish and Lance Neckar, A the February 5, 5 corridor. from the University of Minnesota' s Urban Design Center, e work undertaken by their group on the Hwy. corridorr presentingwtemporary This work was undertaken in conjunction with a temp group HRA, wtk Council, established by the City Council. Members of the stud HRA, City Council, as well as Steve Emmings and Jeff FarmakeTo put from the Planning Commission, were represented in this group. their work into context, it may be useful to first step back understand why this work was undertaken and what lead up i . In the spring of 1991, the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan was finally adopted after years of effort.aAsna condition nd City Counappro al, at the request of the Planning work was to proceed to define uses for the two 1995 Study Areas which were identified onthe Comprehensive MUSA butlan. These representedstheynextas were likely pansd outsideofthem The Comprehensive Plan left these expansions of the community. to be designed areas blank, and this program was essentially going to fill in the blanks. At the same time, it was evident that there would be growing pressure for development along Hwy. 5 and there was increasing concern among members of the City Council and other groups lead by Councilman Richard Wing, to make sure that what happens on the corridor is of the highest possible quality. Councilman Wing had contacted the University' s Urban Design Center for advice. At the same time, Planning staff organized a bus tour of the corridor. Growing out of this mix of issues, the HRA retained the University' s Urban Design Center to do a conceptual corridor report to better define peoples interests and establish goals. This work was completed late last year and was presented to the task force and is now being presented to the Planning Commission. The purpose 4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1116 Highway 5 Corridor Study January 31, 1992 1 Page 6 time, I do not believe that this is something they can competently fulfill all the required tasks in-house. _ As to the time question, it depends on the exact work plan that is selected and the motivation that is put to this. Time periods anywhere from six months to eighteen months would be reasonable in - this regard. At the same time, we should recognize that demands, not only on our staff time but on yourselves, have also grown considerably in recent months. Many of you are serving along with members of the City Council, on the Surface Water Management Task Force, or on the Sign Ordinance Work Group, or the Wetland Ordinance Work Group established by the Surface Water Management Task Force. Before selecting a time frame to complete this task, should you decide to pursue it, you should take your ability to take on extra meetings into account. In any event, we are looking for your guidance and input on this matter. I expect several members of the City Council to be present and certainly would expect to take your recommendation to them for formal action. CITY TF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 January 16, 1992 Mr. Greg Larson, Administrator Wetlands Section _ MN Board of Water & Soil Resources Southbridge Office Building Suite 104 155 South Wabasha Street St. Paul, MN 55107 Dear Mr. Larson: In response to your letter of January 14, 1992 , I wish to have myself listed as the official local contact person on the wetland program. Please direct all correspondence to me at the above listed address. In addition, when you establish the Technical Advisory Committee for the wetland program, I am requesting that either myself or Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner on my staff who is highly knowledgeable on wetland issues, be appointed to the committee if possible. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. We look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, g Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director PK:v pc: Surface Water Management Task Force Planning Commission City Council 1 Is t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER r j ff Min to • Board ot January 14, 1992 ter&Soil rces smortoomokork Southbridge Office Building Mr. Paul Krauss, AICP 155 South Wabasha St.,Suite 104 Planning Director St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 City of Chanhassen (612)296-3767 690 Coulter Drive fax(612)297-5615 PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Krauss: Regional Offices Northwest Region The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) recently received a letter indicating 1106 Paul Bunyan Drive,NE Bemidji,MN 56601 your acceptance of responsibility for the interim program provisions of the Wetland 218-755-3963 Conservation Act of 1991. There was, however, no mention of a local contact Northeast Region person_ Please provide the name, address and phone number of the contact person 394 South Lake Avenue Room 403 for your local governmental unit to BWSR at the following address: Duluth.MN 55802 218-723-4752 The Board of Water and Soil Resources Wiest Central Region 503 Washington Street 155 South Wabasha Street Brainerd,MN 56401 Suite 104 218-828-2604 South Central Region St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 Box 756 New Ulm,MN 56073 All correspondence will be sent to that person. Thank you. 507-359-6074 Southeast Region Friedell Bldg..Room 100 1200 S.Broadway Sincerely, Rochester,MN 55904 507-285-7458 Southwest Region Box 267 4 , 1400Lyon Street Mars Marshaa 5 ll,MN 56258 �507-537-6060 East Central Region Greg Larson, Administrator Southbridge Office Building Wetlands Section 155 South Wabasha St.,Suite 104 St.Paul,MN 55107 612-296-3767 G L/lm RECEIVE JAN 151992 An Equal CITY OF 1;n.11rnH��►I� Opportunity Employer 114 ) 5 ,- l may = AIAMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street. St. Paul, MV 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 611 191-0904 December 31, 1991 Dear Government Official: The 1989 Minnesota legislature has directed the Metropolitan Council to adopt a water quality plan for the Metropolitan Area. The plan is to include management objectives and target pollution loads for all watersheds. The purpose of the plan is to meet federal and state water quality standards by cleaning up nonpoint pollution in the runoff from urban and agricultural land uses, and thereby avoid unnecessary investments in advanced wastewater treatment. Local governments will have an important role in the planning because of their role in local water resource and land use planning. As part of the plan development process,the Council is undertaking a number of technical studies. The initial focus of these studies is on the Lower Minnesota River basin because of an EPAIMPCA mandate to reduce nonpoint pollution loads in the river by 40 percent by 1996. The Mississippi River and St. Croix basins will — be addressed later in the process. The studies include monitoring the quality of streams entering the river, inventorying of land use, modelling of stormwater runoff quality and an evaluation of alternative stormwater management methods/practices. An evaluation of current local water planning and management, including local land use controls, is also one of the technical studies. The purpose of the study is to assess the status of current land use controls and other _ programs in managing the quality of urban and agricultural runoff. A survey is being sent to all local governments,watershed planning organizations and soil and water conservation districts to determine the types of controls and other management programs in effect,the types of pollutants addressed,the standards applied, who is responsible for implementation, and the level of financial resources being allocated to stormwater quality management. Representatives of a limited number of these organizations will be interviewed in the next phase of the project to ensure that the Council has a thorough understanding of the role these local government organizations play in managing the quality of runoff. — The enclosed survey is designed to gather information appropriate to each organization's role in water quality planning and management. Watershed management organizations are receiving a slightly different survey than counties, cities and townships because their roles differ. For example,cities and townships play a major role — in land use controls in many parts of the Metropolitan Area, whereas most watershed management organizations do not. _ If more than one department or person is involved in water quality planning and management,the survey form or a photocopy should be completed by all appropriate departments before it is returned. In order to complete the survey in a timely manner, the Council asks that you return the survey by January — 17, 1992. The more returns, the more accurate the results and the Council's conclusions. If there are questions regarding the survey, please call Carl Schenk, Natural Resources and Parks Division at — 291-6410. All completed surveys should be returned to him. Sincerely, Cs.: 4? 11 -d .. 4?:. /Mary E. Anderson, Chair r rtD Enclosure R CEN SAN 03199;' • Crit/ Lr L'"14r H1v-'• SURVEY OF LOCAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION MANAGEMENT (Questions? Call Carl Schenk at the Metropolitan Council - 291-6410). A. Background Data 1. Name of city, county or township: C-v\4--*etc 5 c,e kr, 2. Name(s), telephone number(s) and department(s) of person(s) completing form: ' A_LA adlAs"; .\rj-t c� ?fin el.,. q'3 7- I qop B. Contents of Local Water Management Plan (This is not the watershed plan) Once a watershed plan has been adopted, Minnesota statutes require each local government in the watershed to prepare a local water management plan consistent with the watershed plan. (If your community has completed its plan, please include a copy with the completed survey). The following questions apply to this or other existing plans, for example, comprehensive plan and storm drainage plan. 1. Is local water management plan adopted? Yes No If not, explain where the community is in the rocess. r.k CAL-k r 5•4.4 c r(=> 4,%LIC rr).e)t 7 , - 2,xC e -.cJ 67,4, c. Gl`'"d�' Tta� t,10>� vacs ;.,1¢-1 (j Lt.- `3 G` C - h a•-, 1cLt- 1`1 q l,)ee -1.47 (etc 3 2. Does the plan require the management of stormwater quality to protect lakes, streams and rivers? ✓ Yes No Do these policies apply to residential and commercial development? ./Yes No To agricultural activity? Yes L./No 3. Does plan require the use of detention ponds to control stormwater quality? Yes No State the policy.l '(.l c'ec4r c,. 2- ,.cQ. ee-&- l; o c')---(-Does he plan specify any pond design criteria? < Yes No State these. Does the plan require on-sitepo ding as part of new subdivisions? ✓Yes No Off-site "regional" ponding? Yes No / Does the local water management plan identify storage areas? ✓ Yes No 4. Does the plan require the control of erosion at construction sites? /Yes No S. Does the plan protect wetlands including filling, draining and dredging? Yes No What type and size of wetlands are protected? C'.v 1.-.rts5ev, (nm Has your community adopted a "nb net loss" policy for wetland protection? "Yes No 1 6. Does the plan,policy require the rise of"best management practices" to control stormwater quality? ✓ Yes No Describe which practices are required, for example, those of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or a local soil and water conservation district. 7. Does the plan ,recommend the establishment/continuation of surface water quality monitoring? ✓ Yes No Which types of surface water bodies are to be monitored? , V cc,__e,5 How frequently? ¢ n 6..0.1 What parameters (for example, dissolved oxygen)? t- a rp c es c 8. Does the local water plan specify the rate of runoff to be maintained? Yes No State the rate tnt e_ 43,,,,o,,c-i n , l oC �� e.."•11- 11- orf Skr-t,no` 9. What other plan policies address the control of stormwater quality? (summarize) 10. How and when are policies applied by the community, for example, in the review of subdivisions? S `,.,,t i S'1zns <1-Le_ 101c. i Which department(s) or unit(s) is responsible for implementing these policies? 11. Does the plan address the management of stormwater quality in fully developed areas? X Yes No Describe `the Gre !A Y Cs r wI'tt� { 7j Sty cs..Jr' 5'?t * ° C. Land Use and Other Controls (Zoning, Subdivision Regulations, etc.) for Stormwater Quality Management (Please submit a copy of any land use controls which ur community administers to manage stormwater quality). T^ L aU.... aoe o. ‘.t4-i- 1. Do the current land use controls being administered specify the control of stormwater quality? Yes 17 No What ordinance or controls contain these requirements? Specify. . SLA 2. Do the requirements apply to agricultural activities? Yes ✓N All new subdivision and development (residential and commercial)? Yes No If not,what is excluded? 3. When reviewing proposed development projects, does your community evaluate the potential impact on stormwater nd surface water quality as well as on sewer, transportation and other public services? /Yes No 2 4. Which of the following types of requirements are included in local land use and other controls? (Check all those which apply). For those which you have adopted, please submit a cop with the completed survey. /Erosion VDetentioretention control pond standards /Wetland protection 4oreland management Fertilizer control Best management practices /Quality of stormwater runoff /Feedlot management Pesticide controls Limit the amount of allowable impervious surface for certain land uses. Submittal of a site plan incorporating a stormwater quality management plan for proposed development. 5. Which of the following requirements are specified in your local land use and other controls? Answer yes or no except where noted. a. Erosion Control Applies to all development? Or only to areas acres or larger? Applies to public construction projects?\J eS Requires the submittal of an erosion control plan for proposed developnlent/projects? \i,C)S Specifies specific standards to be met? t S 7 Were the standards developed locally? c-' Do the standards incorporate or reference those of another agency, such the local soil and water conservation district? Specify which agenry or standards. b. Wetland Protection Do the standards apply to all wetlands? P s If not, specify which types and/or sizes are protected. Does the ordinance apply to filling? Li pc Dredging? (Draining?) %.(e S Runoff or stormwater discharges? `(enc Does your community allow the direct discharge of stormwater to wetlands? fl the ordinance allow for _ mitigation? • eT Explain. Oa A 422,...t...);2_ R c.,., z \ ico st° . C\ > Cle.iei-lo,,e, ci,,n rye gar .. ) f r,,,,e..,, Do the standards allow the restoration or creation of wetlands to mitigate for the loss of wetlands? es Has your community incorporated a "no net loss" requirement? Lt e c. Fertilizer Control If a fertilizer control ordinance has been adopted, what areas of the community are affected? Area-wide 1,14- Shoreland areas only Does it limit the timing of application? The amount? 3 - d. Best Management Practices If the use of"best management practices" is required for development, what practices are specified? Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas y pC Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources - Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Standards- Qs Or other (specify) e. Detention Pond Standards If the use of detention ponds is required, what standards are to be followed? National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)yep Or other (specify) Oar Is on-site ponding required for all proposed development? 'Q C Or are "regional" ponding areas require or provided to receive the runoff,From several development areas? p‘ fie. D. Implementation 1. Financing How are the day-to-day costs of administering, maintaining, engineering, planning and orating stormwater quality management financed? (check one or more) ✓ municipal stormwater utility general operating budget special tax levy part of local utility fees private responsibility such as homeowners association fees other(specify) _ If your community has adopted a stormwater utility, how many dollars a year does this generate? 4 1 coe noz / How are capital improvements finyced? (check one or more) impact fees ✓ as part of development costs /cV fee title dedication, for example, detgntion pond sites special tax levy / municipal stormwater water utility other (specify) t}5 s e 5S✓w,ts Li\ON-L— Z-4-., Are stormwater improvements included in the local capital improvement program? y95" many dollars does your community spend annually on all stormwater management activities,including operating and capital improvements? S�r9e ,r�.M i c c rte).-' Of this, how much is related to stormwater quality concerns(estimate)?$ 2. Administration/Enforcement What department(s), unit(s) or person(s)--for example, building inspector--is responsible for enforcing local codes/ordinances pertaining to stormwater quality management?"?k a r,n,.. / Has this person received any specific training or education in enforcing local stormwater quality management requirements and what to look for on the site? Specify n.o 4 What percent of this person(s) time is spent on enforcing stormwater quality management requirements? ? % What penalties are provided to enforce these requirements? Once a project is under construction, when is it inspected to ensure that stormwater requirements are being met? During/after storm events or spring snow melt? (V) Does the community stress water quality management concerns with contractors and builders? yC) What mechanisms does the community use to inform these groups? `20 ; E. Other Local Management Programs (Nonregulatory) 1. Street sweeping? X Yes No Type of sweeper? How many times per year? At what times or seasons? Lac r IGS i t� (j't, tr-R L-0.e.v1 2. Public education? Yes No Indicate what groups or surface water quality problems are targeted, if any such as the use of lawn fertilizers. A\\ u't.,.r o, � G h_ 3. Water quality monitoring? /Yes No Do you monitor during or soon after storm events? Yes No 4. Research/special studies of water quality problems /Yes No 5. Maintenance of stormwater ponds ✓ Yes No What administrative unit is responsible? A4), #1 l:, 6. Construction or reconstruction/redesign of detention ponds ✓ Yes No 7. Other(specify) F. If you have other local concerns or problems dealing with stormwater and surface water quality that should be addressed by this study, indicate these here. • Completed survey forms should be returned to: Carl Schenk, Planner Natural Resources and Parks Division Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION! 5 Iiniteb itatet senate MEMORANDUM 4 1- -tv Mr c.I M svepo v t- klo-/.t 04-k-v‘- W I. i c tk.ft ? k&4.k__ lit-+- -t-tvtv,I4.s• r 154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 1020 PLYMOUTH BUILDING WASHINGTON,DC 20510-2301 12 SOUTH SIXTH STREET (202)224-3244 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55402 (812(370-3382 United states *mate DAVE DURENBERGER RECEIVED JAN 2 7 1992 C�1Y Of �r►t-onHSSEN January 22, 1992 Kathy Svanda Manager, Non-Point Source Section Division of Water Quality Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Kathy: - I am writing in support of the City of Chanhassen' s application for a Clean Water Partnership Grant. Chanhassen has long been a leader in environmental protection. The City' s efforts in developing a wetlands protection program were not only innovative, but predated more recent federal and state initiatives . - Chanhassen' s background and current work in the area of water quality protection make it a good candidate for the Clean Water Partnership Grant program. Chanhassen' s demonstrated commitment to water concerns indicate that it will complete your program in a satisfactory manner. I understand that the comment period for these applications closed last October. I would, however, appreciate your placing my letter in Chanhassen' s permanent file . Thank you for your consideration of this request. i -rely, D.\ - Dur `rg er • Un :. S •=tes Senator DD/jlc COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: FINANCE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBUC WORKS :. CITYOF 141, 041' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 January 28, 1992 Nick and Marcy Waritz 1271 Bluff Creek Drive Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Nick and Marcy: I received a copy of your utility bill where you indicated that you were paying the Surface Water Utility charge under protest since your property does not drain into the storm sewer. I thought I would take an opportunity to explain where these funds are going and hopefully, respond to some of your questions. First of all , the funds are not in any way related to whether or not a property drains into a storm sewer. The fees are generated - based on the assumption that every property in the city generates surface water runoff. This fee is further based on the fact that properties which have more hard surface coverage, such as a factory - with a parking lot, pay at a higher rate since they generate more runoff. The funds are used to support a three part program. The first part is related to the city's wetland protection efforts. Chanhassen has been innovative in this area by becoming a no-net- loss community over 8 years ago. This has recently been mandated statewide by a new state law. We are looking to upgrade and modernize our wetland protection efforts to preserve these unique - and important environmental features as development occurs in the future. Secondly, we are trying to develop a storm water management plan. This plan will be used to create storm sewers, ditches, ponding areas, and other mechanisms needed to manage storm water. The third element is a water quality improvement program. Many of Chanhassen's major lakes have shown a steady decline in water quality. Water quality problems are also evident in the Minnesota River and you have probably read about some of these problems in articles in the Star and Tribune and other newspapers. Most of this problem is coming from what is called non-point source pollution. This is not an industry or a sewage treatment plant with a pipe that you can identify and clean up, but rather it is materials such as oils and grease from area streets, large masses of leaves, lawn clippings and other organic material , lawn and agricultural fertilizers and other chemicals, soil erosion, and other items that get into our water and cause significant impacts. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Nick and Marcy Waritz January 28, 1992 Page 2 Generally, these problems are directly tied to urban development or agricultural use. These funds will not only be used for development of plans and monitoring water quality, but also on an action plan that is being developed. For example, we believe there is a significant benefit to having the city's streets swept just prior to spring thaw to keep organic material from flushing into area lakes and streams. In the future, we will also be looking into acquiring and preparing water retention and quality ponds in strategic locations throughout the community, developing educational efforts for homeowners designed to protect water quality in wetlands, and a variety of related efforts that are presently being developed. Hopefully, when this program is more fully developed, property owners will not only understand where their $3 . 22 per quarter is going, but also support the program. I am enclosing a copy of our program brochure for your review. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. S . cerely, ae..d Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director PK:}/ Enclosure pc: City Council Surface Water Management Task Force Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Ci l t- - Becky Kelso ' ` ' � �r �...,,� Minnesota State Representative House of District 36A - zr Representatives Scott and Carver Counties Robert Vanasek,Speaker COMMITTEES: EDUCATION,EDUCATION FINANCE DIVISION:REDISTRICTING,TRANSPORTATION; HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;REGULATED INDUSTRIES January 21, 1992 Ms. Kathy Svanda Chair, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Ms. Svanda: The City of Chanhassen, which lies within my Legislative District, has always been a source of pride to me in its efforts to maintain and improve upon its environmental conscienceness. The City has been very active for more than ten years in the preservation and restoration of its natural resources, including the implementation of programs to enhance wetlands management, strengthening of tree preservation efforts, and execution of comprehensive plans to improve water quality. In an on-going effort to continue this investment in the community, Chanhassen will be applying for a 50/50 matching grant, in the amount of $67 , 000, through the Clean Water Partnership program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The funds will be used for the study and consequent improvement of water quality in Lotus Lake. I urge your approval of the City of Chanhassen' s grant request. I truly bel i eve that if all Minnesota citics do monstrated the commitment that Chanhassen has for protection of our lakes and natural resources, our State would be an even better place in which to live. I would be pleased to discuss the Application with you if you so desire. Very truly yours, RECEIVEC JAN 2 8 1992 Becky Kelso State Representative CITY ur Ln:�:vnHSEN bc: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director, City of Chanhassen 60 South Shannon Drive,Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 (612)445-6658 State Office Building,St.Paul, Minnesota 55155 House Fax(612)296-1563 (612) 296-1072 JIM RAMSTAD THIRD DISTRICT MINNESOTA , ��� } 't, : JUDICIARY COMMITTEE s -c7.41.., 4 WswlwG*ON O.EiCE AIL 504 CANNON HOOSE°MCI BuILD,N SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE W.s.INGTo. DC 20515-2303 -2021225-2871 SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL Congregt of tfje Zidniteb ii)tatt OISTLCT°MCI DISABILITIES TASK FORCE '3 8120 PENN AVENUE SCUT. $15. .C COCHAIRMAN ousyJ e of �,rpre5entatibe5 BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 16121 8 8 1-46 00 agfjington, 33C 20513-2303 January 17 , 1992 Charles W. Williams Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Charles : I am writing in full support of the City of Chanhassen 's application for a Clean Water Partnership Grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Few communities in our state have a greater legacy of environmental action and innovation than Chanhassen. It' s truly fitting the University of Minnesota chose Chanhassen for its Landscape Arboretum! For a decade, Chanhassen 's leaders and city staff have done pioneering work in carrying out no-net loss wetlands and tree preservation programs. Chanhassen's environmentally committed residents will be devoting $1 million over the next five years to its Surface Water Quality program. The city is breaking new ground in our state with a highly innovative initiative to develop coordinated, comprehensive efforts to maintain water quality, manage storm water runoff and protect existing wetlands. Now Chanhassen is embarking on yet another environmental frontier that needs your help. The 50/50, $67 , 000 matching grant would allow Chanhassen to undertake a detailed diagnostic and feasibility study aimed at improving the water quality of Lotus Lake, a lake which is used heavily through public access, flows into the Minnesota River and is a model for any effort to maintain high water quality in our urban recreational waters. I ask for your support of Chanhassen's efforts. Please call or write if I may ever be of assistance on this or any other matter. Sincerely, JIM RAMSTAD Member of Congress bc: Mayor Don Chmiel • PR,N7E[ :IN grc., i:- 1-c ctP AAMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL Marc Purl, Crum.. 230 Ecru' Fifth Sirrri. Sr. Paul. MX 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-090-1 January 17, 1992 Kathy Svanda Division of Water Quality Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St, Paul, MN 55155 Dear Ms. Svanda: I am writing this letter in regard to the application for a Clean Water Partnership grant by the city of Chanhassen to assist it in evaluating the water quality problems and solutions for Lotus Lake. The city of Chanhassen is an exemplary community in the Metropolitan Area because of its strong commitment to the development of a planning process and financing mechanism for surface water quality protection. As you know, the Metropolitan Council is currently undertaking the development of a plan to reduce nonpoint pollution in the Minnesota River by 40 percent by July 1, 1996. The runoff from Lotus Lake eventually drains to the Minnesota River. City efforts to improve and protect the quality of the lake will assist the Council in achieving the overall goal. The Council has monitored the quality of Lotus Lake as part of its ten-year effort to assess the water quality changes in the region's lakes. Our surveys indicate that recreational use of the lake is severely impaired. The city's proposal to evaluate the lake's condition and the sources of the problem is a necessary and important first step in developing a management strategy to improve and protect the lake. The Council fully supports the city's application for Clean Water Partnership funds to assist it in developing a strategy to restore and protect Lotus Lake. Sincerely, Ki O/72L- .41- U _ V/a/Liii Mary E. Anderson, Chair \,/ cc: Paul Krause, Director of Planning, City of Chanhassen RECEIVED JAN 2319,2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 183 University Ave.East St.Paul,MN 55101.2526 — League of Minnesota Cities (612)227-5600(FAX:221-0986) January 22, 1992 Mr. Paul Kraus City Planner 690 Coulter Drive — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Paul: — Thank you for your letter last week regarding the Lotus Lake project. Coincidentally, in today's mail I received the MPCA staff recommendation for Clean Water Action Project — (CWAP) funding. As you will note, the project requests far outstrip the available funds. We will be raising this issue to the legislature during the 1992 session and while our _ chances for success are not good, I would greatly appreciate any assistance you could provide by contracting your legislators and urging support for additional funding for CWAP. Also, I'll try to keep you informed of developments with the wetlands legislation. I would appreciate it if you could let me know of any practical difficulties you encounter — in administration of the new law. Sincerely, _ '?1--f-----)2.--- — oel J. Jamnik Legislative Counsel JJJ:mjd Enc. F:=CEIVED JAN 2 4 1S92 WI Y OF CHANHASSEN - _ MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Water Quality Division Agenda Item Control Sheet MEETING DATE: January 28, 1992 AGENDA # g, APPEARANCE I:M: YES: X NO: SCHEDULED TIME: �I PREPARED BY: Gaylen Reetz 1 DATE MAILED: r ( -7 TITLE: Request For Approval Of The Ranking Of Projects, Allocation Of Funds Available For Grant Awards And The Selection Of Projects To Receive Clean Water Partnership Grants LOCATION: CITY COUNTY TYPE OF ACTION: Clean Water Partnership Grants Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval ISSUE STATEMENT: The Clean Water Partnership Program was established in 1987 to provide financia echnical assistance to local units of government to lead projects .ter quality protection and improvement. Thirty projects have been selec‘cc to receive program assistance through three application periods. The fourth application period closed on October 30, 1991, at which time the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) received 13 applications for resource investigation grants and two applications for project implementation grants. After review, the projects were ranked according to Minn. Rules Chapter 7076. The MPCA staff recommends that the Board approve the Clean Water Partnership project ranking as presented, allocate $280,000 for resource investigation grants and $300,000 for project implementation grants, and select the two highest priority resource investigation applications (Pineland and Jefferson/German lakes) and the one project implementation application (Lake Bemidji) for award of grants. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 1991 Phase I Applications 2. Clean Water Partnership Priority List 3. Clean Water Partnership Projects 4. Memorandum dated December 20, 1991, to Commissioner Williams from John R. Velin MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Water Quality Division Nonpoint Source Section Request For Approval Of The Ranking Of Projects, Allocation Of Funds Available For Grant Awards And The Selection Of Projects To Receive Clean Water Partnership Grants January 28, 1992 ISSUE STATEMENT The Clean Water Partnership Program was established in 1987 to provide financial and technical assistance to local units of government to lead projects for water quality protection and improvement. Thirty projects have been selected to receive program assistance through three application periods. The fourth application period closed on October 30, 1991, at which time the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) received 13 applications for resource investigation grants and two applications for project implementation grants. After review, the projects were ranked according to Minn. Rules Chapter 7076. The MPCA staff recommends that the Board approve the Clean Water Partnership pro_ect ranking as presented, allocate $280,000 for resource investigation gran :s and $300,000 for project implementation grants, and select the two highest priority resource investigation applications (Pineland and Jeffe:=on/German lakes) and the one project implementation application (Lake Bemidj: for award of grants. I. Ba _kground: The Clean Water Partnership Program _ean Water Partnership Program was established by Minn. Stat. §, 103F.761. The program focus is on control of nonpoint sources of pollution through watershed management to protect and improve surface and ground water in Minnesota. The Clean Water Partnership Program provides financial assistance through matching grants and technical assistance to local units of government to lead pollution control projects. The legislature has provided the MPCA with a total of $4,612,400 for grants to local units of government. The MPCA has awarded $2,632,000 to 30 projects through three previous grant cycles. The Clean Water Partnership Rules (Minn. Rules Chapter 7076 adopted in September 1988 and revised September 1991) define the criteria and procedural conditions under which the MPCA may award grants to local governments. The rules provide -2- separate grants for 50 percent of the eligible costs of resource investigation (Phase I) and project implementation (Phase II). Resource investigation grants are provided to complete a Phase I diagnostic study and develop an implementation plan which meet the requirements defined in the rules. Phase I activities include water quality monitoring, identifying sources of pollution and the combination of best management practices, activities and protective measures that will be necessary to solve the identified problems. A Phase II project implementation grant is provided to institute the best management practices and carry out educational and other activities identified in the implementation plan. B. Current Application Cycle In the June 24, 1991, State Register, the MPCA announced it would accept applications for CWP grants. The application period closed on October 30, 1991. During August and September the MPCA held three application assistance meetings in Mankato, Brainerd and St . Paul, so potential applicants could ask questions and get assistance from staff to complete their applications. On October 30, the MPCA received fifteen applications; thirteen Phase I requests and two Phase II applications. All of the applications we reviewed for eligibility requirements in accordance with Minn. Rules 7076.0130. One of the Phase II applications was rejected because it did not have an approved diagnostic study and implementation plan. All other applications were accepted to be reviewed and ranked for funding. Representatives of each applicant were offered the opportunity to meet with MPCA staff to explain their proposed project and clarify information in the application. A list of the applications accepted as eligible to be reviewed and ranked for funding consideration are listed in Attachment 1. -3- C. Application Ranking Process Each application has a potential score of 100 points. Fifty points are awarded by the MPCA and 50 points by the Project Coordination Team. - The Project Coordination Team is an interagency team made up of representatives of Department of Natural Resources, Health, Agriculture, Transportation, State Planning, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Metropolitan Council, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife '7:r-ice, University of Minnesota Agriculture Experiment Station, Minnesota Extension Service, Minnesota Geological Survey, Association of Minnesota Counties, League of Minnesota Cities, Association of Townships, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and MPCA. Each application is reviewed against criteria from Minn. Rules ch. 7076.0170. The MPCA criteria for Phase I include: 1) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a high potential for project success based on the level of definition of the preliminary :=rk plan, for project goals and objectives, work activities and the project organization and management structure. 2) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates effective and efficient use of state financial resources based on the proposed budget and work plan. 3) The extent to which the water of concern is identified as a priority in the local water plan. 4) The severity of water quality impairment or threat as compared to expectations for the least impacted waters in the ecoregion. 5) The extent the proposed project demonstrates the likelihood of water quality protection or improvement. -4- The Project Coordination Team criteria for Phase I include: 1) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a high potential for project success based on community support and involvement. 2) The extent to which the proposed project includes coordination and cooperation of federal, state, and local agencies and units of government for water quality protection or improvement. 3) The extent to which the water of concern in the proposed project is of state and regional significance and priority. 4) The extent the proposed project complements the existing efforts of local, state, and federal programs. 5) The likelihood that the proposed project will serve as a demonstration for water quality protection or improvement and provide useful information for the geographic area. The MPCA criteria for Phase II include: 1) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a high potential for project success based on the level of definition of the work plan for project goals and objectives, work activities, budget, and the project organization and management structure. 2) The extent to which the proposed project employs best management practices which provide a technically feasible means to abate or prevent water pollution from nonpoint sources. 3) The extent to which the proposed project implementation activities will result in water quality protection or improvement. 4) The extent to which the proposed project maximizes water quality protection or improvement relative to the cost of project implementation. 5) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a high potential for success based on capability, organization, and authority to carry out the identified activities. -5- The Project Coordination Team criteria for Phase II include: 1) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a high potential for project success based on community support and involvement. 2) The extent to which the proposed project includes coordination and cooperation of federal, state, and local agencies and units of government f- ty protection or improvement. 3) The extent to which the water of concern in the proposed Y_oject is of state and regional significance and priority. 4) The extent the proposed project indicates a commitment to official controls, programs, and activities that are a long-term commitment to water quality protection and improvement. 5) The likelihood that the proposed project will serve as a demonstration for water quality protection or improvement and provide useful information for the geographic area. Staff teams met on December 9 to finalize their ranking recommendations, and the Project Coordination Team met on December 11 to finalize their recommendations. The combined results of the ranking process were presented to the MPCA Board Water Quality Committee on December 16. II. Discussion: Minn. Rules pt. 7076.0190 requires the MPCA to make all decisions on ranking of projects, amount of funds available for grant awards and the selection of projects to be awarded grants at a regular or special Board meeting. A. Ranking of Projects Minn. Rules pt. 7076.0170 established the criteria to be used to rank the applications. The results of this ranking process are included in the table titled, "Clean Water Partnership Priority List - December 1991" (Attachment 2). -6- The review of information from the application, project interviews and other MPCA information allowed staff to assign 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5 or 10 points for each of the criteria. This comparison of each project on a case-by-case basis against the criteria insured each project was reviewed consistently. To provide a system of checks and balances for consistency of assigning priority points, each project was reviewed by one of seven staff teams made up of staff from the regional and central offices, and a meeting of all teams was held to review the consistency of scores assigned for each criterion. This process ensured that the possible 50 points assigned by staff were assigned on an objective and equal basis for all projects. A simple average of the total of the individual priority points, 0, - 2.5, 5, 7.5 or 10, assigned by each representative at the project coordination team meeting on December 11, 1991, vas calculated for each project. The project coordination team represents a broad perspective of resource management interests, which provided valuable input into the ranking process. The priority points assigned by staff and the project coordination team were added together to provide the total score by which projects were ranked. In general, the quality of applications submitted during this application period is better than those submitted in the first three rounds. This is the result of applicant experience and knowledge of the programs and its requirements, a revised application and other program refinements. Comparisons should not be made between priority points assigned to projects in the current application cycle and the first three cycles. This was expected to be the case as noted in the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) developed before -7- — Minn. Rules ch. 7076 were adopted. The SONAR states "Staff experience with review of projects over time may result in differences in standards for each criterion, so that the same project judged at different times might receive a different final score. " The scores for the project development applications ranged from 76.9 to 42.2 out of a possible 100 points. The project implementation application received a score of 71.6. Minn. Rules pt. 7076.0190 subp. 2 states that, "A project that receives less than 50 points will not be considered for award of grant funds." One Phase I applicant received a score of 42.2 points and is not eligible to be considered for funding during this application period. B. Allocation of Funding Through three funding cycles (88, 89, 90) the MPCA has awarded $2,632 .000 to 30 projects. At the present time there is $1,980,000 that was made available through the last budget session. Of the total, $1,280,000 is from the General Fund and $700,000 is from the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. Minn. Rules pt. 7076.0180 recognizes the need to distribute funds that are allocated to the MPCA biennially, through the annual application cycle - of the Clean Water Partnership Program. Minn. Rules pt. 7076.0180 requires the MPCA to identify the amount of funds to be: 1) set aside for project continuation grant amendments; 2) available for project development and project implementation grants; and 3) the amount available for each type of grant, project development or project implementation. Funds for project continuation grant amendments are reserved as noncompetitive funding to projects that have already successfully completed at least three years of implementation work and for which project sponsors have -8- demonstrated an ability to successfully manage the project. No funds for these grant amendments are needed this year, because the one previously funded implementation project will be able to complete their project with existing funding. The MPCA currently has $1,980,000 available for Clean Water Partnership grants. In determining what amount of the Clean Water Partnership appropriation should be available for grants in this application period, the MPCA must consider the necessity to have money available for subsequent grant periods and other factors relating to the MPCA's ability to ensure that money will be available for completing existing projects. It is anticipated that next application period will be open from July through August of 1992, with selection of projects at the November 1992 Board meeting. This will continue the MPCA on an annual cycle of Clean Water Partnership application periods, which will result in awarding grants in November and December, so project sponsors may start their diagnostic study activities with the following spring runoff events. It is important to look at the funding needs of the next application cycle. There are 29 currently funded Phase I projects. Their location in the state is shown on Attachment 3. One of the 29 projects completed their diagnostic study and implementation plan and are applying for funds through the current application cycle (shown as triangle on Attachment 3). It is anticipated that between 10 and 14 of the remaining 28 projects will be completed by June of 1992 and be prepared to request Phase II funds in the next application cycle. The Clean Water Partnership Program is directed at water quality improvement through implementation of nonpoint source control measures, which occurs in Phase II of the projects. Therefore, priority should be given to continuation of projects that have completed their Phase I work and are applying for a Phase II implementation grant. -9- The issue of the amount of the current appropriation to make available for grants this application period was discussed at the Water Quality Committee meeting on December 16, 1991. The committee recommended reserving funds for the _ upcoming Phase II projects in the next application cycle. Reserving $1,400,000 would allow 5 Phase II's to be funded in the next cycle, assuming they have an averce — -' =st approximate to the Phase II application received this year. Re=:. _,400,000 for the next application cycle would allow $580,000 to be available for grants through this application period. As discussed previously, priority should be given to Phase II projects, so of the $580,000, $300,000 should be available for Phase II projects and $280,000 available for new Phase I projects. C. Selection of Projects to be Awarded Grants One project implementation grant application and 13 resource investigation grant applications were ranked in order of priority. The project implementation grant application and 12 of the resource investigation grant applications scored above 50 points and may be considered for funding. At the Water Quality Committee meeting on December 16, 1991, the Committee discussed ^� the Lake Bemidji Watershed Phase II project from Beltrami County at :he two top ranked Phase I projects, Pineland Clean Water Project from nuDoard and Becker Counties at $144,675 and the Jefferson/German Lakes Water Quality Improvement Project from LeSueur County at $117,115. These three projects, plus an approximate 10 percent for contingencies, uses the $580,000 recommended to be available for award this cycle. Applicants not funded this grant cycle may reapply in future application periods. D. Recommendation of the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources The Clean Water Partnership Program received $700,000 from the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the -10- Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) . The LCMR, in providing the fund to the MPCA, made a statutory requirement that "grants may not be approved until grant proposals have been submitted to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources and the Commission has either made a recommendation or allowed 30 days to pass without making a recommendation." On December 20, 1991, MPCA staff presented the results of the ranking process and the Water Quality Committee discussions to the Commission. It is their recommendation to support funding the three projects identified above (Attachment 4). III. Recommendation The staff recommends that the MPCA Board approve the ranking of projects as listed on the Attachment 2, titled Clean Water Partnership Priority List - December 1991, make $300,000 available for project implementation grants (Phase II) and $280,000 available for resource investigation grants (Phase I) and award grants to Lake Bemidji Watershed Phase II - Beltrami County, Pineland Clean Water Phase I - Hubbard and Becker Counties and the Jefferson/German Lake Water Quality Improvement Phase I - LeSueur County in accordance with Minn. Rules ch. 7076. SUGGESTED STAFF RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED, that the MPCA approves the Clean Water Partnership Priority List - December 1991. BE IT RESOLVED, that $300,000 is available for project implementation grants and $280,000 for resource investigation grants in this grant period. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Lake Bemidji Watershed Phase II - Beltrami County be awarded a project implementation grant, that the Pineland Clean Water Phase I - Hubbard and Becker County and the Jefferson/German Lakes Water Quality Improvement Phase I - LeSueur County be awarded resource investigation grants in accordance with Minn. Rules ch. 7076. il p ,-. - 3 Q+ W O O �i t r i NN _ h C., r/ V}gb — ucli ..1 11 y 44 v u .0 — L+ y 4r L GJ N N •.y — CV 4' M i 1 / i —I il 1 t C4 Z' ] .113' c I i . - cl 1 t74 tl rn '6 8 _ w E •. .� �— . 2 U 7I 0 U is U Z d U 4+ 4+ �.+ a+ V1 i ••+ ►- J.. g tE 1 A 5 kj I i i le] 45 i -I 1 ] 1 % 1 r-1 t i r QJ y Tom. AI 4. _ s 11 I f i A 8 i ti .- 44 -- l i w d 9 m I 1cu ..= .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... .. C —4 N c'1 ' 1.-4N ch .7 in %.o r. o0 0` — r-+ •-a 1-i I..) O` en N In ' en - ON eel N ON 0 In N +D 1.4 VO l*1 O CT C+ f- "7 . 1 CO f• en N N - O N. f- I's- +D +D +D +D +O in in I/'1 in .7 r•• N E W Z U < V1 CT O O . O r+ c'1 to CO +D .70 .-I +D O —< H • W +O ID VD n +O +D -7 in to +O n < r` <-+ E+ H U▪ N7 .i +D .i M rl eT en N N /D O CO O CO Z f� In f� +D fs f� f� In In •? +D •? +D Cc] H Z e+1 f- O O` co r-t co d < O to vD m CO in O+ 1-4 +D +O f` in f� In v1 d to .7 en n O+ F+ C4 0-1 - r.4 0 N O+ 1.4 eT In CT en N eh O n O O en Z O f� CO r r f� f+ +D �7 +D +D Is. +O *7 n W O U U W C .-i eh . 1 .-1 to .l O+ n .•1 .I r` en CO O I Ys] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'n CO CO f� CO CO O+ +D fs f� f� f� ^ In CO F O C/) a H a u-1 u, to O o o to O O O O to to to to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E I's f's tC1 to 111 ^ to to in to N N N f� II a 0 a < v O O O O O O In to O to to O In to a r.1 a o tri o o In in f: est 0 N tri r; f; Pi E- _ S H a v en tr1 In O to O O O In to o to O tr1 to w 4. f%. f^, O f� O to In f� N to f� In N fs F - fa. VI N to O O Irl in in In O O al O O O O a d 00 U f+ O to f- f� n n O to f� In Ir tr1 In d Z - Os a il to O O O O O tr1 O to O to O in to U r� O to In In to r` O f- to N to N f` rt .r H aJ _ gyV) p N .he CU ao r7 «� t C t CO E O O C3 �L �C d r-1 W ti 0) 00 H C L A .; 3 d O +.. O t9 C La O etl S d � a C 0) .0 b• .] O. v ..V .!C d f.t y O+ 'v O ..V to ed \ C O l0 .4 ..7 CI = H E H P H .�30 La CO ri CO •7 V « .e.1 \ Ca co r't 0) a-, AC \ 01 C L OG I, - W t/1 01 W .--1 0) d to) O .L' 7 CO d C t/1 Iv < C w ri Ai -V D. O h ++ .)• .0 O 7 < a 7 « E Ow t7 U COfn fa. .a CO Q = O. J .mt Clean Water P Projects 1 1 1 • • • • • sai .1 • 29 Diagnostic Study/Implementation Plan Projects Diagnostic Implementation Project January 1991 Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources 100 CONSTTTIMON AVENUE/ROOM 651 STATE OFFICE BUILDING•ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55155.1201 •(612)296-2406 , 3 JOHN R. VELIN Director December 20 , 1991 _ _ _ Commissioner Charles W. Williams - DEC 2 6 1991 Pollution Control Agency M.P.G A. 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Water Quality Div. Dear Commissioner Williams: The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) at its December 20, 1991, meeting reviewed and is recommending approval of the three projects as proposed by the Pollution Control Agency. Phase II - Lake Bemidji - Beltrami County $274,350 Phase I - Pineland Clean Water Project Hubbard and Becker Counties 144 , 675 Phase I - Jefferson/German Lakes WQ Project - LeSueur County 117 , 115 $536, 140 The Commission further recommends the use of the General Fund money to support these projects, reserving the Trust Fund money for Phase II implementation of several of the Phase I projects already underway. We wish you continued success with these and other projects of mutual interest. Sincerely, John R. Velin, Director, LCMR JRV/mlk cc: Gaylen Reetz, PCA Water Quality Division Peggy Adelmann, Senate Finance Jim Reinholdz, House Appropriations Doug Watnemo, Budget Officer Sen.Gene Merriam.Coon Rapids,Chair,Rep.Willard Munger.Duluth,Vice Chair,Sen.Earl Renneks, LeSueur,Secretary;Sena.Chanes Bary, Choldo;Greg Dahl, Ham Lake; Dennis Frederickson, New Ulm; Bob Lessard, Intl Falls;William Luther, Brooklyn Park; Roger Moe, Ersldne; Reps_Virgil Johnson, Caledonia; Phyllis Kahn, Minneapolis; Henry KAILL Walters Tony Kinkel, Park Rapids;Thomas Oche?, St.Paul;John Sams, Minneapolis; Brad Stanius, While Bear Lake. Pnrxb on Rec')cl.Q Paper