The URL can be used to link to this page

06-21-95 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSII WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1995, 7:00 P.1' CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER i:... CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. OLD BUSINESS 1. Site plan review of a 5,000 square foot restaurant on 1.38 acres of property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, Perkins Family Restaurant, Guy Payne. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Preliminary plat to subdivide 122.29 acres into one lot of 2.53 acres and an outlot of 119.76 acres on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located northwest of West 96th Street and west of Hwy. 101, Tim Erhart. 3. Preliminary plat to subdivide Outlot A, Brenden Ponds into 2 lots and 1 outlot on property zoned RSF and located north of Hwy. 5 and east of Hwy. 41, City of Chanhassen. 4. A zoning ordinance amendment to the landscaping section of Chapter 20 of the City Code to create a transition zone. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 5. Discussion of seasonal/temporary sales, including Christmas trees, sidewalk sales, etc. 6. Conceptual Review of the Villages on the Ponds, Ward Property, located south of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Blvd. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 6/7/95 1 /21/95 CHANUAEII CC DATE: 7/1095 CASE #: SP #94-6 By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review of a 4,500 square foot restaurant, Perkins Family Restaurant F Z LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, 951 W. 78th Street Q 7UAPPLICANT: Guy Payne .1 Perkins Family Restaurant Q. 6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 800 Memphis, TN 38119 Q (901) 766-6400 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD (commercial) ACREAGE: 1.37 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - General Business, BG, vacant, West 78th Street S - Highway 5 E - PUD, Target W - R12, ponding area, Powers Boulevard 1.7 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is bordered by 3 major collectors, Hwy. 5, West 78th, and Powers Boulevard. This site serves as the western entrance (n for the downtown area. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial a (Anis ■ •`/ ' BEACH \� -•- ► I �g 'K• ,',.x" m Willarin �rII . PARK it Pt'; .'' t 'i, - til Qy /!po I■� I '" �' VIOLET - r ylim %%iv %� ROAD ` % INORTHI> _ � IN 7■ : --pi n�i A \ -' , LOTUS I ��1�' � .i. �� ca LAKE I1 M. • `�: It ,.1:1. gr. .. Si �flo v_ , ,/, PARK ,r _____ \ - ra no 4.1) ,014M bal..; ii,•40`40 \ - „ . \Wit,*MC n fa pt. .74PL ik • , ger • .. /14 e c. '2.:/' de& ---7-=:---, ''' ..,...._ ',,- -4, ___,:, 111116 -. 07,Wie alb. valli L.-4 Alp♦ �- 11 NM Wag la Arifih_ .;„_12%. �, TUS %�._ -^ de- iti,....•.%,IA likd 0 . ,. MI I II III • •.., I,iliElqittt." . . \\ )e1M1 IOW 74 WIN 5:= - gasselo * -4 ;isd 4i- ', MP* i ...,22. r .' ./ r — a ce _its;r rpie: EE • iillt a+0.• O.W FRIIIIU9 a1 I ',wit --.A L- at%gal ra s\)"v. VAL', Ow d1111241111.7-,,. . _.,. - _,,!,,-_, adtAVIIIIL 7/WO 0 P wangew tAir !Imo 0:14511111114 1.1 )0WIFIMEN' malill 11 I \ idettets,, d. voiapleaw1 �3 ES wifilimurowil .4-- -ir "ma TT 11EA DOW -' lr' " #4t 4 RA1131.1. -ti, PARK 01 ,AI IA �� . ...Ink 111 • . IN \I `• �� s No ids ter► `� ,.,___-f.- . � o�4* PO'•to fifer /1111 Hfl.. 4r. ,�� 5• S,q co ift 14,0 orir •------- .- - :, mon rmorna, - sz delvoNi 44 11 tio A •�� . •`441 of i. 11�fp4 Em�� *+MIL oirr6 ` aril . ` i; 4re Me:0 n. : .4A".4k1I am e\i------ ,i2 Ak%,,,,,A.5.5A. ' 411. LI .. Alatt44411 gitjg III 04164ftst 3 pOili le . WO 76' . AI MEW I rt ii.4,:, =Er, Iwo ion iipt: tialriV la Q --.1 .. Mr M� MIM �� NIVI n MN Nu Now :, ts, iwA. b �V MP NW a 1 11111 1111111111111 r5' W 1 FIAH m■ //f -` wo i■ &H` Mill �' 4 0 i',' ,� Y �� tut/� � ,1111 11111 C L EIllornlis.. :.Ile y v ' q I —1 ----- . 0,44110 o.v� um m OilRO'D 1 ro 1 ‘ vklik. iiiiii ts *• aytt_ N R1111 te.___ -- im ti , STAT Y *�� dim /��' R 11. E h WESSE ' DRIVE HIGO �A.': •� _A4,164.11* �4 2 ��A 4 1. MIR V411 W- `` V ��‘,.. tow,. 0/1 7 ac'Cl N dir1,4 zN,I Si V1p ,.-. .SUS ' \ d,F-/' (V " . " 'PARK rncE Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY (NB - Additions are in bold, deletions are struck through) The applicant previously received site plan approval for this project. However, the applicant is proposing significant changes to the building elevations and roof treatment that warrant a new site plan review. The applicant is proposing a 37996 4,500 square foot Perkins Restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Third Addition. The design of Perkins is an Exterior Insulation and Finish System (E.I.F.S.), which is a nonload bearing exterior wall cladding system consisting of an insulation board, an adhesive and/or mechanical attachment of the insulation board to the substrate, an internally reinforced base coat on the face of the insulation board, a protective finish applied to the surface of the base coat and applicable accessories that interact to form an energy efficient exterior wall, with ceramic tile accent panels at the sign panels and on the adjacent columns. The primary building color is a brownish tan (Stolit R color 04433) with a sandy/beige accent (Stolit R color 04432). Columns are located at the sign panels, on building corners, and the customer entrance area. The building is 19 feet high at the top of the parapet with a 4 3/4 foot high standing seam pitched roof element. Multi-colored window canopy awnings are provided over the windows on the southwest corner, west and north elevations of the building. An accent band runs below the metal roof cap, above and below the windows, and in the vertical reveals on the building columns. Neon tubing encircles the building below the parapet crown and around the sign panels. The applicant's previous plan was considerably different. The applicant proposed a 5,000 square foot Perkins Restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Third Addition. The design of Perkins was stucco with a ceramic tile accent band around the entire building. Columns were spaced 15 apart. The building was 17' 8" high with a 4V2 foot high standing seam mansard pitched roof element on all building elevations. Window canopy awnings were provided on two sides of the building. An accent band ran above and below the ceramic tile accent panels and approximately 2% feet above ground around the entire building. The development partially , as revised, meets the building materials and design criteria established as part of the PUD. The Highway 5 standards require the use of a pitched roof as well as screening for rooftop equipment from the roadways. The applicant has incorporated pitched roof elements on the-north-and-west all elevations of the building topped with a parapet wall. Staff believes these two elevations meet the intent of the ordinance. -Hewed _ - - - -- - - - - . - - . - - - - - - - the PUD rcquiremcnts. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. The applicant is proposing the painting of cinder Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 3 block for the trash enclosure which is prohibited. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways. Staff believes that the previous plan complies with the Highway 5 standards and the PUD requirements established for this site. - •-- :- ' -- .- : - - . - -': .- : : - : :- : : -, - - - - - - - : : - -- . • - ; • ; :- . . Staff is recommending approval of the revised site plan 95-2 subject to the conditions of the staff report. • BACKGROUND The City platted Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition on October 10, 1994. That subdivision was the replat of Chanhassen Retail Addition Outlot B. Outlot B was created with the "Target" plat for future development. The city created two outlots with the Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition. Outlot A was retained by the City for landscaping and gateway features. Outlot B was sold to Ryan Companies. Ryan Companies replatted Outlot B, as part of Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, into 3 lots for Perkins, Taco Bell, and Boston Market restaurants. The Perkins on Lot 1, Block 1 is 1.37 acres and includes a 5,000 square foot building with 85 parking stalls and Taco Bell on Lot 3, Block 1 is 0.84 and includes a 1,800 square foot building with 34 parking stalls. The subdivision and site plan approval for Perkins and Taco Bell was given on October 10, 1994. The Boston Market restaurant is a 3,100 square foot structure on Lot 2, Block 1, which is 0.95 acres. The site plan for Boston Market was approved on February 13, 1995. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The applicant is proposing a 5,000 4,500 square foot Perkins Restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Third Addition. The design of Perkins is an Exterior Insulation and Finish System (E.I.F.S.), which is a nonload bearing exterior wall cladding system consisting of an insulation board, an adhesive and/or mechanical attachment of the insulation board to the substrate, an internally reinforced base coat on the face of the insulation board, a protective finish applied to the surface of the base coat and applicable accessories that interact to form an energy efficient exterior wall, with ceramic tile accent panels at the sign panels and on the adjacent columns. Columns are located at the sign panels, building corners, and the customer entrance area. The building is 19 feet high at the top of the parapet with a 4 3/4 foot high standing seam pitched roof element on the-north-and-west all elevations. Window canopy awnings are provided over the windows on the southwest corner, west and north Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 4 elevations of the building. An accent band runs below the metal roof cap, above and below the windows, and in vertical reveals on the building columns. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following development standards were approved with the first phase of the Chanhassen Retail Center. These standards are to be used for the entire PUD or any additional phases. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD commercial/retail zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the City's CBD development goals. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. 1. Day Care Center 2. Standard Restaurants 3. Health and recreation clubs 4. Retail 5. Financial Institutions, including drive-in service * 6. Newspaper and small printing offices 7. Veterinary Clinic 8. Animal Hospital 9. Offices 10. Health Care Facility 11. Garden Center (completely enclosed) 12. Bars and Taverns 13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) * * Drive thru's should be buffered from all public views FENDING: The use is permitted in the PUD district. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 5 c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of-way, parking along right-of-ways shall be set back 20 feet. Street Building Parking Setback Setback West 78th Target 55 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 20 feet Powers Boulevard 50 feet 20 feet Hwy. 5 Target 120 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 15 feet FINDING: The location of Perkins meets these standards. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box USE Lot Area Bldgs Bldg Sq Ft Parking Coverage % Target 10.29 ac 1 117,165 585 76.3 Outlot B 2nd Add 4.62 ac. 0 0 0 0 Outlot A 1.46 ac. 0 0 0 0 Landscaping Perkins 1.37 ac. 1 5,000 4,500 82® Taco Bell 0.84 AC. 1 1,800 34 Boston Market 0.95 1 3,100 52 TOTAL 16.31 4 127,065 753 66 126,565 * Cumulative Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1 is 68 percent impervious FINDING: Complies with the development standards established as part of the PUD. ice ": - . :: :: . . . . . . : :: : . ' '"i; " . : . : -- -- ::: -: Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 6 e. Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. 6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for the Target store shall have a parapet wall for screening. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 8. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as Target. (Target was the first store to build and they establish or set the theme.) 9. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line. FINDING: The development partially meets the building materials and design criteria established as part of the PUD. The Highway 5 standards require the use of a pitched roof as well as screening for rooftop equipment from the roadways. The applicant has incorporated pitched roof elements on the nortand west all elevations of the building topped with a parapet wall. Staff believes these two elevations meet the intent of the ordinance. However Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 7 Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. The applicant is proposing the painting of cinder block for the trash enclosure which is prohibited. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways. The applicant must also provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the plans must be made before issuing building permits. - - . . - - - • 1. Incorporate a ceramic tile accent panel in the vertical "column" spaces around window oPettiftgs. Dear elevation /cast\. 1. Incorporate a standing scam metal roof along the entire facade. 3. Add vertical "column" spaces with ceramic accent panels in blank wall areas. - _ - - • - - ' - - •- - - • .. • 11 11 I, -11 - - - Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 8 • - . "- : . --,-" .. ' eeramie aeeent panels in blank wall areas. - - • ..:: . • . . . : -- -- - .. - : : .. ; ;- - _ - - - : . - . . . . The applicant has incorporated all of the important architectural features in their revised plans. Because the column areas project out from the structure, staff believes that the use of recessed areas for shading will not be necessary. Additionally, staff has agreed with the applicant that incorporation of accent panels in all columns would make the architecture too "busy"which would detract, rather than enhance the structure. f. Site Landscaping and Screening In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3. The master landscape plan for the Target PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. FINDING: The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan for the development. The landscape plan needs to be revised as follows: add three red oaks on the west side of the parking lot, add one hackberry in the southwest corner of the parking lot, and add one black hills spruce to screen dumpster area; revise plant schedule to specify 4 skyline honey locust, 3 sugar maple, 4 black hills spruce, and 12 clavey's dwarf honeysuckles; delete red splendor Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 9 crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete spring snow crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete colorado green spruce,jackman potentilla (unless used for foundation planting), and delete snowmound spirea (unless used for foundation planting); and provide foundation plantings per city code. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figures 11-2, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. g. Signage One freestanding pole sign be permitted for Target and one for the other buildings in Outlot B. All buildings in Outlot B should be limited to monument signs. 1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. FINDING: The applicant has met the intent of the PUD standards for the site. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted. The applicant is also proposing the installation of a 70 foot high flag pole to be located on the east side of the structure. Howcvcr, there is no locations given for the flag pole placement. Staff is recommending that the maximum size of the flag be limited to 80 square Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 10 feet consistent with a pylon sign in a commercial district. , h. Lighting 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. Light poles shall be Cortex, shoe box light standards. FINDING: The development complies with the lighting requirements established in the PUD. Lights shall incorporate photoelectric cells for automatic activation. ACCESS Access to the site shall be provided via Target Lane and an internal private street system. The Fire Marshal has noted that one additional "No Parking - Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the building. In addition, where "No Parking Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yellow. This should be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants. The Planning Commission was concerned about providing pedestrian access into the site. Staff believes that the sidewalk along Target Lane provides adequate pedestrian access to the site. If the city were to require an internal sidewalk, it would be necessary to sacrifice some of the landscape area and tree plantings, another city goal, to accommodate this sidewalk. Any additional pedestrian crosswalks, except at the entrance to the project, would not be prudent or safely designed without additional stop signs. Inevitably, individuals will take the most direct path into the site. Staff is recommending that a five foot concrete sidewalk be provided from Powers Boulevard to the northwest corner of the parking lot. This sidewalk, in conjunction with the other sidewalks being provided, will permit pedestrian access from all directions into Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 11 LANDSCAPING The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan for the development. The landscape plan needs to be revised as follows: add three red oaks on the west side of the parking lot, add one hackberry in the southwest corner of the parking lot, and add one black hills spruce to screen dumpster area; revise plant schedule to specify 4 skyline honey locust, 3 sugar maple, 4 black hills spruce, and 12 clavey's dwarf honeysuckles; delete red splendor crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete spring snow crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete colorado green spruce, jackman potentilla (unless used for foundation planting), and delete snowmound spirea (unless used for foundation planting); and provide foundation plantings per city code. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figures 11- 2, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. GRADING/DRAINAGE The site in general will be graded by the developer, Ryan Companies. It appears the site plan is compatible with the proposed site grades. The parking lot drainage also appears to be compatible with the master site plan for Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. The only change that staff sees on the plan would be the location of the sidewalk adjacent to Target Lane. The sidewalk should be relocated to access the service drive where the stop sign is located to provide safe crossing movements for pedestrians. Erosion control measures on the site have been installed by the developer with the initial site grading. This applicant should be responsible for maintaining the erosion control on the site until the site has been fully revegetated. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The development complies with the lighting requirements established in the PUD. Lights shall incorporate photoelectric cells for automatic activation. The applicant has met the intent of the PUD standards for the site. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No backlit awnings no be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 12 SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 13 and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: . : ' :' : . - - - • - - - - - --- - : : - - - - The proposed development meets the intent and standards established as part of the Highway 5 and the PUD standards imposed on the project as well as site plan requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt one-o€the following motions: Alternate-1- - . .. - • he elements and objectives of the city's development guides, He—mate 2 "The Planning Commission recommends tabling that the City Council approve Site Plan #94- 6 prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995, toes subject to the following conditions: 1. The sidewalk shall be relocated to access the service drive where the stop sign is located to provide safe crossing movements for pedestrians. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the erosion control on the site until the site has been fully revegetated. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 14 3. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of this site including but not limited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, Health Department. 4. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. 5. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 6. Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and/or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. 7. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways. 8. The landscape plan needs to be revised as follows: add three red oaks on the west side of the parking lot, add one hackberry in the southwest corner of the parking lot, and add one black hills spruce to screen dumpster area; revise plant schedule to specify 4 skyline honey locust, 3 sugar maple, 4 black hills spruce, and 12 clavey's dwarf honeysuckles; delete red splendor crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete spring snow crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete colorado green spruce, jackman potentilla (unless used for foundation planting), and delete snowmound spirea (unless used for foundation planting); and provide foundation plantings per city code. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figures 11-2, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. +89. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted. 11. Revise the building elevation as follows: Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 15 Front-elevation: a. Incorporate a ceramic tile accent panel in the vertical "column" spaccs around Dear elevation. . 11_ fl • - •_ -- - - - - • Left Sidc elevation: a. Incorporate a ceramic tile accent panel in the vertical "column" spaccs around • . 11 11 - - - - - - - - - : :: . - • - • •• - • 14 . - . • . w. • • ,, 1, • - • • - •- - - - I. ; - - • c. Continue the accent at southcast corner of the building. +210. The maximum size of the flag shall be limited to 80 square feet. In addition, the flag pole location shall comply with sign placement limitations. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95-2 June 7, 1995 Page 16 4311. One additional "No Parking - Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the building. In addition, where "No Parking Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yellow. This should be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants. 4412. The applicant must provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the plans must be made before issuing building permits. 13. The applicant shall provide a five foot wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk on Powers Boulevard to the northwest corner of the parking lots." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/23/95 2. Proposed Building Elevation (front and rear) 3. Proposed Building Elevation (left and right) 4. Proposed Roof Plan 5. Approved Building Elevation 6. Figure 11-2, Aeration/Irrigation Tubing 7. Public hearing notice and property owners .4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official41---a'[(" DATE: May 23, 1995 SUBJECT: 94-5 SPR (Perkins Family Restaurant, Guy Payne) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAY 08 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: Due to winter conditions the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) has provisions for access to rooftop equipment. MSBC 1300.4500 states in part, "A stairway complying with UBC Chapter 10 or a Stair leading to a scuttle or bulkhead in the roof..." must be installed. This requirement precludes the use of a ladder to access rooftop equipment. An exterior stairway to access rooftop equipment must comply with UBC Chapter 10. An interior stairway may comply with UBC Chapter 10 or the specific requirements listed in MSBC 1300.4500 for a roof access stair. Recommendation: 1. Provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the plans must be made before issuing building permits. g:`safety Nsaknemos\plan'perkins.bg I -01021d OMOM 1M91?J VV6 Itw . e • qi e Y I WS 6 14 I- It : €I z i Q o Q a I ;aiS > CI; J W Bee o W _— uo IW __ ! !° zs �S I' B I - g utl 4D i t 1.S i e il pi Il if I. It Vj : 11 n i! I: /J A_� 6 I I JA I i j11� ---, 3 . - 1 ' ; � - ,..� " )[ a 1 !LJJ =II Q =p ft / J a Cl. - --�- r 0 Ia a 1 1 W Vii; , ili V♦ a k 9rl` / N \ it _Lir / il).--ii- --IA__i_ ___ , _ _ ____.. 0. ...w - iii -1---t - a-_ 1 l a); L LTM-�•---u E IN- s I „ ia ::cr a . LIMMIIMIll-men-- 9$ 'h.. (1 S : � i. --- 1 > I ` I• I I-1 Wu I kr (. We \...-d- I-: I u / Ii , ?Li ,I [VI . '1- 'i- a 11),. x, 1., '010bd OWN 1I-ORI V46 -4 -. �5 I R . J9 b I. ItI° II` 3 yit II IlI I I 1117 I M rssaoo rI— wwr�muaoww I a � 1 5a — /a�wGI I A�NmNHNNHNNNNNII t -f-t- f t Il N il L @ a a 11 a. i ��III ..: I I la II I I 11 I.11 5! tleittlE191M I1t'1. a ZO __I 11�� i I I I gg 1 ii ! 11 il ri ill\ ''''. DI IIIQ� _, ` ,%\____, , I I I I af r _ 1 ii. fil ms:– 1 >t �; liii' J \ i i; i 1; MID I ! -4).—\--7:--- ___ _ ___,,s, ,. ~_5t IJ E :ii 3; _ Z •I tl AnaY , --i �--- il 0.. I c ti A. y, a l W IIii 1/ a.. ,,, . . , bi ; . , 7t----- gh a,.l y a - ,Y J= mmi 11, _ J J I J um=MIMEmmi tp i to 111 S _ t1J b /MI u1` a 'I t J y1MIMI 1 1 1 \ O1^ �– ' ©� I 'O10bd ONVH IHDIb V 6 N y ii i!r. I i Er* v gI �`7 S .• , to �J 3 : 3 3 5 e 9 $ ii?i 3! ! limn 11 9011 �gE�Y � �g � o • _ xl kzI. " 111111 • -----iini L��L_ s II 11 r-Vi ihg 0: rioxi pg CI et' / , / \ \i, 29 — !-cgs ti T.i -- :ii 1 =, k e1trl ;'� J w'I I �s: �E 'ra �I �bAl / f 'y Izll\I 1=-�--bI�1J— --_1�„eyL., ® 0 Ill s , 6 , = 1 — —,��I_ � —D gg3 ---il caLy..' SS4 n 1f fi= ii: a13l II(I) 1� / I--.ILV LV • qvi f I xy I/J OL 1 eP I 1 — 3 z; E ® e e 01 _h -L 1,, b 1 A r 0 N °CCL Pg � €p I6. — i I ems , e . A H J uJ 3gg 3y, g o I 4 F- 1 g11 i1 Ill c gl i 3 11•.'' :.. ila ze 1 a h 11 O i 3 1 @ I— =.1 II R. 7-7:-.6 1 \oIII b � -- zd �V; t cobs ae1►�; of' r 31 a 2 b ,n k g OL- ei§� 3 Z - % 1 tL— Zi z_ wq a- :11 y ..... �Y 3 O 14Y3'Y3111 Ili Fa -..0 Eg Y l aD aD 1§ aD ga 111 1 mill gi ill it E 21 2 `�. ,. o�.e a cwlr.'.n CIO Amon o� t z'Id 1 �.wa taxtsmilm male AA� :,ate 6 , I� bll ; M a.a.C1ow..Oman.Y.l 1 1SKY 000M-1X3 'S'3'I'3-N3N0lIN ONVN 1H`>Ib D o Y \ 71 1 to 6! 1 3 B PI 5 a Ya Gy pyp �$ • 1 S \\\ • LW't aB (0. \ 3 S b �a 1 iiimiittei II _ !,.1 1 i _____ _____ , -,,,, 1 II :11111EME111 i sss I 4 cid Ed 1 I al ge li - ,r, ! i_i ,FH g 1 in 0 17 7 1 0 1 ID c. Ail il c .7". A 4. 4. If:s 1i•Arm .: !IiFaillillimidl �. n y 17 y: - '1 .,Z Itl' 11�� igVg1rF _ tpp[y}III'��5 �l '� !i; d ----- ' II? i,% YI II!\ _ � ; � ._. _ - .: U9I ii Enter a _ -� O (21 Ali IIG -I, I r .. .11,,„1 11 UV - _ EHI , 4_ ___ , k__ 4) lik;;;11 f J ti �_, II■I■a: - ~ 1 IISEh ggec f 6� Ep=::= t II Ilk 1 f illigr C? eAil Ili Il _ I =Nig' UI ‘474a1I�1�JI■ N �� 111 A nal w. i.il//MM1� jlil I 2 111.1 I I ry,.. fi IM 11 3 \ ( S I ..r.\ Q l 11 ?. 1 v Q 1 a ___ '• 1y � iA 16311 _--, • -— t —-..I § 1. II: 11' 1,' i EP , ' r - ----.-ii--3- --_ \I ! - •1 i '. truck. Rock up to the bottom of the covers reduces debris collecting in the planter. i f.1 Hardware cloth(coarse metal screening) under the covers has been used to keep rats 4 r out; but the wire must be inspected frequently to prevent girdling. I ,;: ..,t Perforated PVC pipe (100- to 125-mm, 4- to 5-in, diameter and 0.6- to 1-m, . : 2- to 3-ft long) is commonly put in two or four corners of a planter opening for-. aeration and irrigation. As the people in Europe learned, dead-end aeration holes-•' ;' ' in the soil are seldom adequate. Connecting the bottoms of two or more of the V. vertical aeration pipes, however, allows air flow through the tubes, greatly increas- • ing the oxygen concentration and aeration effectiveness(Kopinga 1985) (Fig. 11-2). . t r! '- ' rt �''.• 'c <r `s • � x i F jtifs r�?,# + rt•Y ',:--1! 4 `'� ,�'ti'' 4r�:�'y�t.x • • - 1;1A ' : a� , tYP `,--> V "'a:stix"e: ts•.• . � _ . Sym - , - L•' ':4; g:1 �r ��iFYe,:sZZmor:�.0_,..v.•tom ::::9 .• , ''', 4,..:177:::'' . A . ':::::.:.-- - ;.'t'.::',.:1,--'.. . 04 I .ii;11:;'%- ,q,..,.,,,,,,,:,.,z,s.f,i; 1: ;':'..''..:..".iiii.:: ::,::::..•,% • I ► ` ii 7 :0;.:,:;‘,•\•:.z:,:l- )1,44‘. .' ; "..15“;%k", fi •� / mo !,./ 'r•I, :l.I \::zv • "% tr \ 'i• ��ir �•�� ,'!:� tl' �Ob� tt,111, tL5• .! .��,Z Y iii • .1-••• • `�•" .rlbLl P•Vfllalpl;(ar• n,'., �Z•: `� i _ mss; =°�:•:::`:-.••;r�:``:�. Figure 11-2 Aeration in pavement plantings can be increased by joining two vertical aeration pipes across the bottom of the planting hole,one pair ' ��' '_ each near opposite sides of the planting hole. ,Oxygen concentration in 1. ',_; the pipes will be ten times greater than in vertical pipes alone (Kopinga ? ' : 1985). Aeration could be further increased by having aeration risers as ' ,.-•. shown in Fig. 11-3 also serve as protective stanchions for the tree. ' `• ;� . i .,� If the soil is compacted around the planter opening and under the pavemeni, : 4.. • �_. . aeration may also be increased and roots directed downward by drilling or wat - t " ' jetting sloping irrigation and aeration holes under and out from the root ball an' :• 1 "v. under the pavement. Within a year or two the holes are filled with roots. . : I. 1 ' :,:. -_ Another pavement-planting scheme is also being used in the Netherlands.-9'-.3' _ !�.�t , '��' • am: ; sentially, a planting hole is established within a planting hole(Kopinga 198 , O; r 1':, ;;,"; (Fig. 11-3). Excavate a hole approximately '',:.:6-A., ,a;;_. �� fled by Urban's [1989) survey) +•; 1 (2 ft)deep to a volume'of 3.5 m (120 ft')or more.The shape of the hole will depen�t s•,:-; int :-'• . =' .. t • -i on the space available. All but the finished planter opening (1 to 1.2i m, 3 to�` + ` �' rtt 1� diameter or square) will be paved over.The outer portion of the hole is filled • Y+•• •. .• , •: ��-'�. :.; a mixture of coarse lava slag (80-150 mm, [3-6 in.) diameter) and 'tree soil' , j � - ••� [~AL's r•% (Kopinga 1985). A tree is planted in IS • c• t,ati ' ,.:r• ratio of about 2:1 (volume:volume, v/v) 5, • .- r� ua _ '�`i '2'iil'X Chap. 11 Special Planting Sit tior.i '_^j;' I e s,,> t-;, 248 sett . ` - �� f x ,7 ri k en p�Asst. * 4a t ' p��,, PA 4w A t o NOTICE OF PUBLIC o ply 1 •� ' HEARING a. x Wo W a Wy PLANNING COMMISSION / m - MEETING l-L --II M �0 l',allQN x �= pHAN Wednesday, JUNE 7, 1995 _ ' 1 6 WE at 7:00 p.m. R liv 1 Cf Om City Hall Council Chambers - 690 Coulter Drive im- o It • 4a' . „,„iiiii4 Project: Perkins Restaurant Site Plan RR. ."--i...7.............................Z iERN ATEH1G Developer: Guy Payne, Perkins S114-�J Location: Corner of Hwy. 5, Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street r4--- 1- SU _ . =•.f: PARK I Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a site plan for a 5,000 square foot restaurant on 1.38 acres of property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, Perkins Family Restaurant. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 26, 1995. lean R. Johnson Const. Roberts Automatic Products Lutheran Church of Living Christ 984 Zachary Lane 880 Lake Drive Box 340 laple Grove, MN 55369-0028 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ckankar T. F. James Company Beddor Enterprises/E. J. Carlson . O. Box 27300 Suite 500 6950 Galpin Road "ew Hope, MN 55427 6640 Shady Oak Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 layton Hudson Corp. T-862 roperty Tax Dept. 77 Nicollet Mall linneapolis, MN 55402 • CITY OF PC DATE: Jun. 21, 1995 HA 7HASSEN . • CC DATE: Jul. 10,1995 CASE #: 95-9 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 122.29 acres into one lot of 2.53 acres and an outlot of 119.76 acres. Z Q LOCATION: 775 West 96th Street 0 J APPLICANT: Tim and Dawne Erhart 775 West 96th Street Q.. Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: A-2; Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 122.29 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- A-2; vacant S - A-2; single family QE - A-2; single family and Bandimere Community Park W - A-2; vacant agricultural WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water is not available to the site 1:12 PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contain a single family residence and wetlands. (f) 2000 LAND USE PLAN: 1995 Study Area - Residential Large Lot 11 1 L "1 .._.. A I _ LYMACOURN im � Ie I 'Zs' cr I , Lot ii_ .: ,. .,, . ; ,. . z z .. INf: ��gLJw _ . . . , LYM� J1 r: : �` ARS �_� �_� ( - e� o -. .. .. I oQ0 i oz. 1 HEIGHTSRE i Q , PARK r I BAND/MERE , 111204;zDp.zus,I ,, Su b �c�!— lily J COMMUNITY / N / 5 1 PARK i -./ x`99 ' ( _ _____. 1 • ( Q':p 4 ::..-,.::: ::;i:.ilegg;.::::.... (44 ‘ ___- f 14j 1 � 1 i i ilk .....:..::. illt, . te / atiatift ... L. I rili• E ST AD (.5, illy" IWO . ; I. • P r" Ot I r ----..., 1 1- :.111:1b1��, p I�N E AIL (�.�. 1�4� ''r �� xs 741--- - -� w. PIONEER JO CIRCLE pro Q (c) Q� rQ �tc.,� �L�� BLUFF CREEK _ _ 0 ir Ilik_ _ _ PARK ...1111111/WOOD - ._ - ' �f bill' or III -P H 111 SSQ FA'M 'D. LA 8040 •�F , ��- LAKQTA/ Erhart Subdivision June 21, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Zoning Code allows a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet in A-2 Residential Zoning Districts, outside the Metropolitan Council's Urban Service Area if a one-unit per ten acre density is maintained, soil and water conditions permit a well, two on-site sewer systems are available, and is served by a publicly dedicated street or on a private drive. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide 122.29 acres into one lot of 2.53 acres and an outlot of 119.76 acres. One of the lots will be occupied by an existing home. The second parcel will remain as is and is not proposed to be developed. The site is off of West 96 Street and is outside of the MUSA line. The ordinance requires a 1 unit per 10 acre density for property outside of the MUSA line. In order for the smaller piece (2.53 acres) to be subdivided off, the remnant piece (119.76 acres) must be platted as an outlot. The smaller parcel will be serviced by a private drive. No new home sites are being created. This is a very simple split. Because a new lot is being created, the city must take action on this proposal. One of the issues staff has concerns about was the future ability of this parcel to subdivide when sewer and water is available. The applicant has prepared a ghost plat showing how this area could be developed. Staffs goal is to eliminate the private drive when a public street is available and this will be a condition of approval. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. SUBDIVISION The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide 122.29 acres into one lot of 2.53 acres and an outlot of 119.76 acres. Staff is recommending the smaller lot be labeled as Lot 1, Block 1, and the larger lot be labeled as Outlot A. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Streets/Access There currently exists one driveway access to the lot. This driveway will be maintained in its current form. The applicant shall obtain a cross access easement over the outlot to service the existing residence. When the outlot is developed, the lot will be required to access from that public street and the private drive eliminated. Erhart Subdivision June 21, 1995 Page 3 Wetland Protection Wetlands occupy large portions of the site however, no changes are proposed. In fact, through the years, the applicant has done a lot of work to restore wetlands impacted by drainage. Utilities Utilities are not available to the site. Individual sewage treatment system (ISIS) sites for the existing dwelling and buildings are not shown on the proposed plat. Chanhassen City Code requires the location of two ISIS sites be shown for each lot. The location of these sites should be determined by a site evaluator licensed by Carver County. In addition, it must be demonstrated that the existing ISTS is not a noncomplying or failing system. A licensed inspector is required to make a determination of the status of the existing ISTS. The existing ISTS, if it is not a failing or noncomplying system, may be on one of the proposed ISTS sites. Erosion Control No construction is proposed on the site, therefore, erosion control measures are not required. Easements The plat shall indicate the following easements: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. 2. Cross access easement for the existing driveway. Park and Recreation The applicant will not create a new buildable lot, therefore, park and trail fees are not required at this point. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - A-2 DISTRICT Lot Lot Home Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,00 sq.ft 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides Lot 1 2.53 acres 203.07' 419.47' 90' Outlot A 119.76 acres NA NA Erhart Subdivision June 21, 1995 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #95-9 as shown on the plans dated June 5, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The smaller lot shall be labeled as Lot 1, Block 1, Name of Subdivision, and the larger lot shall be labeled as Outlot A. 2. The following easements shall be provided: a. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. b. Cross access easement over the existing driveway to provide access to the existing residence. 3. Show the location of two proposed ISTS sites. This must be done before final plat approval. 4. Demonstrate the existing ISTS is not a failing or noncomplying system. 5. An agreement stating that when the outlot is developed, Lot 1 will be required to access from that public street and the private drive eliminated." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated June 12, 1995. 2. Preliminary plat dated June 5, 1995. CITY DF CHANHASSEN• ; 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4.a•Ic". DATE: June 12, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-9 SUB (Tim Erhart) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUN -5 19 9 5, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: ISTS Sites. Individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) sites for the existing dwelling and buildings are not shown on the proposed plat.. Chanhassen City Code requires the location of two ISTS sites be shown for each lot. The location of these sites should be determined by a site evaluator licensed by Carver County. In addition, it must be demonstrated the existing ISTS is not a noncomplying or failing system. A lisensed inspector is required to make a determination of the status of the existing ISIS. The existing ISTS, if it is not a failing or noncomplying system, may be on one of the proposed ISTS sites. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Show the location of two Proposed ISTS sites. This must be done before final plat approval. 2. Demonstrate the existing ISTS is not a failing or noncomplying system. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\erhartsj 1 CITY OF 3 PC DATE. 6/21/95 �� CHANHASSEN ' • CC DATE: 7110/95 CASE #: 94-10 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide Outlot C into two lots and one outlot, Brenden Pond 2nd Addition A 5 foot side yard variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Brenden Pond 2nd Addition Z 4 LOCATION: South of Lake Lucy Road and Brenden Court, and east of Highway 41 Y APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen David Gestach-Leland Paulson Construction 690 Coulter Drive 200 North Chestnut Street CLChanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 4 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 3.7 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family, Brenden Pond 1st Addition S - RR, Rural Residential District Q E - RR, Rural Residential District W - RR, Rural Residential District WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is surrounded by grading activity for Lake Lucy Road and Brenden Pond. A Natural wetland is located along the southerly edge of the site. Mature trees are concentrated within the easterly portion of the site. The site generally slopes to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density -a " ,' -, i O O p 0 0,r ._ .. , O O0 . Oc0 M oN to .NNto NN v' ••• 1 N N ri. AN , CD I i ,diel IOW r A ' litTf-PP6A ;'' VISIAVAI".41- 111 h.. , .- ' ‘'1 Liolillr, Si c; . SAii01074= 11111M Emma 711111111111F-0141■-% ler •4111 ' �If I mil! MP�� 7. 116fliti1-\4".lidi OA 4.--4.(1TA k illifilb i oil 1 1 1•lip �� HII 1":=1E.W.IM MY ERMAN F/ELD ,1111 T s7,ovAlles ma . ° ----,--) ,, PARK I HITET 9 , �CcS RESNILW -IDGE ..----- - ..‘.- --_)..1-_") ___.________/-li5-.:;_....t) , ' :' i / ‘s, it -" .,-7 \N=---'-'------\-.-- !, , CA.) LAKE 1 ,G; <..;,, ticir:w0=jos \-- Ili — IQ iit, ,(, M/NNEWASHTA ds- LUC : '/ �; 4.•A., ' LOCA.+)OM R£G/ONAL PARK çL :KE - — ! i _ 44,45 ! _ iiir 4 I iv AT IC)‘\i(St 0 CO tkvai I i 1 iLZI -11. E 2 II 4 F.-—---74-' i Ai Prfilip Opp titkUltiosigi S DRIVE x -.... or, r Vb. law �! F fall /.. f1� ,,. :. '. r , z Brenden Pond 2nd Addition June 21, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The request is for the subdivision of Outlot C into 2 lots and 1 outlot. Lot 1 is proposed to have an area of 23, 915 square feet and will contain a future single family residence. Lot 2 is proposed to have an area of 31, 589 square feet and is proposed to house the city's well house. Outlot A contains the majority of natural wetland, hence it is unbuildable. The outlot has an area of 105,795 square feet. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The site is located north of Hwy. 5, east of Hwy. 41, and south of Lake Lucy Road. Access to lots 1 and 2 will be provided via driveways off of Lake Lucy Road Both proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot 1 will require a side yard setback variance along the northeast edge of the property to maximize the buildable area on the site. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along the northerly edge of the wetland. The majority of these trees were proposed to be removed as part of the Brenden Pond 1st Addition due to the construction of Lake Lucy Road. The replacement canopy was accounted for as part of the 1st addition. Hence, no additional replacement is required. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND On November 14, 1994, the City Council approved the final reading for property zoned RR to RSF for Brenden Pond subject to conditions. The Council also approved the final plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond for 19 single family lots and 4 outlots with a variance to the street grade (10%) on Pondview Court subject to conditions. The City needed a site for a well/pump house. As part of the negotiation to purchase the site, the city agreed to process the platting of Outlot C. PRELIMINARY PLAT/VARIANCE The city is proposing to subdivide Outlot C into 2 lots and 1 outlot. Lot 1 is proposed to have an area of 23, 915 square feet and will contain a future single family residence. Lot 2 is proposed to have an area of 31, 589 square feet and is proposed to house the city's well house. Outlot A contains the majority of natural wetland, hence it is unbuildable. The outlot has an area of 105,795 square feet. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Brenden Pond 2nd Addition June 21, 1995 Page 3 The site is located north of Hwy. 5, east of Hwy. 41, and south of Lake Lucy Road. Access to lots 1 and 2 will be provided via driveways off of Lake Lucy Road Both proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As a requirement of the Health Department, the well must be located in a position that would require a 50 foot setback from any property line. In order to achieve this, buildable area was taken from Lot 1, Block 1, which resulted in reducing the size of the building pad for the proposed single family residence. The zoning ordinance requires a 10 foot side yard setback on all single family homes. The separation between the proposed home and the well is 55 feet. Allowing the variance will not have a negative impact on adjoining properties. The house will not encroach onto any easements. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Westwood for the Lake Lucy Road extension project and the Brendon Pond development, there is one wetland associated with this plat. The wetland is part of a large natural wetland located in the south and southeastern corner of the property. It does not appear that the wetland will be impacted as a result of construction of the house or the well house, however, it is very important that type III erosion control be constructed around the wetland and well maintained during construction. There will be some fairly steep side slopes (3:1) adjacent to the wetland. A potential erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be revegetated as soon as possible after site grading with erosion control blanket. The City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Surface Water Management Plan The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new plat based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the Brenden Pond 2nd Addition June 21, 1995 Page 4 phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the water quality basin for this site is already in place these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. The proposed SWMP quality charge for single-family residential developments is $800/acre. Therefore, the applicant is responsible for $440 for the 0.55 acre house lot (lot 1). The City's well house (lot 2) does not require fees. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The area of the plat required to pay this fee is 0.55 acres (lot 2 is waived from these fees). Since a very small corner of the lot is wetland, the proposed development would then be responsible for 0.5 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $980. DRAINAGE The lots on this plat drain to the south/southeast into the natural wetland. The driveways for both lots will slope down toward the buildings. It is preferable that they slope away from the buildings, however the natural grade of the land does not allow for this. Careful consideration should be given to the street frontage grades to divert the water off the driveways and around the building. Downspouts should be directed out to the side lots to allow for natural water quality treatment through the yard and wetland buffer area. The applicant will have to show that the garage will not be a collection point for stormwater before final plat approval. GRADING Lot 2 is proposed as a walkout house requiring 10 feet of additional fill. The walkout elevation is 998 and the existing elevation is approximately 988. Staff thinks this is excessive and that the lot is better suited for a rambler. There is also excessive grading on the south end of the lots. Very little grading should have to be done between the building pads and the wetland. The slopes level off quite a bit on the south side of the proposed building pads and should not be steeper than existing conditions. EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be Brenden Pond 2nd Addition June 21, 1995 Page 5 required around the natural wetland. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. UTILITIES With the construction of Lake Lucy Road, sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended to serve the house lot and well site. The existing construction plans for Brendon Pond or Lake Lucy Road did not include sanitary and water main connections to lot 1. Sanitary and water main connections will be added as a change order during the construction of Lake Lucy Road. The plat shows the Lake Ann Sanitary Sewer interceptor and existing 20-foot wide easement. The interceptor runs through lot 1 at a depth of approximately 30 feet. This easement should be expanded to a 30-foot wide easement on centerline of pipe. STREETS Access to both lots will be from Lake Lucy Road. The road is currently under construction under the City's Improvement Project No. 92-12. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Due to topographic constraints, staff believe there is no other feasible access points available to Lots 1 and 2. Staff is comfortable with Lots 1 and 2 having driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. PARK AND TRAIL FEES The Park and Recreation Director recommended full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. Brenden Pond 2nd Addition June 21, 1995 Page 6 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides Health Dept. 50' on all sides for well BLOCK 1 Lot 1 23,915 341.98' 194.12' 30'/50'* 10'/5'** Lot 2 31,589 125' 252.715' 50'/50' 50' Outlot A 105,795 * The 50 foot setback includes a 10 foot wetland buffer in addition to a 40 foot structure setback. ** The side yard setback variance along the east side of Lot 1 is a result of a technicality from the Health department requiring wells to be located 50 feet from any property line. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The tree preservation and landscaping of this site was addressed in the Brendon Pond 1st Addition. The plan has not changed and no additional canopy replacement is required. VARIANCE As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow a 5 foot side yard setback along the easterly edge of Lot 1, Block 1 is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. Brenden Pond 2nd Addition June 21, 1995 Page 7 3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: Staff recommends the variances be approved for reasons described in the staff report. The variance is a result of the Health Department requirements, not a mere inconvenience or a self created hardship. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond 2nd Addition for 2 lots and 1 outlot with a variance to the side yard setback along the easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, as shown on the plans received June 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with side slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 2. The plat approval is still subject to the approved landscaping plan for Brenden Pond 1st Addition. 3. Building Department condition - The footings of structures proposed on Lots 1 and 2 shall be engineered. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee compliance with final plat conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water level. Brenden Pond 2nd Addition June 21, 1995 Page 8 7. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 8. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. 9. Park and Recreation conditions: a. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 11. The applicant will be responsible for a water quantity fee of$440 and a water quantity fee of $990. 12. The applicant's grading and erosion control plan shall be in conformance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. 13. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and wetland areas lying outside the right-of-way. The MWCC easement shall be increased from 20 feet wide to 30 feet wide centered over pipe. ATTACHMENTS 1. Preliminary plat dated June 13, 1995. g:\plan\sa\brendeb.2pc 06-13-1995 18:03 612 636 1311 BONESTROO & ASSC. P.02 r . // /7 i elF44/1 I IS ?1,4 ..• .-- , / . i y ... / $ .K ` 1 I/1 "/ . fl ,,. - i 1. % '. /'. 01,\ / it . /11 '/>4. )i 4110, • !.ill r'l ' ' 1, . 7,' 7100,740 ':-../. 44/1111 : ffir/ ;tert /// \ / ' f + j "r f \f• .4/ • i j 4° IS/ ,Th:. 1 c''' '17/ 1' , \..., c'( i , : .7,77 • PopoICA: ' \\,, .. P p tine. i i : .0 . ,' / Y%- '• \ .4' i... 1, • . ./ � . ii„,,,sii ,. f , , ; \ il .. �/ , ,,, ..-. , �' 1 -,.-0, . .• . ., 1 .. ,... II , i -- ' .,. . .. . ' r , N • ` 1 I. H . ____,_11,„ , • i s.,. ....,./\ '.. a , _ :. a. . . . 11' &I • o : s. i, , .,,,, ,,i : i:..i.....,... • *--... \ . \ \ • \1 \\\\\\\ \... * •... ...‹. , • ,... ,, ...,, .,44. - ... ,... ,r ;'.. ...Vt.!' . '...t.4N.,:-N.,S+ '•1- '-, - ...). c '`4..._''''''' ..1..:4' ...1.,K4AV4/ Sk.20.47,..ve.-,i 4...,, ,,......‘.— .,........., c....1,,...,„ . .- t,..,„:4t._la,.,.. .A‘,-,.:,-,„: ElcO : -;;_:A,1:_.•rr---,,,,.....3,,..,,c -::!-_•0..--•.5---4t:',-', :, 1_-[,.._, ._ .-,.‘. .c! -,:.,.,,, - , 4_,.-..,:.--_- •-_. .7 41, ...,,_,_, rtr, , x:1.,„i_Ite. ,., .)t,e, _ ----1,-•,4,1,v•e:..•-10., - --+--s--)""' '...p.1,-E..:17:.„7:. - ..;::(1:-,;,_______:-/-- - 7,...-•-,-,,_3.,:, -,.._ ,‘_•-•:.,-•,e,".. .s-,. - v_---.,., --•,-*).-- All.,'-....''' • 4,41 -'.. ?'1\•‘-, ' '''' 'S.4 , ..... " ........, ' 4W*::'''''..". f''''-',5 7 4.-••••••-4 .'4•13P '1..' ...,.. f,4417C'i:-..• "-Z'''' •'4 ..;-,.., 14 - _ _,...-,• -0::/ e•-,-;,-4.p• is. -'''''• o'..4."..„'yr;.-re•-•.,,- .--,...-- ' -,--. ,-s-....'z.,'' ''"' ' i.«.\-••-e` ••, l'a' 17.,,e," 74403„:„ ele3;4kr.4"t^,?..',g:':',. .ie-':: "..,;:•t:.;.1:-:"•:,...:::.•'.••-,..c.,-;, '.'':',,,', -: - ...i,t, 4--:--,..,,-.,, ., :. •': ' ` ,."- ' A- ,-- '-t- -' k.N. _-_-.. , ,, ,•,,,,--I 17 -':.:-. ( ',: - 4-46%4-,f;,',4 ..--.:1/4-..,',.....;*:.-..•,= A ....„.,....,. ...., . ..„. .:. ,_. ,, , ,. _ _ __. -e.;.,.:_•,-;...'7.,: ^ , .1..4,-,: , :. .• 7!'"....' 1.;/)1" ,,, .49.":".1 t''''''.. ';11,'Ll:Z.';%:":7•4.%! 0 .; N ._ so „ .. .. ..,..,.......... _.. .. ..,... ,,,.., .,.,:._.., hk- ' 1 -t,.-, ''':•' '''1,-' , ''." 'les'''"41,,Unr:s3:--..,;-41--,40.,Wit:.1.-11iltiat,;.-1.,),,,,V.,:f4:-...,-,w*.J.--1,44:-.$ 0;4109V4-11- ::::=._ -:4"::-. . . -_:::,:i ''. ' ''' , 1 --- ;' - ;=',1' "'''.k z 690 COULTER DRIVE • RO pox:147• •CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 kel - .----.,-N-N, •• - -. ft ...,',..----_,-. . . - •• , 5.;;;,-..a—,-.'y --," —,--. -.c- Y.' 4-V..-•-••-‘r•...... •--, . .4. .t,-,,x2.._t%,.r.•..:-..17,, • . ... w'.7.— ,:-.r. i..4-1,-..zie. (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612).937-5739......._.;;z1::.-11.---,- . . . , --.-.. S,..5.7,..) -1 7 • -. ,,,, , •- . . ..1-7:— MEMORANDLTM ,, ,i .. • ,-‘ ,,-,,:-., ----. . .4., - .-. --•- • , -- . . - . -. . - - - TO: Planning Commission - • „. .--- ,..., ;_:,,,...,,..•... .-,,,‘.. i.•-:.p..,,,.,,,-, :.•...,... -,..--;,-.:- . . . . , . . . . FROM: ,- Bob Generous, Planner II - DATE: June 13, 1995 - SUBJ: Buffer Yard Ordinance A . _ _ . • , _ • ._ . BACKGROUND _ , . . . , . . The Planning Commission last reviewed this.ordinance on June 7, 1995. At that time, staff applied these standards to specific projectbc Shenandoah Ridge, Richfield Bank & Trust, Oak Ponds/Oak Hills,'and West Village Center. The analysis of the ordinance versus actual significantly increased the plantings done as -,..: part of the projects. _ , .. _ ,- , -t- ANALYSIS -;•• The ordinance definitely cou d improve the quantity, and possibly the quality, of landscaping W.4 provided in the cithdinance is reasonable and relatively easy to understand and ' administer. Staff iitt e=concem ; I owe‘k---7-7W—m As''''—fie-= 'er ma .be getting too specific in our . requirements. - - . . ... . , . .--. , . It is the policy of the city . • • _......vide buffering between different inte iti:1:-. -- d densities of . land uses and between andib1ic right7of- y_..$)n. o er to provide screening kti -,-%----,—, from light, noise, and air pollution, to enhance public safety, and to improve the e aesthetics . . IN Alf and compatibility of uses. The intent of this North/lance is to provide minimum standards that - -- are understandable, reasonable, and implemen% e. The standards must address a . - .. comprehensive range of development opportunities. Standards shall not unduly restrict design flexibility and they should permit a good designer to reflect the demands of the site in which it is placed. - -- - . . - . - S, �.{ ` '1'*`��Yr T.��+� A �`�3'`�p'3„Ky�++'+S"•fi��i�� +c 3 � LF �i'h�ts Y. 1.- �,. 'S+�i.—. yssrfs .,y X3'1 r aseF�•"lae -„k`F #T.k•�.—` "1"... t i�� e` - _ vY ,..to -,-----t... ..=,"1,, ry*.Rxs _ r,. . = f�? ?" ;d`r,4.y '" -"t+ ,� .}; ••'� . ,'�- -X:_«.�,r'..�` �3 t '.+Z � ��c1F - e•«� Y'y�r�s�x.v' ti."?�a `_ - �^-3L _ �sK .� ' •:r_ .......=='...''-7-,:-.V.; 1' '- ,,-. #.y,•i ' � cre ,. '�oft.` _ - - '`-Kms` r-"t..ti.4 " ` a. c p z- - ..n'ifi 4 S rc....- f#•�. .iS Y _ -...we�y�y,�,,.s. �4�"�'••{i'..�-,r.�•*� ��Fs Y-v3a•�`..w.,� ?E _ „ - June 13 1995 ,- _ .r �T f, z�,� _ Buffer yard Ordinance - ,u r - ,' g ' Pae 2 ems' Staff requests that the Planning Commissionievaluate the merits of,this ordinance Staff_also requests that the Planning Commission make a'determination of whether th city should adopt only that portion of the ordinance that deals with boulevard plantings along collector or arterial roads, or adopt the entirety of the ordinance to address buffering between all land uses. RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the zoning ordinance revisions concerning landscaping and tree removal for transitional buffering between uses." ATTACHMENTS: • 1. Revised Ordinance dated 4/27/95 ill I. . , . .. . . . _ _. . Revised 4/27/95 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL FOR TRANSITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN USES PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the policy of the city to provide buffering between different intensities and densities of land uses and between developments and public right-of-ways in order to provide screening from light, noise, and air pollution, to enhance public safety, and to improve the aesthetics and compatibility of uses. The intent of this ordinance is to provide minimum standards that are understandable, reasonable, and implementable. The standards must address a comprehensive range of development opportunities. Standards shall not unduly restrict design flexibility and they should permit a good designer to reflect the demands of the site in which it is placed. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS, Section 18-61 (a) (5). Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is amended to read: (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision and adjacent to collector and arterial streets shall be required by the city as specified in section 20-1176 (f). Section 2. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance, subsection (b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (b) Except for buffer yard requirements specified in section 20-1176 (f) below, this article does not apply to single-family detached residences in Al, A2, RR, RSF, and R4 zoning districts which are regulated by landscaping requirements contained in the subdivision ordinance (chapter 18). Section 3. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance, subsection (f) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses and between a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard. The buffer yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. The amount of land and the type and amount of planting specified for each buffer yard required by this ordinance are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road. The planting units required of buffer yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to "buffer." (1) Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending to the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Buffer yards shall not be located within any portion of an existing public or private street or right-of-way. (2) To determine the buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels or between a parcel and a street, the following procedure shall be followed: a. Identify the proposed land use of the parcel and the land use of the adjacent parcel based on the City of Chanhassen Future Land Use Plan. b. Determine the buffer yard required on each boundary, or segment thereof, of the subject property by referring to the following Table of Buffer yard Requirements and illustrations which specify the buffer yard required between adjacent uses or streets. c. Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard and the number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Each illustration depicts the minimum buffer yard required between two uses. The plant unit multiplier is a factor by which the basic number of plant materials required for a given buffer yard is determined in accordance with the selected width of the yard. d. Whenever a wall, fence, or berm is required within a buffer yard, these are shown as "structure required" in the buffer yard illustrations. The erection and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the higher intensity use. Whenever a wall is required in addition to a berm, the wall shall be located between the berm and the higher intensity use in order to provide maximum sound absorption. e. All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development or storage of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or organic material shall be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained free from junk and debris. Dead or diseased vegetation shall be removed and replaced with healthy vegetation. The responsibility to maintain, remove or replace plant materials shall be that of the landowner on whose property the plant material needing maintenance or replacement is located. TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS LL/L MD HD OFF MIX COM PUB ACT PASS OFF/ D IND LULD A, B C C C E B B A H MD A A B B C E B B A H HD B B A B C E B B A G OFF B B B A B B B B B B MIX C C C B B B C C C B COM E E D B B A C C C B PUB B A A B C E A A A F ACT A A B B B C A A A F PASS A A A B B C A A A F OFF/IND F E E B B B F E E E ROAD B B B B B B B B B C 1. Single-family attached adjacent to single-family detached shall provide a bufferyard. (The land use of the proposed development is across the top of the matrix. The land use of the abutting property is along the side of the matrix.). The land use abbreviations are as follows: L/LD - large lot and low density residential; MD - medium density residential; HD - high density residential; OFF - office; Mix - mixed use; Com - commercial; Pub - public/semi-public; Act - active park/open space; Pass - passive park/open space; Off/Ind - office/industrial; Road - collector and arterial road. (3) Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total buffer yard plant material requirement. (4) Buffer yards may be used for passive recreation and they may contain a trail provided that no plant material is eliminated, the total width of the buffer yard is maintained, and all other regulations of this ordinance are met. Utility easements may be included within buffer yards provided that the utility requirements and buffer yard requirements are compatible and canopy trees are not planted within said easement. (5) Where front, side and rear yards are required by this ordinance, buffer yards may be established within such required yards. 3 (6) Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary deciduous trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. (7) Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. (8) In instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year round screening, the city may designate that all planting be of conifers. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1995, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) 4 BUFFERYARD A REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' • 1 Canopy Trees 2 Understory Trees 3 Shrubs Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Plot Unit 100' Multiplier .4 25' 0 • • .6 20' OD :A& .8 15' a% mad 1 .0 a cp dio ,r. BUFFERYARD B • REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 2 Canopy Trees 14;1:: 4 Understory Trees 0 6 Shrubs d Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Plrnt Unit 100' Multiplier 1 1 .4 30' ! .6 25' r dd ►`d ,1 .8 • 20' 80 Tiv 6260 1 .0 iv $dam . BUFFERYARD• C REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' • 3 Conopy Trees • ` 6 Understory Trees 0 9 ShrLts d Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers • Plcnt Unit Multiplier 100' Structure Reciaed defi .6 30' -.kk. ao 0_ •.� -v • • • .8 25' t' � 3• �, d I.0 20'I46. ' rL;Jb • Lower Imenslty Use Alp HIgher Intensity Use • • BUFFERYARD D REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 5 Canopy Trees '�•�' 10 Understory Trees 0 15 Shrubs Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Plait Unit loo' Structtre Multiplier Repmred 30' � � a0,'a nom �3 .6 ':� } c)0 ` od 40 • mai. ▪9 ;ice�.�i►•H\ Aa •�« •�• C IS' • :wr vte- d. f 2 81 Lower Intensity Use • to'1 Y far ,► '��ti��.w! R �t/1rml�lf�•1`•RVL�/r�i� HIrxr Intensity Use • • • BUFFERYARD E REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 4 Canopy Trees =l` • 6 Understory Trees 0 24 Shrubs Plant Unit • 100' Structure 12 Evergreen Trees/ Multiplier 1 1 ReCuired Conifers 11 1 �� $d .dd .6 40' ' ao go .1!. 0(93 41_16, • .8 •�- as a ra .o 2 S' .j .vit — ... ..M:.a+sat • � 141►:�►L-a��-•� =�i: SOS 75 20' ir4tWirty. F3 IJ/i% Iii;/r/I'Idr,:fi�i Lower Intensity Use ritt 1 r� ......��.,,.,..�, :.- F4 N Higher Inteuity Use ._______.. .__ ..___ ---___„..... • _ . _ - BUFFERYARD F . . REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' _I*s 5 Conopy -Trees �`` t• 7.5 Understory Trees 10 30 Shrubs 0 15 Evergreen Trees/ Conifers Plont UnitStrjctve Multiplier 100' Required cl a• 0 sit co d •6 50' -. 4,,�a `• - .„ •- "!•. a Gs a _AA, B .8 40' = aa_; ...; -=� �l or k..C3--e 0 0 0 �' F3 h p z13,1 .064413_30' a•-1 ►• ;a a� '� orr ayJ trzau. r j F Lower Intensity Use * :;-;I! . ?SI 6!�a �Ait.41y ie .1 C .6 20. sa`iet:'' �-__ h\a : f 5 y Hlgher Intensity Use _ . - . 3UFFERYARDG Punt Unit Structure Multipliert00 f Re aired REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' • • dd 6 Conopy Trees d _M g� w, 9 Understory Trees 0 • 6 75' a� ';!-..a d 36 Shrubs d i� d��d . /a a0d . • 18 Evergreen Trees/ Q ®lg d 0000 Conifers ' f 100, f '4`_: e��Q 0 J B 0 -CD .8 50' .' ,t = •fid "'� or © a a 41►� Gr od ad/W " c F3 Ca11 7417 I& dra to0 0 4 U'f e _-. =• 4 g d � .� 40' �lir.t a �':�y �-� a%� or . tt.011, it L-i a a f. 7 • a,-+1 . ( 5 30 ` ter:�I ;p� is 5 Lower Intensity Use T G _1%-'". as .u.:a.. a s�rs et I"itts . ��/.giiaLt4l0 i It F6 NI/ Higher Irne^zity Use ._ • _ _ 3UFFERYARD H REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/loo' • 8 Canopy Trees moi` 12 Understory Trees 0 Plant Unit Structure Mdtipber 100' Required 48 Shrubs d 1 I 24 Evergreen Trees/ IT Conifers a11sad) d d �d ,S ��:. -74:- B2 = p a :.� ,1, ...:� .,� B2 .8 750 A _I2. a.: t�� ¢ . or 41,, -n-t'�. � F4 .44C-Zi?.. d mss, �•� ®ai„�; j� lIoO• 0 " Q o.•..0 0Q© �r. :%, � .is.,Z=�qic- f B 3 loo c , : © ;illo 1 .0 •„ .5 W 50 = rO %; � or 411"442.4Palir le S.-*4 -.4114 0 .t' 0 . to i 401 -� « a /i �,� .,,�NI " _rtl4'a or w-h�� • a .sic 0..,. Nsd i. .. a %�" lira 7:..laa :.. ire F6 Lower Intensity Use T it s •`1 a je a Ide B W .p..4 4�/.� •ft.mss i _v- 2 • 'if 4, HI0xr Intensity Use • • FE \ CES TYPICAL MINIMUM SYMBOL HEIGHT MATERIAL OPACITY • Fl 44" - -- - 2596 MOIMMOMOMMIWZ Wood Rail Ivy\ iv\ f\:\.^eve nnn ^fin F2 48" 50% • Wood Picket • F3 6' 95% F4 8' Wood Stockade ,,,...T I Tr"- -7-7-I ....I., ...1.»..., 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I III _ I I I A FS 6' I I I I I I I 1 9596 11111111 • Fs 8 I I I I I 1 1 _ I I 1 III - I I Masonry Wall (Required) (Poured Concrete. Cement Block, Brick. etc.) BERM S SYMBOL HEIGHT MATERIAL B, 4' EARTH . • B2 5' " B3 6' Mi' L )4 ". w • BERV WALLS SYMBOL HEIGHT BW, 4' BERM W/6' MASONRY WALL BW2 5' BERM W/71 MASONRY WALL BW3 6' BERM '"/81 MASONRY WALL LESS! ! MORE 11 INTENSIVE I INTENSIVE I 4 g c: 4 r CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m and made an opening statement regarding how the public hearings would be conducted. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, Bob Skubic, Jeff Farmakes and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; and John Rask, Planner I OLD BUSINESS: REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 16.34 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 16.34 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH ON LAKE LUCY ROAD (1471), LAKE LUCY ESTATES, MICHAEL BYRNE. Public Present: Name Address Gayle & Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road Al Weingart 5330 St. Albans Bay Road, Shorewood Bill & Joanne Lambrecht 6990 Utica Lane Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Lane Randi Folsom 7050 Utica Lane Mary Knudten 6850 Utica Lane Dan Hessburg 350 Highway 212, Chaska Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Are there any questions of staff at this point? I just have one. Sharmin, the retaining walls around Lot 1, Block 2 that are on the east side. Front of that lot. They are 300 and 400 feet long. Are those the ones that are 12 feet tall at this point? Al-Jaff: Actually the 12 foot retaining wall is on Lot 3, Block 3. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Do you have any idea how tall the ones are that are around Lot 1? Are those fairly tall, do you know? Al-Jaff: It's anywhere between 4 feet and 11 feet. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Michael Byrne: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Michael Byrne. I reside at 5428 Kimberly Road in Minnetonka. I first want to say thank you to staff for...especially Mr. Hempel, who has been very clear, concise and... Dave is busy welcoming his first born son tonight so he's not here to hear this. This is the third time this and as you stated...staffs given the recommendations to the Council. I don't wish to re-read through the staff report. It's painfully concise...worked on quite hard. I was told when we started this by commissioners, to make sure I work with staff. To be very clear. To work... Sometimes it's been very difficult to balance...I want to mention first of all, there was concern about the maintaining of the area during construction and after construction of the wetlands along number 1, Lake Lucy and number 2...pond. I can only reiterate what the staff had indicated... that we'll be using the best program. In addition to that, the mulching and seeding...licensed landscaper... Part of the program will be a doubling of the...in the drainage areas. The plans that you showed, or are looking at, does not unfortunately show a silt fence. That is an error on...part and we apologize. But that did show on a previous...staff knows very well where it's going. We were going to be asking the staff if they wanted us to follow more closely the contour or the grading line or...and we'll take their recommendation in whichever direction they wish us to go. The changes you've seen, both in lot lines, grades, house spots, have all been recommended to us by staff... One of the things that you asked specifically was about the change in the boulder walls. On Wednesday, Dave Hempel did a extensive review from the grades on the site and recommended to us after he had seen our plan, changing those grades. Moving them in certain areas from...to 10% over an approximately 230 foot distance. The wall that you were referring to, were reduced approximately half of that. The movement of the entrance of Lakeway Lane and Lakeway Court southerly was an attempt to avoid certain trees on Lot 3, Block 3. We're at the point now, if we move a line 10 feet, 20 feet, we're hitting 3 trees to the south to preserve 3 trees to the north because that's how close we're balancing this. The same goes for the movement of Lakeway Court. That movement will hit 3 trees to save 3 trees. You can tell by that it's getting very finely balanced. Very finely tuned...know we've achieved what the staff hopes to achieve. That is to do as much, the least amount of possible damage to the site. There was concern that one of the commissioners that staff was designing the project for us. That's a question I can't really answer. At what point does the staffs recommendations stop and our drawings start. The 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 staff report is so intense and so accurate...and I will await to hear the other commentaries before I come back to you. If there's any questions... Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I just have one Mike. On my sheets, what I'm seeing in front of me is, the dates on the first three are 7-12-94. So am I looking at the right one? In the lower right hand corner. Michael Byrne: That's when, that's the original draft possibly of just the contour lines. Mancino: Well actually you know what? This is interesting. In the lower right hand corner it has 7-12-94 and then on the left hand corner it has revision dates on it. 1, 2, 3, 4. I just want to make sure, could you come and look at this and make sure that this is the, I don't know. Does everyone else have the same? Farmakes: Same here. Michael Byrne: This is what you're looking at here? Mancino: Now I look down here, and here was the date. And then I looked over there. Michael Byrne: 7-12-94 undoubtedly was the time that the contour lines for this entire area were started. Mancino: And then the other dates are the overlays? Michael Byrne: Not all the overlays. There's been approximately 15 different variations that have been worked on. Major ones and the ones that have been submitted to the city are the only ones probably here. Mancino: Okay, I understand now. Thank you. Michael Byrne: Do you have any other questions at this point? Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Okay, this is open for a public hearing. Those who wish to address the Planning Commission, please come up. State your name and address. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Al Weingart: Good evening. My name is Al Weingart. I think you've seen me before and you're probably getting tired of seeing me up here but appreciate the opportunity to speak before you again. I live at 5330 St. Albans Bay Road in Shorewood and I am the current owner of the Lake Lucy peninsula and soon to be buying...Steller Court. I'm not going to take up a lot of time here with what we've already talked about in prior Planning Commission meetings as well as, you have voluminous amount of materials we've provided you. If you'd put up my slide too. My slide on, I want to only put this up there for the purpose of reiterating again that our group is fairly serious about what we're doing here. We tend to continue to be so. I'm not going to go through all this but basically we have been all over this project from day one as far as trying to impress upon not only the applicant, Mr. Byrne, but also upon staff as well as upon you and we've met with many of you. We've had you out there. We've had the Mayor. I've spoken to the Mayor and a few City Council people about what's going on here so everybody seems to be fairly well informed and hopefully have receive copies of most of this stuff, but if anybody has any question about it, you certainly can ask for copies. So but the effect on us is primarily aesthetically, environmentally and economically. Those three things we feel we are somewhat at risk with respect to this project. Continuing examples of why we feel we're at risk, or not at risk but at least be influenced by. Being at risk might be a little bit strong but influenced by it, is basically one example, and this is the only example I'm going to put up relative to what we talked about before, and that is essentially the tree canopy calculations. The point here is not to show the fact that we're taking down more trees than we were the last time we talked about this issue, but primarily to emphasize the fact that they're taking 2/3 of the trees on the whole site and if that's not abusive, then I guess I would find a hard time understanding what might be. So I guess we're trying to impress upon you the impact this is going to have, not only on the properties that the developer's trying to develop here but also our own properties that surround this property. And the financial impact as well the aesthetic impact and the environmental impact to that whole area. The sensitivity that it has to Lake Lucy and the wetlands that support a group of wildlife around there and also the aesthetic nature of the property. So that's the point of showing you this that 66% of that environment, at least the tree cover, is going to be taken away. And what we're asking you to do tonight is basically to deny this application and send it onto City Council. The reasons for the denial can be a number of them from the standpoint of you don't really have a preliminary plat, like I talked about last time. I think that's arguable and you probably won't agree with me on that but there still are certain provisions in the city ordinance that would not qualify this as being a full preliminary plat. There's still a lot of drawings that have to be done on this, from what Sharmin was telling us and so that would be one argument I guess. The variances, in my opinion anyway, are a privilege and not a right and the applicant makes the argument that he has been through a lot of reiterations on this. However, basically it comes down to the fact that we've gone from mass grading to something that 66% which is going away. So if that's an improvement, then I'm missing something. Another one would be the detrimental impact to the wetlands 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 from the runoff of the water into the wetlands, not into Lake Lucy. I know on my property when it went before you and the City Council, there were a number of provisions put in there to restrict what I could do on my property relative to runoff, etc. One of them being that I cannot put salt on my driveway in any way because it would leech into the lake. We have 10% grades here. That water's going to run right into the lake and into the wetlands. That would be something maybe you ought to consider to think about relative to the property like this. That ifs particularly...graded severely. And if nothing else, basically this is the kind of development that is just not good public policy period and that's a very broad argument, I understand but ifs just one of those developments that, it could be done a lot better. It could be done economically for the developer. Which we realize it's got very excellent piece of property there that he can get high dollar for if he would just take some of the recommendations of people who have tried to offer them to him who know something about the economics. And that's all I'm really going to say now. Just that we'd appreciate a consideration of denial and let City Council deal with this at this point. Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Joe Morin: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen. We have the property immediately to the east of the proposed development. First of all I want to thank the staff very much for their tremendous efforts. The diligence that they've put in. I truly appreciate the work they've done in trying to preserve the environment, in a sense with one hand tied behind the back, since they were operating under the constraint of working within a number of lots that Mr. Byrne had originally proposed. Even under that constraint they've made...to the existing plan. If it wasn't for their efforts, we would still be looking at mass grading on 95% of the site. And as Al points out, now we're losing only 66% but that's still a significant change. I think credit for the progress that's been done to this point is due strictly to the staff. I'm disappointed that the developer has shown any creativity in taking their recommendations and extending that even further. ...value the property and the amenities certainly could be realized with a lot fewer lots there. Progress has been made but I don't believe that sufficient progress has yet been made. I don't want to take up a lot of your time tonight repeating the points I've already made but I do want to tick off a few major items. I still believe that there's still excessive density for this site. It's not compatible with the development going on on the east property line. The Mason Homes development. There are still 11 variances on 8 of the lots, although staff is requiring that most of these be eliminated. The springs on the property has still not been identified or located or even addressed by the applicant. Last Friday Eric Rivkin and I met up with our children and he showed me the springs. One of the springs running right out of the ground. It's in the area of Lot 6, which is probably in the buffer zone. It may not impact the development but still, the deer and the other wildlife within that 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 area...water, at least one of the conditions ought to be to put a fence around it to protect it from the bulldozers and from the fill. There's still 4 to 5 feet, perhaps more by the lake. You still have the impact of the fill on the pond and the lake. The impact of big houses in the middle of a wildlife migration zone. We still have 15, 16, 17,000 square foot lots on steep, heavily wooded terrain. 12 foot high retaining walls. 300 feet long walls, maybe 4 to 11 feet high in places. I'm not sure if shifting it south is going to affect all of these or not. Some, they probably can be reduced somewhat but it's some of the staffs recommendations. There's still excessive tree loss. It's even worst than what Al described. If you read the front page of the staff report. The staff notes that at least 10 trees on the survey appear to be near enough to the grading limits that preserving them will be difficult, although they are being shown as being saved. These are 150 year old trees. They're irreplaceable. There's still an impact on the wildlife. The applicant hasn't even talked about this. I think that this development still is abusive to the environment. I want to make just two more points. There's still too many lots in the southern region of the development and I want to focus on this for just a moment. What the overhead here shows is the no variance plan. The plan that the applicant was asked to put together showing what could be done if no variances were allowed. I put this up during our last meeting but I want to highlight that there's no access to that top lot, which is shown in there. There's no access so that is not buildable. The dashed line that you see is the 50 foot buffer zone. He cannot, the homes must be pushed back from that 50 foot buffer zone. The point I'm making is that in that southern area the applicant can only access 3 lots. He cannot get 4 homes down there without a private street. Now per city ordinance, use of a private street can be allowed if the use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. Now clearly the applicant is using a private drive in this area simply to gain an additional lot at the expense of the natural environment. So my final two points are these. Number one, staff is recommending approval with conditions. Now if approval with conditions is granted, we request that the additional condition be added that Lot 6 be eliminated. Point number 2, my final point is however we believe that the ordinance about preserving and protecting the natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes and water courses is being violated with this proposed plan. On that basis we request that this application be denied. Thank you. Mancino: Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Michael Byrne: Madam Chair. On the point...he's using the figure which...the tree removal process Mr. Thornton has...calculation. The ordinance lays out a replacement program which calls for 1.2... Our own covenant restrictions exceed those by 50%... Mr. Weingart also made a note that water rushing down a 10 foot...flow immediately into Lake Lucy. I believe he's forgetting about the...pond. He indicates that this site will be detrimental and environmentally...Mr. Morin brings up the fundamental cry that the site would be better with bigger lots and more expensive... As I asked Mr. Morin...because Mason Homes is aware of 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 the economics...it doesn't work that way. We're trying to use very attractive sites to create very attractive homesites for...custom homes. ...creating $250,000.00 lots on this site is not even reasonable or...statements made over the last 3 meetings have had...melodrama. Normally at this point in time I would have asked Dave Hempel to identify within the staff report, which I believe he would have argued that Mr. Hempel has answered continually some of these questions about, number one. Some of the requirements for example...they have been done. Mr. Hempel has indicated because of the changes that are going to be continuing to make...final plat, those calculations he would accept...We've done our necessary preliminary... The soils examinations are done before the final plat. Mr. Hempel in the staff report has continually brought that up. I can only depend on what staff... In conclusion, I'm asking for approval...your job has always been and remains the same. To evaluate the staffs efforts and recommendations. The presentations...to make your decision. I think we've done the best that we can in this situation with the limitations that we have...thank you for your time. Mancino: Thank you. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Oh excuse me, one more. Joe Morin: Would it be okay if I just... Mancino: Joe, would you come on up and state your name and address again. Joe Morin: My name's Joe Morin, 1441 Lake Lucy Road. The only thing I wanted to address is, as you can see there are several homes immediately adjacent to the pond and also immediately adjacent to the lake. Runoff from those homes runs directly into Lake Lucy. The storm sewer... Secondly, Mike, Mr. Byrne eluded to the Mason Home density. If we were to apply the same density calculations to the development on the west, there would be 4 to 6 new homes in that area. Now obviously this plan is much more environmentally sensitive than is the site that Mason Homes is developing so one would expect even a greater degree of care and diligence and sensitivity to the environment. We're not seeing it here. I'm trying not to be...but there's value in this property that extends beyond the economic value and there is in fact economic value that could be traded here above and beyond what will be traded when the environment is destroyed. That's all I want to say right now. Thanks. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing. Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public healing was closed. Mancino: Comments from the commissioners. Questions and comments. Jeff. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Farmakes: I'm not going to make any comments on this. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: This is a particularly difficult development for me. I'm relatively new at this and I've had the benefit of looking at it from developments that have been completed and I look at this development for. Audience: Louder please. Skubic: I've had the opportunity to look at completed developments and now I get the chance to look at development before completion but I haven't had the benefit of seeing a development before and afterwards so I'm a little hard pressed to make a good judgment on this one but. There are a number of variances on this development. In my short experience here I have not had a proposal, seen a proposal that was this difficult and required as many variances as this. There is certainly justification for that. It is difficult grades to work with. We have the lakefront and so forth but I get the sense that this is like putting a square peg in a round hole. It just isn't right. That's all. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Well we've seen this 3 times. I think staff had a chance to look at it 3 times and work with it every day. Issues the neighbors bring up we have ordinances for. There's a couple that we don't. Staffs job is to interpret the ordinances and my cut at it is they have done that. Unfortunately, when you have a sensitive area, there's not an ordinance for that and it's tough to develop one. We don't have one. I think the staff report is appropriate. Staff is interpreting the ordinances as they are and interpreting them fairly. It's probably not my druthers to develop the site this way but I think again our job is to make sure that staff is interpreting these properly. There are some variances and I think we don't have to grant them but I think the variances do create a better project. There are probably 4 points if we approve this that I would want to have incorporated into a motion. One of them would be for the applicant to work with the staff in terms of shifting Lakeway Lane and Court to the south. See if there is value in doing that. A real issue for me is the lake. And the sensitivity of that lake to this development and there is just no way you can prevent the lake from being contaminated by the development but I guess I'd like to put some kind of a monitoring, a special monitoring. I'm never sure what occurs out of the city for projects like this in terms of monitoring to make sure our ordinances are enforced and this probably deserves some special note and some special attention so I think we need that kind of review and that's not to say we distrust what's going on but I think just because you have other contractors involved, we should have maybe special review of what's going on. An issue that was not 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 addressed by the engineer is the impact on the springs. I think that deserves an engineering comment by the time it gets to City Council. And then I think Fd like to have staff advise the Council on the appropriateness of developing Lot 7. Those are my comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: I think Ladd really hit all of my points so no comments at this time. Mancino: Okay. I would like to add to Ladd's, the appropriateness of developing Lot 7. Also, can you hear me now? Audience: No. Mancino: Can you hear me now? To also look at the appropriateness of that private, getting a variance to Lakeway Drive. Whether that should be and meet the ordinance of a private drive and why we're allowing a private drive there. A private road versus not on Lakeway Drive. Al-Jaff: Do you want me to address? Mancino: Yes, please. Al-Jaff: The applicant showed us a plan with zero variances. It is possible to serve those lots with a full fledged street. There is one lot that is questionable along the lake. Mancino: I think it would be worth it to show the differences to the Council. Al-Jaff: Okay, we can do that. Mancino: And have them look at that. Al-Jaff: It would basically preserve trees. Additional trees if we served it via a private street versus a full fledged street. But again, as mentioned earlier, one of the lots is questionable as to whether it could remain or not. Mancino: Okay. Sharmin, and just a few little questions. Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Court, is that enough of a difference in names and Lakeway Lane, for the Fire Marshal? Al-Jaff: He was comfortable with it. I brought it to his attention. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Okay, thank you. Couple other questions that I have, have to do with the proposed alignment of the city sewer and water to the Willis property, where it's located. Can that be moved so that it aligns itself with Lakeway Lane and doesn't create another pathway or swath? Al-Jaff: In the grading section of the staff report, it is recommended that the utilities be moved so that they align with Lakeway Lane. But the condition didn't make it to, or the request didn't make it to the conditions of approval. We will work with the applicant on realigning that. Another thing that I might mention is, where the utilities are proposed are also at the same area where the retention pond is proposed to be located. So that area is going to be disturbed regardless. Mancino: Oh, okay. So then... And can we also add in our conditions something about the existing driveway easement for the Willis property to remain an easement? Al-Jaff: Okay. Mancino: Until it is developed and then it will get it's access from Lakeway Lane. Is there also in the recommendation Sharmin, about Lakeway Court and what happens to the turn around when it, where it is next to the Morin property. What happens? Is the turn around within the, on the eastern side. Al-Jaff: What staff is recommending, the applicant provides a temporary turn around on Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 11, Block 2. However, if the Morin's want to grant an easement at this time to provide the turn around, staff would advise it. Rather than creating a turn around now and then in the future and when they develop their property it would be vacated on this plat and then re-created again on the adjacent. Mancino: And is that stated such in the recommendation 31? Al-Jaff: Actually it's condition number 25 and it's the last sentence. It says a temporary turn around may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides. It's a private matter whether the Morin's wish to grant an easement at this point. Again, staff would recommend that they do. Joe Morin: Madam Chair, would you like us to respond? Mancino: No. I'll wait and let you do that with staff. Thank you Joe. On recommendation number 4. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Al-Jaff: Number 4? Mancino: Yes, about the snow fence. I would like it to be very clear that I think the snow fence should be placed and inspected and approved by staff along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. So that it's all set up. It's inspected. It's approved before any machinery gets on there and starts grading. Secondly, I'd like to make sure we are granting numerous variances on this. Almost like a PUD. I'd like to make sure that we do have conservation easements on all areas outside the grading limits. And that the reason for the conservation easements is that they are to be maintained as natural woodlands. That's what's there. That means that the dead fall stays. That means that it keeps it's natural habitat for the wildlife. And it's also stated very much in our tree preservation ordinance that we talked about it and the task force, each member that not only did we want the bigger trees saved, but we were looking ahead to the future. To the future of the next generations that will be here and need those saplings and that underbrush saved too. So that we have a next generation of trees. Those are all my comments. May I have a motion? Conrad: Sure. Madam Chairman, you did make a note of the alignment of the sewer. Was that still an applicable or appropriate? Mancino: I will let staff and the applicant decide that. Conrad: Okay, so that one's eliminated. Madam Chair again, you were talking about an existing, you wanted an existing driveway for the Willis property to remain an easement. Is that what your wording was? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: Until when? Mancino: Until that property develops. Conrad: How come? Mancino: Because at the time that property develops and subdivides, it will gain it's access from Lakeway Lane. They want to, staffs position from reading the report and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting it, is when the Willis property does subdivide, that the entrance off of Lake Lucy Road is a substandard site view? Al-Jaff: Correct. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: And that you would prefer. Al-Jaff: That at the time of the Willis property subdividing, and adding more traffic onto Lake Lucy, then it would be required to utilize Lakeway Lane. I would also request that, that came from Jill Willis and the applicant was working with her and last, to my knowledge, agreed to allow. Michael Byrne: Sharmin, our intention is to agree to a temporary driveway. At such time as the...or the subsequent owner of that property... Al-Jaff: Okay. So everybody has agreed to permit this driveway to continue until such time when it's subdivided. Conrad: Is it worthwhile getting it into the motion? Al-Jaff: Sure. While this was being discussed I wrote something so if you want me to. Conrad: See what I do. Okay. I'll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ), Preliminary Plat #95-3 SUB, to subdivide 14.53 acres into 18 single family lots and two outlots with variances, (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10% street grade and a 50 foot wide right- of-way, five (5) homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 7, Block 2), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in the plans dated April 25th. Are we sure? Al-Jaff: May 8th. I'm sorry. Conrad: May 8, 1995, with the conditions listed in the staff report with the following additions. Point 32. The applicant will work with the staff regarding the appropriateness of shifting of Lakeway Lane and Court to the south. Condition 33. Staff is to present to the City Council with a monitoring program for erosion control to insure minor impact to the lake during construction. Point number 34. Staff to review the impact of the springs by construction and report to the City Council. Point number 35. Staff to advise City Council on the appropriateness of allowing variances to applicant on house on Lot 7. Point number 36. That the existing driveway of the Willis property to remain an easement until the property is developed. Point number 37. That the conservation easement should be encouraged on all areas outside of the grading limits as presented by the applicant. And then a minor revision to point number 4 in the staff report that says a snow fence shall be placed 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 and inspect and approved by staff along the edge of the tree preservation easements prior to the grading. Mancino: Do I hear a second? Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ), Preliminary Plat #95-3 SUB, to subdivide 14.53 acres into 18 single family lots and two outlots with variances, (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10%street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way, five (5) homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 7, Block 2), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in the plans dated May 8, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. Establish a tree removal plan incorporating preservation areas or numbered inventory of trees removed and saved. Trees lost in excess of the plan will be replaced at two times the diameter of the tree lost. All trees currently listed on the inventory must be tagged and recorded as to species, condition and diameter. Applicant must submit a Woodland Management Plan. 2. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road with the exception of Lot 1, Block 1. 3. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way of Lake Lucy. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan that shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Elevation of all trees to be saved within grading limits must be shown on the grading plan. 4. A snow fence shall be placed, and inspected and approved by staff, along the edge of the tree preservation easements prior to grading. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 5. Building Department conditions: a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. c. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. d. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 6. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. b. Due to the close proximity of surrounding homes, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued. c. Additional premise identification signage will be required for Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, per Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. d. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The turn around may be modified if homes on Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 are protected by a NFPA 13 D fire sprinkler system or other means acceptable to the Fire Marshal. e. Fire hydrants shall be located at intersection and end of cul-de-sacs and spaced 300 feet apart. 7. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 8. Revise the plat to eliminate the following variances: a. Lot depth for Lot 2, Block 2 shall be increased to 125 feet. b. Side yard setback for Lots 5, 6, east side of Lot 7, and Lot 10, Block 2, and Lot 2, Block 1 shall maintain a 20 foot side yard setback. c. Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2 shall maintain a 30 foot front yard setback. 9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the grading limits. 10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 11. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. A 40 foot wide drainage and utility easement will be required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court. 17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 18. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 are subject to the high water level of Lake Lucy and not the wetland on Lots 7 through 10, Block 2. 19. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The proposed storm water pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The storm water pond shall be designed and constructed with a 75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 20. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required unless the well on Lot 1, Block 1 fails. 21. The proposed single family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be waived if the applicant provides for on-site storm water treatment. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The construction plans shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. 23. Lots 2 through 4, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 3, 9 through 11, Block 2 and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. 24. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morin's. 25. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turn around acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s). A temporary turn around may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides. 26. A variance for street grades up to 10% and the City's right-of-way reduced to 50 foot wide is recommended. 27. The building setback line, buffer strips, erosion control fencing and tree fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to all wetlands. The grading, drainage, and construction plans shall be revised incorporating street grades that conform better with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss. 28. The intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Court shall be shifted southerly approximately 20 feet as well as the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane. 29. The applicant shall extend utilities to the "Willis parcel" through Lakeway Lane. Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed on the barricades indicating "This street shall be extended in the future". A condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 30. A variance to the City's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access Lakeway Court is recommended. 31. The private streets (Lakeway Court and Lakeway Drive) shall be either platted as outlots and deeded to Lots 2, Block 1 and Lots 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, Block 2 and the Morin's property for access purposes; or the plat revised to incorporate the outlots into the adjacent lots and a 30 foot wide cross access easement and maintenance agreement for Lot 2, Block 1, and Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, Block 2 and the Morin property. 32. The applicant will work with the staff regarding the appropriateness of shifting of Lakeway Lane and Court to the south. 33. Staff is to present to the City Council with a monitoring program for erosion control to insure minor impact to the lake during constriction. 34. Staff to review the impact of the springs by construction and report to the City Council. 35. Staff to advise City Council on the appropriateness of allowing variances to applicant on house on Lot 7. 36. That the existing driveway of the Willis property to remain an easement until the property is developed. 37. That the conservation easement should be encouraged on all areas outside of the grading limits as presented by the applicant. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Skubic who opposed and Commissioner Farmakes who abstained, and the motion carred. Mancino: This goes to the City Council? Al-Jaff: On the 12th. June 12th. (Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point.) PUBLIC HEARING: 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REOUEST FOR A 48' X 36' STORAGE BUILDING AND STABLE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED, RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 1680 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD, MICHAEL GORRA. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions: Farmakes: Does expanding agricultural use pose any problems for the long term plan? Comprehensive plan for the use of this property, which I believe is. Aanenson: We looked at that issue and we believe based on the fact that it's really kind of transient in nature. It's not, the structure is such that it's not such a large investment that it has such a life to span that. We believe that based on what he has told us he intends to do, use the property for in the future, it probably would even be compatible. And that again, we understand is to be something like a golf course. Farmakes: I see. Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum. I think the staff pretty well covered it. It's pretty simple, straight forward pole building. No foundation. It could be easily moved...so I can use it for whatever I want to. I need it for a lot of equipment that I have for my business and for my personal use and I also need it for to house some race horses I've got. Part of the condition, 100 feet from the lake sounds like a reasonable idea. Good idea. If we're going to do that up, I didn't think it was...too specific because we hadn't designed the building yet. I didn't know how close I had to be but 100 feet from the lake sounds okay. As far as the easements with the Met Council, I have an agreement with them. I still own the land. They have an easement for the purpose of maintaining their interceptor and at the time we made the agreement, we discussed having things like this and I can do whatever I want with this property as long as I don't interfere with their periodic maintenance ...so that's how I'm covering my bases with them. I don't even know if this fence, because I haven't measured the area. I don't know if the fence is, or if the interceptor falls within the 100 feet or not but if it does... Mancino: What kind of fence are you putting in? Mike Gorra: It's going to be a three rail, wooden. Typical fence that you see for a corral. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: The only reason I'm asking is because, on my property we had some horses that got away and I'm concerned with your horses on Highway 5 and we have a 3 foot rail fence too on Galpin and it was a little scary at times. Mike Gorra: Well this fence will be plenty sturdy to keep them in. There is one change. Talking to Bob, the planner, I did mention to him that I want to look, in the process of designing the building and came up with something that might be a little larger than the 36 x 48 and he said that they could only allow a 10% increase. So what I did notify the design department that I would like a 48 x 60 foot so... Mancino: Mike, do you have a rendering of the building because you say that you indicate that the building will match the design of the house. Mike Gorra: Yes. The house is kind of an English Tudor with brick, stucco and rough cedar or rough...for the design. The building won't be brick but it will be simulated stucco with a rough cedar running through it to match the house. It's not going to be a cheap metal type building that you might associate with a pole barn but it will be a good looking... Mancino: Any other questions for Mike? Skubic: Yes. I didn't follow what you had to say about expanding the size from 48 to 36 to 36 x 60 feet. Mike Gorra: Well, when I applied for the conditional use permit, I hadn't given much thought to the size of the storage and in the last month I've kind of tried to figure out what I had to store and what the horses would take up and I think a 48 x 60 would be a better size to apply for so if I do need more than the 36 x 48, I won't have to go through the process again. Even though I might build a smaller one, it wouldn't require me to come back up here. So I would like to apply for the 48 x 60 foot. Mancino: Staff, do you have any concerns about that? Aanenson: No, that's fine. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Mike Gorra: Thank you. Mancino: Can we have a motion to open the public hearing? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Fannakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public healing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Does anyone wish to come up and address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Fannakes moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from the Planning Commission. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no comments on this particular piece. It seems appropriate... Mancino: Okay, Mike. Meyer: No comment. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: No comment. Mancino: I have none either so may I have a motion please. Farmakes: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approve conditional use permit #95-1 on the findings present in the staff report on the following conditions, 1 through 5. Mancino: May I have a second? Farmakes: Should I date that on the Planning Commission report dated 5-17-95. Mancino: Thank you. Meyer: Second. Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use permit #95-1 based on the findings presented in the staff report and with the following conditions: 1. A natural buffer strip shall be maintained between the interceptor and the wetland, lake, and stream (approximately 100 feet). Horses shall not be kept or allowed to graze in this area. 2. A stable permit is required by the City and must be renewed annually. The property owner shall contact the Stable Inspector for an application form. 3. Erosion control shall be maintained throughout the construction period and until new vegetation is established. 4. The site plan shall be revised to show the fence outside of the required buffer area and outside of the interceptor easement. 5. If required by the Metropolitan Council, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Council to protect the sanitary sewer facilities. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PBK INVESTMENTS, INC. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A 23.5 SQ. FT. MONUMENT SIGN AT THE HIGHWAY 7 ENTRANCE TO THE 7 AND 41 CROSSING CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND 41. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Brian Pillowski: I'm Brian Pillowski. I'm the owner of 7 and 41 Crossing. I think there's some confusion in sort of how I see the background on the center. The center, on the front or the application where it says 7 and 41 Partnership. PBK Investments owns the real estate. Mr. Sass from 7 and 41 Partnership lost the title to the property Park National Bank and I purchased it from Park National Bank in December of'93. And the sign that was placed on the property in '93 was not by 7 and 41 Partnership but by Park National Bank. One of the 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 things...property is you have tenants who pay real estate taxes and pay maintenance and they're very concerned about how people approach the real estate from an access standpoint. The property, and again I didn't develop the real estate but from owning it and understanding the process of the property, at present there is a, out where they're stating on the Outlot 1, there is a brick post presently there which the electric does hook back into our junction box to the center to have a sign placed on it from the original. When the developers did the property, of course they got into financial problems right away and never did put a sign up there. Of course they never did put a sign on TH 41 either. That was done in '93. And my tenants wish to have a sign out there to attract more customers to their space. We feel that Super America has two signs, which is a 4,000 to 5,000 foot tenant. We have 25,000 plus square feet and we have one sign that is not very plain to see on TH 41 from Highway 7. That is one of our main concerns in applying for a variance to put a sign up on Highway 7. I do realize that any tenant that goes onto Lot 1 is not going to utilize the sign that was presented to be there. They're going to have their own sign, which means we've got some brick posts with electric running back to my junction box that is not being utilized. So I know it's a problem but I think that we're going to work and make changes but I think that the ability to have both signs on the property only enhances the ability to bring in more customers. Raise rents over time which ultimate raises more property tax value for the State. So questions? Mancino: Any questions? I just have one Brian. From, I kind of live in that area. There are fairly good sized wall signs up on each of the businesses there right now that you can see, and I think that the daycare center not only has one at the end there of the building, but also has a very long banner. A banner on it's fence. Brian Pillowski: Temporary sign. Mancino: Well it's been there for a long time, if that's temporary. And are the signs lighted? They're also lighted on the. Brian Pillowski: Yes. Mancino: Okay. And they are visible at this time from Highway 7. Brian Pillowski: Yes. Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Any other questions? May I have a motion to move for an opening for a public hearing please? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Faimakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Comments from Commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: I go first... Mancino: Right. You worked on the sign ordinance quite a bit so. Farmakes: Yes I did. I think in this case, the analysis of staff is appropriate for this particular development. I don't, having been a long time resident of this resident and being there. Going into the shopping center quite often, it's all service retail. Typical development that you see on the corner junction of two major thoroughfares in the community. As is the case sometimes with these smaller retail developments you have a group of business people who come in. Usually they don't have, they have a fairly limited amount of experience in retail. They sometimes guess wrong when they come up with a service business, which is what is in there. And to counteract that, it's always more signage, more signage, more signage because I'm not making the money I thought I was going to. This particular development I believe also had financial problems. If you go back into the history, there was a great deal of neighborhood concerns when the development was made. Consequently a lot of the signage that you see at Super America and so on is low impact. However, I would be wrong if I said that I thought that the general public that lives here, in the community, don't know that there's a Super America there and I could list off every store that's at that retail center. And I would guess that's general knowledge in Chanhassen and Excelsior. Under the current location of the proposed sign, and the fact that it's on the undeveloped outlot, and the fact that where the current sign resides, and looking at the intent and purpose of the sign ordinance that was passed recently, I don't think that this qualifies for an additional sign. I also would like to remind everybody here that there are stop lights at this junction. You can clearly read off every one of the signs on the retail wall that faces the highway from both Highway 7 and Highway 41. On a good day, when it's not raining, you can even see what's in the window and I would be inclined not to vary from staffs recommendation here. Mancino: Okay, Bob. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Skubic: I concur with what Jeff has said. I have no further comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: Pretty thorough. Yeah, I agree with Jeff too. Mancino: I also concur with staffs recommendation. There's not enough reason for me to grant a variance to the new updated sign ordinance that we do have. May I have a motion then please? Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Permit Variance #95-2, dated May 17, based on the findings of the staff, 1 through 3. I have nothing further to add. Mancino: May I have a second please? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Fannakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Permit Variance #95-2 based on the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The shopping center and the occupants located in the center already have a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service. 3. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL TO REZONE 22.4 ACRES FROM R12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.57 ACRES INTO 78 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 75 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE HOMES ON 19.95 ACRES; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY, NORTH BAY, ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC. Public Present: Name Address John Bushey 9000 Riley Lake Road, Eden Prairie Ron Ytzen 9227 Lake Riley Blvd. Jo Ann Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle Dave Nikolay 8500 Tigua Circle Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Don Jensen Rottlund Company, Inc. Wayne Tower Pioneer Engineering Ernie Peacock Applicant's Representative Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions? Thank you Bob. Does the designee of the applicant wish to approach the Planning Commission? Don Jensen: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Don Jensen, Land Development Manager for Rottlund Company. With us tonight in the audience and...Wayne Tower, who is our project planner and coordinator with Pioneer Engineering. He'll describe a little bit of the site characteristics. I'll be able to explain some of the architecture and the concept behind what we're trying to accomplish on this property. And then representing the owners is the owner's broker and designated representative here tonight, Ernie Peacock in case there are any questions regarding our contractual arrangement. ...tonight working on this project. We also have representatives of the adjacent properties here to speak on their particular issues with the Lakeview Hills Apartments. We have had a chance to meet with them and working with them....staff quickly described on the overhead here. Without much further ado, I'll let Wayne Tower here to... 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Wayne Tower: Thank you Don. I guess my role tonight is just to kind of introduce you to what the general site is and how it relates to the community in general and the physical attributes of the project. Down here, I don't know if it's easily seen by the camera but we have an aerial photo obviously showing the larger pictures of what we have up here on top. Obviously the main characteristics of the site, of course...Lake Riley. As we move to the east, there's the Lakeview Hills Apartments that can be seen here on the aerial photo. As we move around to the north, there's a future right-of-way for Highway 212. As you go around to the west here, we have some open ground which presently is being proposed to be developed by the Klingelhutz ownership and also wetlands to the west. Working on the specifics of the site itself, again we had the lakeshore. As we move north from the lakeshore we have a fairly substantial stand of mature oaks. Mostly oaks right through here which we are intending to hopefully save in it's entirety with maybe some very minor exceptions. From that, presently Lyman Boulevard exists through here but there's going to be an expansion to that or an upgrade to Lyman Boulevard which is something I think Don will talk about. Presently we thought we were working with the appropriate curve data and we'll have to work with the city engineers to find out quite what their objections were because some were unspecific as to what the problem was with that 35 mph speed program. As we move north we have an open water wetland which is somewhat outlined by this normal water elevation or high water elevation line right here and this is pretty much open, as you can see by the aerial photos. The extension of the wetland per se, as defined by the DNR and others, meanders on out and back through here and of course back. There's an existing driveway that actually splits the two wetlands right in here. There's a small equalizing culvert there that works across the driveway in the central location here. As we move north we have another stand of trees. These are a little more wetland types. Cottonwoods and box elders and those kinds of things and many of them are viewed by the wetland downgrade...venture out but actually kind of a little swale...takes a storm sewer pipe up through there. But generally, most of that tree coverage is in the wetland. After that the terrain dramatically rises. Now, I think between the lake and the highest point, which is up here at 912, we've got about 46 feet of elevation difference. It's generally downhill all the way from our north property line down to the lake, with a... We have a small wetland up here in the northeast corner and...very small little ditch type of wetland over here which will virtually go away when 212 comes into play. I guess that's just the general attributes of the site and I think I'll turn it over to Don at this point. Mancino: Thank you. Don Jensen: What we're really doing, and I'm going to put up the, I've got the architectural boards on, I hope that the camera can see them. We've got two different styles of housing we're proposing in the plan, all of which really...the standard townhouse in the townhouse plat as you see it in attached housing and we're really just separating it again at what would be the common party wall. Really our concept here is to blend, if you will, and what is called 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 detached townhouses. So if you pushed these all together, you'd easily have a duplex, a row of townhouses, four units or more. Now as you start to separate those, explode those again, what you have is a few more windows on the side elevations. And depending on whether you turn those or rotate those, you get differing patterns that appear in how a residence or a new owner would actually use these homes. What we have in this particular instance, and I'll show you on the site plan, as well you have these in your packets but perhaps this will clear things up a little bit. Two housing sites and the ones that are lowest and closest to Lake Riley on this plan, and also along the wetland, straddle on both sides of North Bay Drive, the proposed public street, what we're calling Rottlund Cottages at the moment. All of these are designed to be skewed to the road at about a 30 degree angle. And what that does for us in the house plan is, by drawing them up you can easily see the road at an angular area. You have some of the concave area to the street. That is your garage access point, and whether we have enough room to load them from the side or load them straight on, it becomes your garage entry area as well as your front door entry area, neither of which end up blocked to the road. By angling it, depending upon your direction of travel, in one direction where you see the garage doors more and the other direction where you see them substantially less. The second thing that occurs when we have these tipped at an angle is that off of the rear area where there's a 3 season porch, whether that's an option or standard and various patio spaces that we have programmed in through here. Again, those have a more angular view and as you know looking across, whether it's any room or outdoor space, if you can get some angles, you have a much longer perception and in reality a much longer opportunity to experience the outdoors. What that's also done is it limits the amount of space that we actually we have in between dwelling units and that side setback zone. So by tipping these, if I have a building that's 70 feet long for example from the front of the garage to the end of my master bedroom, by angling, I really only got a space of about 40 feet inbetween and that's not anything different from a standard single family for example where you might have anywhere from a 40 to a 55 foot deep house on some pads, depending on if the garages are directed forward or back. We have similar relationships within this particular product. What we're looking at in square footages, that are in the submittal packet here, is you have approximately 1,280 square feet on one floor plan and then we have a maximum of 1,490 feet on another floor plan idea so there's a variation. This plan, and in your packet, in these locations, we anticipated right now only tying the market with a single floor plan. So it's a rambler, all slab on grade. Not dissimilar to our Mission Hills neighborhood but again there's a four dwelling unit in a single building. We have found in our one neighborhood that is probably the most similar to this that's up and running right now in Inver Grove Heights, that when you have a strong amenity such as Lake Riley, such as the wetland complex immediately to the south, that there are those people who want to expand and ask for some options. What we had in that particular neighborhood, and no doubt we will have in a couple locations here, is people look at some bonus space as a second floor. So they have all their living area on the main floor, anywhere from 1,300 to 1,400 square feet. And then if they want to, they'll add bonus space so if the 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 kids come home, but we're really looking at an empty nester market in terms of a buyer and throughout this style of house. The second product type that we're looking at is a two story design. Again, if you can imagine, these could just as easily have been two groups of row townhouses in four's or six units configurations. Again, we're expanding out the design space. These come in a variety of orientations. Certainly can be massaged as we move forward. Some are oriented straight to the street. Some are angular to the street and fan out as we go around the curve. We're not convinced yet that we want to have it exactly head on the street. Perhaps an angular pattern is perhaps just as appropriate... They're much shorter than the slab on grade variety that we have in the other area. This for example would be the elevation of the, as you would enter the development with a single level dwelling unit. Voila, new sketch. And this being the elevational pictures for the proposed dwelling. Again we're looking at varying the fronts of the buildings, whether you have bonus space over the garages that's described in the staff summary. Looking at mixing the brick. In some cases having pre-cast columns that are different building material types. I've got that at my feet and I'll show you shortly some building material samples. Board that we prepared that are taking place in a similar neighborhood. The number of square footage and the floor plan variations going anywhere from approximately 1,600 to 1,800 square feet. So fairly sizable amount of square footage that comes...base plan. Again, trying to cover the market with a really all in one. You limit certainly people the opportunities for a 3 car garage but it's intended to fill a nitch within the marketplace that is probably a step above our villa neighborhood, if you will. So people might be moving out of attached. This gives them the sense of still a community. They don't have the maintenance obligations. They come with buying the standard single family home and all of the fixed costs of maintenance and upkeep. Here you still have the benefit of some of the association, the costs such as snowplowing and landscaping and water bills and other such things that may come with a master association. And again you have flexibility though picking exactly the house that you would pick that would fit within the allotted area. So there is a natural variation of colors. A natural variation of house style and there are some unique characteristics based on people's options within that base package. So that's what we're attempting to bring to the marketplace in this location. It's certainly unique in that we're trying to work within Chanhassen's zero lot line and PUD ordinances, both of which haven't been used very often. It's our understanding... What we have in a companion neighborhood, it's a slightly larger square footage than our zero lot line housing in our Arbor Point, Inver Grove Heights project but it's our kind of test model for life cycle housing. We have it all in that neighborhood with a variety of housing colors, that shift primarily within the lighter earth tone ranges. Using stone type materials on the columns. In the front of the garages, etc. We're trying to carry those as we can to other locations. Combining that with a cedar shake style siding. Using the upper gables as well as having the standard vinyl or aluminum siding. Really maintenance free throughout the building elevations on the fronts and around the sides. We are looking at opportunities to enhance, whether we have brick in addition to the stone tiles but the primary focus here is to have a minimum amount of 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 • maintenance on the structure. Again, a 25 year roof standard shingle approach that we've been using for many years and that's really what we're trying to accomplish here in this neighborhood. We looked at the attributes of the site. We've had the engineers out. We've had the wetland delineators out as soon as the frost went out, which wasn't until late April so we have some natural concerns with what's going on in the system. We certainly are hopeful that we can resolve the access issue right through here. We're not as excited about trying to have one access point out to the street in a location to the east... We certainly are hopeful that we can market off a single entry, either off of Lyman or Lake Riley Boulevard. But that tends to keep this more of a neighborhood onto itself. If we have a road as suggested up on a common property line, we tend to dilute when you really enter the neighborhood and it becomes more houses out in the street rather than entering this particular pocket if you will. That's our marketing issue and that's something that we feel strongly about as we can. We have the public street that connects into the proposed location of the Klingelhutz plat. We have a sidewalk along that side that connects to the neighborhood park. We have a lot of reforestation going on. We have an average of at least 3 trees per dwelling unit on this plan, which is substantially more than a good part of the single family subdivisions. Staff has recommended more buffering...and we certainly see the attributes of doing... Large wetland canopy area here that we are planning and proposing to be cleaned up in there. There's a lot of dead fall. The city's proposing to grade the waterway...storm water management plan but it's some 3 to 4 feet...some of those trees that are living on the edge are not... As Mr. Tower of Pioneer Engineering pointed out, there's a lot of stronger, hardwood canopy material along the lake edge. We're proposing that as a common lot owned by this association and so that they would use the dock facilities that they're entitled to by code for this property on a lottery basis if in fact they have a boat. All of those rules we're not proposing or asking for anything unique there other than what the lakeshore lineal footage grants this particular property. We understand that that's probably up to 5 slips under a separate permit action that we would come back to the Council for and through the Planning Commission. As staff noted, we have a private street up in the northern end of the development. We're 50 feet away, or more, from the proposed 212 right-of-way. That has slid on MnDot's chart of accounts for many, many years. But regardless, this helps preserve the opportunity for this subdivision... subdivision and that the resale or initial sales, the 50 foot setback is what we are looking at away from a proposed future major road. Whatever that design happens to be. As staff pointed out, we have what's really called common lot area. There are small individual townhouse style lots around each property, the balance of which is a common area. We have anticipated to have two associations, one of which would be for this housing type that would be on a public street. And a second association that would exist around this area here. They would have common use of this space here and if they would decide, once these neighborhoods built out, what the use should be in really that common back yard area. That's approximately what, an acre and, a little over an acre of a common back yard space. There's really kind of private zone in their lot area. If you remember from the sketches, or if you 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 don't. It's approximately 10 feet within the platted lot past the structure...ideas, whether that's multi-family attached or single family, it's really kind of their private space and beyond that, you start to get this public zone...in a couple of locations to the public street or a more pronounced access. Standard single family for example you might have a 15,000 square foot lot and you might have 5,000 square feet really in the back yard behind the house, based on that lot. You'd have approximately 35 foot setback, 50 foot deep house. What you have left over is approximately 40 to 50 foot deep back yard by however wide your lot is. And what we're doing here is really allowing a much more expanded opportunity for play. This housing style that we have programmed on the north end is our most variable. What's really, it's the most likely to cross over in terms of age bracket. In terms of opportunities for people with children. Not really a whole lot we can predict about what that market will be. It's primarily a price point. If people are interested in being in Chanhassen, they can't obtain more. It provides a different opportunity in a price point where you don't have maintenance obligations. You might be able to find some turnover housing in Chanhassen. That might be $120,000.00 but you still have to mow the lawn. You have to take care of the upkeep. Is the roof in good repair, etc? So that's our hope and our target. Just some initial dimensions that we have on this plan, before any changes or reiterations. It's 150 feet wide. It's approximately 350 feet long at this location. 180 feet wide at this location and at these other dimension points, show 130 feet. 100 feet. 90 feet. It's a pretty large space. You can throw a frisbee a long way in a space like that or throw a ball a long way. You can get a pick-up game of baseball for small kids. That type of thing. We're hoping through the grading, and what is proposed, that we can get as level a space as possible in the final plan. Staff went over what our wetland issues are. We'd like to explain a little bit and hope that the Planning Commission, in terms of our land use application here and see what we're trying to accomplish. The road in this particular designation for Lake Riley Boulevard, is trying to accomplish a number of things. What we're hoping to do is to open up this ponding area for the city's water quality goals. Our approach is to try to find a way that the city can work with it's engineers to make the design speed appropriate so that the space can be as large as it is. We'll work with the State Aid Standard, and believe we have. The farther this road is over, the larger the ponding can be. The city is trying to place storm water runoff from the road project in addition to this development and the neighboring development in either a pre or post conditions. It's not quite clear to us but our whole approach there is to try to make it happen, not lose any trees. There are some that are programmed to be lost anyway by the city's current plans that are in pre-design. We've had a meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission. They are requesting in your notes that we dedicate the land in this particular location. That's their domain to request that. We are believing that by granting easements, that the ownership is retained by this particular association and it's primarily a Council issue to solve. However I remember my last time around you had issues that were different from the Parks Commission. If in fact it's to be dedicated, we just want to be treated fairly and be granted park credit for that rather than paying full fees and having the land taken to boot. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 We're hoping that the PUD looks at the flexibility of what we're getting as a total package and not just creates an opportunity to have us pay, and take land away on a lakeshore. But again, that's primarily a Council action. We're working with the City's water quality specialist, Diane Desotelle and making sure that our wetland analysis meets her criteria as the LGU. That's the City's obligation. It's a cross check off for us. We wanted, we've asked and talked with staff yesterday on a clarification on their request to move the road over to straddle the easterly property line and we would look at that as we come back, so long as we understand together and that we would have the Planning Commission's blessing as well, that what we'd really be doing is just inverting the houses and this road. That there would still be wetland fill on this side of the development. On the easterly boundary line in order to have housing that would essentially take advantage of that roadway and the cost of that roadway going down to Lake Riley Boulevard or Lyman, as it may be renamed. The traffic numbers are going to be very low. This is at the very end of the traffic generation line if you will. People immediately on either side of Eden Prairie are in the Bearpath development. Presumably they're mainly going to be driving, whenever they decide to go to work, out east on Dell Road and there's probably not a whole lot of trips coming back through Lake Riley Blvd, Lyman Blvd. You really have department development as a traffic generator and any future development that occurs...so we believe that by having housing up closer to the lake, it's really not a traffic problem by having a lot of roadway built. It doesn't have any housing immediately off of it. You're dragging a lot of pipe... We'll be happy to answer questions. I know there's a few other people that want to have comments about the development and... chance to speak. Mancino: Any questions now? We may have some more later. Thank you. Farmakes: When you're talking about the commons area, you were referring to that would be worked out by them. This is a conceptual plan, correct? Typically we don't do that that way. Is that, when we discussed the issue of commons area and we talk about landscaping for instance or in a concept. I notice that there's no landscaping on the commons area so how are you treating it. Aanenson: No. Again, we're just looking at this in generalities. How you feel about the product. Some of the general framework issues and then when we come back for preliminary plat, it would be tighten up. So we're looking at this just in the general framework. Don Jensen: If I could clarify the intentions of the space. We went through this with the Mission Hills Villa neighborhood. What our goal here is to, is to landscape it. It's going to be sod. It's going to be irrigated. But that there's no program equipment that we would like to see conditioned on this development. Having full park fees that are going to a program park immediately less than probably a quarter mile. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Farmakes: So from a conceptual standpoint, what you're saying is you don't want a ballfield ont here? Don Jensen: We don't want a ballfield. We don't want play apparatus. We don't want any more conditions on that common space than you would on a single family house, what goes in their back yard. That's what we're talking about, by having those residents decide, based on who they are. Farmakes: Is this conceptually a commons area for the houses that surround Block 1? Or is this a commons area for all the units? Don Jensen: It's a commons area for all of the units but it obviously impacts those people that are in that block and back onto the most. Farmakes: Some of the areas that you're showing as green space, in the corners say for instance. Are those intended to be accessed also or are those, would those access to those points have to be over property lines? Don Jensen: Access to those would be available. The lots that you have on the proposed plat in your packet, they have a...strip inbetween each lot so for maintenance purposes there's always access. It's all commons area but everyone's entitled to be there that lives there. From a practical point of view, we tend to find that really only the people that live in that general area use it the most. But it is open to all, from an ownership perspective and there's no rules against using it. Mancino: So if someone from the first cottage on the south side wants to come into the commons area in the middle, they can walk through anyone's side yard, which is 10 to 20 feet inbetween? Don Jensen: Sure. Much as people can today on any single family neighborhood on the common drainage and utility easements that are available on all of those properties. People rarely do but you have a public easement. Mancino: But there is no general area? There is no entrance to that commons area? Don Jensen: No. What we would have is, in all likelihood, a space between Lots 63 and 39. They would have a much more pronounced entry. Likewise there's more than likely to be a drainage and then on the utility plans we have drainage access in this location here and again up in this northeast pocket there'd be a more pronounced entrance into that. So it might be... landscaping plan or be able to announce that a little bit better...access trail. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Is there a trail to Lake Riley from that northern side? How do people get from there to Lake Riley? Don Jensen: From the northern side they're going to come around onto the private road and then they have their choice. If they want to get on the sidewalk at this point here, this point here or if they come through the back area to access the sidewalk that's proposed on this south side of North Bay Drive and if they can move down... Pretty much like a cul-de-sac area if you will. You have a small housing neighborhood with a well defined access point, two of them, and that whole private street doesn't generate a whole lot... Farmakes: How many zero lot line developments have you been involved with? Your corporation. Don Jensen: The company here, and we have five under way right now. We have one in a full scale development. We have several that we had completed probably 10 years ago. Farmakes: I'm assuming that the piece of people who are living in these zero lot lines, that they have very little property surrounding their home... Don Jensen: There's two perspectives there. That's correct. The commons area is important. The other is, when you look at the overall land mass that you have, for example out in these areas. The actual perceived open space that you have is a lot more than their lot area. Farmakes: I understand that but for recreational issues, particularly if they have children and so on, in this type of situation they're either playing out in the street or they're going to a commons area. Don Jensen: Or they're going to the neighborhood park that's a little bit farther down the street. Farmakes: Correct, but if you're talking younger kids and so on that primarily...where would they be parking their bikes? Where would they be, there's no in and out. Will people be dropping their kids off by parking their cars on the road? What has been your experience with these other developments? Don Jensen: I guess what you really see is that you have a buyer profile that's buying into a neighborhood understanding that they're not needing the yard space that comes with your standard single family lot. That's what they want versus having someone who says, I want to buy and live here and I feel cheated because I don't have this big back yard that comes with a single family lot. It's just different housing. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Farmakes: But conversely, it may be that someone needs that space but this is what they can afford in that particular community. So therefore that's what they buy and they utilize that commons area for recreation. Don Jensen: And that's true and that's one of the advantages of being able to have it as large as possible for as many people, whereas for example a number of single family homes that might share a common back yard lot line. One person deciding to fence off their back yard in the middle of that what once was a pretty large opportunity... In this case we have a much larger opportunity. Where they place their bikes, they'd probably lay them down on the turf or whatever their mode of getting there is. Farmakes: So you haven't experienced any type of problems with the neighbors for access issues with this commons area because of the narrow access points, or storage of bikes or you know, young children hitting a ball through a window? Don Jensen: No, but I think you have those concerns in many number of housing types though. We haven't perceived...more or less of a problem. Working through a... Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Okay. Did you have anyone else presenting? Don Jensen: No. Mancino: May I have a motion to open up the public hearing please. Meyer moved, Faimakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Those who wish to address the Planning Commission, please do so at this time. Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. I've been a resident of Lake Riley for 15 years now and I guess our main concern with this would be protection of our lake resources. I'm a little concerned about the wetland alteration. I do not see anything in these plans that show how he's mitigating the wetlands that he was destroying, and I don't believe, being we're so close to the lake and studies that we have done as a lake association and part of the surface water management task force, show this wetlands to be critical to the health of Lake Riley. And he also mentioned that the grade is all coming right down to the lake. I would really suggest we don't listen to any kind of mitigating this wetland off to some other property or going into the fund or anything like that. I'm really not sure what these 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 holding ponds do for the water that's coming this direction and heading toward Lake Riley. It doesn't quite make sense to me so I'm assuming that the city will work very closely. I would very strongly support moving this road over here to mitigate west of the wetlands. Also I was part of the wetlands ordinance that we worked with and I think they said that the wetland officially goes back. These trees are included in the wetland. These houses are not anywhere near far enough away from the wetlands to meet current ordinances, as far as the buffer zone so I don't think they're even close to meeting current ordinances there. I'd also like to address the beachlot over here. I would suggest that the city pull that in together and not consider that separate. I think it should be considered as an entire plan so we can look at the whole thing altogether. My concern is that we're going to give them a beachlot which has boat storage but there's no place for anybody to park a boat anywhere in here and I'm afraid that they're going to end up wanting to have boat storage and whatever else next to the lake, which I would be strongly opposed to. Also the road improvements. I think this is going to add a fair amount of traffic going both directions out of here. I don't know what kind of coordination you have to do with the City of Eden Prairie to coordinate the road improvements but I would strongly suggest you look at that. If the road has to shift, I didn't quite understand this but they said that the road would have to shift to the north to get MnDot to approve the speed of the curve or something. Again, that's going to impact the wetlands and I didn't see anything in the plans as to how they're going to address that. And as far as the zero lot line, some of the discussions about how people get to these common areas. That's not so much my concern as the protection of the lake, but it sure sounds like you're setting yourself up for a lot of trouble with having lot lines that snake between houses and people cutting through other people's yards. Looks like trouble to me. However, I would like to say on the positive side that I'd rather see a development like this than high density, high rise, low income housing so I'm in favor of this type of a development versus a super high density type of development, which I think is what it's zoned for today. So keep our lake in mind in the planning process and we appreciate it. Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Bob, can you talk to any of those questions that came up a little bit about wetland mitigation. About the closeness of some of the homes to the wetlands, etc. Generous: Well that one's easy. We pointed that out to the applicant. That's why one of our recommendations that they shift the North Bay Drive to the north so that they can maintain the required setbacks and buffer strip. The roadway alignment. It's a horizontal curve. It's some engineering standards that have to have so much sight distance and angles to meet their requirements for funding I believe and design criteria and so that's what the city has a consultant that's working on that and the applicant's engineer will work with the city to make sure that complies. Actually I believe that the City's original alignment for Lake Riley, or the Lyman improvement is closer to the wetland area. This one actually pushed it farther away. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 The ponding areas there are proposed for storm water quality and quality improvements so that it takes out the nutrient loads before it would dump into the wetland and then it would go through the wetland out into the lake. So what they're working on is based on the city's storm water master plan that looked at the development of this area and how we're going to preserve and enhance our water quality. Farmakes: So as the plan stands right now, 15 under your recommendations covers that issue? As the drawing shows it now with the setbacks and so on. Don Jensen: 15 on page? Farmakes: Page 16. Generous: Yes. Don Jensen: If I could elaborate on that, and Bob did an excellent job... All of the road's taking the storm sewer that comes down the road. Likewise the city's project has storm sewer off of a curb and gutter section. Those meet at this location at the intersection of the public street that we're calling North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Boulevard. This is the water quality pond area. This coloration is the untouched wetland in it's current status. This area here actually is a second cell and as, from a water treatment point of view, qualifies for wetland mitigation status. So this whole entire area of wetland mitigation, and it's likely that the city through this road project would expand that into the land that's available here, on the Klingelhutz plat. The water goes from the street to pure water quality pond. Bounces out and goes through wetland mitigation area that also is used as a water quality second cell. From there it goes to this large complex. Here the City's proposing to raise that elevation like 3 or 4 feet for storage. This road presumably goes away and then it bounces out into the one wetland again that flows back underneath Lyman Boulevard back out into the lake. So there's really quite a series of protection or systems here. Farmakes: How is the setback issue to the north then? Don Jensen: The canopy that's shown on the drawings would lead you to believe that the edge of the canopy is the right-of-way, the edge of the wetland. That is not the case. We have about a 40 foot distance from the delineated wetland. We understand that it would need to be 50 so we shift 10 feet from this point here. Aanenson: Can I just expand on one other thing, on the beachlot. Again, this is conceptual so the objective here is just to try to flush out the issues that they need to address when they come back to refine it. Certainly there needs to be some work on the wetlands. But the 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 beachlot, I want to make sure that that's clear. That we concur that that needs to be addressed when it comes back for preliminary and we would notice that as part of the preliminary and have a public hearing on that but it needs to be addressed then. And also understand that the Park and Recreation Commission also is looking at possibly using a portion of that as public space and that whole issue needs to be addressed too and we'd like to see it again in kind of a holistic sort of thing so we have a lot better understanding what the trade-off is. And it ties back into what you were saying Jeff as far as open space. When we looked at this, what would be a use of the land. Obviously it's zoned for high density. They could be stacked. We felt this was a good use of the land. It's a different product and we also felt the preservation of the open space along the lake, the preservation of that natural feature, the trees also provide an opportunity for those residents to have a place to recreate too. In addition to the larger park in the Klingelhutz, the Park and Recreation Commission has now recommended a larger park in this area, which is also is close proximity to walking space. So there is king of a competing need there to have this type of a product and not as much open space interior but in close proximity and a little bit different type of space. Farmakes: When you're referring to the product then, and what our commission's going to recommend, is the intent of what you're calling public use, a neighborhood issue or serving the people in relative distance to the area? Aanenson: My understanding is they may be looking at putting parking spaces and opening it up as a public space to allow maybe a few parking slips for maybe a public pier. Farmakes: But again I go back to, unless they've changed the definition, neighborhood park is to serve generally the neighborhood, although it's publically used by... Aanenson: They do have, all that beachlot is under their ownership right now. That would all be their neighborhood park. Now if the Park and Recreation Commission wants to obtain that in some fashion, they'd be looking at a different type of park. That is all right now just thoughts that they've expressed. Again, conceptually this is kind of what they're leaning at but certainly we would like to see that refined as this goes through the process and certainly the applicant wants to know exactly what the implications are in their project. Mancino: Kate, will you talk a little bit more about the park. Is it a neighborhood park on the Klingelhutz property? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: And how far is that? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Generous: It's 5 acres in size and less than a quarter mile from there. Aanenson: And that would have the normal play structure and those sort of things that you'd see in a neighborhood park. Farmakes: What is the distance to the apartment building that is part of the non-conforming lake access that we had problems with. How far is that distance? Aanenson: It's right in front of the project. Farmakes: Right in front. Mancino: Are you finished. Farmakes: Yeah, I'm sorry. I just wanted to. Mancino: I'm cutting you off. This is still a public hearing. Would someone else like to address the Planning Commission? Dave Nikolai: My name is Dave Nikolai. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. I'm a resident of Rice Lake Manor. I'm a neighbor, and I'll use the term lightly as neighbor, to Rottlund right now. Approximately a year ago I was here, I am the single largest...resident that borders the Mission Hills development and I'd like to show you some pictures a year later of what has happened to the water quality in Rice Lake Marsh area. The ponds and I'll show you, or ask you, have any of you since approving Mission Hills, been out to take a look at what has happened to the water and wetland areas? May I ask that question first of all? Have anybody of you gone out and come out into my neighborhood and taken a look? Mancino: I've driven out and I haven't seen the wetlands. Dave Nikolai: Okay. Can I show you some pictures? These pictures were taken in the last 3 months. I have talked. Mancino: Just a minute. Nann, can you get this? Opheim: The photos? Mancino: No, can you get his voice? Opheim: Yes. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Dave Nikolai: I have talked to Dave Hempel about this and I am working with John Rask. John should have apprised these people about that I was coming this evening, so I'm not here to blind side the city by any means but I want to show you the reality of what's happened just this year, which is approximately one year since Mission Hills came into play, and what it's doing to the water quality. You've got an issue, we've got runoff going into Lake Susan direct and you've got an issue with runoff off the development going directly into Rice Lake. First of all here is the exit off of West 86th Street, or off of TH 101 into West 86th Street. You can go out there and you can see water pooled there right now. If you drive out there and that is running under TH 101, directly into Lake Susan. This next picture was taken approximately one year after the development commenced. You'll see on here that there are no barriers for protection of the erosion and I'm going to show you pictures where it escalates based on the rains and things that we've had. Now we've had a fair amount of rain this spring but that should have all been taken care of and protected and thought of ahead of time. I'm going to show you, the pictures I'm showing you right now are before the erosion barriers that were put up about approximately 3 weeks ago. 3-4 weeks ago and I'm going to show you what happened after the last rain and you'll see the pictures of the erosion barriers. You're now looking at my neighborhood, where I live, West 86th Street. I'm on Tigua Circle, which is the dead end of West 86th Street. You're going to slowly see the escalating water build-up. We have a flooding situation. I have talked to Dave Hempel about this twice. I've talked to John Rask about this and what has happened in the re-building of West 86th Street, is you've created a pitch that is pushing the water down. There's two storm sewers that are collecting that water at the end of the new development are not adequate. It's flooding West 86th Street and it's draining directly into the wetlands. The picture that I'm handing this gentleman here right now, I'm sorry Jeff, will show the flooding that's happening on West 86th Street. You can tell by the quality of the water, that this is straight runoff. Here's the picture of my neighbor directly to the east where the flooding, this flooding didn't, it wasn't there before. All of these pictures here now. Now the first picture I'm handing Jeff now, this is after the barriers were put up 3 weeks ago. Approximately 3-4 weeks ago and after I had to come to the city to beg them to get after Rottlund to correct this situation. Here's a picture I'm handing Jeff right now would be a classic, after the barriers are put up. Mancino: The barriers were put up a year after the project was started? Dave Nikolai: That is correct. You can see in the difference in the pictures that there are pictures that were taken before and then there are pictures that have been taken within the last couple of weeks. Now I'm going to show you the difference in the color of the water going directly into the wetlands. I'm going to hand Jeff the first picture here. You can see by the beige color of the water, and then you can see the blue color in the background, what has 40 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 happened and that water is going directly into Rice Marsh. Here's a good picture showing the water already totally distorted. It's not going, it is going through our collecting pond but the collecting pond's filled up. They overflowed and the last set of pictures I want to show you, this is the part that I originally called the city about and I'm most concerned about, the wetlands around the whole Mission Hills development are full of trash and here's a good picture and sir, I'd like you to come up here and take a look at this picture. Your superintendent has been notified. Your building permits are being withheld and he is not doing anything about it. I live in this neighborhood. Mancino: Okay, remember you're talking to us. Dave Nikolai: I'm sorry. So you can see the trash sitting in the wetland. Here's another picture of the flooding but there's also trash. This would be along the easterly border of the development. I live just up the hill from this development. I've been picking up trash from the Rottlund development for a year. You can come into my neighborhood right now and you will see after this little wind that we had in the last day, trash coming in our neighborhood. Nobody picks that up except for us. I'd like these pictures back. I'm more than willing to leave them here so that whoever you'd like. I've got two other issues I'd like to address. Mancino: Okay. Dave Nikolai: The erosion is my number one concern. The trash is the second concern. For 90 days now, and the city staff will tell you. You should check with them so you don't have to believe me. I have been talking with them about it. They have contacted Rottlund. Rottlund hasn't responded. When I said neighbors, you know I was here a year ago. I talked about all these issues. I was concerned about it. I'm here now a year later. This development, while it isn't directly adjacent, we did receive notices in Rice Lake Marsh area that there was going to be another development by Rottlund in our area but tonight I haven't seen it so something changed here. There are two parts. You've got the right-of-way going through a piece of property here for the new Highway 212. I think somebody should ask the question about what's going to happen to the piece of land that is on Rice Marsh that is north of that that butts up to the other part of Rice Marsh where I live. Okay. So I'm asking a question. ...concept of this type of density of housing. I'll live with the one that we have, because I'm already in to that. The gentleman that said before, that he'd rather see this type of development versus what's happened in my area, which we're not talking that far. We're less than a quarter mile apart here. Maybe even less. This type of development is not suited for wetland, lake area. The park situation. I fought for that park in Mission Hills. The Park Commission did not put a park in there. They passed on it. We came here and told you about it. You did get them to do that and there is supposedly going to be a park, a small 41 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 park in there. You cannot put that many people into a small area without a planned park system, and Bandimere Park is not developed. Sorry. And that's going to come up on an issue or here shortly. I think I'm going to stop there. There were a lot of promises made on the Mission Hills project. Dick Putnam, who was the major spokesman at that time, made a lot of promises to us, the neighbors about things that were going to happen that haven't happened, and I've got evidence to prove. I'd highly recommend you come out and take a look. If you don't get out there tomorrow, they'll probably be corrected but I think the pictures speak for themselves. I would recommend to the city that they really seriously reconsider this type of development and take a look at what's happened with the Rottlund people and the developments they have, and if what I'm told is true, the building permits are being held up because they can't get Rottlund to perform, then why would you want to approve another development? Thank you. Mancino: We appreciate your comments. Thank you for coming. Any other comments? Sharon Gatto: I'm Sharon Gatto. I live at 9631 Foxford. My concern is the traffic. We, it doesn't sound like 212 is going through. We can't count on 212 going through. So it bothers me with 80 some homes, which are probably 2 cars to each home. The traffic level, as they were said, would be very little and I disagree with that. Access could be made, I don't know if they could get onto it from TH 101, but TH 101 is a pretty busy road these days. Pioneer Trail's pretty busy. Highway 5 is packed. Dell Road's not open yet. It will be open soon. That's going to be packed. I hate to see high density going in until there's some roads that will access people in and out...TH 101's being wrecked. I mean the traffic on it right now is • very high, it's very dangerous. Lyman, I'm not sure what they're talking about, about the curve or if they're going to enhance or widen the road but the traffic is what bothers me, firstly. Secondly is the high density near the lake. I live on the southwest corner of the lake and it bothers me that high density will be close to the lake. You know you're going to get trash. You're going to get runoff. You're going to get traffic. And I think people will come in with kids. Even though they're zero lot lines, they're going to be more affordable housing because Chanhassen has a higher, it does have a higher average housing sale price so I think it's going to bring in small families...just don't think it's suited. I would rather see them take out maybe half of the homes and leave it not such a high density. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? John Bushey: I'm John Bushey, 9000 Riley Lake Road in Eden Prairie. I own property and live on Lake Riley and I'm a Board member of the Lake Riley Improvement Association. I'd like to quickly reiterate a few of Mr. Sitter's comments and agree with staff on some of the issues. First of all the wetland alterations. I'd like to recommend that you minimize alteration to wetlands and question whether the 2:1 mitigation rule applies here. And if so, is 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 it on site or is it off site? Near? Far? I don't know what the rule is on that. I'd like to stress it should be near the wetland that's reflected in the development here is critical to the health of Lake Riley. I think that's pretty clear that that's the case. And as the recent commenter here just made clear, there's many construction site. I live adjacent to Bearpath right now and a lot of nice things were said at the beginning of a construction project and regardless of the good intent, whether it's there or not, in the end erosion control is largely determined a success...and even then it really doesn't work when a big storm comes, and that's when the problems are. It's good for a light drizzle and a big rain in the end...lot of sediment into these wetlands. The NURP pond or settling ponds on the south of this project considered mitigation in this case? I don't know that. That's a question that should be brought up. Is that legally called a mitigation as part of the 2 for 1. Mancino: Bob, could you answer that please? Generous: Under proposed legislation. John Bushey: The new proposed. Generous: Yeah. Aanenson: But currently, no. John Bushey: But currently, no. Will the decision be made before or after that legislation? That's up in the air. Generous: You know the legislature as well as we do I suppose. John Bushey: Yeah, okay. And the delineated wetland that's mentioned, is that delineation before or after the wetland level to be raised by 4 feet? Generous: That's currently. John Bushey: Okay. So if it's raised 4 feet, then the buffer zone go back 4 feet and it seems like there's no room for these developments. If the level goes up 4 feet. Mancino: Well they will adjust it accordingly. John Bushey: If they adjust it accordingly, it seems like they're awful tight right now. Generous: Yeah, and we've let them know that they are tight in there. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 John Bushey: Alright, so that's covered. It was real interesting to hear the stories of the development at Rice Marsh Lake. Rice Marsh Lake feeds through Riley Creek directly into Lake Riley and it's on the primary sources of phosphorus going into the lake. And with the high phosphorous soils that we have in the north side of Lake Riley, in addition to all the agricultural phosphorous loading, that's a serious problem with the quality of Lake Riley, which is in question. It's not a very high quality lake right now to begin with. The erosion control, it's absolutely crucial that it be taken, the best practices and beyond in these construction... Three other issues, I'd like to reinforce the thought that the beachlot development be tied directly with the development. Not keeping them separate...lake association because of the high traffic already and I think that any approval of this development should be tied to the development of the beachlot so it's clear that what you get with the houses, you get with the lake. Mancino: It will be. John Bushey: The traffic issue is also pretty critical. I don't know whether having the driveway together with the apartments or not is good. That could go either way. Right now the traffic from the apartments is a major problem with very little disregard for traffic rules and stop signs. I can see why they wouldn't want to share that driveway. But this will an additional load on the Eden Prairie side as well as on the Chanhassen side. I suggest that this development not become approved until there is a definitive traffic management plan. It was hard for me to see but I understand there are some sidewalks. Is that the dark line? Mancino: Yes, it's on the south side of that main road. John Bushey: Okay. Is there a plan for sidewalk or bike path on Lake Riley Blvd and Lyman? Generous: Yes. With the expansion. John Bushey: Ah, okay. Aanenson: That'd be part of the improvement project of that. John Bushey: Okay. It's interesting that that's on the south side of Lake Riley Road because you can't continue. Right off the top of this chart there's a humongous cliff there. So somehow they're going to have to cross the road so some consideration of how that goes. If it's going to tie into... There are plans right now at the Eden Prairie border for bike paths to come to the western boundary of Eden Prairie and go north along the boundary with the Bearpath development...but that's on the north side of the road. So some consideration of 44 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 that. It belongs on the south side here. Somehow it's got to get across. We understand that. With the traffic situation the way it is, and the number of children that are in the apartments, and the very few of us who live in Eden Prairie near this but are not in Bearpath, and the new occupants of these...so thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Kevin: Good evening, Madam Chair. Commissioners. My name's Kevin...and I own RLK Associates... We've been retained by the...Corporation, owners of the Lakeview Apartment property to assess the development potential of the property, together with assessing the impasse of the proposed North Bay development on the...property. Three main areas that we'd like to talk about tonight. How the housing development affects the apartment building. How the development affects the developability of the Lakeview property and then the overall planning issues concerned with the entire area. First of all, one point that we'd like to state is that the access to the apartment building, it's critical that it remains in approximately the same location that it is. Now if the road were to straddle property lines, that it would be close enough to existing entrance to the apartment building...apartment complex itself so. Right now the proximity of the access to the apartments and proposing routing of those are relatively close and I think that may be an issue...Another issue is that the sanitary sewer and water service of the apartment are in place now and I'm sure staff will address this engineering. Those need to remain in place uninterrupted through the construction of the proposal. Fourthly, that the storm water drainage that's currently...and I think you can see on page 2, your existing conditions map, where that line empties out across the Adelman property and follows it overland of course down to the pond. And then to the south of that, there's another smaller pipe that exits off the property onto the Adelman property and... And then fifthly, in connection with the apartment complex, that the overall development, not necessarily...on the entirety of the Lakeview property but that some sort of connection, pedestrian connection be from the... Secondly, for the development concerns of the Lakeview property, again the access I think is something that we'll continue to look at with the Rottlund Corporation... Secondly that again, storm water drainage be preserved for the developability of that...is not affected adversely by that. Thirdly, that sanitary sewer and water facilities be made available with the proper sizes and depths adequate to serve that area. Again, the pedestrian connection from the developable portion of Lakeview properties be made so this whole area can be...and not a separate piece as it were. Lastly, with the plan issues, and a lot of these things will go back to show that the common access road is... That overall that the joint planning efforts by Rottlund and perhaps the...Corporation might yield an overall... And lastly, in looking at the side of the Lake Riley Road that we understand that shift in that road may be appropriate given the storm water concerns or the design speed of the road itself. However... Those are concerns in overview.... 45 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission on this issue? If not, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Fay hakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: The public hearing was closed. We may during the discussion, commissioners discussion, ask questions from the applicant and that would be fine if you could please answer us or if staff. Mike. I think that one of the issues that we need to discuss is that staff is recommending that we have this conceptual approval and not preliminary PUD approval. Just because of some of the issues that still need to be resolved that will affect this plat. So if you could talk to that and also conceptually, again in broad stroke terms, how you feel about that. Farmakes: Madam Chairman? Mancino: Yes. Farmakes: Can I make a comment? You may want to define the difference between, for our two new board members. I'm not sure, I can't speak for them but I know sometimes that's a confusing issue for initially being on the commission. Mancino: Oh, for conceptual approval? Farmakes: Yes. Meyer: So what are we approving? Mancino: So what you are approving is transportation routes. How the roads work. The alignment of the street. The overall landscaping. Aanenson: Just kind of broad brush. Again the conceptual, it doesn't have legal standing. You can certainly alter it but when you're saying is the general framework, you envision seeing the single family detached is what you vision on there, as Commissioner Mancino indicated. But the general framework of the road connections. That sort of thing. Just the overall broad brush. Certainly issues are going to have to be further developed such as the wetland. How that's, how and if that should be mitigated. Storm water treatment. How that will be handled. All those sorts of things but what we're saying is on the conceptual framework, is this something you would be interested in seeing further developed. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: So with that, I'll start with Jeff. Farmakes: I guess I'll start out with touching on some issues. The first one I'm going to touch on, because this sort of pertains to the previous issue that I abstained on. The developments that we have that are right adjacent to a lake, it seems to me that in our best practice, perhaps we should maybe take a look at looking at how we do that. An issue of construction. I can name off all of the lakes that are in Chanhassen and the ones for future development of this type are Minnewashta, Riley, Lake Ann potentially, and Lake Lucy still has a small amount of development left to go. All of these lakes have turbidity problems. Without exception, and some of them are bad. There's no question that development contributes a great deal to this and we can make all the rules in the world but if the management of development does not follow through with these, we literally have to have a person on site on every development in Chanhassen and somebody's got to pay for that. So I guess we either need to stiffen those bonding issues and make it more than a slap on the wrist, or simply not allow those developers to develop in this community. Because this is a community that takes the wetland issue seriously and not to make a long speech here. That's what our residents want. And if the developers don't want to conform to that, don't come in. I'm disturbed by these pictures that were brought up here. I think that a lot of this is just an issue of management quality and I realize that you're representing a company in particular that happens to relate to these but there are other construction firms also that are involved in these issues. But they're still issues. They're issues of trash and clean-up after yourself and simple issues of putting up barriers that you agreed to put up and did not do it. Don Jensen: I would like to. Mancino: Would you please finish until we have a question for you. Thank you. Farmakes: In a large scale development, it's obvious there's a million things to go and there are some things that are delayed or whatever but on the chain of command and going on down the line, these are the type of things that create problems with neighbors, and these are your neighbors here. What you're proposing is to bring in an additional 100 and some people, or cars and families, into this area to create more of Chanhassen. Now there's a lot of Chanhassen left to be developed and we have to take it seriously. We have to ask the people coming to do that, to take our rules seriously. Now I'll start on the issue of this development. I think that the issue of the wetland mitigation that was proposed, be pushed farther down on the property line. I'm not sure, I'd like to see what's the staffs response to that is. I haven't seen wetland mitigation that is pushed off into someone else's property line before but maybe if the city wants to respond to that proposal. I don't understand it thoroughly or I'm not sure that it's spelled out here. I didn't catch it. Is that what you were proposing? A direct question. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Don Jensen: To respond directly to the question here. The plan as it is intended, is if this is the low area of your SWMP management plan, master plan. Our plan achieves the 2:1 mitigation required by the wetland that's proposed to be filled on this plan. Water goes directly into a water quality pond. That does not get any wetland mitigation credit. If it comes out of there into a second cell, which is entirely on this property, meeting the mitigation percentage requirements before it goes into an area that's declared a wetland, it does get wetland mitigation credit per current State rules and LGU rules. What I was describing is that this farm road would go away once you have a public road access further and this farm is in the 212 right-of-way. It presumably goes away with the Klingelhutz plan when it ultimately becomes developed. The city's SWMP management plan intends to purchase property at the low end of the drainage basin for water quality purposes. This remnant piece, inbetween an existing delineated wetland is higher than the current wetland. Would be a candidate to be dug for a water quality ponding or wetland mitigation for which this road project has it's own requirements for Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley. So what I'm just describing is there is a potential for the city to maximize the space. That's off site. We didn't ask for any credit off site. It's just that what you end up with is this existing wetlands, all areas above that likely get carved out in your long range master plan that Bonestroo prepared and your best plan is to have that north of the road because you certainly can't fit in a water quality pond and expect it to do it's job between the lake and the road so, I hopefully responded to your questions. Farmakes: That answers my question, thank you. I'll go down to the issue of what I see as a fill fluid issue or the options on the shoreline. If they retain, as the park recommends or whatever they come to an agreement where the ownership of that area as retained with the development and as for the use of this development. I see potential of problems with boat, canoe storage and things of that nature. You've got a fair amount of people on a small amount of land. I'm not sure how that's going to be a part of the plan but I'd like to see that spelled out when it comes back specifically. What those options are. And the issue of boat storage. I think we've touched on the issue of canoe storage but I think boat, and what we're looking at as far as mooring boats. I think it's pretty evident that 212, based on federal protections and federal money handed to the State, to our community, is down in the future somewhere. At least not in this century. Under those circumstances, I am concerned how, what our projections are in this types of densities for access and how you see that traffic, so that would also be something I'd like to see developed in the next report when that comes back. Because obviously those access points will be from north to south, and not east to west. We don't have the benefit tonight of answering general questions of our engineer so I'm not going to dwell on the engineering issues but obviously it'd be something that you'll be providing us when this comes back. But those pictures are disturbing. I think that in particular looking at the previous development, which I see is a much worse situation as far as land topography. The topographic issue of how that land works and so on and how we 48 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 deal with that currently. We may want to look at, as I was just talking about some sort of additional issues on wetlands that surround open water. Mancino: We can add that to a PUD. Farmakes: We can add this to an addition but I'm not sure if staff has had time to contemplate that issue but, there's not many feet to that type of water to...quality of what we're trying to achieve here. In looking at and a lot of this does not go from one wetland to another wetland to another wetland. It goes right into the lake. I'd also like to see what options would be put forward to residents of the commons area. I'd like to see that spelled out. I think that's an important area when you confine that many people together, and particularly a zero lot line. I think that zero lot line is good. I have nothing against zero. It offers I think a good living environment if the commons area is more than a token issue. And it allows a reasonable place to live at a reasonable cost and particularly in an area that has high land cost. I like what I see architecturally. I think how they've approached it with the multi-color and the architecture that I see, is actually innovative. I like it. It's some of the nicer stuff that I've seen come into here. And at that price level. If that in fact is that price level. Although I'm not making that a condition of what I'm talking about. I'm not certain, I would feel that we're not doing our job if we left that as a blank area to be figured out by the residents. I think that's too much an intrinsic issue and we should be part of that. That's part of what we do. I'll leave the comments, I don't want to take them all. I'll leave that for the rest of you. Mancino: You got most of them. Thanks. Mike. Meyer: I don't know what he's left out. A lot of the same concerns I have were the same as his. The wetland. Making sure that that's handled in the right way because you only get one shot at it is a big concern. I would like us to have a hand in the common areas also and the planning of that. I just pretty much am in full agreement with everything that Jeff has said and I'll just leave it at that for now. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I have a couple of things. You had brought up the amount of traffic on the surrounding roads and Lyman Boulevard is scheduled to be updated at some time. It's another road in need of repair and improvement. How is that, what does the timeframe look like for Lyman Boulevard being upgraded? Generous: I think they said pushing it back to next spring. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Don Jensen: Do you want me? Generous: Yeah. You had talked to Charles on that. Don Jensen: The engineering department, in their memo in your staff report...condition that they have in every other development, we wouldn't be able to turn any dirt until they ordered that job which upgrades Lyman and Lake Riley Boulevard. So keep in mind that that whole road, the alignment that we're talking about, Lake Riley Boulevard, will get torn out. Torn up. New pipes put in and a new road surface put down. And from a company builder point of view, we don't want to be in there prematurely because we don't want to get cut off either. It doesn't do us any good to start a subdivision and have no way to deliver lumber and that kind of thing so those two are really tied hand in hand. To answer your question, if the city can't bond for the roads this fall or the utilities this fall, everything gets delayed at this point regardless of...timing. Whether that's next monday of July or August or September. Skubic: Okay, thank you Don. Don Jensen: The report says spring as the anticipated time to pay. Skubic: One other thing. There aren't too many zero lot line developments that I'm aware of. You did mention that there is another one in the suburban area, Inver Grove Heights. Is that correct? Don Jensen: Yes. Skubic: And just for point of reference, how does that development compare in terms of number of units, price range? Don Jensen: That was a concept, it's a little bit higher price point. It's has a little bit steeper topography around the exterior of the dwelling so that's one of the reasons that a lot of the buyers chose options with second floors...views. Had the wetland complex that we've been working with the city on to maintain the overall water quality... Regarding it's compatibility. It's price point is stronger than what we anticipate at this point and it's target should be. We anticipated that that would probably come in at around the 140 range... We would target this one so that the base price would be what we've got in the staff summary. Of course a lot of that is determined on development costs that we don't necessarily control and some of it is the higher ambience that... Does that answer your question? Skubic: Thanks. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Don Jensen: ...little bit less on the other one because it's about another 5 foot wider. It's a basement product where these are slab on grades so we need a little bit extra room to get the excavating equipment in so that's our reason for that. That density, with a private road system, that was about 5 units an acre... Skubic: And there were about, approximately the same number of units in that development? Don Jensen: We had 44, which is a real similar notion to what we had through here where you have... Skubic: That was 44 units? Don Jensen: That was correct. Skubic: Thank you. Don Jensen: You had a question about other zero lot line developments. There was kind of a phase in Twin Cities developments, probably RLK could certainly comment to that. About 10-15 years ago there was kind of a round of development that was in a narrower lot line, and whether you call it detached...Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, and then for some reason it went down the road for a little while. Now it's coming back and the Twin Cities in general has lagged the nation in coming up with housing that is smaller lots with less maintenance. We think it's appropriate. We've been receiving a lot of potential inventory and opportunity in giving the market with what they want. Mancino: Thank you. My comments are, conceptually I think, and no one has hit on the wetlands and our concern about them and I know that that will be taken care of between now and preliminary plat. The alignment of the roads, etc. I do support the staffs recommendations on that. I very much support this kind of housing. We have seen a lot of townhomes, twin homes lately so I like the zero lot, single family for those people who would still like to buy single family homes and can't afford most of the homes in Chanhassen. However, I would like to address a couple of the architectural comments that are in your memorandum and that is, I would like to make sure that Rottlund, that we do have a variety of color in bricks. I have seen that work lately in a townhome development that did not just use one color of brick, but used different colors. All within the same tone but a slight difference. And they also used brick or a substantial material like that and not the same mass on every single home. They used it maybe halfway up or they used it on a whole wall, a side wall, so that there was some differentiation between what was brick and what was wall. On page 8 of the memorandum under architecture, it says building colors will vary based on homeowner's selection with a range determined by Rottlund. See selected sample, which we 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 did. Rottlund reserves the right to vary based on supplier and material availability at the time of actual construction. I don't feel comfortable with that because I want to make sure that the agreement that Rottlund has with the city, with the variations that we see, we will be able to get. That is very important. Secondly, I would conceptually would like to see more side level entries. That is as you go down these streets, I see more of a neighborhood of garages, which is again very, very typical of all of the twin home, townhome developments that we're seeing and they all start looking alike. So I would like to see more of a variety of entries. I do feel it is important that the common area has very definite access corridors to it. And Bob I wanted to ask you, has the Klingelhutz property that's going to be up for development, have they talked to. Well I would hope in the next few months that they look at the access onto their property and that the applicant and those that are going to be developing the western property, get together to make sure that that works. Aanenson: Excuse me, are you talking about the street? Mancino: The street access. Aanenson: That's currently what they have platted right now. Whether that plat's going to hold in place but they have designed it to tie into this street. Mancino: Okay, thank you. I do like what has been presented as architecture. I like the mix of rectangular and arched window systems but I would just like to add some of these other things. What else? I think that those are the only other new issues that I wanted to bring up. I guess that's it. Do I have a motion? Meyer: Nancy, could I just ask one other question about staff? Mancino: Sure. Meyer: Along the 212, future 212 right-of-way, are we talking about any berming or any landscaping to put some sort of buffer there. I see there, maybe it's just the lay of the land but towards the upper end, towards the wetland there. Is that bermed? Aanenson: 212 will be lower than the actual, this project. What they're proposing to do is do some of the grading into that so when the property, when 212 does go through, whatever date that is, you're going to have to come into this project to do grading. So we envision some landscaping there but the elevation of the road will be lower. But there's still some noise...or transition. That's what we're talking about. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Well I just...I do support what Jeff said. I would like the applicant and staff to work out some sort of a system so that the erosion control measures are put up. There is no trash. Developer's walk their talk. And to be proactive and to have natural consequences if it doesn't happen. Thank you. Don Jensen: I'm sure there were a couple of questions that...podium to answer, if I could respond. Mancino: Yes, you may. Don Jensen: There was a question about what was happening north of the property to Rice Marsh Lake. Right now the city is responding, looking at purchasing the 212 corridor and the Rice Marsh Lake has been discussion stages and that was a complete program that has happened in other locations of 212. So that would take care of the problem to the north. That would fill out their joint plans, as we understand...Chanhassen to have an opportunity to serve Rice Marsh Lake with a trail system that would be independent of the Lake Riley trails that are happening in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. Aanenson: So our desire is to leave that natural except for a trail. That would be the area between 212 and Rice Marsh. Don Jensen: The existing sewer line forms a natural trail corridor that's already cut through the vegetation. For the most part that sewer line would be abandoned once the improvements and Lake Riley Boulevard, Lyman, whenever that occurs. Secondly, in some defense of our Mission Hills development. The superintendents have been told of that. We are the builder there so we are responsible obviously for all the trash but certainly that's, we're following other developers since there is a single family neighborhood between us and the others, which is not to say that some more fences aren't to be added and we'll just leave it at that. But we're not the prime contractor responsible for a lot of the road building and a lot of the initial major erosion control to protect that lake. So I just wanted to clarify that...or if they're torn down, no matter who tears them down. Regarding traffic, that will be in the staff summary. Hopefully I explained that. This is a road project...improve the overall circulation that fits within the city hierarchy. The engineers will comment to that next time. We do want to make sure that as a Planning Commission you are comfortable with this concept of housing, because we want to spend the time to massage the plan. We don't want to spend the time to massage the plan if you change your minds in two months time so we'd like to know that now and we appreciate the comments that we've heard. Regarding the commons area. We appreciate your interest to work with us to design it. I would like to say now that I want to be open to your phone calls and I'd like to be able to access you so we're not spending time at the podium with what our future plans are. We would like an opportunity to not over 53 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 program space before we know who the buyers are. And there is a risk.there. I've got neighborhoods where City Councils and Planning Commissions have projected a population mix. Required me to build play equipment. I can only purchase commercial grade equipment, like your parks can for liability purposes and I end up with a neighborhood of two children, with a $15,000.00 play structure, because that was mandated. If the association has the opportunity, if we can define activity zones, and the association then has the choice what their liability insurance, can buy a Rainbow play systems that fits what they want to do. They can buy that for $1,000.00. I can't buy a swing for an association, as the Rottlund Company, and turn it over, and not buy commercial park grade equipment that a swing will cost me $1,500.00. A slide that's this high will cost me $1,000.00, and you can verify that with Todd who buys all the equipment, I presume for the city and it's parks. I'm not trying to be abstinent about that. I just want to be open that we can envision what this neighborhood will be but if we don't leave a space and opportunity, all the people with children might buy on the outside and all the people without children, and there might be a lot of them, they buy on the inside, and they end up with a play structure right outside their patio. Okay. And then in retrospect, how smart was I? I don't want to waste a lot of time. I just want to be open to you so we're not debating... Mancino: Thank you. At this point, do I have a motion? Farmakes: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council grant conceptual approval of PUD #95-1 with the following conditions. Or excuse me, dated May 9, 1995 with the following conditions and issues, concerns and recommendations. 1 thru 30. I would add 31. To define the options of development for a commons area and access. 32. That a guarantee of minimum brick variations and colors of siding be defined. 33. Define the dock or boat mooring or storage as per proposed use for the shoreline. 34. A heighten guarantee of runoff control and garbage clean-up based on past... 35. A future projection of heighten traffic use without 212 development. Mancino: Do I hear a second? Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council grant conceptual approval of PUD #95-1 with the following conditions, issues, concerns and recommendations: 54 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 2. Fire hydrant changes: a) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection of Lyman Blvd. and the new proposed street (near Lot 1). b.) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection by Lot 43. c) Relocate the current hydrant between Lots 46 and 47 to between Lot 47 and the trail. d) Relocate the current hydrant from between Lots 36 and 37 to between Lots 33 and 34. 3. Submit street names for review and approval. 4. Submit turning radius of cul-de-sac to Fire Marshal for review and approval. 5. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 6. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 7. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 11. All utilities and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utilities plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts resulting from sanitary sewer installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement plan application. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 19. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetland shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. 20. The proposed storm water pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 21. The proposed single family residential development of 17.1 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $50,873.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 23. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and also with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels. 24. Existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site will need to be relocated prior to development of the area. 25. Lyman Boulevard alignment may be further refined conditioned upon the following: a. The right-of-way must remain uniform throughout at 80 feet. This applicant at this time is considering a narrowing down or neck in the right-of-way to minimize conveyance of right-of-way. The City would need to have the right-of-way dedicated prior to finalizing construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. b. The street design must meet State Aid, 35 mph design standards. Upon review of the proposed layout with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the 35 mph design standards. c. The proposed alignment should not add any extra cost to the project, i.e. retaining walls, steep slopes, surcharging, etc. 26. The applicant shall meet with the Lakeview Hills Apartment property owners to discuss a common street access along the easterly property line of the site. The current submittal of the roadway alignment is not acceptable due to the impacts to the wetlands. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 27. Lots 1 through 12, Block 2 shall be adjusted northerly to minimize impact to the large wetlands and trees. This also requires the realignment of North Bay Drive through the site. 28. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings; provide additional landscaping screening south of Lot 1, Block 1; revegetate the area behind Lots 6-11, Block 2 with central hardwood species which would expand the forested area adjacent to Basin B; and increase the number of evergreens to 20 percent of the tree plantings. 29. Dedication of the westerly portion of Block 3. This dedication is generally described as lying west of the trail easement at the point where it is perpendicular to Lake Riley Boulevard. This dedication to be a condition of the granting of planned unit development status. 30. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. 31. To define the options of development for a commons area and access. 32. A guarantee of minimum brick variations and colors of siding be defined. 33. Define the dock or boat mooring or storage as per proposed use for the shoreline. 34. A heighten guarantee of runoff control and garbage clean-up. 35. A future projection of heighten traffic use without 212 development. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Generous: It goes to the City Council on June 12th and they'll, for conceptual approval. Mancino: Did everyone hear that? It goes to the City Council on June 12th for conceptual approval. Thank you very much. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 NEW BUSINESS: Mancino: Any old business? Any new business? Aanenson: Yeah, I do have some new business. Todd Hoffman has been working to, on this park acquisition and trail construction and open space plan, has been working with the City Council and the City Council had recently approved the formation of a park referendum task force and he would like someone from the Planning Commission to be appointed on that commission. Let me just tell you what some of the things that they're looking at. They're looking at having a task force comprised of the following people. Two residents. He's got the city mapped into three areas. Basically it'd be Powers Boulevard, to the west. North of TH 5 and east of Powers would be another area and then the rest of the southern part of the city would be area 3. So he'd have a resident from each of those areas. Someone from the City Council. A member of the Chamber. He'd like a Planning Commission representative and then there will be two members of the Park and Recreation Commission. And again, they're looking for a Fall, 1995 voting referendum date so this group would have the task of kind of going through and prioritizing some of those park spaces and again based on the dollar amount that they're looking for the referendum, kind of putting some priority together. So if you would like, if someone from the Planning Commission would be willing to serve on that. Mancino: So it will be quick? It will be a summer meetings. Aanenson: Yes, yeah. What he's saying is that they'll probably meet twice monthly until that time so it's a time commitment but it would be a short window. If someone would be willing to serve. Mancino: Is there anyone that would like to volunteer for that? Farmakes: I'll do it. Aanenson: I'll pass that on to Todd and let him, I'll have him put you on the... Mancino: Great. Any other new business? I just have this to pass out, which I'm sure you've all seen. The Newsweek's latest edition had an article on...very good article. Aanenson: Let me pass this out while you're doing that. This is an interesting counterpoint too, when I was in Toronto. A professor in Canada who critiqued some of his, what he considers a new spin on an old thought and it's just an interesting counter balance to that 59 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 article. I think you'd find the, after you read this, just an interesting like I say balance to what they proposed. Some of the recommendations of that. Mancino: Great, thank you. And it would be nice at some point,just have kind of an open discussion. Aanenson: Yes, maybe we can put that on the next agenda. Sure. Farmakes: Maybe we can come up with the answer as to why they keep on trying to come here if it's so bad. Mancino: So for the next Planning Commission meeting,just read them both and then it will be just an open discussion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There were no Minutes available. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: City Council update, I can give that quick and then we can go on to the open discussion. I'm sorry, I didn't put that in your packet. The City Council met last Monday and the following actions were taken. Paulstarr was given site plan approval. That's a business in the industrial park. Mancino: Any changes? Do you remember? Generous: They took out the berming requirement and they said they wanted more evergreens. Aanenson: Instead of the berm. Generous: On the north side. The elevations, they went with what the applicant proposed for the entry way. With the two course projections. The use of the black brick. Farmakes: Oh, they liked that? No? Sorry. Generous: They didn't really address it. We brought it out but they didn't do anything. Farmakes: They thought it was fine. Generous: Yeah. They were happy to have the new business in the area. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Aanenson: Okay, Highlands at Lake St. Joe was given final plat approval. That's the Lundgren project south of Lake St. Joe. The one north of Lake St. Joe was given preliminary plat, and that was the Oaks at Minnewashta. That will be north of Kings Road. And the senior housing was tabled and that will be on next Monday's City Council meeting. Farmakes: What's the general feeling on that? Where they're going. Aanenson: The issue was the height and they asked the developer, Dunbar Associates who's acting as kind of the consultant to put the package together, to look at some design alternatives. A neighborhood meeting was held with the seniors and a couple of the neighborhood spokesmen to look at some design alternatives. Obviously some of them really aren't, one of them was to take the pitched roof off. I'm not sure that was really palatable for the neighbors, or the staff or the seniors. There was some other ones that were, we did show, they did show a 3 story elevation. It does push the building further to the south. It does also require a 15 foot retaining wall. Certainly that wall could be tiered so it's really hard to say, unless you saw a perspective, is that better to look at? So we've asked that the Dunbar prepare a site perspective showing what it would look like at 3 stories because it may or may not be better to look at. So at this point, when it goes to City Council, they will be shown all the different alternatives and let the Council decide. Farmakes: My comment, when we talked about that, and I don't know if I articulated this, was continue the coloration that you see about 6 or 7 months out of the year, which is the oak without the leaves on it, which is sort of a gray, muted gray across there rather than the black. It seemed to me a real waste of public money to lose over 10 feet, to lose 30% of the units in a confined area like that. And in looking at the study, the city's either going to have to take a position that it's not going to follow the study and position these homes within walking distances of grocery stores and so on. Short of, there are other alternatives which was to stick the building in the middle of a commercial area. It seems to me that they're caught between a rock and a hard place but the question is, they're spending public dollars and then the question becomes, how do you best spend those. Aanenson: Well I think the 3 story may be able to be done. The issue was, because you elongated a corridor, and because you do that and you're increasing the footsteps from the elevator, then it becomes a question of whether or not, can you keep those rents up and some of the financing issues. That's where the County HRA has to evaluate that. Where we left it at the meeting was, if the elevators could be moved, then you possibly could do a 3 story building. Then the broader question is, aesthetically is that better to look at than the 4 story and that's a question that we can't answer at this point. They've got the new neighbors that will have to look at it. City Council will have to look at it and based on a perspective. I'm not sure. So it may be able to be accomplished to lower it. Is it a better project? I can't say. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Well at least they have the choice then. Aanenson: Exactly. But we're giving design options and that's something that the Council, at least as the building. We did push the architecture, which is always good, to try and see some other alternatives... Farmakes: It would be unfortunate to see that as a flat building. Aanenson: I don't think the neighbors want that. I don't think the seniors want that. I don't think the city wants that. I think that proposal didn't gain much support. We certainly want to make it the best for everybody so we can accomplish everybody's goal. Let me just say on the open discussion. On your next agenda, what we'll do is put in an amendment to your By- laws. Since it is published here and there's really no reason to continue having the tape and the Minutes on that. They're just kind of housekeeping sort of things. We'll put them in and then formally when this comes on, we won't close the meeting but it won't be taped or Minutes of that part. But then we'll close the meeting after that and that was acceptable to the City Attorney. We'll put that in the next By-laws but certainly we won't close the meeting now but there certainly doesn't have to be Minutes of this portion. So we'll make that formally on your next agenda. The taped portion of the meeting ended at this point. The Planning Commission had open discussion regarding Wetland Regulatory Simplification and Affordable Housing. The meeting was then adjourned. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 62 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 7, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Ron Nutting, Bob Skubic, Mike Meyer, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 1.38 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION, PERKINS FAMILY RESTAURANT, GUY PAYNE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Bob, have you had time to make a thorough review of this new plan? When did you receive it? Generous: Well he had tried to fax it today but I just got it when the applicant showed up for the public hearing. Mancino: Okay. So you have not gone through and done a thorough review? Generous: Right. Mancino: So that you could tell us whether it meets all the Highway 5. Generous: Well it appears to. There's some other architectural features that I spelled out in the Alternate 2 recommendation that I wasn't able to ascertain whether or not those had been incorporated also. But maybe the applicant would be able to answer some of those questions. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Did the commissioners have any questions of staff at this point? Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation please? Guy Payne: Sure. My name's Guy Payne. I'm the Manager of Architectural Services with Perkins. To start off I'll just show you a photograph of this architectural building, what we're 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 doing with that before we add the metal roof. That gives you really the two views of which we're pretty much_._I guess you're going to...tell you where, how this evolved. We started out with that older building. It took us some, over 2 years ago. Ifs taken that long to ever get the project going. A lot has to do with the acquisition of the DOT property which is part of our's and all of that to get the project off the ground. In that meantime, that building we originally submitted, we're not building any longer and we've gone to what we felt a more exciting, particularly interior and exterior. A little more exciting and more intimate dining experience. So we went ahead and bid it out with the older building. The price came in quite a bit over budget so that's why we re-submitted with a different building since the other one was approved. So in order to make, just a little bit about this building. Some of the exterior, it's kind of obvious but something we've really worked on is to come one of our phototypical elements is this arched opening appears the same as on this. It's become a new standard for us, and we're even doing it all over Minneapolis in exterior remodels. Incorporating this same element so that's become a vital part of our exterior design that we're using. The interior of this building is also, that was one thing that, particularly our Chairman of the Board really wanted to get away from, the interior of our, the first building we presented was just, you came in and you had one large dining room where this, with the corner entry, you come in and it provides two different views. A lot of separate dining spaces and a lot more intimate dining space instead of just a big cafeteria type space. This is has not it exactly but it's similar interior that would go into that. A new interior scheme that we've come up with. I mean it's not that exact building but it will be all the same type decor. Same finishes. Going back to, but we felt this building, obviously those two sides are the most important views and the other two could be a little lax so in order to, if I had gotten the information sooner I probably would have had the information back to you all sooner but I was trying to redesign the building to incorporate as much of the changes as I could and still keep it somewhat within the budget. So I've got a handout I'll...and you can see it and hopefully it will clarify some questions. I've got...copies. In each it has a roof plan which you can see some new roof areas that we've added and then the elevations, revised elevations. So I'll give you each a copy. And the reason I'm showing this building is just for the, we've gone to this to replace, just to acquaint you all, we're using this stripe in it. ...which is what we've gone... Mancino: Thank you. Mr. Payne, can you explain again what we're looking at here. Guy Payne: Okay. This is basically the same. It's the typical, we call it 9048 Prototype is the building we're proposing and those two sides are more aesthetically pleasing. Mancino: Architecturally pleasing? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Guy Payne: Yeah. So and you really can't see the other two sides in this photograph. We can't ever get everything in there so on the elevations, you can see what we've added. I guess you can kind of compare what...We've come back and added a metal roof all the way around. You also have. Mancino: And what's this for? Guy Payne: That's just for the awnings. That's what the color of the stripes would be. So you'd have an idea. Nutting: Are they all in green or are some blue up here? Guy Payne: It's all green. Green. Green and white. Red and white stripes... Nutting: Are you going to put these awnings on this building? Guy Payne: Not, except the corners. That will go all over except for the two corners. The yellow... Nutting: The rest of them would be these? Guy Payne: Yeah. And I understand they say no back lit awnings and that's okay. We at least want to keep that awning... The reduction of the flag is okay. Last time we didn't even get a flag so I guess that's some improvement that we get an 80 square foot flag, because that's sort of important to us. His other comments concerning landscaping...incorporate that into the landscape plan...It'd be basically the same stucco as the other building so. I guess another comment, it's just a matter of evaluating the elevation we're proposing. All the other comments are pretty much acceptable as far as the other conditions site wise. This is the exactly same size that we took the diskette, the...diskette of the other building. Took it off and plopped this other one so we didn't change the site plan layout whatsoever. It has all the same features that were approved when it was first submitted. Any questions? Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners? Can you show me on the, on your...there, where the neon tubular lighting is? Guy Payne: Right there. Which would go all the way around the building. Mancino: So it would go along the top of the building. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Guy Payne: Right. And then you have this accent band that wraps all the way around the building and then you have the two different colors so you can get a little punch out of that, similar to on the back elevation you also have a band that goes all the way around. So it did have some features beyond just a blank wall. And I think with the addition of the metal roof, it makes it pretty comparable to the front two views. Mancino: And is that on 24 hours a day? Guy Payne: You mean the neon one? Mancino: Yes. Guy Payne: No. I mean it's only the night hours. Mancino: Okay. Secondly, do you have any pieces of the sprayed... Guy Payne: All the same color materials that we proposed before. Mancino: Now is that a, is it a sprayed insulation which adheres to the structure? Guy Payne: No. Basically what it is, you put your stud wall up. You put the plywood backing. You come down, you attach styrofoam board like an inch and a half, an inch of styrofoam and then you come and put a plastic mesh over the styrofoam and then there's a couple of...and then you come back with a color finish and trawl so it's like stucco but a true stucco, you put over the styrofoam basically is the difference. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Conrad: I think Americana Community Bank has the same system. Mancino: The same, okay. Are there Perkins of this architectural style already in the Twin Cities? Guy Payne: We built a new one in Eagan and Lake Street and they're a little different. They have the same materials. I think probably the most comparable things you could see were the exterior remodels around town that have, as I mentioned, have the same exact stucco and artist detail and awnings. I think that probably would be the most similar about anything we really have going. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting: Do you have a color representation of the old design with you at all? That was approved. Guy Payne: No, not with me. As I said, we're really not building it any longer. A lot of, it had the exact same colors in it. It had the same metal roof. The same green ceramic tile in it. So really there's no change at all with the coloring scheme. It's just the arrangements, configuration on the building itself. Nutting: But that was the style, the style that was proposed you said was a style that was in existence for a while and you were phasing out? Guy Payne: Yeah. Basically we're doing it more for interior purposes than anything. The interior just was one big open dining room and we tried to take it and incorporate more of a broken up dining spaces so you're not just one big dining area. Cafeteria type space. We wanted more intimate dining spaces so that's how these, how this and another prototype we're building evolved. The corner entry with broke up dining spaces so you get more interesting interior space out of it. The bakery is a big strong point as you come in. You have a real strong bakery area with signage and stuff, so I think overall it's just a lot more exciting building. Nutting: I'm just trying to visualize what you're saying. So without the corner entrance you're not able to create some of those interior enhancements? Guy Payne: Right. Interesting spaces. Nutting: But I'm not disagreeing with him. Just trying to clarify what he's saying. So it's that issue plus you said we're building that for a prototype that has been used before, it came in way over budget. Guy Payne: Right. If we had built it when we first started working on the project two years ago, we probably could have, it probably would have been in the budget. But in those two years the price of construction has gone up so much, that's why we had to go to a smaller building. And that's why we had to look at our smaller prototype to put in there. Nutting: So this is a smaller overall footprint? Guy Payne: Yeah. Nutting: What was the first footprint? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Guy Payne: ...over 6,000. Nutting: So we're at 5,000. • Guy Payne: Just under 4,500. Mancino: Oh! We're not at 5,000 anymore? Nutting: It says 5,000 in the staff report. Guy Payne: Yeah. It was actually 6,000. Nutting: No, but the revised plan that is 5,000 or 4,500? Guy Payne: It's really about under 4,500. I think on one of our site plans...and somebody had put...which is not accurate. It may affect... That one space... Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. Payne? Thank you very much. Guy Payne: Okay. Mancino: Appreciate it. Guy Payne: I guess just to finalize, we've been working with it for so long, we'd certainly like to move forward so. I know, I don't know the status of Taco Bell and the Boston Chicken, or whatever they're calling themselves now, but we'd like to make progress so we'd like to get a decision tonight if possible. See if we could negotiate something. Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to open for public hearing? Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Does anyone wish to address the Planning Commission? The public hearing is open. Seeing that no one does, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Discussion from commission members. Ron. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting: I liked the first one better. I guess what I've, we're not going through the interior of the building to pick it apart and to come up with how to design the space layout to create some of those pockets for more intimate settings but I'm not, I don't know that I care for the neon along the top and the awning. Just to clarify, the original awnings on the first site were proposed to be the solid yellow? Okay. I think I prefer that better than the green, white, red and yellow stripe combination that I have here in front of me. Staff, the revisions you've made do, according to staff, seem to be moving in the direction of suggestions that they're looking for in terms of a proposal to make it acceptable but I'm not, I'm kind of hearing Bob saying that but I'm also hearing we didn't fully have enough time to address everything and so I'm more inclined to want to see and or hear staffs full assessment of these revisions they just got before changing it. I need to feel real comfortable with that before I can move this one along because I think the changes that are, I think it's a much different project with the changes that are made. And so I guess I would be of the opinion to table it until next meeting and get staffs full report. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I agree with Ron. And with those 14 recommendations where Alternate 2...proposed here...information here and staff hasn't had time to review it. I agree. Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: I'm going with the status quo here. I am in agreement to that. I'd like to see the full, the plans. Have them have a chance to review it and get their comments and everything before we go ahead. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I think I'm okay with the direction. We don't have the old prototype to put in. We're going to put in a new product. They don't build the old one. What was given to me in the staff report was not acceptable and I think the recommendation and the alterations that were presented tonight are getting close. We have a key piece of property in Chanhassen that's visible from four sides. It's probably one of the few that's visible from four sides so we care about that. And I think we have to, we should in this in case make a good product. So I'm in agreement. I think it's going the right direction. I think staff needs time to review it. I'd like to see some of their recommendations incorporated into the applicant's proposal so we can forward on something that they've had time to review and is more complete. Mancino: Thank you. I also agree with the four other commissioners. I'll be a little more specific in some of my comments and that is that I think directionally what we see tonight is 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 going in the right direction. I do want to say that on the approved plan in some of the exterior elevations the back, which is really facing Highway 5, not only has the roof but has some columns or something architecturally there breaking up the back of it. And I think that we also need that on the east side too because people coming in from the west part of Chanhassen on Highway 5, that's what they're going to see. I have two other comments. I guess more or less questions for Bob and that is, if we are within the ordinance, there are no Highway 5 guidelines. One has to do with the pedestrian accessibility to this Perkins and as I look on page, Sheet No. C-1. One of the intent statements, purpose statements in the HC-1 District under the Highway 5 corridor. It says that ample consideration shall be given to the width of the interior drives. Interior traffic movement and flow. Separation of pedestrian, cycling, automobile and delivery traffic. How are we getting people, whether it's cyclists or pedestrians, to walk from Target or from into Perkins without going through a parking lot? Without going through a lot of automobile traffic. I don't see that. Generous: Well not into the interior specifically. Mancino: Well up to the front door so you can enter the restaurant so that people can actually walk from one place to another. Generous: There's nothing specifically on this plan that will, except for walking on the landscaping. We have that sidewalk that comes from Target Lane and that connects to West 78th Street which is another sidewalk. Mancino: I would like to see more consideration given to that then. How they're going to, how people will walk from Target Lane and be able to walk into the Perkins restaurant without going through automobile traffic. And whether that's on the north side of the parking lot, and you come around. Or just again, ample consideration because I don't think much has been given to that. It doesn't look like it. Aanenson: Well I guess we felt like we lost that argument when Target came in. Remember there was a lot of discussion and the Planning Commission felt strongly about putting a walkway through the middle of Target. As I recall, the Planning Commission was adamant about that. And as it went through the process the Council felt like, because there was a sidewalk on West 78th, that that accomplished that and Target was reluctant to do that because of the shopping cart issue. So I agree. I think the staff agrees. I think the Planning Commission felt strongly. It would have been nice to have a walkway through the parking lot so we didn't have that conflict. Unfortunately, you have to go either north, or as Bob indicated, south along the front. To try to, so the linkage, the only opportunity we have now, once you get west of the Target Lane to try to connect. We can certainly look at that. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: I understand the issue and it's important, sure. And we felt bad when we didn't accomplish it with the Target site plan because that is a large parking lot. Conrad: You ought to see what the K-Marts in Naples, Florida are doing. Exactly what we wanted to do with Target. Exactly. Now they don't have snow removal problems. Aanenson: Right, and that was the big issue I think with Target. Conrad: But you know, it's just real fascinating to see what other communities are doing and we should have done it. We really blew that issue for no good reason, and that's too bad. That doesn't reflect. That's gone so we can't. Mancino: So let's not keep blowing it. Conrad: Well, because that's not there, then we don't have, I don't know what we can accomplish. But I think your connectivity is still a valid issue. I think we've got a sidewalk that probably doesn't lead anyplace other than to, well I'm not sure where it leads to but anyway, I think staff should look at that. Mancino: Well and even if there's a designated crosswalk, you know pavers or... Aanenson: Right. Which we did by Target. There's a stopping zone where you have to watch for pedestrians coming out of the store. I think we have the same situation at Byerly's where you've got that striped area and maybe that's a way to accomplish it. So people are more cognizant of watching for the conflicting movements. Mancino: We have cyclists all over on weekends, stopping and getting their cappucino from Perkins, etc. My other concern, having to do with this chapter on the Highway 5 corridor, is that it says that parking areas shall not be located within the required minimum front yard setback of any lot. And then there is a diagram that shows that there should be no parking in front yards. Now according to this document Perkins has two front yards. It has Highway 5 and the West 78th, is that correct? Generous: Or Target Lane. Mancino: Or Target Lane. Are we, Bob tell me. How come we have parking between Highway 5 and the actual building? I got the impression from reading this that there is to be no parking in the front yard area... 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: ...the existing one, we went with the underlying. Mancino: Yes. It starts at Powers and the other districts starts once you get west of Powers. Generous: Actually the only frontage this has is Target Lane. Because the city's outlot surrounds it. Then Lot 2. Mancino: Okay, so it doesn't sit on Highway 5. Aanenson: Yeah, the rest of the Highway 5 corridor starts when you get west of Powers. Generous: Yes, and the parking is a layout of staff criteria and what was established as a part of the PUD. Because they had to provide what would be, because of public safety issues, they had to revise the radius of the entryway that serves all three properties. And so they lost some parking on the east side of the project. And they made it up, they could make some of it up on the west side of the project. For that very reason that they're not actually fronting on public right-of-way on those other sides. They meet the setbacks. Aanenson: Yeah, what you're not seeing there is the landscaped area that the city will be doing between their property line, yeah the outlot. Mancino: And we will be landscaping that eastern end of the parking lot quite well? Generous: You mean the southeast corner? Oh yeah. Mancino: Thank you. Those are my concerns. Questions I wanted you to look at and otherwise, I would like to see this come back again and to have staff do a review of it for us. So with that, may I have a motion? Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #94-6 prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995 pending staff review and analysis for the Commission of the recent changes submitted by the applicant. That's it. Mancino: Do I have a second? Meyer: Second. Mancino: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussions? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #94-6 for Perkins Family Restaurant, prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995 pending staff review and analysis for the Commission of the recent changes submitted by the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: So it will be tabled and we'll see it again when? Aanenson: Our preference would be on the 26th because we don't have a meeting the first one in July because we decided we probably wouldn't have a quorum on July 5th. So if we can get it on in 2 weeks. Mancino: Okay, so Mr. Payne, in 2 weeks. June 26th it will come back. Aanenson: Sorry, it's the 21st. Mancino: 21st. June 21st. And I encourage you and staff to work out everything so it's complete and is final at that time. You don't come back to cold Minnesota too many more times. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 18 REGARDING PLATTING PROCEDURES, DATE REQUIRED AND DESIGN STANDARDS AND CHAPTER 20 REGARDING DEFINITIONS; IDENTIFICATION OF ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS; STANDARDS FOR SALES TRAILERS, WETLAND PROTECTION AND SHORELAND REGULATIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS AND THE FOLLOWING ZONING DISTRICTS OF PUD, A2, RSF, R8, BN-NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, BH-HIGHWAY & BUSINESS, AND IOP-INDUSTRIAL OFFICE. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for Kate? Conrad: Questions or. Aanenson: Comments or editorials. Conrad: Sure. Page 3, where it says alleys. Does that apply to residential? It says alleys are prohibited except for. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: Correct. The way it's written right now, you cannot have an alley. Okay? Conrad: Anyplace? Aanenson: Right. Except in commercial/industrial, which is common. That's where you have your loading areas. Like in the back of the grocery store or the like. Those are permitted. What we're saying is as a part of a PUD, again this kind of goes through that new urbanism term where we've allowed PUD where you put the garage maybe in the back of the home. That may be something under a PUD we would look at, and that's why we put the inclusion that only as a part of a PUD. So you couldn't do it under a straight subdivision unless you came in as a PUD. Mancino: Excuse me, could we please have it quiet in the audience. Thank you. Aanenson: If you do that as part of a PUD, then that may be something that we would look at. An alley. Conrad: If you look for higher density, I think alleys may have a role. I don't know. But it's like, I don't know why I'm prohibiting an alley, to tell you the truth. That's sort of like, here we are. Aanenson: I think they were in vogue, and again that goes back to the new urbanism. And then we went away from that. Everybody puts their garage, their 3 car garage in front. Okay. So we're saying, if we're going to look at some other type of housing units, maybe this is something we want to allow. But should we open it to say, it would be acceptable in residential? I don't know. We haven't seen any of that yet. Maybe it would be. Mancino: It would have to be subject to approval. Aanenson: Right. I guess that's why we put it in, well then we have to double the criterias... Conrad: But if it's in an ordinance, you know a project will come in and we'll reject it because it's got alleys. And I don't know that I have a valid reason... Aanenson: I guess that's why we're saying right now you can't do it unless it's commercial/ industrial. What we're saying is as a part of the PUD we would consider it. Then we'd have to establish some criteria under that PUD. It has to be so wide and the Fire Marshal's going to have it, and the public safety's going to have some input. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Conrad: But in the PUD ordinance, unless they have 50% open space, they couldn't do this anyway. Aanenson: That's if you choose. You could choose this without changing the other, sure. You don't have to do both. Even the way it is now, and when you have the attached. Conrad: We don't allow variances. Mancino: Yes we do. We just past one that had 3, 4 of them. Aanenson: And you do it in the medium or the high density, you could still allow, because you're right. Single family, you probably still wouldn't get them under that type of density that we have right now if we didn't change it. Mancino: I have a question or comment on that same page, if you don't mind. Driveway grades, and this is for again residential, private driveways. We're limiting it to a maximum of 10% grades? Aanenson: Let me explain how this is right now, because this problem came up in the last month. Currently in the, there is a section in the code about streets. Let me see if it's cited in here, but it's not in this section of the code. It says what you have to supply to get a building permit. It says you must show on there your driveway grade and it shall be this. But it doesn't say anywhere else in your developing a subdivision, that you should meet this standard. Okay, so when you come in to get your permit, you exceed the grade. Well, you never told me when I did my subdivision I had to meet it so, what we're saying is, it should be in the design criteria for a subdivision, that it shouldn't exceed 10%. Now certainly there's opportunities to get a variance. We're saying we need this as leverage to review when we're looking at a plat, we're looking at grades and we realize that gee, that's a 20% driveway grade. That's not going to work for the homeowner. We should reject that lot as non- buildable or try to redesign it. Maybe it needs to be bigger or something like that because right now there's no criteria in our subdivision regulations to review that. Although it's somewhere else hidden in a different section of the code. Mancino: But we have several driveways that are over 10%. Aanenson: Certainly. Mancino: Off of Lake Lucy on that south side. Aanenson: Right, and that's sometimes the only way... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: And I want to keep allowing that. I don't want to take that right away from homeowners. Aanenson: Right. We have some in the city that are up to 17%. Sure, there's some in Hesse Farms that are that way too. But what we're saying is we want to keep a general, like we do everywhere else, a general criteria that you try to aim for. And then if you don't, then we would look at that and is there another way to service it. You know when we looked at that whether they're south facing. Maybe there's some other issues there but to someone that's buying a lot, that doesn't realize and now they come in to get a permit and say, well now you've got to pay another when you get there. It gets too steep. That's certainly some reason that you would look at it as part of the subdivision. Maybe give them a variance to say there's no other way to service that area. But as a general rule, that's already in the code. It's just not in the subdivision ordinance. Mancino: Okay. Conrad: Rather than me dominating my issues, I think it wouldn't be bad if we all just went through it page by page. Not that we have to bring anything up but as we go through it, maybe we can just hit the issues. Mancino: Was there anybody who had something other on page 3? Page 4. Any questions? Page 5. Conrad: Yeah. Down under flags. Sign, flag. Corporation flags shall not exceed 12 square feet, 3 x 4 is what that is, and shall be flown, which means has to be flown in tandem with the State or National flag. So that says you cannot fly a corporate flag unless you're doing something else. Why is that? Aanenson: That's what's in place right now. That's currently in the ordinance right now. Conrad: No, it says may. May was the word we got rid of and may be. So now we're saying you have to fly, if you want to have a corporate flag, you have to fly a national flag. Aanenson: The intent on that one was developed, and the language got changed because we also left out the size of the square foot for a national flag because a lot of people use flags as signs. And so the intent was that you don't put a lot of corporation signs up, flags out there tending them to be signs. And the same goes for the State or National flag where people use very large ones as identity sort of things. So that was, the discussion that was through the sign ordinance and it got omitted as part of the final draft. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Conrad: And I agree with the National flag. 100 square feet, that's okay. Aanenson: I'm comfortable if you want to leave may and shall, that's fine. Conrad: But to force the two, I'm not sure why. And really, if you're not, yeah. A flag is not a sign. Yeah, it's a festive deal. I guess that's taking, boy. They can't do, if anybody thinks a 3 x 4 foot flag is really promoting a product, we've got a, that's strange. That's not. That's fun. That's some action and you know, if you've got 80 flags, that's a problem but if you have one corporate flag, that's your identity. That's where people go for their livelihood. I don't know. That seems like a strange rule. Aanenson: Well I don't know if the rule is strange but the sign is. The sign that the corporate is there and that's a location of one of their franchises right there and it is certainly corporate identity and it's certainly a sign or they wouldn't put it there. But whether it's good or bad, it's a... Conrad: Let's liken it to downtown Excelsior. They have a festive event, they put up flags. And that's promoting the whole city and so you know, maybe it's not the same thing but... Aanenson: Banners. Conrad: Yeah, the rigidity of saying we can't do something. 3 x 4 is nothing. I don't think any corporation would think that that's promoting a product. It takes a dead concrete wall and maybe makes something a little bit more fun out of it. And yeah, obviously they're not going to do it, they're not going to put a competitor's flag on there. There's some motivation. They're not stupid. But on the other hand, when you think about an employee driving into the company, there's some pride into it and there's some other things. It livens the thing up. So again my point is, geez. I don't want to get into their pockets and figure this thing out. This seems like this is not an issue. 20 flags would be an issue. 5 flags would be an issue but to have a corporate flag and say you've got to fly a national flag at the same time, I'm over with. I don't need to talk any more about that but it just seems real nit picky. Mancino: Any other comments on that? Page 6. Any questions. Sales trailer shall be open from 8:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Why is that such a late closing? I'm concerned about neighbors in the area having, is that usually in more of an RSF district? Aanenson: Yes. This would be residential, correct. Mancino: Okay. I would go until 6:00 p.m. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Brad Johnson: Do you want me to comment on that? Mancino: No thank you. Not at this time. Anybody else can give comment to that. Mike, you might have, being in the real estate business. Meyer: Well I can see where it might be a problem for parade promotions. I think they go until 8:00. 8:00 or 9:00. Something like that. Mancino: Okay. Maybe the exception could read. Nutting: This is only until permanent dwelling units are available. The sales office model. Mancino: Oh, so there wouldn't be anybody living in the neighborhood? Aanenson: No. The intent. Nutting: If it's there, you wouldn't have much of a neighborhood there. Not to say it's not immediately adjacent to another one but the longer it's open, the faster they might fill up the neighborhood. Mancino: Sure. Meyer: It also can be convenient for people. Mancino: After work hours. Meyer: For those that work during the day. Mancino: Do you think that's seasonal? That it should be open later in the summer and those hours, does it make any difference Mike? In the winter or seasonal at all. Meyer: I don't think so because you still have people working pretty much their same schedules. Mancino: Okay. Then let's leave it 9:00. I'm fine with that. I understand the rationale now. Nutting: Madam Chair if I could ask a question. We have a discussion on page 5. Are we going to be coming back and, this is a public hearing, correct? Mancino: No. Oh! It is. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson; You haven't opened it yet. Mancino: We haven't opened it yet. Nutting: But are we going to be coming back and. I guess as part of the motion, whoever makes the motion is going to address whether or not we modify any of these. Mancino: Okay, yes. I will open the public hearing after we've had some discussion. Conrad: Madam Chairman screwed up, didn't she. Mancino: Let me take my glasses off and sink down. Yes. Why don't we go through and discuss some of these because I think that there may be people in the audience, after we've had our discussion, that would like to make some comments so I will open it up to the public hearing after we've made a few comments and we will have a public hearing and then we'll come back and discuss those points that people raise. If that is okay with the rest of the commissioners and the staff. Thank you. Thank you for bringing it up. Page 7. Any questions or comments? Kate, under recreational development. Under unsewered, riparian. The area and the width. Isn't that unsewered and sewered? Riparian. Aanenson: No, actually we have, yeah we have other areas of the code that addresses sewer. We left off unsewered. There is an area in the city that has recreational development lakes that have unsewered next to it. We went through, when we adopted the shoreland regs, there's one small area that is affected by this but we figured we didn't have any applications. Well lo and behold, somebody came in and we didn't have the appropriate shoreland district for that. So eventually when MUSA is extended into that area, it will go away but we need to have this in place until such time. But there is, I didn't put the whole section in there but there is another section that addresses that. Mancino: That addresses sewer, okay. Thank you. Page 8. Conrad: Sure. Not that I like our PUD ordinance, and not that we negotiate very well, and not that we know what we want to negotiate for, but we made a giant step to go the 50% open which seems like we're kind of, which I don't mind. I think that would be nice to have a PUD ordinance that would do that. It would cluster. It would do a lot of nifty things. It might even save some money someplace. Yet on the other hand I still have a perspective that our current PUD ordinance does negotiate some stuff. It gives staff some negotiating power. And I hate to cut that out. And as much as we complain about well did we get enough in exchange, it gives staff with our review, and the City Council review, some time to alter some very rigid ordinances. So I'm not comfortable with that. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: Well that's not what I'm hearing staff say. What you've just said is very theoretical but it's not working. Staff has said that we're not doing PUD's and the reason why we're not is that we're not, and maybe we're not negotiating well but we're not getting what we need out of those. So if we aren't, and we aren't using it, then why have it, in the present form? Conrad: I'm seeing things that we get that we couldn't demand I guess. At least that's my perspective. Mancino: In single family? Conrad: Yeah. Mancino: In what subdivision? Conrad: It'd be hard for me to argue with specifics but my perspective is that for 10 years staff has come in to me and said, we've negotiated this and now they're telling me, we're not negotiating anything. So for 10 years I've heard that. Mancino: But that's only because we've updated our ordinances? We've added to them. We keep making them better and anticipating things and our ordinances are more up to date? And so that the PUD isn't going any further than our present ordinances, which we've enacted new ones and have gone back and changed old ones. Conrad: You're going to cut out all PUD's, which our ordinances are really pretty good. That's your choice. Our ordinances are up to date, but really as a state of the art, staff can get everything they want down there. We, the city can get everything they want done by our ordinance and I don't believe that. I don't think our ordinances are that terrific. They're good but they're not terrific. I just hate cutting out an option to negotiate. Rules are hard and fast and they don't allow flexibility and I don't think we have any, I don't care what rule you have in our ordinances, there are always reasons that rule doesn't apply to specific projects. Mancino: But you can still negotiate in this PUD. The only thing is the 50% open space. Conrad: In 10 years I haven't seen anybody come in with that. I'd like, nobody's come in and said, I'd like to have 50% open space. What can you do? Mancino: In a single family? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: We don't allow it. In low residential. We don't allow it. You couldn't do it. Because the smallest lot size you can go to is 11,000 so you couldn't do it. You could do it in the medium or the high density district. Conrad: I'm not saying I don't like the 50% deal. I'm just saying, I don't know that I want to give up the flexibility to negotiate. Aanenson: I'm just, we threw it out. The discussion...again, since we were going through the code, we thought this was an opportunity to bring up the discussion again. Conrad: I think it's a big deal. I don't think it should be part of this packet. Aanenson: Maybe a separate whole. Conrad: It'd be fun to just talk about it but as far as, this is not maintenance Kate. This is a major deal. So when you put all this stuff together, it's like, well let's put 100 things and we really don't have time to talk about this, but I think that's a major deal. We spent a lot of time figuring out a PUD ordinance. And you know to cluster it in here. I think that should be eliminated from our discussion tonight and review it, you know if there's good reasons for it. If we all feel that our ordinances are so good then yeah, let's get rid of it and then figure out how we can affect a PUD that gets 50% open space because the motivation is great. I just don't see anybody coming in and doing it, you know. I really don't. Brad's here. He's in that business. I'd like to see if he could come in with a 50% but yeah. Mancino: Well they certainly are doing them in some areas. I don't know if that will happen here but I feel. Conrad: They're doing it out state. You're doing it where there's plenty of land. You're doing it where people have that, you know you're not doing it in a highly dense growing suburb like Chanhassen. You're not. I don't know of a case that's doing it. Give me a case. Anyplace. In Eden Prairie. Plymouth. Anyplace where they've done this. Mancino: No. I think it's a new concept... Conrad: And it won't be applied so we have in effect don't have a PUD ordinance. If it's not used, it's not an ordinance. If the tree falls in the forest and nobody. Mancino: Well, we're going to have to get our guns ready on this one I can tell. Any other commissioners want to make any comments on this? Or if you would like to see this on a separate agenda item. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting: I guess I would, in all honesty, I didn't think through this one that much before coming here tonight. Listening to the comments, I guess I would support separating this from the existing packet. Mancino: Bob or Mike, any comments on this? Meyer: Sounds reasonable. Mancino: Okay. Then let's do that. Any other comments on that page? Conditional uses, golf courses. On page 9. Conrad: Sure. It's probably not as specific but it's an issue that this city has to deal with. At the very bottom of the page. The following uses are permitted in R8 district. Single family. Okay. If we zone something for multi, for high density, and somebody comes in and down zones it less density, everybody in Chanhassen feels great, including the Planning Commission, staff, the neighborhood. There was a reason we zoned it high density. And sooner or later it's going to come back and bite us and we're going to put in high density right next to a low density area and we'll have to fight the neighbors for it. And it's you know, somehow we have to address the issue that when we down zone, we up zone someplace else. Or somebody says, we just don't want high density in Chanhassen because that's really what we're doing. You know, we all feel comfortable that we get out of the evening okay and nobody has really gotten hurt. The neighbors are happy. We're all happy because we had houses that looked just like...which our comprehensive plan says we do. We're not doing our job very well. So this issue brought that comment up. We're saying R8 can have single family. Well maybe that's okay. And maybe I don't want to make an issue on page 8, or page 9 in this report. The issue is, we can't do this anymore. If we want to, you know let's not zone for multi's. Let's have all single family and make the right definitions. That they're all attached or detached or whatever. So everybody knows what we're building here but I think that this issue, I don't know how to handle this one. I don't want to, it brought up a comment in my mind, but I think at a separate time, and Madam Chairman, I'd really appreciate it if you would have staff review this issue so that we can communicate with the City Council that you can't do this anymore and that there has to be a procedure for when we change zoning, or when we change. When we take a higher density area and put lower density units in some, there's another step to the process. Somebody has to say, we just lost so many units of high density and should we look for more, another location and should we identify it on the comprehensive plan? Should we identify it on our zoning ordinance? Mancino: Procedurally, how do we do that now? I mean I've only been on the commission for a few years and I've never seen any. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: We don't. We just all feel better if they drop the units off. Then we all feel like we've done our job, you know. I don't think that staff feels that way but it seems like, even at the single family, unless we get them to drop a few lots, then everybody feels like they've done their job. Even though they're under the density allocation. I think you know, I guess the way we looked at it, there isn't that many applications of the R8 district and so we were looking at, it kind of came out of the discussion on the R4. But I certainly concur with what you're saying Ladd. The staff certainly does and when you put a district in place and then now allow single family, I think everybody oh great. Now we have a better opportunity to get single family and all feel more comfortable but that wasn't the intent. The intent was to allow the different type mixes, yeah. Conrad: I understand, yeah. My problem is not with what you've written. Aanenson: No, I agree. No, I agree with what you're saying and that's fine. And the intent is to allow for a different type product, then we should take the single family out. Mancino: Well has it ever happened that, I mean this gives us more options for an R8. By putting single family in. Aanenson: Right, but Ladd's point is well taken and I agree with him. Mancino: And I understand that too. But has it ever come up before where we down zone something to single family like this? An R8 area. Aanenson: No, but what we always try to go underneath the density though. We always feel like we can never, nobody can ever come in at the density. We always feel like we have to be underneath the two. Conrad: I think my comment, when I say down zoning, that is a rezoning. Aanenson: Taking away density. Conrad: That was not an accurate statement on my part. Yeah, it's really putting, taking a higher density, or you're just not filling it up. Aanenson: It's similar to Lake Susan area where we've got the higher density. They've come in with a product that's underneath the density but they're still concerned about density. Mancino: But that's just a maximum density. I mean it's still within the range of the density requirements for that zoning. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: But they could come in with a different product. Mancino: And it could be a higher density but they've come in in the range. It's just not on the high side of the range. Aanenson: Right. So the way I understand what Ladd is saying, if you put single family in there, then are people going to say, well gee you should go to the lower end. You know if single family's in there too, we should try to work our way down so everybody's more comfortable. Instead of saying no, this was always intended to be a minimum twin home, higher end so it kind of pushes it towards the other end. Isn't that what you were saying? Conrad: Right. Aanenson: Which I agree with, sure. I guess we didn't quite see it that way but that makes perfect sense. Mancino: So would your recommendation, would staffs recommendation be to take it out so that doesn't happen? Or to still allow that option. Conrad: What I want is a connect it. If we allow something, it forces another decision that says we just allowed. You know, I don't mind having the flexibility. If we identify something as R8, we kind of thought that's pretty high density and maybe that's affordable housing. And we just got rid of it. So now we don't have an affordable housing district. Not that I'm lobbying for that, because I'm probably not an advocate of that but I'm an advocate of zoning and what it's intended to do. Mancino: So you want something written that triggers. Conrad: I think there should be a review. If we start allowing less density, or feel good about less density in a district that obviously makes sense for high density because it was close to roads. It was close to the city services, and now it's not there. What are we going to do? So I think there's another step involved in that and I don't know how... Aanenson: Now you're saying there should be a linkage. If we feel like maybe that decision, single family here. Then we need to go back and say, well okay but it needs to be higher density over here. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: Exactly. Aanenson: Alright. Mancino: Triggers that review. Aanenson: And if we can't make that linkage, then we should eliminate the single family? Nutting: I guess I, I think it's okay. I agree with everything Ladd's saying but I think it's also okay in the fact that you should have it. They're separate issues but they can be related and it's just a matter of how we deal with it once we change. I guess I don't have a problem leaving it in there. We may come up with a reason that the single family does make sense but then, so leave that in there but it's really then, what's the trigger? Aanenson: Well I guess part of the thing that you could look at this too, if it does allow for a buffering in here too. If you do have single family, it does allow for, we got hung up on this too, a transition area. Maybe this is an opportunity to provide a row of single family and maybe do that transitioning in there too. I don't know. Mancino: Yes, okay. Aanenson: There's some variables there but then if you put the whole thing single family, we're back to Ladd's so somewhere there needs to be that balance and I think Ladd raises some points that we need to give some consideration to before it goes to Council. Mancino: Okay, we'll go ahead to page 10. Any comments, questions on page 10. Conrad: We don't, on page 10, we don't want automotive service in a neighborhood business district. And what is that? Aanenson: Well that's how it is right now but then it also says that you can have a car wash if you have an automotive service. Well how can you have an accessory use if the permitted isn't allowed so it's one of those things that didn't make any sense so. Mancino: Page 11. I don't understand why we have to have a 2 car attached garage to a single family structure. I don't agree with that. Aanenson: It's in the code right now. It's the way it's written. If you see, it's put in the bottom. There's a, b, c, giving different types of floor designs and then the last one it talks about a 2 story or split and it says plus a 2 car garage. Well what happens is a lot of people 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 come back in for variances because, in Minnesota not having a garage is considered a hardship for most people that own homes. That's the Board will give. Mancino: I just am not in favor of putting it in but. Nutting: What are (a) and (b)? Aanenson: (a) is if it's a single family rambler. Generous: Minimum 960 square feet. Aanenson: Even the square footages are kind of. Nutting: But do (a) and (b) say, plus a 2 car garage? Generous: No. Aanenson: No. Generous: We believe the intent that any single family detached has to have a garage but only the split foyer and 2 story had to have them. Nutting: And now you're changing it to all of them, including (a) and (b)? Aanenson: Well that's how we've always interpreted it. So we're saying we're making an interpretation. Nutting: Clarifying it. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: Yeah, I don't agree with making it stricter. I mean I think they have lots of homes that are fine without, with the garage in the back or architectural. Conrad: So then your problem is with attached? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: I don't have a problem, I don't care where the garage is. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: Take attached out? Conrad: Yeah, I think I'd take that out. Aanenson: They may have an alley. Mancino: Any others? Under Section 20-978. Occupations Permitted. Home occupations. We would like to see contractors yards and landscaping businesses excluded from the list because they are always a neighborhood nuisance. I agree with that, however I have two in my neighborhood and they each have a lot of acreage around them so they aren't a nuisance so I think it depends on the hours of operation and how much acreage they have. Aanenson: Right, your zoning is RR, which does allow...accessory. And this is for RSF. What it does is it gives a list of permitted uses. We want to add a list of excluded to make sure that it's clear because that's where we spend a lot of time on complaints of that in residential single family neighborhoods with people that run contractors yards, or lawn mowing businesses with the storing of vehicles and their employees come to the house and park and block other people's mailboxes. So what we're saying with this, we want to make these uses are explicitedly prohibited and so it's clear. Mancino: And those that are already grandmothered in, where you have an area like on Galpin which is getting into a lot of RSF districts, those are already grandmothered in and can stay? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: Because you can have, a lot of those have accessory buildings which are permitted in that district. Garages, which are a lot larger, which they have the storage capabilities where the residents of single family zone, you don't have the same ability to have a large garage or pole barn. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any others on that page? We're on page 12. I'm sure that someone who has... Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to open this to a public hearing? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: Would anyone like to come up and comment on the discussion of some of the changes in the ordinance. We would love to have you come up and give your thoughts at this time. Would you please come up. State your name and address. Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson,...Frontier Trail. I agree with, on this discussion of the PUD ordinance. 50% open space is just about an impossibility. If you think about how people are buying land and it's zoned for 8 units per acre, it's going to be 8 units per acre. If that's what it's for. The PUD will basically eliminate a lot of affordable housing, if that's what the intent is. I don't know what you guys are trying to do here. Aanenson: It'd still be 8 units per acre. You just have no minimum wall size. You could put all of them on whatever size lot you wanted. 2,000, 3,000 square foot lot. You just cluster them all and the rest is. Brad Johnson: Well I think you have to see how that works. Aanenson: Similar to Marine on the St. Croix. Brad Johnson: Look at reality. This is not Marine on the St. Croix. It's Chanhassen adjacent, you know it's supposed to high density homes_..Marine on the St. Croix is so far away, no sewer, no water, right? I just think we should think that through. I don't know what it means. Mancino: That's what we're going to do. Brad Johnson: Is that for residential only? Mancino: No. Brad Johnson: Then it makes absolutely no sense. Mancino: Well no, the 50% would be down to 30% on high density. But that's something that we are going to. Brad Johnson: So it's residential... Mancino: Residential high density. Which is already the impervious surface is 70% anyway. Brad Johnson: So if you took.__Centex. I mean you've approved some of these. They're all PUD's, right? So what you're doing is. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: This is for single family, okay. Single family residential, which is right now the smallest you can go in a PUD in a single family residential is 11,000 square feet. What this ordinance is saying is that there is no minimum. You can go as small you want with single family zoning. Brad Johnson: Okay. I just don't know how it would work. Aanenson: I don't think we've had any of Rottlund doing this type. Nobody's tried this. Brad Johnson: Yeah, I don't know. It may be a very... On the mixed density. Detached in the R8. Does that mean a permitted use in an R8, single family, you have to maintain the density. Can I do one single family in the R8 or do I have to stay at 7? Aanenson: Sure. Brad Johnson: And why would you ever permit that? Aanenson: The same with R4. You could do a row of single family. That was one of the options on the Lake Ann. You could have done a row of single family and the rest twin homes. You can do a mix and that's the intent of some of those is to provide a mix. Brad Johnson: Well, I understand that but aren't you trying to encourage density or are you trying to discourage? Are you trying to increase the cost of housing or lower the cost of housing? Mancino: We're trying to give options. Brad Johnson: I know but see to me, as a resident of the city, not a developer, you should be encouraging the best use of the property. The highest. Otherwise you're going to have services, we're going to have all kinds of problems later on and what this does is it allows somebody to build single family in an R8 zoning district without down zoning. Now maybe you have one house. Should that, I'm not saying it is or isn't. Should that be a permitted use or is the intent to encourage keeping it for 8? And that's, I mean I'm sort of what Ladd said. You walk away and say good. We discouraged all development...all development and we have open space. What does that do to the community in the long run? And you guys will all be gone 5 or 10 years from now. All that open space may come back and be filled because we'll have a different Planning Commission. A different zoning ordinances because your's, how long does it last? This 2 car attached garage stuff. Okay. Or detached. If you build a new subdivision in town and you're front loaded, what's the odds of that being, are you dealing with that issue there? No? If I'm going to build a 2 car, if I build a house today 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 and I know I'm not required to have an attached garage on a new house in a subdivision, is that what you're trying to do? Mancino: We're saying you can have the option of either making it attached or detached. Brad Johnson: Yeah, I don't think that's a good idea. Conrad: Who cares? Why should we care? Brad Johnson: I don't know any community that allows detached garages. Now I sound like I'm reversing. On the front. I don't know how it would work with the setbacks and stuff over there. I don't know. Mancino: ...piece of property, I mean it could work. Generous: If they can meet the setbacks. Aanenson: If they meet the setbacks, put the garage behind. Brad Johnson: I just don't know. Conrad: Did you read Newsweek where they called, what is wrong with American cities? Brad Johnson: Probably not. Conrad: We'll get you a copy of it. Brad Johnson: I just don't know. I'm just sitting here, that's my first reaction to that is I've always been taught from the front end. Now the rear end, if you have an alley, I can see a detached garage. I just don't know how it works on the front end. I don't know what the street would look like. In a subdivision. I can see it around the lake. Aanenson: You'd have porches. Mancino: You'd have front porches and you would have, like Minneapolis. I mean there are a lot of Minneapolis that don't have alleys but do have detached garages. And again, we'd have to see it. It'd have to meet setbacks and everything else. Brad Johnson: I feel like I'm sort of an advocate of what you're saying but I don't know how it works. I don't, I've never seen that open. I do believe that you should have detached 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 garages. I do believe the ordinance goes to 62,500 square feet per lot. All that's very good. I'd service that off of an alley. Not off the front because I don't think you'd have a very good looking neighborhood, but maybe I'm wrong. And I would have the alleys be private and privately served but I think those are kinds of things that are still in the PUD stage. See your PUD doesn't allow this, right? I mean it isn't allowed within a PUD, right? This isn't allowed in any residential. Aanenson: Right now? Brad Johnson: Yeah. Aanenson: You have to have a 2 car attached garage, correct. Brad Johnson: Yeah. Would this allow a 2 attached deep, 2 car detached garage in any neighborhood? Aanenson: Correct. Brad Johnson: I'd have to think about that. Mancino: That's what we're doing. Brad Johnson: Yeah... I think it's a good idea to be allowed in a PUD where you have real control, because I don't know. What do they call it, the Country Club district of Edina basically has 50% detached garage and 50% attached. Homes sell for $300,000.00 to $400,000.00. They have done everything they can to make those garages be attached...and they could probably be better served...That was it. I think the intent of a lot of this stuff is kind of interesting. I haven't read it. Oh, the hours of a sales office. Generally people don't work, get home from work to buy a home until 6:00. So most sales offices are open 4:00 to 8:00. 4:00 to 9:00, during the week. And then regular hours during the day and that's what I was going to say. That seems to be normal and the reason is we're all working. There's no other time for them to come. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else have any comments? Please give them now. Okay. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public healing was closed. Mancino: Any other discussion from the commissioners? I think we've done it. I think we've gone through it. Do I have a motion? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Conrad: Sure. I'd like to move that the ordinance amendment proposed in the staff report dated May 25th are accepted and approved except for the following changes. And I'm kind of open to any input on this motion, or friendly amendments but I think what I'd like to see on page 5, under Signs, Flags. That the terminology of shall revert back to may. On page 8, that any change to the PUD, that the PUD changes be eliminated out of this particular approval. So anything on Section 20-505 not be approved tonight and that the Planning Commission reviews the PUD standards at some other time. Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification on that Ladd? There is one word. We do go by net, not gross. That is a glitch right there. The rest of it, if I could just do that one. Conrad: Okay, I'd buy that. So we're not eliminating the entire change to Section 20-505. Only the standards. Only. Aanenson: No, number 4. Where it says gross versus net. Nutting: Change (c)(4) but everything after that will be eliminated. Conrad: Okay. Mancino: Well you also have to do, don't you have to do 20-508? Aanenson: Yeah, we have to clarify that too but I thought we'd just... Conrad: Yeah, I'm just talking 505 right now. 508 is okay. Nutting: I think 508 should probably be eliminated too. Conrad: Should be what? Nutting: Eliminated to that. It kind of ties in to the same discussion and I'd pull it out. Aanenson: But there's ambiguity in the ordinance right now because it says you can go down to 5,000. However, there's no minimum so it's an ambiguity. Mancino: And this has to be the same. Aanenson: Right. Actually the first part should be struck out where it says minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be allowed. That should all be struck out. It should start, the sentence should start, there should be no minimum lot sizes. However, in no case 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 shall the net density exceed the guidelines. That's what we want to say. And that fits our North Bay concept that we're looking at. Conrad: Okay. So in 508, we're eliminating from the motion, in the staff report, the first line and a half. Mancino: First two sentences. Conrad: The first two sentences, okay. On page 9. I'll let the wordage, huh. On page 9. Mancino: Is there a way to add triggering the review of other. Nutting: You know I guess, maybe just to add. I guess now that I think about that, even more so now I'd say, I'd eliminate the single family and let it come back in through a variance request where we can look at all of the reasons for putting it in and that really can trigger the review of, you know in terms of if we're going to look at adding something else. Conrad: Yeah, I'd buy that Ron. Mancino: That's because it will never fly. Conrad: So therefore what I'm doing is eliminating Section, any changes to Section 20-652 but also making a recommendation that staff brings back to the Planning Commission a proposal so that any kind of, either down zoning or minimal density, in a high density area, somehow triggers a review process to find replacements, or at least we need a staff report that would identify how that would be accomplished. Mancino: Say that again? Conrad: It doesn't make sense to me. Aanenson: Oh, I think that'd be interesting though to show you when we do a project, to show how many units could have been put on there. So how many units we've actually taken away from that project so we should consider maybe somewhere else looking at. I think that's interesting. And we just be doing that on our reports when they come before you. If they're under the density. Conrad: I'm looking for a mechanism to say we can allow that lower density but it forces us to review something. To take action. That's what I need to know what triggers that and those are things Kate that don't hit our agenda. Because they're another thing. There are 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 plans in front of us so I need to know what's legal and what's timely to get us to do that. On page 11 of the staff report, under 2(d). Eliminate the word attached. And that is the extent of my motion. Mancino: Do I hear a second to that motion? Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion on the motion? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the amendment to the City Code as presented in the staff report dated May 25, 1995 with the following changes: I. Pate 5, Sign, Flag. Change the word "shall" to "may" be flown in tandem with the state or national flag. 2. Pane 8, Section 20-505. Delete the portion from "Comment - This is not consistent... to end of that section. 3. Page 8, Section 20-508. Modify (b) by deleting the first sentence so it reads as follows: (b) Minimum lot sizes. There shall be no minimum lot size however, in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. 4. Pane 9, Section 20-652. Delete the words "Single Family". 5. Pane 11, Section 20-905: Item (2)(d), delete the word "attached". All voted in favor and the motion canied. Mancino: This goes on to City Council? Aanenson: Yes. It'd be the 26th. Mancino: 26th. And we can review the PUD and have discussions on it. If there are any articles, to kind of prep us for a discussion, I think that that would be helpful. And find out what's going on currently in areas like our's. Before we get into that, thank you. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDNANCE. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Todd? Now we are going to restrict what movies are being played in the movie theater, right? Make sure that we follow Senator Bob Dole's request and we only have PG movies for this kind of a family city. Gerhardt: Well I don't think our ordinances highlight anything about first amendment rights but the way it sounds, you're re-writing the PUD. You might as well re-write the First Amendment too. Mancino: Well that would be fun. It'd only take us a little longer. No comments or questions at this point? Kate, is this a public hearing? Aanenson: I don't believe so. Mancino: Okay. And can give comments. Bob? Skubic: I have no comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: Nothing. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: No. Mancino: Mr. Nutting. Nutting: It's fine as is. Mancino: Okay. Me too. I mean I feel that way on the Planning Commission issues. When does this come in front of the HRA for approval of the funds? Gerhardt: The HRA will be negotiating with 3 separate individuals on redevelopment agreements. We do not anticipate to do that until they have an approved plan from both the 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Planning Commission and City Council. Once they've secured those approvals, then the HRA will consider it. That's been our process in the past. Mancino: And this is really not a Planning Commission purview but my only question was, as I read in this plan, was that one of the reasons for doing this is that anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment and within reasonable foreseeable future and yet, in something else we're going to see tonight, we're hearing that businesses want to come to Chanhassen and you're getting calls all over that businesses want to relocate here. So I put those two together and I say they don't, that doesn't make sense. Now sure everybody would like to get public funds. Gerhardt: Ms. Chairman, you're absolutely right. Perkins. Taco Bell. Boston Chicken. Byerly's. It was really easy for those individuals to come out to Chanhassen and take a raw piece of land and put a building on it. In this case you have existing buildings that are not being used to their maximum potential. Mr. Bloomberg has got a lease with a moving company that more than gives him a decent return on what that building can make for the value it's on. Taxes are low. Value's low. He's getting you know, $5.00-$8.00 a square foot. You know he's making his mortgage payment and also seeing a decent return. Without city assistance to encourage him to upgrade his building and to increase the value of that and pay the full taxes of what a Byerly's might pay or Market Square tenants might be paid, you have to provide that effort. You're not going to see him make a million dollars worth of improvements to the facade. You will not see him make improvements to a boardwalk and you will not see them add a marquee that would represent an older type element in the movie theater business. Mancino: Todd, how much is the private investor investing in it? How much of it is public? How much of it is private? Gerhardt: The public improvements that would be given to this would be all exterior improvements. Parking lot, boardwalk and facade. Pauly's, to renovate the old Filly's section, they're looking at sticking almost $900,000.00 into that. The movie theater people, right now you've just got a large warehouse space. To put movie theaters in, they're going to make capital costs in putting in the concession stand. Buying the seating. Sheet rocking the walls. Buying the screens. Buying the projectors. Sprinkling the building. Bathrooms. I don't know exactly what their budget is but it will be substantial. Mancino: And that's all being by private sector? Gerhardt: Private sector. And it is private sector that is paying for the facade, the boardwalk and the parking lot improvements and we are going to reimburse them their money for those 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 improvements over time based on the taxes that they would generate up and above of what's paying taxes today. Currently that site is paying approximately $129,000.00 a year in taxes. With the improvements that are being planned, we will add another $129,000.00 worth of taxes to that area based on improvements that would be completed with this. Mancino: The $129,000.00 that's being paid now, does that go into the TIF district or does that go into the public, into the Carver County and to schools and into Chanhassen, the city? Gerhardt: Currently these properties are in what we call TIF District No. 1. In creating this district we would have to decertify the 12 parcels that we're talking about. By decertifying those 12 parcels, you have to establish a new base value. That new base value would be what the base value that the County has on those properties as of today. So that $129,000.00 that they're paying today will be distributed back to the County, the School District and the City. Mancino: But all these years from 1979 it has not gone on the public tax rolls? Gerhardt: It has not. Mancino: It has not. It has gone into the TIF district. Gerhardt: It has gone into the TIF district. Mancino: Ever since 1979 to 1995. Gerhardt: Correct. Mancino: From how long was this TIF district going to run for? This new one. Gerhardt: The new one would run for, out to the year, we're proposing 2017. But it could go for another 5 years past that. Mancino: So, how many years is that? Gerhardt: It's a 25 year district. Mancino: So the next 25 years the money that is paid in property taxes from those appreciated properties will go back into the TIF district for 25 years? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Gerhardt: Half of it. $129,000.00 will go back onto the tax rolls. The other $129,000.00 will go to pay off the boardwalks, the facades and parking. Mancino: So $1.7 million will go back into paying the developer for all the expenses? Gerhardt: That he has upfronted for the boardwalk, the facade, and the parking lots. Mancino: So who owns all this at the end? Gerhardt: Who owns all? Mancino: Who owns the boardwalk, the building, etc? That's very interesting. Gerhardt: They would own the boardwalks, the facade and the parking lots. With the exception of the land that the city currently owns in that area. Mancino: Even though the city gave them back their property tax dollars to do it? Every year. Gerhardt: Correct. That's the incentive for them to take what looks like an industrial. Mancino: So it's 100% that we actually give back for the cost of all those capital outlays and administrative costs. Gerhardt: Just for the facade, the boardwalks and the parking lots. Not the $900,000.00 of interior improvements for Pauly's. The interior improvements for the 8,000 square feet of retail. The interior improvements for the bowling center. The interior improvements that would be done in the Frontier Center. Just for the facade, boardwalk and parking lots. Mancino: I don't know if that was educational to anyone else on how that happens. What goes on in the TIF district. Gerhardt: Well right now if we didn't do anything, the $129,000.00 would stay in place out to the year 2008 with the current district. So the School District, the County and the City will be benefitting right now, 13 years of receiving that $129,000.00. Mancino: So we're going from the TIF district into the public rolls and that's the difference and all these years it hasn't been going to help lower other people's property taxes? Okay. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Gerhardt: Plus you also rid yourself of the moving company and the large tilt up concrete wall that has been a mission of both the HRA, the Planning Commission and the City Council in redeveloping probably one of our most blighted areas in the community. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Next item, do we come to closure? Do we have to make a motion? Gerhardt: Yeah, you need to approve the attached resolution that says that you agree that the TIF plan is consistent with the zoning. Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion? Thank you. Nutting: I'll make a motion that Planning Commission approve the attached resolution declaring the program and plan for TIF District No. 4 consistent with plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole. Conrad: I second that. Mancino: Any discussion? I just have one last question for Todd. So does that mean that we are, if I vote yes, that I'm approving all these numbers and everything in here? Gerhardt: The role of the Planning Commission is that you are approving that the uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Conrad: Doesn't the Chairperson have to sign something? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: I'll co-sign on those general obligation bonds you know. Gerhardt: There are no bonds associated with this. That's the other thing that the City Council likes about it is that the redevelopers are upfronting all the cost and that it's a pay as you go. So whatever tax increment that they generate over the next 20 years is what they shall receive back, plus 8% interest. Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve the resolution declaring the program and plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 consistent with plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 AMEND PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Any comments? Bob. Mike. Ladd. Ron. May I have a motion please? Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve amendment to it's By- laws, Section 7, Point 1 adding subpart (b). Matters which appear on the agenda as open discussion items will not be recorded as Minutes. Conrad: Second. Mancino: Any discussion on the motion that's on the floor? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve amendment to it's By-laws, Section 7.1 adding (b). Matters which appear on the agenda as open discussion items will not be recorded as Minutes. All voted in favor and the motion canied. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 3, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor, except Nutting who abstained, and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: On May 22nd, the Senior Housing was approved. The 3 stories. That was lowered to 3 stories and 65 units were put on the site. And lowering it, the building, it pushed it to the north, closer to those residents. There will be a tiered retaining wall. In addition it required variances that were set before the Board of Adjustment on June 5th and those variances included setbacks on Kerber and Santa Vera. I think the neighbors felt that they'd rather have, and the Council, that they'd rather have the variances on the setbacks as opposed to the taller building. So we'll have 65 units. Mancino: Did those variances carry at the Board of Adjustments? Aanenson: They were approved, correct. So at this point the site plan has been approved with variances. In addition the Lake Susan Townhouse project was also approved by the City Council on May 22nd. That's all I had. Excuse me. There is a joint session with the City Council and the Planning Commission and that's set for June 19th. And maybe during ongoing items, or open discussion items, I've gotten a list of the ongoing issues that we have 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 going, or maybe that's something we can use as a format to talk about with the Council. Maybe we want to talk about that towards the end of the meeting but it'd be June 19th and you will get an agenda for that. A notice of the meeting. I believe that starts at 6:00 and normally it's held in the courtyard. Nutting: Is that a Monday? Aanenson: Correct. It's an off Monday from the normal Council. Nutting: Is it a 6:00 to 7:00? Aanenson: Generally. Mancino: I would be in favor of moving a discussion on that agenda to the open discussion time that we have tonight. Do we have another Planning Commission meeting before the 19th also? Aanenson: No. The 21st would be your next meeting. Mancino: Okay, so this is it. Okay. Are other people in agreement with moving it to the open discussion tonight? Okay. Any other ongoing items, Kate? Aanenson: That's all I have. Mancino: Okay. Should we adjourn to the open discussion items? Aanenson: Sure. The Planning Commission meeting was closed to the open discussion portion. The meeting was adjourned after the open discussion. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 39 CITY OF \•; CIIANHASSEN • = Y > 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: June 14, 1995 SUBJ: Temporary Sales This issue has had a lengthy history of discussion with the Planning Commission and City Council (see attached memos and minutes). Members of the Retail Committee of the Chamber of Commerce would like to discuss their issues and concerns with the Planning Commission. Previously, the Planning Commission supported temporary sales but the Council wanted them limited to non-profit uses. The Chamber's goal is to develop a mechanism that would allow temporary sales to occur without a conditional use permit. Their intent is to develop a temporary ordinance that would add to the community and be easier to administer. The purpose of the discussion is to guide the Chamber members as to the issues the commission may have so that they can be implemented into an ordinance. MEMORANDUM TO: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission FROM: Retail Committee- Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce DATE: Monday, April 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Temporary and Seasonal Outdoor Sales RECOMMENDATION In response to recommendations from the memo dated September 9, 1993 by Kate Aanenson, an ordinance amendment has been drafted allowing for administrative staff approval of temporary/seasonal sales including Christmas trees, flowers and other retail products in the CBD, BG and BF district. The three main purposes of this amendment are to allow current permanent retail businesses to extend their business for special circumstances or sales for the following situations: 1. Individual retailer special promotion. 2. A retail center promotion. 3. Retailers on a city wide promotion. The approvals are subject to meeting acceptable site standards. APPLICATION PROCESS The intention of the application process is to provide a quick and simple procedure, including the actual application and a one page description of the requirements and limitations of application. The application should be a one page form accompanied by a one page description of the requirement of the applicant. The application would be handled by City of Chanhassen Planning Department Staff. REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES PERMIT The application must be submitted 10 days prior to the date of requested use. The Planning Department may deny an application or issue a Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales Permit. In authorizing temporary sales, the Planning Department shall impose such requirements and conditions as considered necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the public welfare in conformance with the standards provided in this section. All Christmas Tree sales shall expire December 26. All sites shall be cleared and all remaining debris,trash removed on the last date of permit. REVOCATION OF TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES PERMIT The Planning Director shall,upon reasonable notice be empowered to suspend or revoke the temporary sales permit of any person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinances or any of the conditions set forth on their permit. If,at any time,a permit under the provisions of this ordinance is suspended or revoked, it shall thereafter be unlawful for the person to operate, open, maintain, manage or conduct any temporary sales. STANDARDS FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES Temporary sales shall comply with general standards as provided below, including any additional conditions as may be established by the Planning Department. 1. Acceptable space for an off-street parking and traffic circulation generated by the use must be provided. Curb and gutter with drive approaches is desired to provide safe turn movements. 2. Night Lighting should be compatible with surrounding adjacent uses. 3. Hours of operation should be compatible with adjacent uses. 4. Signage should be limited to window signs, one outdoor sign no greater than square feet and one directional sign not to exceed square feet. 5. Uses should be required to comply with all necessary Building Code requirements, including inspections for any buildings, electrical connections, sanitary conditions, etc. 6. Permission from the owner of the property with limitations as to the number of temporary sales for one location. Signed and Agreed to above: Signature By: Retailer Requesting Permit Date: APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES PERMIT' Conditions for approval: Not applicable to peddlers/solicitors operating door-to-door, or street-to-street. 1. Retailers requesting the ability to offer temporary outdoor sales, (e.g. display of merchandise on private property), are required to locate in a Commercial Zoning District from which retail sale activity is permitted. 2. No temporary sales may occupy areas designated as front yard, side yard, rear yard . setbacks of the Commercial Zoning District, parking lot stalls, or driveway aisles. 3. Temporary sales locations may be displayed outside and beyond the confines of a Commercial zoned building provided the display area shall not constitute a greater number of square feet than 10% of the ground floor area of the commercial building or tenant's space from which a outdoor retailer will be located. 4. No temporary sales location may occur in public right-of-way or public property. 5. Property owners and tenants signature(s) are required to locate a temporary sales location on private property and/or in front of a tenant's space. TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAILER PERMIT 1. Address of temporary location: 2. Square feet of commercial building: 3. Square feet of tenant's space in commercial building: 4. Property owner's Signature: Date: Include proof of ownership 5. Tenant's Signature: Date: 6. Product(s)/Service(s)to be sold: 7. Requested Length of Permit: 8. Hours of Operation: Also required: vicinity map, information to determine sanitation facilities and availability of parking to serve the use. This Zoning Certificate is subject to all conditions of the license issued. PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: Zoning: Date Approved: Comments: Date Denied: By: Ke6x3i2/Dr__ ri APRIL 1995 ZC)NiAl CiVe IPS AMERICAN iii PLANNING ASSOCIATION Regulating retail activities(warehouse sales,expositions). Despite this wide array, all these types of sales entail many of the same basic Outdoor Sales concerns regarding sanitation, maintenance, insurance,and the obstruction of pedestrian traffic. By Dan Biver Outdoor Restaurants From the days of ancient marketplaces to today's outdoor cafes, The town of Whiting, Indiana, bordered by Lake Michigan to outdoor dining and shopping has always been a popular warm the north,Chicago to the northwest, and Gary, Indiana, to the weather activity. Zoning for present-day outdoor businesses east, has sec out to encourage outdoor sidewalk restaurants.The continues to be a challenge for planners,but many communities standards and conditions approved last July by the Whiting across the country have been setting examples others might Board of Public Works and Safety establish clear goals for the want to follow.This issue of Zoning News examines the eating and drinking establishments that wish to move part of regulation of temporary outdoor sales,such as restaurants and their business outdoors. sidewalk displays. Definition.Whiting defines an outdoor sidewalk cafe as"any Because the full range of activities covered by ordinances portion of food establishment or eating or drinking place regulating outdoor sales is very broad, it is easier to focus on located on a public sidewalk or public open-space that provides these two common examples.The larger umbrella of regulated waiter or waitress service and is unenclosed," and is not used for outdoor businesses,however,can include carnivals,sales of ocher purposes. The cafe is to be open to the sky"with the seasonal fruits and vegetables,arts and craft shows and exhibits, exception that it may have a retractable awning or umbrella and fund-raising activities,parking lot sales,and seasonal sales such may contain furniture including tables,chairs, railings,planters, as Christmas tree lots. etc.which are readily moveable." The city of Plymouth, Minnesota,divides this variety into Location and safety.New York City's ordinance covers three four categories: outdoor sales activities (sidewalk sales, inventory important points in regulating the location of sidewalk restau- reduction/liquidation sales,distressed or seasonal merchandise rants. The first is the need for safety in avoiding the obstruction sales);outdoor promotional events(carnivals,craft shows,flea of exits and entrances for people in adjoining buildings. markets, mechanical or animal rides, and the display of products Likewise, fire escapes,drop ladders, and cellar or basement exits not sold or served on the property); transient merchant/ must not obstruct pedestrian traffic. Lastly, the cafes should not transient produce merchant (selling goods,wares,and obstruct access to the restaurant's building from the sidewalk. merchandise where it is allowed by zoning/selling produce on Because of the city's extensive application requirements, property other than where the produce is grown);and industrial obtaining authorization for an outdoor cafe in New York can take up to a year and a half.Approval comes not _ -.1 only from city hall,but also from community •�'r , � 5 ��OA I % boards and, in historic districts,from the TA A N pR E Bo 0KRS Nay ®`- Landmarks Preservation Commission. Many other BOCK 570 — _ T_°RE14_whtt"T,,.„, .sc'fi 1.-:-..,3 g C 1,‘ u.. 1 . ,s` r 4448 .:;• ''c` ' w II �- Two scenes from New York City illustrate the diversity- l � -- d .�"rs , �:. ,.. Aiyam of outdoor sales that a good ordinance must address. f ` Above,the Strand Book Store attracts customers with its J. `~"'_.+ 'r t outdoor book stalls,even in winter. Right, the Southa - ,,+ ( ,- Street Seaport offers a variety of dining opportunities in . „1.,1c-4:4:.1 •; r. � { a pedestrian mall s 1c• :: 0 _woo...4 �-�'titi2ita r "Fiz.,�z�.r cities hold public hearings and require a conditional use permit Sound.Some outdoor cafe ordinances prohibit the use of approved by the planning commission and an encroachment outdoor speakers,but the issue of noise pollution extends permit from the city council. beyond piped music. For example,Whiting prohibits As is the case in historic districts in New York Ciry, the outdoor sound systems. However, "one musician or vocalist location of outdoor restaurants is often regulated with regard to and/or one musical instrument as provided by the permittee their appropriateness for the neighborhood. Location issues shall not be prohibited unless said musical presentation extend beyond fire exits to include appearance. Many cities becomes a noise nuisance as documented in complaints to require advance architectural drawings to ensure design the City of Whiting." Boulder allows piped-in music on a compatibility with neighboring structures. Many ordinances case-by-case basis but disallows the use of sound systems also address aesthetic issues such as canopies, potted plants,and installed primarily for advertising purposes. the railings that define the cafe's borders. Hours. In regulating hours of operation,some codes Boulder, Colorado's regulations define cafe construction, include references to the weather.The Santa Rosa code, for design, furniture, and signs.These regulations often are merely example,states that the operation of an outdoor cafe is extensions of existing building codes.Whiting, Indiana, permitted"whenever fair weather would enhance outdoor specifies that the construction and furniture must"ensure the dining."Other codes merely specify the time of day,with integrity and preserve the character and compatibility of the some allowing business during the morning hours (7 a.m. to 119th Street Downtown Business District." Santa Rosa, noon),and others permitting service until as late as 4 a.m. California,specifies the weight with which umbrellas must be Regulations regarding operating hours may also require that secured, requiring them to be anchored "with a minimum base all tables, chairs, and other furniture be removed from the of not less than 60 pounds." sidewalk when the cafe is not in operation. The Boulder code directs that"outdoor seating will be counted in satisfying restroom requirements (quantity,access, location, Sidewalk Sales etc.)"and that"all access to outdoor area from food establishment Luring customers into stores is often accomplished by will be provided with self-closing doors,screening,etc." bringing the goods a little closer to the would-be shopper who Signs. Regulations can deal with both public and private is strolling down the sidewalk. Like zoning for outdoor cafes, signs. Whiting protects public signage by stating, "No table zoning for sidewalk sales also involves several extensions of umbrella shall obstruct the clear vision of any street sign or codes that apply to the business conducted indoors. traffic regulatory sign." But it adds that"no table umbrella shall Sidewalk sales are characterized by their temporary status. contain any type sign or signage except on the fringe or Unlike plant and tree nurseries,where the greenhouse does valance." Many codes also regulate the size, location,and not enclose the entire shop,sidewalk sales require special use placement of signs in or around the restaurant. permits for operating on property not otherwise used to But sign regulations can also mandate certain messages that conduct business. Some codes list examples of the types of affect public safety. Santa Rosa requires that one or more signs items that may be sold through such an outdoor display. be posted giving notice to the cafe's customers that"the Escondido, California, lists antiques,artwork, automotive drinking of beer or wine or the carrying of any open container supplies,bicycles, books, china and glass wares,clothing, which contains beer or wine is prohibited and unlawful outside crafts, firewood, flowers and plants,food, hardware, the delineated area of the sidewalk cafe." gardening and landscaping equipment and supplies,jewelry, Food and alcohol Regulations generally cover both what can motorcycles and scooters, newspapers and magazines, be served and how it is to be prepared. While serving alcoholic sporting goods, and tires. Other communities merely beverages is often permitted, exceptions exist in communities generalize on the subject of what is to be sold,specifying like Whiting,where"the sale, service, or consumption of any only that the display and sale are to be temporary and must alcoholic beverage or alcoholic beverages on or in an `Outdoor conform to the requirements of existing zoning codes. Sidewalk Cafe'by any permittee, permittee's agent, permittee's Categories.This temporary nature is defined by the city of employee,or consumer is prohibited." State codes also come Portland, Oregon, as"activities characterized by their short- into play regarding liquor, and it is a safe course to check those term or seasonal nature and by the fact that permanent that apply. For example,some states limit the number of tables improvements are not made to the site."The ordinance then at which liquor can be served in an outdoor setting. separates the temporary activities into two categories: those "` It is common practice in these ordinances to prohibit the that are allowed by the zone but do not meet the development presetting of tables with utensils,glasses, condiments,and other standards,such as Christmas tree sales and a parking lot sale amenities.The general idea is to require that these items be in a commercial zone; and those that, if permanent,would 1 --- placed on the table only after customers are seated, largely not be allowed by the base zone, such as church carnivals in —a • because of the potential problems with outdoor sanitation. residential zones and retail sales in industrial zones. Ordinances demand that the exteriors of surfaces in the outdoor Plymouth, Minnesota,describes the types of sales for which i +y cafes be cleanable and kept clean. "Trash and/or refuse storage is an administrative permit can be obtained: —Retail Activities' prohibited within Outdoor Sidewalk Cafes or on adjacent shall include temporary,short-term warehouse sales, inventory :A sidewalks," the Whiting ordinance declares. reduction or liquidation sales,distressed merchandise sales, and ti Public health directors have the duty to enforce compliance product promotion events including displays, introductions, with standard food sanitation regulations,and periodic inspections expositions,and swap meets related to the products and/or • by the health department are required just as with indoor facilities. services of the established tenant or owner , . ." While many outdoor health codes mirror those regarding indoor Health and safety.As with ordinances regarding outdoor restaurants,some communities specify extra requirements such as cafes,outdoor displays and sales of merchandise must protecting utensils from airborne contaminants and providing for comply with codes designed to protect public health and proper floor drainage. safety,as well as to prevent the obstruction of both pedes- 2 trian and automobile traffic. Some city codes prohibit tempo- rary sales on unpaved landscaped areas.The use of power A sidewalk cafe in Denver's Larimer Square generation is often strictly regulated for both safety consider- accommodates customers while leaving an ample ations and in regard to noise levels.The maximum space that pathway for pedestrians. may be used for outdoor sales is also an issue. It can be mea- „ in square feet or as a percentage of the existing business +'SLI _114,,,,_ area. Daytona, Florida, uses a combination of both,stating that "the display area shall not be greater than 10 percent of the lot iI -, ` or parcel and not greater than 500 square feet."if t ` 1 �. I Ordinances commonly restrict the frequency of outdoor +s" `' J' sales. Salinas,California,allows for a"maximum of four __- r..„ ��lIli continuous days six times each calendar year." Plymouth, i i-+`„. Minnesota,on the other hand, allows"no more than 10 sales ' I ' i activities per year per property." •' 'y =�'L 't1' Signs.Advertising in and around the sites of outdoor sales '" 46011.1.0.-A. ' Y� r ^ --2: also has received considerable attention. "A-frame" or s' �4. �Z �' "sandwich board" signs have aroused controversy in some ` ,e communities even apart from their use for outdoor sales, but ` -,: ' ,' . the fear of lawsuits is often overridden by the power of long- ,..,' standing tradition. The size and amount of such ads are g. - 4,iii. regulated: in Stratford, Ontario, the ordinance delineates 6. r signs' measurement in feet, controls their shape ("A-frame/ inverted vees"), and requires that they be kept in good repair. It also permits just"one sign per w - - business and/or building." "may - 4n Location. Communities also typically Ilirrir `f a address basic concerns over merchandising 4 . s I on public rights-of-way. Bethany, Along a commercial strip . Oklahoma,specifies that the "goods shall l' 1, * - --=,.. , 3 e +ay.: i not be in places closer than six feet from the in Los Angeles t , i, ;r7 I " k_r: - y , curb or,where there is no curb, six feet a clothing shop `i1 -- f ` t from the paved edge of the shoulder," and displays its wares A! - iTr: , without intruding - �'� ` �I� ' / that"no open display shall occupy the sight into the public ._+ triangle at a corner." right-of:way. Temporary shelters such as roofs or canopies are often permitted for sidewalk . ' ` ' ' sales, but setback requirements for the d. WL yam_> principal building generally aim to prevent • ,. _. infringement on a public right-of-way or on an easement open to public travel. Some writers on the urban scene have noted that no space is • r y�_ of 3. more valuable than downtown sidewalks, and every ury is t. 7: ; •fir%' ..rt? concerned about its economic vitality. For businesses, the ", `•— .i". = 07,--.•iiE-w a bottom line is the facilitation of activity and increased pedes- ;itiszy _ = -' i r '�\is` trian traffic. Some downtown areas have successfullyused iso - - /. `' ti'` �. !� ? "„i�j3y .- ,-..,7.4:t4'. :,.. .- • .t outdoor sales as the focus of special attractions such as noon- '•- p,.= : ' t�•:. - a_'-i,1,-- - time performances on plazas and malls. s. s � s_ ��, ` s • General Concerns ' • >. (- i IV .i= The oversight of outdoor cafes and sidewalk sales involves the *. •j kl "`.;- ,s ' r'-� IIIA- usual concerns overpublic health and safety. The roadside hot - `�,:. �- tY ' 1 - - �- -- dogjoint is an American tradition, but in manytowns the _ • ; "y ;.. -,7;:::„'-::?:71- 'L 7 . rr oversight of outdoor sales activities involves more than the r-" :'=;z e.' •:1" �. '" _ simple desire to prevent the abuse of citysidewalks.The quality and attractiveness of a commercial district can be.von or lost -•'• . S -_ _ through the regulation of such activities. _ -- — — Because of the nature of outdoor business,aesthetic Outdoor dining is one of the amenities that have wade considerations receive much attention in city codes.The same interest that underlies permitting the operation of outdoor cafes, .Sall Antonio's Rineruvalk a major tourist and convention attraction This cafe is set at the base ofa hotel for example, typically involves a serious interest in the appearance lik. of the community as well.An appealing community'image is as much an integral part of the atmosphere for a restaurant's outdoor activities as the appropriateness of its inner decor. 3 ':_ U.S.Justice Department,which would then sue.The whole Denver Acts on process could take up to two years. Group Homes In the South Sherman Street neighborhood,however, the city has so far shown an ability to negotiate a workable Shelters and group homes have become the focus of attention in agreement with neighbors concerning a new home for Denver in recent months, and the fate of at least one shelter in chronically mentally ill people with drug and alcohol problems. the Denargo Market area hinges on a decision from the zoning That dispute,which began last August,led to discussions with board of appeals later this month. Meanwhile, the city has neighbors,whose concerns resulted in agreement on a facility reached agreement with a neighborhood association concerning for women only,with strict screening for violent persons, another shelter elsewhere in the city. In the background,an especially child abusers,and strict supervision and adequate informal memo issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and staffing. There are now 10 women in residence. Urban Development (HUD) last summer indicated that it Jim Schwab and Fay Dolnick deems the Denver zoning ordinance a violation of the Fair Housing Act Amendments,although HUD seems in no hurry to take legal action against the city. The key issue is a zoning provision that allows no more than Call for three shelters within a 4,000-foot radius. Last summer, the Information Salvation Army was forced to relocate its Blake Street Emergency Shelter because of complaints from neighboring businesses about What's the impact of impact analysis?A future issue of Zoning health and building code violations.The shelter,which houses News will examine the use of formal impact analysis procedures homeless men, moved last November to the Denargo Market by local planning agencies. If your organization has instituted area,where three shelters—the Denver Rescue Mission, Samari- impact analysis as part of its development processes, let us tan House,and Sacred Heart House—already existed within a know. ' 'e are interested in ordinances, procedural and technical 4,000-foot radius. By moving 150 feet too close to these facili- manuals, internal memoranda,and actual examples of staff ties, the new shelter posed a potential violation of the zoning impact analysis reports. Send material to: Stuart Meck,APA, ordinance unless the Salvation Army could win a variance, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago IL 60637. For further information, something the zoning board was considered likely to reject. contact Stuart Meck at 312-955-9100. The city resolved this new conflict by reclassifying Sacred Heart House as a rooming and boarding house. It was able to do this because the women's shelter houses up CO six families or 10 single women without providing services. Sacred Heart limits its residents'stay CO 30 days. However, Denargo Market ��,�ReP O� neighborhood groups have appealed this reclassification to the tS zoning board,which is expected to act by the end of this month.A favorable decision on the appeal will again place the Knox County Salvation Army men's shelter in legal jeopardy. Greenways Plan The spacing requirements themselves were the subject of the HUD legal analysis that early last year questioned the zoning Knox County Greenways Committee,Metropolitan Planning ordinance's validity under the federal law,which prohibits Commission, City-County Building, Suite 403, 400 Main St., discrimination against the disabled.Although the homeless are Knoxville, TN37902. 1994. 52 pp. $10. not similarly protected by federal law,the zoning ordinance The Knoxville metropolitan area has been growing fast and covers all residential care uses and thus may be uniformly gobbling land for development in the process. In 1992, the jeopardized by any federal challenge. However, HUD has not county appointed the Greenways Committee to develop a plan yet shown any indication that it regards this issue as a priority, for enhancing the area's parkland and protecting its natural notes city attorney Karen Avalos. Even if it decides to act,she resources. Open space plans generally involve a number of land- says, HUD would have to file a formal complaint, allowing 100 use planning techniques to achieve their goals, including both days for the city to comply before taking its complaint to the land acquisition and zoning, the latter largely through parkland dedication in new developments.This plan lays out a metropolitan vision that employs each of those tools judiciously. Zoning Ntrer is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for S45(U.S.)and S54(foreign). • Michael B.Barker.Executive Director;Frank S.So,Deputy Executive Director; Development Impact: William R.Klein,Director of Research. Assessment Handbook Zoning Nems is produced at APA.Jim Schwab,Editor:Michael Barrette,Dan Biver, Sarah Bohlen.Fay Dolnick,Michelle Gregory,Sanjay Jeer,Beth McGuire,Marya Robert W Burchell, et al. Urban Land Institute.Available from Morris.David Smith,Reporters;Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor;Lisa Barton, Planners Bookstore,APA, 1313 L. 60th St., Chicago IL 60637. Design and Production. 1994.326 pp., includes 5''/"diskette. $124.95. Copyright 01995 by American Planning Association, 1313 E.60th St..Chicago,IL Written by some of the planners most knowledgeable on the 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 \lassachusetzs Ave.,N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. subject of impact analysis, this volume is probably close to a All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any necessity in any planning library. Covering eight different areas f• orm or by any means.electronic or mechanical,including photocopying.recording. Of analysis, the handbook details methods for measuring physical, or bi any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing social,and economic impacts of proposed development.The from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber diskette contains a computerized model for testing hypothetical and 10%postconsumet waste. ® proposals to determine their impacts in advance. 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 y (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: September 9, 1993 SUBJ: Temporary and Seasonal Sales BACKGROUND Almost two years ago staff proposed a temporary sales ordinance. This proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission but never the City Council. The issue is surfacing again because there has been a request from Target to have pumpkin sales during the month of October. The ordinance currently requires temporary sales to go though the interim use permit. Staff believes that the process is cumbersome and does work for these type of uses. ANALYSIS Attached is the original staff report regulating temporary sales. Staff supports the concept that temporary sales should be limited to seasonal sales of produce, Christmas trees, flowers, etc. If these types of sales meet the criteria outlined in the proposed amendment, then they could be given a permit administratively. All other types of temporary sales including merchandise, clothing, etc. would be required to receive an interim/conditional use permit. As outlined in the attached report, temporary sales is listed as an interim use in the following zones CBD, BF, and BG districts. An interim use requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Council. This process can take over two months. Staff is of the opinion that the standards developed could allow these uses to be approved administratively. Temporary sales would still be limited to the CBD, BG and BF districts. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment allowing for administrative approval of temporary/seasonal sales of produce, Planning Commission September 9, 1993 Page 2 Christmas trees, flowers and closely related products in the CBD, BG and BF District. These approvals are subject to meeting an acceptable site and site standards. ATTACHMENTS 1. Temporary Sales Staff Report dated October 25, 1991. 2. Letter from Tammy Larson, Target, dated August 23, 1993. 3. Section 20-381 of the City Code regarding Interim Use Permits. 4. Minnetonka application for temporary Christmas tree sales. CITY OF Io-- :01* CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 •- '— MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM E �r ^ 471:>1.0 Pr TO: Planning Commission ,r. _ _ C�• _ FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II � . . : . DATE: October 25, 1991 SUBJ: Temporary Sales, Christmas Tree Sales BACKGROUND Throughout the year, the city receives requests from people to sell on a temporary basis. Temporary sales can include seasonal sales such as produce, locally grown or brought in, Christmas tree sales, flower or pumpkin sales, seafood, Minnesota Twins merchandise, velvet paintings, etc. These types of sales can add flavor to a community, like the road side stand, the farmers market, and the ice cream vendor. There are seasonal sales which are transitory in nature such as ice cream vendors that drive throughout the residential areas of the city. Other types of temporary sales are carnivals, bazaars, fairs, or street dances. Currently, the city does not have a mechanism to review these requests, except through the Peddlers and Solicitors Ordinance. Thus, they generally have been prohibited in the past, except for the occasional produce stand or a Christmas tree lot. These are either grandfathered in . or allowed since they are located on land used for agricultural purposes. The city ' s Peddlers and Solicitors Ordinance states that persons shall not engage in solicitation in the city without registering with the city and violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor. While this gives the city some idea as to who is in the city conducting this type of business, it does rot c ive the city r.-._ch control as fa:: a: rcgula •i::g some of the _ssues , revc=ation ef a registration pe_ _t or dealing with those people who want to stay at a fixed location. The purpose of the Interim Use Permit is to allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction and to allow a use that is presently acceptable but with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future. Temporary sales uses could be added to is : i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Temporary Sales October 25, 1991 Page 2 the those uses listed under the interim use permit. The two month period to obtain a permit is a problem even if the ordinance is amended. In most circumstances, it would take longer to get a permit than the use would be in business. The purpose of the conditional use ordinance is to include those uses which are not allowed within the zoning district, but may under some circumstances be suitable. Again, many uses which would be seasonal or transitory in nature would not be desired under a conditional use but may be acceptable on a temporary basis, for example ice cream vendors in the RSF zone. There are two issues for your consideration. The first issue is to develop some criteria for allowing Christmas trees sales for this holiday season, and secondly, does the city want to develop an ordinance regulating temporary sales. ANALYSIS The purpose of temporary sales is to allow within the city certain uses which are transitory in nature, as either accessory or seasonal uses, in a manner that will assure compatibility with the underlying zoning district and adjacent properties. The main areas of concern with temporary sales are location, compatibility with surrounding uses and safety issues, including traffic and building code. A larger issue is that of competition for those businesses that have paid the price to establish a permanent residence in the city. Consideration should be given to any request to ensure that it meets all city standards. The city would want to permit only those temporary sales that are unique in nature and do not fit into any other classification of the zoning district including permitted, conditional or interim, and are not the type of use that would benefit by circumventing the planning, site plan review and building permit process. By their nature most temporary sales locate near major collectors for the visibility and have a limited time of operation. Staff' s concerns include the following issues: 1. Traffic safety issues. Accertable space for any off- street parsing and traffic circulation generated by the use must be provided. Curb and gutter with a drive approach is desired to provide safe turn movements . By their nature, these uses located on major collectors, a safe access to the site is necessary to reduce hazards. All sites should be encouraged to be in an existing approved site plan. Temporary sales should not conflict Temporary Sales October 25, 1991 Page 3 with the primary use and should have hours that off set each other. 2 . Night lighting should be compatible with surrounding adjacent uses. 3 . Hours of operation should be compatible with adjacent uses. 4 . Signage should be limited to wall signs 'so they do not become a safety or traffic hazard. 5. Uses should be required to comply with all necessary Building Code requirements, including inspections for any buildings, or electrical connections, sanitary conditions, etc. Many of the uses require electricity to the site as well as a need for sanitary facilities. All necessary building inspections should be required to ensure code compliance. 6 . Permission from the owner of the property with limitations as to the number of temporary sales for one location. A site should have sufficient area for the existing use (s) , as well as any proposed temporary sales. 7 . Each use should be given a specific time period that they could operate. 8 . Competition with mainstream merchants should also be given consideration with any temporary sales approval . An application for temporary sales could be made to the Planning Department. If the application meets the standards set out in the temporary sales ordinance, staff could authorize approval . In instances where a use may be temporary in nature but longer in duration, the Planning Commission may want to review these cases. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to draft a Temporary Sales Ordinance, but in the meantime use the following criteria to review Christmas tree sales: Ti_ PC.L RY LIES GRDINAN'CL Application for Temporary Sales Permit. An application for a temporary sales permit shall be made to the Planning Department at least 10 days prior to the date of requested use. The Planning Department may deny an application or issue a Temporary Sales Permit. In authorizing temporary sales, the Planning Department shall impose such requirements and conditions as considered Temporary Sales October 25, 1991 Page 4 necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the public welfare in conformance with the standards provided in this section. Information Required for Application. An application for a temporary sales permit shall be accompanied by the following information: 1. A written description of the proposed use including requested length of permit and hours of operation. 2 . A description of the lot or property on which the requested use is to be conducted. If the applicant is not the owner of the property, the ownership shall be ,identified along with evidence of permission from the f \CPowner for temporary sales to take place. (),,Vicinity Map. -. \ Sufficient information to determine the yard requirement, W\ \\ sanitary facilities and availability of parking to serve r_ \\) the use. Expiration of Temporary Sales Permit. Christmas Tree sales shall expire December 26. The site shall be cleared and all remaining debris removed from the Christmas Tree temporary sales site. Revocation of Temporary Sales Permit. 1. The Planning Director shall, upon reasonable notice be empower to suspend or revoke the temporary sales permit of any person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance or any of the conditions set forth on their permit. 2 . If, at any time, a permit under the provisions of this ordinance is suspended or revoked, it shall thereafter be unlawful for that person to operate, open, maintain, ,r\ manage or conduct any temporary sales. Standards for Temporary Sales. Temporary sales shall comply with 1 ' general_ _standards as _ provided_ below, including any additional , �� conditions as--may b established by the lanning-Department UCLA 71 1. Acceptable space for any off-street parking and traffic 1� circulation generated by the use must be provided. Curb and gutter with drive approaches is desired to provide ,l safe turn movements. 2 . Night lighting should be compatible with surrounding adjacent uses. Temporary Sales October 25, 1991 Page 5 3 . Hours of operation should be compatible with adjacent uses 4 . Signag ould be limited to wall signs so't y do no bec9me a safety or traffic hazard. 5 . Uses should be required to comply with all necessary Building Code requirements, including inspections for any buildings, electrical connections, sanitary conditions, etc. 6. Permission from the owner of the property with limitations as to the number of temporary sales for one location. I f �-(9 r� -p_ ,,,r 1-rt-f �--�a �-'A PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE This item was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on November 6, 1991. The Commission expressed the concern that maybe this type of use could be addressed under the Interim or Conditional Use section of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff pointed out that both of these procedures require public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council . Because of the short period of operation of these uses, staff feels it would streamline the review process to have an ordinance in place that would spell out the criteria for Temporary Sales to be approved administratively. The Planning Commission felt that the criteria developed in this report should be used for Christmas Tree sales this year and that an ordinance amendment for Temporary Sales should be submitted for their review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Temporary Sales Ordinance for Christmas Tree Sales. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plz -ng Commission minutes dated November 6 , 1 _ 1. Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 35 place . Just for your advocation , we 'll be having the ordinance on the 20th requiring that all recreational beachlots coming into conformance and then after that we 'd like to do , throughout the winter take 1 or 2 at a time on the Planning Commission and bring it through that process . I think we answered a lot of questions. There were a few that didn't show up but we had a representative from each of the associations . Emmings: Were they hostile to this or pretty receptive? Aanenson: There was a few that are going to be sticky . Olsen: Because they admit that they 've expanded but they want to keep what they 've got . Aanenson: I think one of the most . . . issues too is some of these when the subdivision first was in place they had maybe 20 lots and now there 's been other additions to the subdivision put in with maybe 20-30-40 more homes going in and these people feel like they have a right so that 's kind of a sticky point too . Emmings: Okay . That will be interesting . So are we doing here what we kind of did to the contractors yards at one point? Is this the same kind of a process? Olsen : Yes , exactly . Emmings: Alright . Well , that will be interesting . That "s going to be . Olsen: Tough . Aanenson: So hopefully by the time the ice is out , we 'll have them all in place and be able to enforce something . MOON VALLEY UPDATE. Emmings: I suppose we can all read this . Anybody want to talk about this? ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR CHRISTMAS TREE SALES/TEMPORARY USES . Kate Aanenson presented thestaff report on this item . Emmings: Is there anything on the Christmas tree one , can this be done in zoning d trict? Aanenson: Well it had to be compatible with the zoning district . That would be one of the criteria . Emmings: Alright , what is Christmas tree sales compatible with? Aanenson : I would consider that a retail and it would have to be in a commercial zone . Ice cream vendor I would say it would be compatible with the residential zone . Any retail would have to be in the commercial basically . Now some neighborhood if they wanted to have a street bazarre Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 36 sort of thing . If they wanted to block off the street and have a block party or something like that for a weekend . Ahrens: What about produce sales? Aanenson: That if it 's grown on the property . Ahrens: What if it 's not grown on the property like Kerber 's? Aanenson : That one 's grandfathered in . There are some that are - grandfathered . But if it 's grown on the site , that I guess we ask for somebody . If you have different feelings on that . But we have set up other standards too . I 'll take the time to go through some of those . The information that we require they submit and that the Director would have the authority to revoke , close them down if they weren 't meeting the conditions . Emmings: You 're suggesting that we adopt this ordinance . Aanenson: Well if you want us to apply it for Christmas tree sales . If you want us to come back with a specific ordinance , we 'd draft something up . If you felt comfortable looking at that . We 'd like something in place to evaluate Christmas tree sales only at this time . Emmings: Can we adopt ordinances without having a public hearing? Aanenson: I thought this was supposed to be under public hearing . Somehow it didn 't get under , meet that . Emmings: Was it published and advertised? Aanenson: I don 't think so . Emmings: Then we couldn 't adopt it . Aanenson : No , so it needs to be , technically to be an ordinance it needs to be a public hearing . So if you feel comfortable as far as drafting an ordinance , I guess that would be what we 're looking for some direction . Emmings: Are you going to have to write , this is a fairly lengthy and detailed ordinance . Are we going to have to do this , something of this length for each and every one of these things that comes along? Or are you ing to and do something that , you 'r-ow what I me-. Whet jc , . ay that we can write this into a single or :mance or do we to nave one for Cnristmas trees? One for ice cream vendors? Aanenson: No , it 's one ordinance . It would fit under , we would create a section in the Code that just says temporary uses . Boom . It doesn 't go under each chapter . It doesn't get amended . Emmings: Right but it seems to me that that chapter is going to have to have maybe something this long for each . You don 't foresee that? Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 37 Aanenson: No . No . It would just be a separate section in the zoning that would say , I found a place to put it . You know you look under general standards or supplementary regulations . Say like temporary sales and this would be the criteria . You wouldn 't have to put it under each one . I can review that with Roger but . Batzli : I 'm just not tracking tonight I don't think . Why isn 't this just considered an interim use and processed under the interim use permit? Aanenson: Let me go back to my background information where I talked about that . If you look specifically under interim uses it lists specific uses okay? And this goes back to what Steve is saying . If you try to go back and try to build criteria under each one of those , then you have to put this lengthy document under each one of those interim uses . So what we 're trying to do is cover all the zoning districts in one place, and that would be this . If you tried to do it the way you 're talking about Brian , you 'd have to go back and develop the criteria under each interim use . Ahrens: I think this is a good idea . Batzli : See I look under our current ordinance and under most where it 's allowed , it 's temporary sales of retail things . I mean we 've already got it in our interim use . I don 't understand this . Emmings: Well as he says here , the purpose of the interim use permit was to allow . Batzli : I understand what we put in here . Aanenson: There 's a couple of problems with interim uses . Okay , you have to come to the Planning Commission and the . Emmings : This is temporary sales that are kind of self limiting where there what we 're saying is , you can do this here temporarily until you do this . Until this event . I think there 's a distinction . Aanenson: And the other thing is , if somebody comes in for an interim , they have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council . If somebody comes in for Christmas tree sales every year , basically we 're going to know where it 's going to go . You 've told us what criteria . Do you want them to come back through the Planning Commission and City Council every year when we already know we 've got established criteria and we feel comfortable with that . That 's what we 're trying to do . Those types of uses that we don 't have to bring back every year . Emmings: So it will be handled administratively . Aanenson : Exactly . You 've set orth the criteria that you want us to evaluate those . And they come in 10 days before instead now we have people come in and we say gee , well really to get your Christmas tree sales you have to start in October to get through the whole process . So that 's really the intent of this . Emmings: That makes sense doesn 't it? Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 38 Batzli : So you want . Emmings: Are you tracking now Brian? Batzli : I 'm tracking . I understand what she wants now . You can 't call it a temporary use . I just don't like temporary use because temporary use is used in the definition of interim use . Emmings: How about temporary sales? Aanenson: Yeah . That 's really what it is . Except some are seasonal . Emmings: But basically they 're coming in saying I want a license to sell Christmas trees for 20 days . It 's kind of like getting a dog license . Batzli : Then the question is under , for example . If you look under our business neighborhood . One of the interim uses is temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale . Then the question is , do we still need that in the interim use as a permitted interim use type thing? Emmings: I 'm starting to actually dislike you . Just kidding . Batzli : You 're not starting . You never did like me . Emmings: Okay , let 's talk about it . Batzli : We have a lot of places in the ordinance where we talk about temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale which I thought included Christmas trees . Now the fact that we don 't want to have to make these people jump through some hoops to start in September , actually planning ahead for the Christmas trees they 're going to sell in December , I mean do we care? Do we want this easy little way for administrative approvals so we don 't have to see it? If we want that , why do we need it still under the interim use section? Is there a distinction that something we may want somebody to have a longer time period that we would want them to jump through hoops? Ahrens: Well the distinction seems to be that for existing retail shops where they may have on an ongoing basis maybe monthly sales , special sales where they pull all their merchandise out of the store and set it out in front of the store and it 's not a seasonal use . It 's not a special kind of use . It 's something they do on an ongoing basis . Right? A ne 'sor. : R: _ . Arc it 's nG'.: a property ower . -is ='ers:- is probably renting some space from somecody fcr a snort pa icc of time whereas like you 're saying Joan , maybe the hardware store in the winter puts out their snowblowers and in the summer their lawnmowers are out . Emmings: Or they need no space at all because they 're driving around with their ice cream truck . But the other one applies to someone who has an established location and they 're doing something on a temporary basis I guess . I don 't know . I never thought about it . Have you looked through the ordinance to see if these things fit together? Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 39 Aanenson: Yes . Paul and I spent some time going through that and like I say , it specifically talked about Christmas tree sales but we also wanted to know what your feelings were on other temporary sales . If you wanted to look at something like that . Those types of uses . Conrad: What governs , I guess my question will be secondary . Brian are you , try and finish your concern . Emmings: Your hypertechnical concern . Batzli : No , I don 't have any hypertechnical petty concerns thank you . No , let 's move on . Conrad: Okay , what governs a carnival coming to town or the Renaissance wanting to move from Shakopee up here or an outdoor concert . Is that a temporary? Aanenson: We put a perusal in here that says if something of that nature , that the Planning Director would take it to you and I 'm certain some of that scale , that would have to go through the Planning Commission , City . Council . Conrad: But let 's say right now a farmer had a field that wanted to have a concert on . What would govern that? Is there anything that would govern? Aanenson: Right now without this temporary use? Conrad: Right . Aanenson: I don 't think we would permit it . Conrad: Because you can 't do that in the . Aanenson: I 'm assuming it 's in the residential , yeah. Olsen: We 'd say there 's no regulations permitting that . Batzli : Let 's put it more in perspective . We 're going to have an art fair . At the art fair 10 to 1 they 're going to have a little donut truck . Do these people need to come in and get a temporary sales permit? Aanenson: Right now I believe they 're supposed to get a solicitation perm' * . Emmings : A what? Aanenson: A peddlers or solicitors . And all it does , they 're registering with the City so we know who they are if we have a complaint . There 's no , which gets into a whole different thing . It 's business licensing but that 's just so we know who 's in the city . Because we do have people that go door to door and they are supposed to register . Emmings : Now what 's the difference between the donut truck at the art fair and the Christmas tree sales? • Planning Commission Meeting ' November 6 , 1991 - Page 40 Aanenson: Right now we don 't have any control . That 's what I 'm saying . We 're not controlling them . What I 'm suggesting is we have some sort of control that we 're regulating where they are so we 're not creating a hazard . We don 't have any control . Right now unless they 're continually moving we say no . Because right now we 're just handling it as peddlers and solicitors . Batzli : If this was passed they 'd have to get a temporary sale permit? Aanenson: Right and we 'd regulate where they would go . And we 'd say it 's an unapproved site . You 're creating a hazard . I mean if they 're plugging in for electricity , we want to inspect . That sort of thing . All health and safety issues . Ahrens: We 're going to put velvet paintings on a boat and moor it out in front of Steve 's property . Emmings: Go ahead . My torpedoes are armed and I 'm ready to fire . Elvis in velvet . Bobbing in front of my house . Yeah , that could get me going . Olsen: With some artificial Christmas trees . Batzli : I move that we do something with this . Aanenson: Would you like to see some sort of ordinance format? Ahrens: Sure . Emmings: I think it 's a good idea . Conrad : Yeah , for sure . Ahrens: I do too . Conrad: Broader than Christmas trees . Emmings: Yeah . I don 't know how that 's going to work but if you can do it . Aanenson: I 've worked with this type of ordinance before and it was successful . Patz'. : sec.. ^d of t ^.e e'.:e_tion :_. tke farme--s market _ssue a -- ! 4.: rei.tes to the e:_ _i _ - . w loo ed at . The park ar _. rice we handle these things via temporary sales rather than include it in the ordinance as a conditional use for those things? Emmings: What do you think? Olsen: It can be . Aanenson: Yeah . That would be a perfect site because you 're on a major collector . I 'm assuming that 's where we 're going to want those . You 've Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 41 f got plenty of , you 've got controlled access . The parking . It 's a perfect location . Batzli : But would you be able to have more control over it as a conditional use or would you feel comfortable doing it as a temporary sales? Aanenson: I 'd feel comfortable under temporary sales if it meets that criteria . If you wanted to review it . Again it 's where it comes in annually . It 's an annual thing where you want to see it every year . Batzli : I don 't know if I want to review it until we have problems with it . Then we 're going to change the ordinance in a hurry so we review them I suppose . Emmings: Okay , we 've got an item here on the amendment to the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement . I see they finally passed that huh? Olsen: Yeah . Emmings: That took a while . Olsen: We 'll come back on a future agenda talking about lot area . Batzli : Kate , the definition of interim use is on page 1148 . It 's defined , interim use means a temporary use . I 'd just stay away from it . Aanenson : That wording . Okay . Ahrens: Can we vote now on these people? Emmings : Yeah , that 's next . Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p .m . . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim . City Council Meeting - 0' aber 9, 1991 Roger Knutson: It stops at the setback zone and the prior draft had continued, in such a way that the watercraft or any part thereof extends across the extended side lot lines of any lakeshore lot . That was dropped out . And the reference to boat lift was added. Identical change was made in Section 3. Councilman Mason: Why are we dropping that off? Roger Knutson: The original draft would allow you to moor your boat in such a way that it extended all the way to your side lot line. Your dock must be 10 feet from your side lot line but your boat went out parallel to the shore, it could extend all the way to your property line. The change says you have to keep that boat moored so it 's at least 10 feet from your property line. Mayor Chmiel: In other words so you're not encroaching on any adjacent property's water area. Roger Knutson: That 's right . Mayor Chmiel: Alright . Richard? Councilman Wing: No, I'm very pleased with this. I think it almost resolves some of the recreational beachlot problems by itself. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make your motion to move this item? Councilman Wing: Yeah, with just one quick look at Mr. Krauss. Paul Krauss: No, that 's fine. Councilman Wing: I would move then. Mayor Chmiel: Item (1). Councilman Wing: Item (1) . • Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Mooring of Watercraft. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. i • 0. DEFINE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR TEMPORARY SALES/CHRISTMAS TREE SALES. Councilwoman Dimler: Item (o) having to do with temporary sales/Christmas Tree sales. When I first read this I guess I was looking for a reason why this was being enacted. So I thought the only, as I was reading through it , I thought the only con::ern I wc,ild -e would ae sa ety concerns that I could possibly see that we would ka to do .,,,:.ething like this. :;c I cnecka: kit-, Scott Harr to find out if there had been any safety situations in the past on any temporary sale at all. He assured me that there had been none at all, and even if in the future that would be a problem, that this can be taken care of current regulations through the safety hazards. 6 City Council Meeting December 9, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Right . That does. . . Councilwoman Dimler: Seasonal sales, yeah. And also I'm wondering with trying to take care of one situation we aren't creating more problems than we're solving because as far as I can see, then we'd be regulating garage sales, Boy Scout Christmas wreath sales, lemonade sales. Perhaps bizarre sales and even our own t-shirt sales at our 4th of July celebration. I'm wondering if we really want to do that . Also I'm very uncomfortable with giving government the authority to interfere with free market. I happen to believe that competition is good. Also, I don't see any fee schedule and I think enforcement would be a headache. So I am not in favor of this at all. I would move to deny item (o) . Mayor Chmiel: Paul , would you like to clarify? Paul Krauss: A couple things if I could. Councilwoman Dimler, there is no ordinance in front of you tonight . This could probably. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't even want to proceed with this is what I'm saying. Paul Krauss: Well this could probably have gone to the administrative section. We have had problems with Christmas tree sales in the past and I think Scott can tell you where we had one in a residential neighborhood last year where we had a lot of complaints. I'm not sure of your conversation with Scott on this but this in part grew out of a memo I got from Scott telling us that we didn't have adequate controls over some of these things. What it is is basically, you know when you talk about free market , there's a lot of issues you can get into but I know that I've had a lot of complaints, not here but in other communities when you have somebody selling shrimp off the back of a truck who is not paying any property taxes and who is not a member of a business person's associations or anything else competing with somebody who's paying a fortune to be in the Festival Food. So there's a lot of different things that come into play and I. have had instances where these have caused traffic problems. They set up shop in a gas station on a major corner and people turning in. What this basically was was an outline that says right now we'd like to continue to do business as usual, especially with Christmas tree lots unless they show up in a residential neighborhood which we won't allow. Councilwoman Dimler: And that 's according to zoning, not because you need an ordinance? Paul Krauss: Well but see in the past Christmas tree lots have always been kind of a hands off thing. People would call up City Hall and say what do you do about Christmas tree lots and there's nothing in the ordinance about it any place and people were told that and the guy took that to mean that he could set one up on his front lawn off of TH 7 and he did so. Councilwoman Dimler: Nct in a residential. That would be a zoning violation. Mayor Chmiel: Well, some of those things are in residential areas. I've seen in Minnetonka just off of TH 101. Councilwoman Dimler: But are you then getting into home sales, which I'm involved in? 7 City Council Meeting - Dec ,er 9, 1991 Paul Krauss: No. No, not at all. No, this gets more into. Councilwoman Dimler: Selling out of your home. Cosmetics. Paul Krauss: If Mr. Burdick is correct , and I hope he is. I heard the same information but once we get a shopping center up and if they want to bring in a carnival into town, are you going to want to regulate that? Well you might . Again it 's like the seafood shop setting up in a gas station or it 's the velvet paintings out on a fence on TH 5. Those kinds of things typically cause some problems and there's very little mechanism we have to deal with it . When the Twins got into the playoffs I had several calls from National companies that wanted to come down, they go around the country whenever there's a big sporting event and they set up those stands. They wanted to do that here and I convinced them not to. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess I'm going to say that that would be going against the Constitutional rights because the Minnesota Constitution, Article XIII, Section 7 says that any person may sell or peddle the products, and I'm talking here about farm and garden, not t-shirts, that are grown or cultivated by him without obtaining a license to do so. Paul Krauss: Well there's no question that, the farm sales. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying this would be a hazard to that . Mayor Chmiel: That 's completely acceptable and it 's not intended to be governed by this respective temporary. Councilwoman Dimler: That 's not what I saw in here. I thought I saw something about Kerber's being grandfathered in. Where did I read that? It must have been in the. Paul Krauss: Well it says that these are either grandfathered in or allowed since they're located on land used for agricultural purposes. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The intent is not to govern that aspect of it . Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but even if it isn't grown there. The shrimp truck can still come in, wouldn't it? Paul Krauss: No it can't . Councilwoman Dimler: Why not? Paul Krauss: That 's not grown in Minnesota. I mean it doesn't fall under the State protection. Mayor CL-riel : 62e don't q�:te have the ocean. fror.t . Councilwoman Dimler: I know but how do you prove. I know there's obvious but how do you prove the produce was grown in Minnesota? 8 City Council Meeting 'ecember 9, 1991 Paul Krauss: I don't try. I mean if someone tells me the potatoes came from here or from Idaho, you don't really try to do it . If it 's pineapples, it 's pretty clear. Even at that you use some discretion. I mean if a fruit stand is set up, I know I've dealt with them in different communities before, you just don't bother with them. But the ones that do cause the most difficulty are the ones who come in, I mean I've even seen stereos being sold by the side of the road. You know these operations tend to cause some problems because they're not here to warrant their stuff. They're not paying property taxes. They have signage all over. It 's those kinds of things you want to get at , not the other kinds. Mayor Chmiel: Something where it's in direct competition to what 's existing within a community. Councilwoman Dimler: The produce sales are in competition with the new grocery store. Mayor Chmiel: But if they're grown here, that's a different thing. Most other things are brought in as Paul has indicated. The same thing withstereos as he said. There's a place within the community that will sell those items. Why should that individual have the right to sell within this community when we have someone here supporting it . Besides those things might be so hot you couldn't put them in your car. Councilwoman Dimler: Well that 's controlling the market to me and I don't think we should be doing that . Councilman Wing: Last Christmas out at Minnewashta Heights one of the neighbors decided to open up a Christmas Tree lot with signs, lights and it startled the neighborhood. I guess I wasn't personally offended by it but I think you got a lot of complaints on that one. I don't believe we had any control or any say at that point did we? Isn't this directed at that problem? Councilwoman Dimler: How about a public nuisance? Don't we have a public nuisance? Paul Krauss: Well that 's a very weak ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: This is a problem not only here but all over. I've heard the same thing just the other evening that I was at a Planning Commission meeting in Sherburne County. They have the same problem. Councilman Workman: I 'll get on the side with Ursula because I think she needs a little help here, if I can. Councilwoman Dimler: Certainly. Councilman Workman: It seems like it 's too late for the Christmas tree sales. Almost . Paul Krauss: Well we never intended, basically what we did is lay out how we would deal with Christmas tree sales this year. It hasn't been a problem but we've been operating like this all along. We just kind of wanted your blessings 9 City Council Meeting - Dr fiber 9, 1991 to do it that way. Then outline some of the things that we thought we might like to get at in ordinance later on! If you don't want us to pursue it we won't . Councilman Workman: No, that's not what I'm getting at because I think there's some middle ground here. The one that comes to mind for. me, and maybe the firewood was grown in Chanhassen but the firewood guys just come out of the wood work. In fact I was sitting in a driveway at my old home and a neighbor, they look at the stacks to see if you've got the fireplace or not. Well the neighbors got a false stack. They had the zero clearance look on it but they didn't have a fireplace and I kind of said to them, we were sitting out with some friends and I said number one, they're not home. Number two, they don't have a fireplace. The guy turned around and said well they're probably a bunch of jerks. I wasn't going to get in an argument with the guy. I knew the people was good people but I get a lot of hostilities from some of those people. They come all the way down from Brainerd and wherever and whatever and they've got a load of wood and they've got to get rid of it and they're quite aggressive which, and I won't bring up Mike Mason's velvet Elvis prints. I think something needs to be done. If the produce stands that are found in town in the Fall I appreciate and so what I mean by getting along with Ursula, I understand the free market thing and so I don't want to do something that we don't want to do. And are we doing that with this. It does start to get a little, we need control but maybe we ought to sit down and figure that out . Pick out who we don't like and I don't know how to do that because there are State laws to go by and we've got to figure out . Last year we restricted the sale of used cars at the corner of TH 101 over there which a guy said hey, wait a minute. People have got to sell their cars you know. It seemed like a good place to sell cars but it was causing a safety problem so I realize that but I don't like to keep people from being able to sell what they have because it 's important for them to do that . Frank Kurvers: I was just listening to this. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you come up and introduce yourself. Frank Kurvers: I was listening to this, I mean controlling all these businesses and everything. what about the Schwann man? I mean you talk about things that people sell in the store. They carry about everything on that truck and a lot of people like their products which I'm one of them. Now are you going to regulate the Schwann man? He just gave $7 million dollars to the Mankato College of some of this profits. I think that 's a good business. Mayor Chmiel: But he didn't give anything to Chanhassen. Frank Kurvers: No he didn't . Councilman Wing: That 's not a good analogy because Schwann is ordered on a Das_'s. It 's sayirig UCS <.cri'i tom`. In an;. , river a paa:'F;age . I i 't see tr,at . I th.r there's a !iEc:_ for control. ' rink tt;s City ras always had a live and let live attitude. I don't see that this is cutting it out . It 's cutting out the problem areas but I still see, I like your corn stand. I'd protect that because I think we should have that . The raspberry stands. I don't see it hurting those or cutting those out . It is getting rid of some of the nuisance stuff. It does give Paul and Scott the authority to 10 • City Council Meeting lecember 9, 1991 take action if they get complaints and it is in fact not in compliance with this. I think this just kind of cleans this up like the noise ordinance. We don't want to go out and pick on the community but if the complaint comes in, there's something here that our Code Enforcement people can deal with. And so I see this as really pretty luke warm. I don't see it as really attacking anybody as I read it . Councilwoman Dimler: Paul, are we talking about then regulating like the Christmas Boutique at St. Hubert 's? The Fall Festival Sales at St. Hubert 's? Our own sales of t-shirts at the 4th of July? Paul Krauss: Well in fact that 's an area where you've got to be careful that you're not doing charitable stuff. In fact you want a mechanism to be able to do stuff like that . The ordinance right now doesn't allow, theoretically allow any of this and if the Boy Scouts come and are making lawn furniture or something. Councilwoman Dimler: Selling wreaths. Paul Krauss: Well no wreaths is a door to door stuff. I mean my son does that . Councilwoman Dimler: So you're allowing door to door stuff? Paul Krauss: Oh yeah. That 's no problem. But you've got to be careful that , you know there's some classic events like the charitable sales and you want to make sure that they're called out separately. This is really gets to the stuff that you see when you travel up and down TH 7 or TH 5 in places where the more intensive things that pull into lots and take over part of the lot and put up their signs. Or the carnivals that show up with a lot of rides and people park in the streets. It 's those kinds of things. Councilwoman Dimler: It still seems to me like we can already regulate that according to existing, I mean safety concerns. They. must have some way to control traffic problems. If it 's a nuisance, under the nuisance ordinance. Paul Krauss: We really don't. I wish Scott was here to relate some of the problems that his staff has had in getting at some of those. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I did ask him about it and he said there haven't been any concerns with specific temporary sales. Paul Krauss: Again, Scott and I conferred with this and this grew out of a memo that I received from him. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but couldn't you shut this operation down in a residential area just because of the zoning of residential and the neighbors were co:rpiaining of the lights and the noise and the traffic? Paul Krauss: Well again, we're dealing with a classy use that wasn't regulated at all in the past . When they called up and got a secretary or somebody to say yes, we don't regulate Christmas trees, they understandably went ahead and put it in the residential area. You're right , it 's technically probably a violation of the zoning code. But at this point the guy had a 1,000 trees on his lawn and 11 City Council Meeting - De' -fiber 9, 1991 when we went out there, or he had 300 trees as I recall, and when I went out there and told him you're in violation and all this, which probably would have taken us, if we really tried to push it , it probably would have taken us a month or two to get something written up and on the docket and everything to take action. By that time it 's the middle of February. But he had already made that investment and we felt we had to honor his ability to stay there and we just asked him to keep the traffic down and watch out for his neighbors. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's a little late for the Christmas trees as you indicated but maybe what we should do is just table this and have some additional discussions between you and Scott. Maybe Ursula can have some of her input as to her concerns and then go from there. Maybe if you'd like to make a motion to table this at this particular time. Councilwoman Dimler: Then I'd have to remove my motion to deny. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: I think it was dead. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you didn't get a second. There wasn't any second. Councilwoman Dimler: I thought you seconded it with your comments? Councilman Workman: Did I second it? Mayor Chmiel: No. No, there wasn't a second here. Councilman Workman: I said I was going to help her out . Councilwoman Dimler: Then I'll make a substitute motion of tabling this item until we can look at it further. Mayor Chmiel: Okay is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table defining Administrative Procedures for temporary sales/Christmas tree sales for further clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. P. APPROVE MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ANNEXATION. Councilman Wing: I just didn't fully understand this and I failed to ask today or I wouldn't have brought this up. This annexation is done. Both cities have in theory passed these resolutions and that means that it 's going to be Victoria on both sides and Chanhassen's going to have a road going right through Victoria arc it 's as simple as :hE: . Mayor Chmiel: That 's correct . Councilman Wing: Is that desireable or is it irrelevant? 12 CC: Don Chmiel To: Chanhassen City Council Attention: Paul Krauss From: Tammy Larson, Target Chanhassen Date: August 23, 1993 Subject: Greenhouse and Pumpkin Request While making plans for our new Target store in Chanhassen, I have been made aware of Chanhassen"s ordinance on outdoor sales and storage. I have been in contact with several people from the city including Don Chmiel and Paul Krauss and was happy to hear that the ordinance will be reviewed to possibly allow businesses to have temporary structures up for promotions. Target has two programs that include temporary outside structures. One program is the Halloween pumpkins we sell from October 1 through October 31 which are housed in a wooden bin outside the front entrance doors. Our other program involves a temporary greenhouse structure which is secured to the ground with a ballast weight program. The greenhouse is kept up from May 1 through mid-June. I understand that the ordinance changwill not be known until after the second City Council meeting in September. In order for us to carry pumpkins for the month of October we would need to have that approved before September 1. We are willing to follow all of the City ordinances, but ask if our pumpkin promotion could be approved by the City before the September meeting. Attached are details of our two promotions and also a diagram of where the temporary structures would be located. Your considerationn of this request is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or comments please call me at 949-8631. Thanks again. RECEIVED U `' 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEI Pumpkins Structure: The pumpkins are held outside in a wooden crate on the side of the entrance doors. i Dimensions: 4 feet by ,+ ' inches and 4 feet high Timeframe: October 1 - October 31 We have Halloween\Fall activities planned in each Target stare in October including pumpkin carving demonstrations. Plant Hut\Greenhouse Structure: The greenhouse is a temporary structure secured to the ground with a ballast weight program. Dimensions: 20 feet by 40 feet Timeframe: May 1 - Mid June Supplier: Holasek' s Greenhouse in Chanhassen Resources Heeded: Electricity, water , and a data line. Target decided to provide outdoor greenhouses due to quest requests for us to carry bedding plants and handing baskets. There were ten metre area stores with a greenhouse last year . We received many positive comments from our guests on our selection, quality and price. We shopped different competitors including Cub, K-Mart , and Frank' s and found our quality to be as good or better and our everyday price at or significantly lower than our competition. The greenhouse is kept up to Targets high standards of cleanliness. In providing a greenhouse for our quests we would not only be satisfying our quests needs, but also supporting a local business in Chanhassen. Your consideration for a greenhouse at our Chanhassen store would be greatly appreciated. - 7.----1 . . .. m......_ . ; 1 . 1 . • . • I 1 . . . . •. . . . . . . 1 ! I . i I r 1 . . • . . • . I i I I . . . 1 . d re' . I . i 1 1 1 I 1 1 / H i J. *1 i " '!3j 3 g ....-.J • _.-----) m . 7 ..... , i - y-- ! f 14 II / ! I i • 4• C.. 1 it . ; i , 1 A 1 , •-,,,\_ 1 4 . , , . ., • s' ' k I . l r.:44 V 1 4 ZONING § 20-381 (3) Nonresidential structures. Commercial, manufacturing and industrial structures shall ordinarily be elevated on fill so that their first floor(including basement)is above the regulatory flood protection elevation but may in special circumstances be flood-proofed in accordance with the state building code. Structures that are not elevated to above the regulatory flood protection elevation shall be flood-proofed to FP-1 or FP-2 classi- fication as defined by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city. Structures flood-proofed to FP-3 or FP-4 classification shall not be permitted. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-2), 12-15.86) Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16- et seq. State law reference—Condfitional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-378. Residential uses. Residences that do not have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two (2)feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation shall not be permitted unless granted a variance. In granting a variance the city shall specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the residence. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-3(1)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-379. Commercial uses. Accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would innundate to a depth greater than two (2) feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four (4) feet per second upon occurrence of the regional flood. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-3(2)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-380. Manufacturing and industrial uses. Measures shall be taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations espe- cially along streams having protracted flood durations. Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parking lots may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set forth above. In considering permit applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry whose business requires that it be located in flood plain areas. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-3(3)), 12-15-86) DIVISION 5. INTERIM USE PERMITS • Sec. 2f1.1R1P-„-pose a,-- '*tent. The purpose and intent of allcv-ing Interim uses is: (1) To allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while - the permanent location is under construction,and (2) To allow a use that is presently acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future. (Ord, No. 120, § 2, 2-12-90) Supp. No. 2 1187 § 20.382 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-382. Application, public hearing, notice and procedure. The application,public hearing,public notice and procedure requirements for interim use permits shall be the same as those for amendment as provided in article II,division 2,except that the permit shall be issued for the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire council. Although specific submissions required to complete an application for an interim use permit may vary with the specific use and the district in which it is located, all applications for such permits must include at minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates the following: proposed land use,building and functions,circulation and parking areas,planting areas and treatment, sign locations and type, lighting, the relationship of the proposed project to neighboring uses, environmental impacts and demand for municipal services. (Ord. No. 120, § 2, 2-12-90) Sec. 20-383. General issuance standards. The planning commission shall recommend an interim use permit and the council shall issue interim permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: (1) Meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in section 20-232 of the City Code. (2) Conforms to the zoning regulations. (3) The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. (4) The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. f 5 (5) The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; and (6) The user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permis- sion of the use. (Ord. No. 120, § 2, 2-12-90) Sec. 20-384. Termination. An interim use permit shall terminate on the happening of any of the following events, whichever first occurs: (1) The date stated in the permit; (2) Upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued; (3) Upon change in the city's zoning regulations which renders the use nonconforming. (Ord. No. 120, § 2, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-385-20400. Reserved. • Supp. No. 2 1188 TEl : Sep 19 93 15 :37 No . 016 P . 01 l� )st-It"-brand lax transmittal memo 7671 to ot, ,e8 8 From .� '/ J' 'PERMIT APPLICATION 0. Co ept Fnanew !es duration from ax C�1 Fax k to i ectrical/other permits needed YES No Subject property address P.Y . D. No. - Applicant Address City Zip Contact person Phone Property Owner_ Address City Zip THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SUBMITTED: 1) Written permission from property owner who also agrees to clean up the site if the applicant does not. 2) All applicable licenses and approvals from the city, county or other appropriate jurisdictions. 3) Submission of a $100 deposit at the time of permit application. The deposit will be returned upon timely restoration of the site. 4) Site plan which shows lot lines, existing structures and designates sales area. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1) Site to be located in a suitable off-street location and not extend into adjacent right-of-way. 2) Sales do not unreasonably interrupt vehicle circulation on the site or obstruct parking spaces. 3 ) Requirements for sight visibility clearance at street as required by the city to protect public safety must be met. 4) No more than one sign with maximum dimensions of 4 ' x 4 ' . 5) Site is to be kept In a neat and orderly fashion. 6) No more than one temporary shelter not to exceed 120 square feet. 7) Site to be cleaned up and the site is to be restored to its r ccndit on within 10 days cf completion of sales ' d4. c -. •aril: fcrfeite:I . an U ..:.z e that t is my responsil.ility to ins�.re t1-:_t the stipulations and conditions of approval are complied with and that the activity will be executed in a manner consistent with Section 300 . 15, Subdivision 13 of the City of Minnetonka Zoning Ordinance. I understand that it will take five working days for City review of the permit and the site to determine compliance with the ordinance. Applicant Signature - — _ A0011a ( VC • . - l 1 tuct c 4_er Leach S (ir roe Id [yAveu ( or -{etr Otc-' , OW n-e( Sa rC4-100\417 ---- 0, ircr . �-{ , ; 4 es ill\ \\ , woo ( mil_ p..-i,)11-i-+- i --1 ., m a-A-- ploy ,cif �Li td--ef�,II j t ' (,v 7�t ( f,,i, ,�i{rr C` r �„,,i.'` t f -,;,-, ;,,-,,, \_i ---- -------; 1.„(,,,k_ --rry (). q . i;,-e -i f\Lc -ft r.c.-- 0, , ,f --\._ . \ (5c,o5c iNc' b- , 1- 1LE: \ v A . .,...-- _ \______ \ 47 iir\4t\-1, Jo ( \-I n-4 51c\e (-A- cc ( IC- cans c-(eer{ 4racI r p /-ja /0-1 , -1- /frcy 1 -errt`an'ea ( loca-hon 1 _10. 01,Aac Mar -€4 a' ov-efo. C)091 — \ (\--f-en4 ik-a A-I --{c)_ ____t-,-,_ __ ovPrait _e. 1 (4,s 1 ti-E & (o_ ff( Coc(- 0 C i ! : W -e C e_GL ® _-r -e\ i bk c,tc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 Vice Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Diane Harberts and Matt Ledvina MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY SALES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Conrad: I'm just going to open it up for, I'm not going to go round robin. Ledvina: Is this a public hearing? Conrad: It is a public hearing. We'll note that there is nobody from the public here but I • don't. Aanenson: I think when we get a regular ordinances...we did talk with people from Target today who did request pumpkin sales in front of the Target for their grand opening and the Council felt that, was uncomfortable with that. They felt that the pumpkins should be inside the store and not outside. Scott: Say what? Aanenson: I think we need to differentiate because we had this request often times...where they want to have a sidewalk sales and that sort of thing...and maybe that's the time that we can tie in with...or maybe they're in the Arts Festival or something like that when there...that that would be the appropriate time to have sidewalk sales. Mancino: But wouldn't that almost be used as an interim use? Only because they could plan ahead and do that. You know every year we were going to have a 4th of July outdoor sidewalk sale. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Aanenson: You could except I think you'd have to, you know get...I'm just looking at if you want to see that, if you establish a criteria and you feel comfortable with that, then I think we could go through that permit. If it's something you don't feel comfortable with or they don't agree to the criteria you've established, then I think you do want to look at it. Mancino: Well the only thing I'm not clear about, what is, would be under temporary sales. What's going to be under interim use and what's going to be under conditional use? I'm not clear. Aanenson: I think the only one staff is a little uncomfortable with at this time is more on a produce kind of line where it's grown or maybe flowers, pumpkins, Christmas trees. Those sort of things. They're not looking at bringing in merchandise. Mancino: So that's seasonal? Aanenson: Right. Mancino: Because if they have to be grown. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: So does that mean that our definition of temporary sales is temporary seasonal sales? Aanenson: Yeah, that's how the staff feels comfortable doing it. Scott: You could maybe call it seasonal agricultural products and then we don't have Elvis paintings, I know darn anyway. Farmakes: My worry about that is, what if you, what if you get a bad load of shrimp up here or something? Scott: Well I don't know if you could, that's not agricultural though. Harberts: It is. Scott: No it's. Harberts: It's regulated under the Department of Agriculture. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Scott: Plant material. Farmakes: For temporary use, what we're saying is...I think they've got seasonal shrimp. They have the Christmas tree lot and they have the...or something showing up with a bar-be- que and they sell hotdogs. And on occasion, it seems quite often on occasion, they have truckloads of pop coming in for sale and I don't know if that's non-profit or if that's part of the supermarket that got a good buy on pop. They have teaser type sales stuff where there will run an ad at a very low price to get people to come in and do their shopping. So the limitations of doing that type of stuff, does that become. Aanenson: You can see the depth of the problem trying to define. That's one of the other things Target had requested too. Is to put a greenhouse...and you'll notice a lot of grocery stores they try to do that. In the summer there may be overflow parking. In the winter, unless they clear all the snow off, if you want Christmas trees down there, that could be a real problem. So they can really proliferate. That's why we need to be careful about what we allow and how many we allow on the site. Farmakes: Do we limit, you limit a site location but do you limit, let's say for Market Square. You have how many stores there. Do you allow each store to do a promotion? Or do you limit the numbers or do you just limit it to that site itself? Aanenson: I think we would be saying...because that's part of an PUD, that whole center. I would say if you say they can have a grand opening or let's say they tie the 4th of July celebration. That would be the sidewalk sales. Whatever promotion they want to do then. Because with the sign ordinance, we want to allow them 3 times a year to have special signage and I think that's kind of what we would like to see...and then the seasonal thing...fall or summer and winter. Harberts: How would you categorize, I noticed when Festival does a brat wagon. Aanenson: That would fall under, that was kind of a summer festival kind of thing. A grand opening. We do allow one grand opening. I think that's what Target was going to do. Harberts: I think I counted it more than once though. Aanenson: They also have requests for Girl Scouts who want to sell cookies out front. It's a never ending thing. I think there's certain things we sort of want to control but do we want to be out there if someone's selling... 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Scott: No, because I think that, I mean I personally don't like to get hassled. It's a hassle enough to out and buy something at retail and it's especially bad I think when you have the Nestea Clown out there trying to get you to take a drink of something. So I mean I think if we're talking about, it's going to be we have the different zoning areas. I think also too when you talk about property owners doing something on their own behalf versus someone getting permission from a property owner, I think we need to be a little bit more restrictive in that sense. I think we should give a fair amount of leeway to non-profits. But the thing I don't want to see is. Harberts: Community based non-profit. Scott: Yeah, there you go. Yeah, community based non-profit. The thing I don't want to see is, I don't want to see people from who knows where getting permission from somebody and who knows what the heck they're going to sell. Farmakes: Can you target use to industry? I mean you're saying agriculture. Can you do that? Aanenson: Well I did speak to Roger about that issue and there is, you have to...I did call some other cities and ask what they do. Sometimes they restrict...but then they choose on the other hand, just to ignore the corn huts and that sort of thing. Farmakes: The only thing that worries me obviously, it's almost that corn or something have a built in protection. There are some perishable type foods. Who's responsible if that's not up to par, and I'm not familiar enough with that industry to know how they touch that or who's legally responsible if someone gets ill. Are those people gone in 2 weeks and back down to Florida? Mancino: I feel I take my chance when I stop at the hot meat man or the hot shrimp man or woman, and buy something and I don't know but that's kind of my responsibility. Are they going to be there the next day? I doubt it. Scott: Well that's why I think if we talk about local groups and obviously Christmas trees aren't grown locally but I mean we think about who sells Christmas trees. We're talking about the Lions. Well that's what I mean. I think if we're looking at the local non-profits and limiting it to, as we can legally, but I think we've got some leeway. I like what you're doing with, if you owned the property or you're something like Market Square. You have 3 of these a year and that's great. I'd actually like to see 4 of them a year so they can do something quarterly but you know, be that as it may. But I think we have to be really 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 careful. I think I know what you don't want. I know what I don't want to see is this random junk. People selling junk. Farmakes: So this wouldn't be for individual stores per se? This would be considered for the entire development? Conrad: It should be for stores. I think the stores should have the opportunity to do their, if they wanted a truckload sale, or if they wanted a special event. Farmakes: You have individual stores and you've got 16 stores and they each had 4, then you would multiply that times 16. Conrad: You've got that potential. Scott: But it doesn't, I think from a sanity standpoint, what the people tend to do at a shopping mall is that there's usually some sort of a loose association where they say okay. We all want to have this sidewalk sale. Let's all have it at once so the tendency, if you look at Market Square and some of the other places in town, where there's some sort of an association, they tend to do it all at once and it makes better business sense because you want to attract as many people as possible. Farmakes: But that's really a different animal. If you have a sole proprietor, you're not going to have the money to do the type of advertising for special events. So if they go through their association and they advertise an item, that's one promotion. You have an individual store doing a promotion, it usually has to be a fairly large store to advertise it. So you've got Festival say, how do you, does Festival go ahead and take up the 4 times versus the smaller store that doesn't have the opportunities of being able to do it even once a year. Aanenson: I think we need to break them into two categories. Like to see is one would be, a group that wants to find a space to sell Christmas trees... They're not tenants in the city currently. That's. Mancino: They're not owners of property. Aanenson: Then we need another category of people that are in town already doing business that want to have a temporary or a grand opening or a summer sale, whatever. So I think right away I think there are two different types of uses. Farmakes: So do you figure that by how you classify what they're selling as non-merchandise and you do that solely by they're somebody totally separate. Say for instance I'm assuming 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 that somebody is coming in as an individual contractor selling pumpkins at Target. I assume that Target isn't selling pumpkins. Conrad: They could do it either way. Farmakes: That's not their typical merchandise. Conrad: No, but any other season departments, I don't know what they're doing. Farmakes: Moonlight sale or Crazy Days, that's getting rid of inventory. Conrad: Actually Target's garden department never used to be their's, and I'm not sure what it is right now. Aanenson: Yeah, one of the things they requested was... Conrad: But Jeff, it's one of those cases where Target has the responsibility. They are sanctioning that vendor to come in and so you have, on their property, so it's their integrity more than. At least we have somebody to count on to be checking them out. Farmakes: They usually a retailer is going to use them for one of two things. One is to bring people on a teaser item. And the other is, there's usually a section of parking lot that's dead. it's too far away from the store and it's usually during non-peak hours, it's usually a dead spot and it allows them to get some income out of either a percentage of sales or, it isn't necessarily part of their store. Then the question becomes, as we were talking before, the difference between merchandising and a seasonal type sales use. Christmas tree versus a... Scott: How would this also affect Septemberfest, Art Festival, St. Hubert's Harvest Festival? Aanenson: ...the city's really never done anything. Farmakes: Like if you had a flea market on a parking lot. Aanenson: Well one of the things we looked at too, if we did a park and ride...that'd be a great place for a farmers market and that may be a place where we...but that'd be a great place to make sure... Scott: So it's kind of what we need to do is to come up with 3 or 2 classifications of things. I mean it's like there's the agricultural stuff. Seasonal agricultural stuff. The local not for profit seasonal thing. Then there are, I don't know if you'd want to call them city sponsored 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 or local, a festival sponsored by local organizations. Maybe that's another little bucket but I think if we can separate these things out and then be able to deal with them individually, perhaps that's because I can see this thing being a huge octopus with all sorts of. Conrad: Well it shouldn't be complicated you know and I think there's also a trigger if there's, I think the rules will never be right. They'll always be, so the rules have to take care of a certain amount of things and if it doesn't, then they kick it into, then it comes to the Planning Commission and we take a look at it. Yeah, and that may take some time and that will discourage some people but that's the way it will have to be. This could be really a fiasco. You can out guess all the things we're talking about here and I'd rather not see a huge ordinance. I think the logic for what we're doing and not have it come through the Planning Commission. If we can come up with the standards that are simple, that are real clear that we know that we're controlling them, then it should be administrative approval. For those things we can't figure out because there are too many variables, they've got to come in to see us. Farmakes: Then I think you should clarify the intent of what we don't want up front. Maybe that's the... Conrad: The only other thing Kate, I think you've got to keep in the back of you mind, you know what other shopping centers and other retailers are doing. I don't think we're trying to be, well you see what they're doing. The sidewalk sales are very typical. Sometimes there are truckload sales, and I think some of those are fun things. I guess I.don't feel that we need to discourage those. I think we're trying to prevent some of this other stuff from happening: That's the bulk of this ordinance. Not to keep Target from having pumpkins out in the front of their store. Scott: Isn't it what we don't want transient for profit merchandising going on in town, unless it's controlled very tightly. Conrad: Yeah, right. Scott: Is that kind of what we're doing? Aanenson: ...temporary sales currently being outdoor storage. Conrad: Right. Scott: That's like the first two sentences. This ordinance is designed to discourage the following, you know two sentences. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: It would be helpful though if we do get a farmers market type situation, that would be helpful to, so you don't have these kind of location signs all over the city and cardboard. You know, I'm not sure though, can you do an ordinance? I can see that we've done profit and non-profit for things like in signage. But can you designate that it has to be local non-profit? I've never heard of that. Scott: That's the intent but I mean I think. Mancino: Legally, I doubt it. Harberts: No because then you're discriminating. Farmakes: Particularly if you're targeting industries. I'm not sure if the signage I know that if it had to be fairly unrestrictive of industry that was applied across the board. A temporary sign for a house. A temporary sign for a building. Scott: Or do we grandfather in certain things that we. Farmakes: I noticed that...said it was illegal in the zoning to target, when we were talking about Highway 5, it was illegal to target a specific industry. That would make it more restrictive for hotels. Scott: Or auto related uses? Harberts: I'm guessing Kate that you've talked with other cities or continue to talk with other cities. You know I think that with an ordinance you could, what you don't want to do is get into a checklist situation and I think you have to look at what is your overall goal in terms of what you're trying to, I guess control. Because of whatever reason. If it's public safety related or whatever. I think that really has to be the basis. In terms of the overall goal that you're trying to achieve with the ordinance otherwise you start getting into a checklist and it's almost like you're creating a, I don't know, maybe to some extent a glass, a bubble around Chanhassen in terms of we'll allow you in or we won't allow you to do this and I don't think that's really what the role of government is all about. Farmakes: There's one other thing too that we're not, right now we do Oktoberfest and a couple other, two seasonal holidays. Excelsior does a lot more. They draw a lot of people in. Currently we don't really have a location for that unless we use the parking lot or baseball field. If the city does, say finish that park up in front, they may have, or the farmers market there may be an opportunity to have like a citywide type situation for that can be 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 conditions made for flea markets and that type of thing throughout the city. Again, that'd be on a limited basis. Harberts: Is there an opportunity to keep the ordinance to some flexibility? You know as maybe Chanhassen matures towards this type of issue, I think there's a lot of what ifs and I think we need to keep that ordinance, or potential ordinance somewhat flexible so we can maybe address those things as things develop here. But I think again the overall goal is to, what are we really striving to do. I don't think we want to make things burdensome for anyone but you know there's clearly reasons to regulate different sales. Temporary sales or whatever. Aanenson: In the past we haven't had any large anchors downtown before. So now...and we're not sure if we approve those uses...we want all this stuff outside. And so some of it does...with the community. I guess what we're looking for is... Scott: And if it's a tenant or a landowner, that's one thing and we can say you can do 4 of those a year. And then if it's somebody who's temporarily leasing, I think that's a whole other, different use and different type of merchandising and then throw in the non-profit piece so I think those three things, that keeps something fairly simple and you can always amend an ordinance you know. Conrad: Well, do you have enough input? I think that's pretty good. And I think the intent of this is real important. I think you've heard some good comments from the people here. Ledvina: I have some specifics. I don't know if you wanted to hear. Conrad: Go ahead. Now's the time. Ledvina: Well, I'll just start out and say that just kind of following up on Ladd's idea to provide some guidance on what constitutes an application that would necessitate it coming before the Planning Commission. I think maybe all these things that we've talked about go in an intent statement and then kind of a little blueprint for an applicant that serves as, if you're going beyond or cannot meet the requirements that are laid out here and you always have the right to go to the Planning Commission to discuss your proposal. So I think that would be appropriate. On page 4, standards for temporary sales on the bottom of the page. I have a real problem with that language. Just save the clause, including any additional conditions as may be established by the Planning Department. I think Diane would say, well enables you to have the flexibility but I don't know. That's kind of carte blanche and I don't kind of like that. So take a close look at that. If there's a way of saying it a little bit differently, I would prefer that. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Aanenson: It's hard to hit all things. Sometimes... Ledvina: I understand the difficulty but at the same time, you don't want a situation where the applicant feels that you have the power or you can point to this thing in the ordinance and say, well we can make you confine your operation to 10 x 30 rectangle or something like that. And that's our condition. I don't know. Maybe that's obtuse but. Aanenson: I can think of a couple ways we can handle that. Why don't we just say, any other proof that would deemed necessary and then we could put a clause that would say, if staff feels that the information that's been provided is insufficient, then we would request that you come here. It'd be like what you're giving them... Ledvina: That's fine. If we could just take another look at that because. Conrad: And that triggers a thought for things going through here. Is the City Council always the end? It doesn't have to be. Planning Commission could be the grantor of the permit. A lot of responsibility folks. Mancino: My shoulders are heavy. Conrad: That is an alternative to shortening the process. I think you can make us. They won't is my guess but. Scott: We're usurping their. Conrad: It is a way to shorten it. Aanenson: To shorten the process and that's the part... Farmakes: Granting a permit, you don't waive the rest of the city ordinance? Say for temporary signs. There's a size limitation for temporary signs. They have to conform to that.... Aanenson: ...limiting walls signs and we did... Ledvina: That's another thing. That was my exact next point. If you've got the Boy Scouts, they don't even have a warming shack. I mean if they don't have, if they're limited to wall signs, then they don't have any signs. Farmakes: Temporary signs don't necessarily have to be wall signs though. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Ledvina: But it says right here. Farmakes: What is it, it's 4 x 8? Mancino: I thought they always had a warming shack. Ledvina: Okay, whatever. But I mean, a trash barrel or something. And then if you're saying they have to conform to the ordinance, which is, I think it's 15% of the wall space in the frontage or something like that. If they got this little bitty trailer, or whatever, they're not going to be happy with a 15% as a sign this big or something. I don't know. • Farmakes: That formula gives them a minimum they can make. I think that's 4 x 8 on a temporary sign. And they could build that. That formula comes into play when you have massive Targets. Ledvina: I don't know. I guess I would just like you to revisit that item there. Conrad: Can they have banners? They can, can't they? Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know. I don't care. Streamers, banners. Conrad: Banners would typically be the way to do it. Ledvina: Little kids with sandwich signs walking around. Scott: Also too, if there are things like, I get concerned about the temporary food sales. And as part of the permitting process should be anything that's licensed by the Department of Agriculture or the State. The Board of Health or you know, whatever. I don't know who these authorities are. They should be made to produce a copy of their certificate or whatever that happens to be. I think we should take advantage of work that other governmental bodies have done to regulate stuff and piggy back on that as much as possible. Conrad: What else do you have Matt? Ledvina: And then I'd just like to go on record as saying that I think Target should have their 4 x 4 bin of pumpkins. Scott: That's all it is? Ledvina: It's 4 x 12, I'm sorry. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Mancino: 4 feet by 12 feet. Ledvina: Yeah. 4 feet by 12 feet. I think they should be able to have their bin of pumpkins. Scott: Yeah. I'd go on record as saying they should have their pumpkins too. Conrad: You know if you want to see an affect, Cub effectively merchandises the front of their store in a very presentable way so it's not tacky. We're trying to get rid of tacky but it's fun to walk into their store. Sometimes it's cut case stuff. Sometimes it spells out, you know merchandise that spells out things. Or it's pumpkins. Nice merchandising. Makes it a little friendlier. It doesn't last forever. Gee I'd hate to see us discourage them and become this clinical looking town. Antiseptic type of thing. I don't think we want that. Mancino: How long do you think of as temporary? Two months? Aanenson: Well, I think...each type of use. Now you have a produce stand, it may be 6 to 8 weeks. That's something we're going to have to try to establish with each different type. If it's the Christmas tree sales, probably Thanksgiving until the day after Christmas. So I think the one...seasonal. That they're leasing the space and try to give a time line for those. The owner occupied, the guy that owns the...pot sales, things like that, I think we limit those to maybe a week, 3 times a year or whatever we decide... Scott: You're heading in the right direction. I like that. Aanenson: Because if they do want to sell brats out there once a year... Ledvina: Other than that, I guess I support, generally I support the ordinance and I think it's reasonable. Reasonably good effort. Conrad: Unless there's anything else, Kate I don't think we need a motion. Just go and do it and then we will, it will be a public hearing when it comes back. Okay. Farmakes: We should be aware too that there's, the Highway 5 situation, the sign ordinance is coming up. The architectural ordinance is in there. They're all sort of merged together. I think it wasn't necessarily planned that way but we have to be aware I think that there may be a perception to the Chamber that we are being anti business on some of these issues. And we should be aware of that potential and try and deal with that through communication. I know the last meeting we had, Brad stood up and said that for instance the parking ordinance was anti business. And you were talking about the signage package and saying, when in fact...It was half of the committee were members of the Chamber but they weren't part of Market 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Square. Well, I mean I think we need to be up front with that and let people know and talk about that. Address that every time it's brought up and try to be educational about that. Especially on the intent statements of what these things you're accomplishing, rather than arguing. No matter how you do it, it's going to affect somebody's business in some particular way and I think that the perception is that the people who are sitting on the Commission don't know anything about me trying to make a living in the business world and you're arbitrarily making restrictions on me when I'm trying to make a living and pay a couple of people and pay my bills and pay the taxes and so on and I don't need that type of bureaucracy thrown at me. In a way that's easy to come up and say and the opposite direction is kind of hard for us to come up with these ordinances to make a community that we want to live in. Scott: It's an interesting circumstance because I know that on the sign ordinance, even before, I mean when, before things got serious, I got a call from Paul saying Joe, we're going to do this sign ordinance. Can you give me some names of some people on the Chamber of Commerce who'd be interested and that's how Kevin McShane got on there and all those sorts of things. And I quite frankly don't have any sympathy for business people in town who don't get involved in the Chamber of Commerce because Kate sits on our Board. She's at every Board meeting and there are a large number of people who get involved in this kind of input, but I have no sympathy for business owners who don't get involved in the process and make this is a very, this is a commercial for the Chamber membership obviously. But if they want to get involved and they're members of the Chamber, they'll know what's going on and they will have the opportunity to have input. If they don't, c'est la vie. • Farmakes: We're going to have to know that it's in someone somewhere's advantage to put up a 40 foot pylon signs down the main drag of downtown so that they can be seen from Highway 5. It's to someone's advantage and someone's going to want to do that. Who and when we feel we don't think it's right, you're dealing more ascerteric things. You don't think it's going to look good or I think that every time that comes up, particularly from the developer's standpoint, it's going to make them far more easier to sell a lease if they have that 40 foot sign. Scott: Then you can't, then another thing too is, you can kind of, I take a look at the Target situation is that within probably 2 to 3 months, the way Target markets, within 2 to 3 months of the time they have their grand opening, everybody who could potentially buy stuff there in their market area will know where it is. So a 40 foot pylon sign, you know. And I can see from a developer's standpoint, you know for rents, for leasing and that sort of thing, they have the opportunity to say well we're going to, this is the signage and signage and parking are the two hot things when you're trying to lease property. But then we also have to take it with a grain of salt because obviously they want the world so they can give part of that world to their lessee's. So when I hear business people talk about things, some of them are very, very 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 good at explaining, you know this is what I really need. Very straight forward versus the embellishment and I think as a Planning Commission, we have to see through the embellishment and kind of cut down to what do these people really need. Conrad: You have to give them reasonable exposure. That's a fundamental thing. That's part of the business. It's just where is, what is reasonable and whether it be, I can empathize. I work for a lot of people that depend on signage and Jeff, you know a lot about signage. Farmakes: But we don't seem to argue the intent. It's just, you know Brad was up here and he's...he wasn't arguing the intent. And that's what really seems that we should be communicating on. What the intent of what we're trying to do. The thing...come back on something that would fit in to how they're doing something, fine. Come forward and say what they are. Conrad: But it is, boy these are tough issues. Signage for services. Signage and strip type- malls. Compare what's on the Frontier building. That doesn't light up but is relatively ugly. We don't find fault. At least I haven't heard a lot of fault with those signs but they're not attractive. They just don't light up. But we find a lot of fault with the ones that light up. And we find a lot of fault by putting more than 6 per running feet on 100 or 200 foot building. We find a lot of fault there if they're more than 14 inches. But go out and take a look. The signs on the Frontier building are not a piece of art. They're pretty ugly and again, it's tough to come to these conclusions. Or come to, not to a conclusion but come to what's the style for Chanhassen. I don't claim to know it. I just know that reasonable works and if you give them some reasonable exposure, nobody's going to complain and then the standards really make sense beyond that. To aesthetically keep Chanhassen a good looking community. Farmakes: I said the same thing...we're looking for a reasonable type structures with reasonable type of quality. Scott: High quality. Conrad: See that's where, I think the high quality is such an important deal. Farmakes: But we still deal with minimums. I mean we're selling high quality. Our ordinances deal with minimum requirements. Conrad: You're right. Mancino: Well I just want to add one thing, a little bit about the Tree Board. We are doing some new ordinances with landscaping and how much developer's can remove from the lots, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 etc and we invited them to our meeting last Monday night and not one showed up so we are going to hold a second meeting on the 27th of this month hoping that developers will show up because they have a concern about what we're doing for tree preservation. So we're hoping that before we get it into the Planning Commission that we have reviewed it with them and we've listened to them and made some revisions or whatever. So we're very definitely on the Tree Board trying to bring the developers into the process and making sure that we communicate with them before coming here. Conrad: That's good that you're doing that. That's the way the process should work. They shouldn't come to the meeting of the public hearing and raise issues at that point in time. Okay. CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVES NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Any comments? Ledvina: So we have to have, I saw three public meetings. Aanenson: We thought maybe just two meetings specifically on the plans and then one public hearing but if we need 3 meetings before we can hold a public hearing to go through the whole document. Ledvina: But how many public hearings do we need? Aanenson: One. Ledvina: One. Aanenson: Specifically we don't need a public hearing on the preferred alignment because that just needs to be an information meeting. We do need a public hearing on the Comp Plan amendment. Ledvina: How about the Environmental Assessment? Aanenson: The Environmental Assessment's...We don't need a public hearing specifically. We just need information which we have held but I think in fairness because of looking at the land use. 15 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - September 13, 1993 Addition to Shenandoah Ridge. 25. The developer agrees, in writing, that the plat shall be assessed $44,900 for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water mains to provide service to the property. Said assessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this contract is signed by the city. The developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M. S. A: §429.081. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason: Do we have to do item 2(e) or is that just kind of? Mayor Chmiel: We also have to do the acceptance of 9. This is for the approval of plans and specs in the development contract. Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the plans and specifications and development contract for Shenandoah Ridge, Project 93-20 from the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. DISCUSSION OF TEMPORARY SALES FOR TARGET. Kate Aanenson: This is a request from Target to have outdoor sales of pumpkins. When people request they also ask for...We still feel like this temporary use ordinance makes a lot of sense instead of making them go through the interim use process. Christmas tree sales...Meanwhile, while we're working through this process...It's a PUD. We did address it as a part of the PUD contract... Councilman Senn: Is the action tonight then to specifically approve one time, this season, they can sell pumpkins on the Target and it simply is for the reason that it allows the existing pumpkin stand to move over there and sell pumpkins on Target's property? Kate Aanenson: No. It's a separate stand. Councilman Senn: So Target is going to be selling pumpkins? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: With some kind of promotion that they're proposing. Kate Aanenson: They're opening in October... 72 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - September 13, 1993 Councilman Senn: Okay, but how does this relate back to no outside sales and no outside stuff? I feel real weird about this but I mean to me it's just going to open Pandora's box. If we allow pumpkins this time and the Christmas trees are going to be there, then we're going to have every charitable organization back in here...because they're selling Christmas trees and I don't know. I'm having trouble. Councilman Wing: I remember when Steve Emmings on SuperAmerica made it real clear there was going to be no signs, no outdoor storage, no outdoor sales, no nothing and that station looks nice because of it and I agree with you. That's something to really stop and hold the line on right now. Councilman Senn: If they want to have pumpkins as part of an opening promotion and put them inside the store and make, and give them away as part of the store. I have a real problem opening this up outside. Councilman Wing: I agree. Ditto and I'll back off. Mayor Chmiel: Any other thoughts? I was just looking at the letter that was written and just seeing that they house these in a wooden bin and of course that is outside in the front entrance doors. I think it'd be pretty hard to sell those pumpkins from that standpoint unless you grabbed one and walked in. What happens if you came out from shopping and just grabbed one and walked out. Councilman Mason: I'm sure the citizenry of Chanhassen would never do that. Mayor Chmiel: Oh I agree, but I'm talking about other people...What's Council's feeling? Councilman Senn: I would move we not approve it and wait for consider of and to comment to and to change it or whatever. Kate Aanenson: Wait until you see the temporary use ordinance? Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's probably a good idea because we did have a lot of discussions for the last few years in regard to outside storage and it does look clean and it does look nice. Councilman Mason: I'll admit prior to this discussion, I was going to say ah, why not. Councilman Wing: It's America. Councilman Mason: But some excellent points have been brought up here though. I mean that certainly would open up that Pandora's Box and what not. I agree. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's been made and is there a second? 73 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - September 13, 1993 Councilman Mason: Second. There was a second already? Oh, I take my second back. Councilman Wing: Although if my company fails, I may need a job there. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the City Council deny the request for Target to sale pumpkins outside. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SET SALE DATE FOR BONDS OF 1993. Don Ashworth: Dave MacGillivray is with us tonight with Springstad. During the break he distributed this document here. You might look and see if you can find that in front of you and with that I'll turn it over to Dave. Oh, we should note, well he'll present it. We're recommending a change in the date but Dave will go through that. Dave MacGillivray: I'll try and be brief but it's about $10 million so I at least want to go over some of the basics. What we're asking for is a resolution setting the sale date for getting competitive bids on four issues. Two tax increment issues, one improvement issue, that being repaid by special assessment, and one tax increment refund being issued. The total is slightly under $10 million. The packet I gave out, I think we can cut to the chase in just a few pages. If you turn to page 7. We use this to explain the composition of the...Is everybody there. Across the top we have the GO Tax Increment Fund of 1993 B and there are four different projects there. All of those would be repaid by tax increment district No. 1, which is the pre-1979 district. The big one. The one on the far right, the GO tax increment bond, Series 1993 D where it says land. That land is for acquisition of school property. That is repaid by increments in Tax Increment District No. 3 which is the McGlynn District. If you go down here where it says total...$630,000.00. And TIF 3 under land, $680,000.00. What we've done in conjunction with the city staff is develop where all of the good money is coming from and where it is going...for everything for both of these districts. If you turn the page and that's page 8. This is an...starting right now of all the anticipated revenue that is now on the books. Less all the expenditure that is on the books and would be on the books after this issue. To show you where or how much money you have in the bank at the end. This goes out to the year 2001. The beginning balance of 1993, $1,051,313.00. That's from the audit financial statements...1992. Under revenue, the big line there is tax increment 1 and 2. What that figure represents is projects that are already in the ground for which you are collecting taxes now or things that are under construction...If you skip down to expenditures, the big one there is loan payments. That's really everything that is currently outstanding. This is TIF#1 which is pre '79 so there's a lot of things in there. New issue right under that is this issue. How that would come out as an expenditure. And that gives you an ending balance which is the second to the bottom line. At the end of 1993, the estimate is $1,362,000.00 and you see over time that as you get out to here at 01...So this is a lot less than I think you've seen before but you're selling close to $6 million worth of bonds right here...so just to give you an estimate. Funds that would be available at the time... Mayor Chmiel: Dave, what's the going rate right now? Dave MacGillivray: Okay, whoa. I think they're about 4% on these issues. 4 1/4%. Somewhere in 74 CITY OF , t . CHANHASSEN `-r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: June 14, 1995 SUBJ: Ward Property, Villages on the Pond Discussion On Monday, June 19, 1995, staff and Planning Commissioners are walking the Ward property in preparation for the continuing discussion of the potential development of this property. Additionally, staff is supplying additional information to assist us in reviewing this proposal: Map of commercial lands in Chanhassen, PAS Memo of August 1992,copies of pages from the TOWLE Real Estate Report for 1995. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Bob Generous or me. ATTACHMENTS 1. Images . . . of Villages on the Ponds 2. Commercial Location Map 3. PAS Memo, August 1992 4. pages 23 - 29, Towle Report 1995 ImPIGES... of The Vilinges on ike Poncis J .. , J.. ... .‘ =-,.,, \ _ .. •1xv ‘ .. 4 ....,,. ilk -__ I \\ "Fk; .',;q:' r. \ ,,,......- _ ....1.-. ._, . -_ --.3..,. - i . , • .,,,,il A,,-„..,-_ -_• ••' 'Tr te • ' ________------- 1 • '*4-4 --.--4,...,1. 1,113 / i 0 , ' ••4 4 i,..0.•- i.""... _ , pr,0, 1 .......'".., - - .,. . , --- . ... . , ':::410.• S\ ' • - .. .\ ' .. 17_ I--- -=...,,..„, ___...... . , •)_.,.4r.k ., .....• - ,.. , •. , f— ,..,,, ••, •, it . _ --- . - -• -.,..,..-_ ,... . c_i__..,„ _,.„.„4:414iii---- )1-•--_. ,, _. -- .......-- limilkfir .. - . I. . ___-- __- - .....--- . •••• ir‘ -.... _ .. ...-, ;•_,-.1, 10. '' .,---..":' - ‘, - • - •R - - ri..................._ , __,- ,-:-- ,--...7=Tr-----..aiff k-cL I".•'--0‘;00'7- . .. _., . . . . • . ,11 , L.0110 - ---' ..1-* % 4; -- - :•-•. - .•:.- ••,'• . .1.•,--•-..r..f------,m _ 1 • .1.•. - , r .'. ,- - '-,' ,.;. ,,,,-.41.7,i11\: -•.....,‘..311,,\\11‘. is r;11., ._._... ....... --.., .41 i.::0"...''j .........., \ '' ,.:„... ,I,'ii,...4,ilh-L. - r.i.• , - 1--.........2.••• :— - ,t4t,,‘....1 Piiil. '.- • _..•1\. '''Se.- " - It, lk It ....,, /a, ., .----- ‘/..'''-',. -:- j /' Illip-., ' 0$...''- ,,,... -... . - •, . f: • 1i _ • 4 ..--: ••..,....-1 - s -- .4), .f i •- "fr4 1.2.-if-1- , ' -1 - ,..---- .. _...z. ji tiii .._ ../.1" #* ''.:.......,, ,r _ A./error , - 1111111ttr.* - 0 0 , i '/. y. .f.',/ . -At' ' e• -..?if, '.• • i 'alliji- -._ -r•, ' • i I Illv" . -- - •-s-'--• 'i --,. ""•-- ir t i ,.. '.' . , • . ' V- -• - - - A ,_ •so. , - 41.711111041k 1 - ..* . '. . .. •i-i,' .-Li .-• 1-•-•- '": ... - -\,:.,-,k.---.=--. -- ....-,..- :. A.,.., -.•.1i-: -...„-,.., , - -..-.__ , _ '... :.;.. . .•,.. . .., -. ..•°'k".`i t''. . -Ir. .1:-. • . NiA . . . .- ..--'''" •lieler ... _11 t-2,-.`:,%gi s., .1 ow. - - 1 •.' r-' - :', ..-: ' " • - --.3.:....011- „, 'Of:7'• .. , . ' 11:-.11- 41 .....— ------ \ ........or -....2-. ..•- ...” 1 i .,,,t%,..,..' • 4 e7-- - - i mil -" )7‘4,• -.Nelfir.a \ - 4,3 / #' ..%, 1 ......k.... - . L'.-- 111 ' • .'. .....%... 1111 .,..• . , ... , 4_ --it•-•• -, -,.., _. __, . ., .. .. . . i __.,•. ‘1,k _.... , • 1 4 ' . IP: i -....„.„ "Mr‘;' si\--------T-'--- , ... i 2' ..4-. . 6. 'II Ill 111. , • ii:.4 • • ----- - _,:,_.....KI.,-, R_' -1 ri 1‘11 . ,..-......-- ,-. , -. I i 1 1 .11 ,-• 4 I AlEl_.r— _ ,e.., 'reirMIN 1 Iklgl ---,, . _ . .7--- --.1 il .:_..... • Lt- ..--.- 24 rit-, . _ a..... ,„•..,so,.n , .. ...... i , - ........_ .--- - 1 • - _ ,....t.......„ .-, ; ... WARD PROPERTY General Concept Plan The Ward property consists of approximately 73 acres located along Trunk Highway 5 between the old and new State Highway 101. The site is gently rolling with heavy vegetation consisting of young trees. The only old stand of trees is located along Lake Susan at the old farmstead. The remaining vegetation consists of young trees which have "volunteered" over the past few years. Of the total site approximately 20% is either wetlands or water. The general concept for the property is a mixed-use program with an attractive "country village" look from all internal roadways and from Highway 5. The uses anticipated are hotels, restaurants, retail, small and medium offices buildings, residential and open space. For the look and the concept we have drawn from the success of such areas as Monterey and Carmel, California; Freeport, Main (a New England community concept) and for local relevance, from the success of 50th & France, which we hope to duplicate with the "Country Village" attraction. The roadway network is designed so that old 101 will be realigned and will become a part of the internal street system, a system which will provide on-street parking, access to major parking areas, a perimeter road around the "Village Center", as well as access throughout the balance of the site. The street system will easily provide access and accommodate traffic from the industrial area to the west and from the to-be-developed Legion Site to the east, without creating a thoroughfare through the site. The street system has been developed with a view toward providing a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Highway 5 and 101, both 4 lanes at this point, will handle the major north-south and east-west vehicular traffic. The Village Center will provide a variety of retail, service retail, small offices, restaurants, lodging opportunities and possibly even a small church. The "Village" site plan concept envisions buildings located along the wetlands and along the internal street system, with primary parking on the "inside" of the sites. Segments of the site are anticipated to be used for larger but low-rise offices of no more than three stores, oriented toward the lake and the major wetland. The residential usage will consist of clustered single family along Lake Susan and a medium density product along the easterly property line. A concerted effort will be targeted toward the preservation of the Marsh Lake and Lake Susan vistas. Over 20% of the site will remain as open space offering the opportunity of extending the trail system throughout the site and providing direct linkage to the trail along Lake Susan, Marsh Lake and into the balance of downtown Chanhassen. The concept plan anticipates the following development intensities: Estimated Annual Percent Real Estate Taxes Use # Acres of Site # S.F. Taxes/S.f. to be Generated Retail 23.5 32% 275,000 $3.00 $825,000 Office 14.1 19% 200,000 3.50 700,000 Multi-Res. 7.4 16% 60 units 180,000 S.F.-Res 4.0 / 6 units 24,000 Streets/Open 33% Totals 100% $1,729,000 It is anticipated that the first phase of development will be undertaken in the Fall of 1996. ...........:_:„ 7\7�' 1,A/� t..74110.111111111,__ 71 _,,,,,___ A; e 1,;(110 WAN( • -- - .,...., ill Pjavo .I OA '144 _tib - = r!- �_ _.-.-- ----- .�T H got� � _/ f f - �! 6'�� 'f K'.5 41�:.' "Retail - - - --- ,�.. ��-.: , __L�._ �� .e• 3.4 Ac._ �• a'V',iii'i1�� ``"40,000 S.F� 1101 i I Retail `�- ��11. 11 9 �3.1 Ac. �, t , ler•`Cr� r" �l�{�`�1,1 36,000 SRI b , , �• fI tilR'�--. 'Retail • r -�• lei L-L.{.� 1-=3.6 Ac.,--..., ..t-,;.--,0 / •q_ � 1 • - -•'. ±ali t\\\e��,._ .---42,000 S.F.- IS Retail ' ''Iti Retail - �� K3.2 Ac. rI.i' 2.8 Ac.' ��f 37,500 S.F. :�,,k, `!,`s.� 33,000 S.F. h� .�(''�jI -a- A..\\IItt- I"/41,- ‘11*.f,t-• ( 41 1.-25-0,,,* s Retail ibli 1 .., \,i �r f ' • inV•'.0.-- _s tic\, i 87,500 S.F i/,�`�\t� -_- i�,r0 „_ . � ,►� Residential •- - ..t . ).."- ' ir, ‘r.i.,;\ti-,..\7—,---- • , .,.: ,... e., , ,_ ;:,,,., , 1,11,./„..„.„, _ 1 am 7.4 Ac. 1 r,k4,., .11111• ),.,k.4k\ 1 --fs o 4 j f /' '' Office 1'y,,��\1%■I� • a� or-,,,,.. .: t , t, �4 FJ'44 Office gqi-1 -kv--_,----74----;--;=,`4, -,kkAliwo.„,P1,--,r's 4.0 Ac . .....0,04FA1 1 e-re/-----. - IIR 1 - 1 Office i' 4 ,s Y.. ,,..""y' 'v. - — - C�6.6 Ac.( ;.a 1ti. ..o...,.e.. •. �.95,400 S.F. -egg„ . "."` �j• `_` � r'; }rer�' -s, ••nem.• ‘ -,-____,,,,Iiiilk : ! ....;,-,.. . I 1O I"' Residential f j Residential 1';'1.1 Ac A 1 ' 2.5 Ac. ', .k\.)4,\, .4 r;'5' - ..,: \ - susAIN / L-- 1 Residential 1�\\ _ _ 4r177/ "°NV. itillik' ' V ;.• 11101PI\ . - /if/4". .-,, -;-..41.::0)1:1-..‘. '-' NS /AO l•-...!It-.-..1.1.i/Ofk '.. --- 'IM1512----:---:-;::: :.---_.- :API>4, ��41 "" 7�\ r f I ', .I • Ward XIIIPrivate Drive .( 50 100 1 F. T Property •••• Trails rB R W "3v 1 8 O O D p O E O 0 O 0 s 0 00 O N N N 8� $ g 0 p . p g m .- a . p0 , H _ p i m•.m I I p I ( I /I I I I t NEDYO. r. / • I /.�+ c� I I F "0 La L& CHR_/S_TNAS % HENNEWN� COUNTY cr ��'r°` •`■" i ail firMINOrrrrflio.!3-4M, ,-lRR'�'" — LAKE ir+� • ��i �.ewsl1�r,.111'�1111► 1 �s' ��MOP-MN • :• _}7,:.0..01 L ��`- ,....,"11,,---lift wog.I� �j�� i• ... b.AT M. il` s .c:H� r 1 Ij Ci d r.Ir:', ®7117 �l I� `� / ll �. S v I ,: b �. 'NIyy ++ ,� 4 `S`P' �' ra m ■A l .If'_♦ •.. 4111 �� 2�` 1'!SVPI—• '• ��11��-�- aWe �` Or I41,_ ill ��....:. •?►1 am M[fit►Ls yr: sop ■ •A� l= ■ /S/�`tea % /i sp;k1.111,074141•111 ail" . �� en.IA PNF.ita+' �E.�■IIA1 I.R l' y I..� ` ,, � � � �•�y �• to ''� Nat ` � ...�. •t.` . G� ��--I a Di fi � i-- �•�E'1 'k/a�qu o �'•�*� �� •iiA s v..rar z N�/, y�i, � �� •n:'3'R �� \� � �•e`I �A`�. 1•.��'rr .� �;� Q \;girt: 44—till/MI/Mho.1 i�r.4'::�w��i�41�i1�11 \.' �' _. :_._. •- R BEICN ■ri • •� �■I' BEACH ►74,�. I siU �" Mak � ,SARK �� k �.��.,...I ainrtea-,Zr vl E: /� rte• r 1 1y1: • *11F ! �• —1 � 1iii,:i110:,.._iVIOLET �. `, .� S�� 1� '''1``_ a �` NORTH'1/.:`igal.2 1.UP.2m-4 0 �` LOTUS 1��J ��A�:�c=� r•'•1'. . t. \I` LAKE ."/ E_ ' �' _- � '7 i ♦ �` i i �-�s `' �\Y ,l PARK • �� 'di r. �� 'alin � ' •�awn, EMIMEMill % A ��_v .mowt.ti SPA . 1 •x-1\ LOT US N PERI$O. 1. LAKE LUCY l®l�l� .• ..;y a'� ` �'• %> �. �f =raga/►I. -cp. , �1` I _ IA~�i 1.� �^yam'-'�Y\ —& li 11 ,--------4e _ _- —- MI�..r... _ JIl llllllll10 4V,'�1 • rElmbh;:,,. - 4-41111k -. 'rV v. , z_________, Arialulla:::11:".:1.1.411,8 .2177\*:-‘11131,"01 dlIlla Ate .• ","!--1."-s',', :.SZ::•ovitil. SHORES L....f... ►,,��• -�U1pb�� I r'aR, m .. "ARK c I11',,,,,I ;� 1111D. R f. e• �►c. ` `'�� IIIII►. , ��::5,��►��t•17• / �►111 �� 1I�i� *�1 all�•�.r}�II�'' �� LAK ♦4�' MEADOW �� a!�� ,♦1� ;;,��\� �r� '��♦ �� tJ � ��1 • "1 N ,\ LAKE ANN GREEN PARKo'�:yb�� lig !I i11��,`,,' �t�a , `�� ?I •� !!�L'�� As =a. �.l�y�'. 057 .,_.;••/� r. i AK ,,t,�� r. �!�• �! �1!//R ��t:,`I�'% 1 111 ANN I, 0' r L4O- c:n•71... i .ra PA p/4" � ',i ,, t �{ al7iiF. 9EEN Via- WAR:14•1►h��,,,,a.:4-., . ,,,•, „ Cc in i it� ii.f Ills. r - s� `tY 77:;� � ; 'i lX,a •.ra tee.r .�.: �..71f�.� - .I.r w•,ne. e. _. , 0, ii ir'y`��Or. 111111111111111 . .... �, \ .1.710 r 11Gs F 07.11 l' e'=• Ara.11111 IIIIIU. .. _ i ouIL e v .ii„. -•• 1 ® IIP' „_ IClr..-�® :: f j�9Z ;; !.—� w�,�y> 11111V1 ,.,. 1._ ,,,,w4i,:.„,,,0000 , I$-. ,-,....”, ......_ PAq r Via . • r Ott 7.11,,,,-4210,24„',....,.. .. ''�� . $. ‘. .n11)4/ SPANK ' i ,•• •I�i1a �ie W ■ aim'c��►.0111 /' / ... ��, t-:•Aulletidi___p, -�. �.`7I4,1 . MAKE l'UL___nrai •t'$". C�2ilig\ wi PARK/ r a • .Q>4. %111��'1 ,li a' / '\ ♦ „_ � � LAKE SUSAN �J ��,S IN '�, // V RICE Al : WA-'moo1II7Fa G„14wr .�� 11111 I ,�/ a SHIO11.t t•�N4, vss.;1,7 ritlili.0-1, •� ' =t* i- ' ` ��- `'•' .ice�,�� 1 f .tea.. APAIZ/4 t�h4 7 - F•a ih' f • — .�,. .fir' .,;` _ 1.�' i+l+ �•�: ,g11/1.t 't, AS --OA- �f `C r►� <I■ i �: _•2 jr '+s�11! most.' 1 w.. Fr, uz.a 0- ...... iktfi 1 MIL I.,4,,N i ar vs ..... . . ... -- SIP: v.fo st .71-11 :-.' -S4s l'''...: *49 q•<2.4 1 . PR ow ,,, . .. 1 r Ff.. e ,, p•PON 14' --6 (7.rr i A LYM,. I=11 i III*447 II iriA. iV15EvAR — ---i ll- . Ir11710.AI ,n -7- .0.• ..,...) eitHASSE ill a I tl, CNA- PARK ' Hli-LS 7 min . I ,.__, ,..../ 0/' . BANDIIICIPE ' e u a- a . tewirs 4--- PARK .... . •.... I I mealeve- 4 ISO'4" / 414P1 _Jug - LAKE , '71 i 1 NN) i eoirnrr ---1 a . 1 ! I PARK 4 iii. Pr•M ' -=' RILEY / . --/—.2-- ? I Z. 110) -4•11 .11 -. -......--44)\'..... ,.. r lik 7, III • rimi AW A* lwil .... kill . . al* ill •i ----/...:.z•*/ Ms-I IIMIlahL76•11111 mik wair..4111194 i IG-,i___. < N.," r_rrAllkitratAffhhillIllIll i _low- Er Or- II Fall-"r-..--n111111i" - 7 dii 7 1 C , / 1 V 1111frt BLUFF (4141417 / 1111111r. I I ----.--",s0 111110 I -I'!TS r • .1, 4A, 111 I ".3. 1 • \_ _ CREEK _ 1 t ..:sam AL i Mir milEr \ _ . ....;,. •:.,,..,_ , 1/4 'All .. A Ir )-;---... v, I -_„......1%,....IP::::.-,plin ;.--.:.);.:,......-• ,3 5 %6. eli, T t,,,, ":.... dm.* . \ ..• ....: 4, , •., ( . .., . ...p. . ,,..„.. . , ,... ,..,,,, ... _, , i . cio , iic_.. emirrar.L ... •• • , -....(2,-,.,1: /R/CE :4-t'rin, N c),'i'!!-:-.: 5 CY) arP- . CI 1111"II PI(41 LAKE N.- ll° .011` 01b o c‘-c6P c'°1. V . \ ___ . -. CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ - 0...°. _AIL -. -- I - " 0, CITY OF gtTAKOPEE / ,)8 / - „ / r ' , ...,' -.... /7 7-.. ..--. N...., .,7- ) -, ... ,-..., • „....-------- c._ 000 0 , z .. ,„ o a, t — •n Iv ..., 0 I 1 ! I T I , , 1 , I 1 1 , RECEWt[ e` / 67`. 0p C --9e / SEP8 IaUGUST 1992 Me7flrhHiiLN IPA s ash Residential 429 Rest ',% Residential 40 � R Commercial 3 r'c 10°Jo Commercial 3 c/c 0% Industrial 8 Y. Industrial 6% Public Use 47% 7% Public Use 51% •~; „ 10% Public Use 31. Public Use 32% • A 1955 Large Cities 1992 Brin In Land-Use and land-use map will have the most insight into what forces g g brought the city to its current form and where it may be Ratios Into the '90s heading in the future. Land-use ratios are most useful to planners and developers By Christopher Harris involved in comprehensive planning and long-range development,because these data are necessary in Every municipality is responsible for guiding future growth. determining what mix of land uses should be encouraged in The challenge is creating an appropriate mix of residential, future decades.Also,developers building neotraditional commercial,industrial,and public uses in the community. towns, planned communities,and large-scale mixed-use One pivotal factor in this process is a solid understanding of developments on vacant land find ratios from other athe current pattern of land uses within municipal boundaries. communities to be a good basis for land-use allocation. Knowing what uses exist and what services are needed to It is interesting to note that the ratios from the planned provide for those uses can determine the type and location of community of Columbia,Maryland,which was built in the development that a municipality should plan for. early 1960s,nearly match all of the ratio averages from the This PAS Memo is a summary of a 1992 survey of 1992 survey. land-use ratios in 66 municipalities.The American Planning Association undertook this study in response to a Current Data are Important large number of requests that the Planning Advisory Service Development patterns change over time—even within a receives for an update a 1983 study. Part of this demand is decade—and land-use ratios need to be updated to reflect driven by the growing number of states that are mandating those changes accurately.This study will serve as an update cities and counties to do comprehensive planning.These to several surveys of land-use ratios done in preceding mandated plans must include an inventory of existing decades. land uses. The first major study was done by Harland Bartholomew Even in cities where planning is not required,there has and Jack Wood in 1955.They surveyed ratios over a 20-year been a significant number of comprehensive plan updates span and published their results in Land Uses In American in the last few years. Some of these communities may be Cities.Those ratios were used in a large number of the redoing their plan for the first time since the 701 era of federally funded 701 comprehensive plans. planning in the 1950s and 1960s.Land-use trends and A second study,by Eisner and Associates,examined ratios settlement patterns have changed significantly since that compiled between 1939 to 1985.The usefulness of this data time,causing noticeable changes in the land-use mix for comprehensive planning purposes is compromised by the and a need for updated ratios. fact that the researchers analyzed ratios over a 46-year span. Too many development trends altered land-use ratios over Who Uses Land-Use Ratios that period.Eisner's ranges include both pre-and post-World Land-use ratios refer to the breakdown of various categories War II residential settlement patterns,which are vastly of land as a percentage of the total amount of land in a different. community. After a land-use survey,the results are mapped Yet another survey of 22 large American cities was done or entered into a computer and total land acreage for each in 1973.The results of that study were printed in Urban Land category is tallied. Policies and Land-use Control Measures(Vol. VI,Northern Because the ratios are derived from acreage totals, America). they do not represent the spatial patterns of cities. Spatial Finally,the most recent comprehensive look at these ratios arrangements of land uses typically are portrayed on a land- was a 1983 survey by Gregory Longhini and Mike Sutton. use map. Planners who understand both their land-use ratios Published by the APA, it quantified land-use ratios from 46 large and 22 small cities(See PAS Memo May 1983).Most course;a privately owned area might be an amusement park. of the land-use ratios in that survey were compiled between Transportation and utilities is the last public use 1978 and 1982. distinction.This includes rights-of-way,streets,alleys, airports,rail,transportation terminals,communication,pump Methodology stations,power stations,water facilities,and other similar Approximately a third of the information presented here uses. was discovered by reviewing many recent comprehensive Although the categories in this study were selected to plans in the APA library.Most of the data for small cities reduce discrepancies,the task of fitting each city's land-use were collected this way.The other two-thirds of the data, ratios into these two tables was still extremely difficult. particularly for large cities,were collected through telephone To repeat: these are only generalizations. interviews. Unfortunately,the manipulation needed to reorganize Selection of cities for the study was based on two some of the cities' ratios has weakened the results slightly. variables:date of their land-use survey and their geographic For example,a small percentage of the communities did not location.Although some of the ratios used date back seven calculate the acreage of streets and right-of-ways.Sometimes years,the majority of the data were collected since 1989. transportation is completely ignored and other times only Almost every region in the country is represented. utilities,bus terminals,airports and the like are calculated as Land-use ratios are calculated as a percentage of the all of the transportation uses.In these cases,this category's developed land within communities.Therefore,agricultural ratio is typically under five percent. and vacant lands were not figured in.This results in a more Other inconsistencies arise because specific uses are accurate representation of the breakdown of land uses in handled very differently among communities,according to the urbanized portion of each city. different rationales.For example,a recreational facility such One problem with the data is that nearly every city as a miniature golf course or a driving range is certainly a responded with different land-use categories.Tucson, recreational use.But,by some definitions,it is also a Arizona,breaks its developed land into 21 categories. business use;after all,it is earning a profit. Although Baltimore responded with only five categories.For this the definition of recreational uses in this study includes study,the data have been reorganized into the following four for-profit uses,some cities include these uses in the land-use categories:residential,commercial,industrial, commercial category.Some cities consider railroads to and public uses.Public uses are further broken into three be a transportation use,as does this study,while others subcategories:parks and recreation,institutional,and consider them an industrial use. transportation and utilities.Limiting the categories was Mixed-use developments create yet another problem. necessary to reduce the discrepancies between uses as For the purposes of this study,these percentages are figured defined by each city and,for comparative purposes,to use into whichever use dominates the development,particularly categories that resemble those found in APA's 1983 study. commercial,residential,or industrial.For example,small structures,such as an apartment over a retail shop,will most Details of Each Category likely be categorized according to the use occupying the The residential category includes single-family detached ground level—that is,commercial. units,two-or more family attached units,apartments, Although mixed-use developments are not included as a condominiums,and mobile homes.Noted in the table is the category in this study,more cities are beginning oshington; o include percentage of single-family detached housing as a percentage them in their ratios.Tampa,Florida;Bellevue, of the entire developed city. and Frisco,Colorado,responded to this survey with mixed- The commercial category includes all types of trade and use ratios.In two of the three cases,the percentages were services.The retail portion includes uses such as strip malls, minuscule.Tampa,Florida,has multiple mixed-use small and large scale shopping centers,and wholesaling categories such as suburban mixed-use,which covers outlets.Also included are office buildings and business parks 13 percent of the total developed land. that have financial or administrative functions.Other general The process of recalculating data to serve the purpose commercial uses are restaurants,grocery stores,and repair of this study is the last major methodological problem. businesses. A majority of the ratios for each city had to be recalculated The industrial category includes both heavy and light in order to eliminate the percentages of land that is either industry.These uses are characterized as construction, vacant,agricultural,or non-improved open space such as manufacturing,warehousing and distribution,resource forest land.This,combined with rounding the ratios, is the extraction,and,in some instances,high technology research. reason some of the percentages do not equal 100 percent. The public use category is the cumulative percentage of institutional uses,parks and recreation,and transportation and Residential Uses utility facilities.Institutional uses are those owned by the Since the first study of land-use ratios in 1955,residential local,state,or federal government,such as schools,hospitals, uses have occupied the most land in small and large cities. and police and fire stations.Churches,synagogues,and In 1955,40 percent and 42 percent of the land in central fraternal organizations,which are quasi-public facilities, and satellite cities,respectively,was used for residential also are included in the institutional category. purposes.In the 1973 study of large cities,40 percent of land The second public use category is parks and recreation, was residential.The boom in suburban growth in the 1950s comprising private or publicly owned areas used by citizens and 1960s increased these percentages significantly.The . in the community.A public area could be a municipal golf effects were evident in the 1983 study,where residential land increased to 48 percent of a city's developed land for both Christopher Harris is an APA research associate. large and small cities.The residential densities in large 2 Land-Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Under 100,000 Residential Right City or town Population (single-family) Comm'l Ind'1 Public Inst'l Parks of way _ Aiken,S.C. 20,000 - 65%(60%) 9% 1% 25% 9% 16% NA Ambler,Pa. 6,600 63 11 10 16 3 4 9 Asheville,N.C. 62,000 69(62) 12 5 14 9 5 NA Bellevue,Wash. 88,000 65 (57) 10 4 18 7 11 NA Carlsbad,Calif. 51,000 57(40) 5 9 29 3 17 9 Carrollton,Tex. 33,000 39(34) 30 17 15 5 10 NA Columbia,Md. 78,000 43(32) 20(combined) 37 NA NA NA Costa Mesa,Calif. 88,000 51 (30) 12 15 22 13 9 NA Elgin,Ill. 72,000 37 5 4 54 10 12 32 El Monte,Calif. 79,000 57 15 15 13 5 1 7 Evanston,Ill. 72,000 45(30) 7 4 44 10 • 8 26 Fishkill,N.Y. 15,000 24(20) 4 1 70 25 33 12 Frisco,Colo. 1,600 38 13 3 45 NA NA NA Galveston,Tex. 62,000 25(21) 5 25 44 19 25 NA Highland Park,Ill. 31,000 53 6 0 41 4 18 19 Hoffman Estates,Ill. 45,000 46(37) 10 2 41 3 15 23 La Verne,Calif. 27,000 67(58) 11 3 19 19 NA NA Lynnwood,Wash. 29,000 56(46) 22 3 19 13 6 NA Manassas,Va. 22,000 52(41) 8 12 28 26 2 NA Midway,Ky. 1,400 54 7 1 38 24 NA 14 Montpelier,Vt. 8,400 51 (45) 6 6 37 7 15 15 Mount Prospect,Ill. 58,000 65 (57) 6 16 13 4 9 NA Northbrook,Ill. 32,000 46 7 8 39 7 13 19 Oak Creek,Wis. 20,000 37(27) 8 12 43 6 23 14 Olathe, Kan. 49,000 52(43) 7 6 35 14 9 12 Prescott,Ariz. 26,000 74(50) 8 4 14 NA NA NA Pompano Beach,Fla. 67,000 44(25) 10 17 39 4 17 8 Redding,Calif. 53,000 64 11 12 13 8 5 NA St.Peters,Mo. 38,000 72 12 4 12 NA NA NA Sedona,Ariz. 7,300 74(71) 15 0 12 11 1 NA Skokie,Ill. 60,000 34 6 13 47 12 3 32 Versailles, Ky. 7,200 50 9 19 23 9 NA 14 Wakefield,Mass. 24,000 54(52) 5 3 38 8 6 24 West Hollywood,Calif. 36,000 42(8) 22 3 33 3 1 29 Ratio Averages 52% (41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA NA V3 isoorf' 7�� a f !� V �u { i$:590 s % How Land-Use Ratios Have Changed in Small Cities Over the Years Residential Year of survey (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'I Parks 1992 52% (41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA 1983 48 7 8 37 13 5 1955 42(36) 2 8 48 11 4 Land-Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Over 100,000 Residential Right City or town Population (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'l Parks of way 1 Albuquerque,N.M. 385,000 57%(47%) 15% 5% 23% 11% 8% 4% Amherst,N.Y. 112,000 43(40) 7 2 48 12 12 24 Atlanta 437,000 54 5 9 32 11 (combined) 21 Aurora,Colo. 232,000 44 21 17 18 NA NA NA Austin,Tex. 345,000 48(43) 7 5 38 7 5 26 Baltimore 787,000 42 27 6 25 16(combined) 9 Charlotte,N.C. 395,000 61 10 6 24 21 (combined) 2 Cleveland 506,000 35 5 15 45 6 7 32 Dallas 1,007,000 58(50) 8 12 22 5 8 9 Detroit 1,028,000 43(33) 5 9 44 13(combined) 31 El Paso 485,000 42(36) 6 10 42 15 5 22 Evansville,Ind. 129,000 57 24 5 14 NA 8 6 Fort Worth 448,000 50(45) 7 12 31 6 13 12 Hartford,Conn. 136,000 32 11 4 53 16 16 21 Honolulu 432,000 30 34 15 12 6 6 NA Indianapolis 742,000 55 (48) 7 10 28 28(combined) NA Lansing,Mich. 127,000 60 6 10 24 11 13 . NA Lexington,Ky. 214,000 58 8 8 25 18(combined) 7 Long Beach,Calif. 440,000 48(32) 12 22 18 6 6 6 Madison,Wis. 191,000 39 8 4 49 7 12 30 Norfolk,Va. 266,000 44(33) 9 4 43 27 6 10 Omaha 336,000 38 5 4 53 20(combined) 33 Peoria,Ill. 113,000 52 8 6 34 7 21 6 Reno,Nev. 101,000 36(25) 8 5 51 25 21 5 St. Paul 270,000 37 4 14 45 7 12 26 Salt Lake City 163,000 25 (20) 7 9 59 7 7 45 Santa Clarita,Calif. 121,000 70(59) 6 14 10 5 5 NA Tampa,Fla. 834,000 44(30) 15 26 15 10 5 NA Tempe,Ariz. 133,000 41 (30) 8 10 41 11 16 24 Topeka, Kan. 122,000 50 10 6 34 21 13 NA Tucson,Ariz. 419,000 52(39) 10 5 33 8 5 20 Youngstown,Ohio 104,000 60 9 8 23 8 13 2 Ratio Averages 48% (38%) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA How Land-Use Ratios Have Changed in Large Cities Over the Years Residential Right Year of survey (single-family) Comm'l Ind'I Public Inst'I Parks of way 1992 48%(38%) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA 1983 48(39) 9 12 31 NA NA NA 1973 40 10 5 45 19(combined) 26 1955 40(32) 3 6 51 11 7 33 Eisner & Associates Studies, 1939-1985 breakdown within the residential category.Cities that offer breakdowns within the residential category tended to do it in Use Range of Percentages two different ways:number of families per unit(e.g.single- family and multifamily)or the number of units per acre. Residential 35-39% As expected,single-family housing is by far the largest Commercial 4.8-5 portion of any city's housing stock.This type consumes an Industrial 10-11 average of 73 percent of the total housing stock in the 12 cities for which this information was available.The averages Streets 20-26 for multifamily and mobile homes are 14 percent and 3 Open Space,Schools,Parks 10-18 percent,respectively.The data range for multifamily housing was from 8 percent to 41 percent of land used for housing. The range for mobile homes was much smaller: one-half western cities are typically lower than large eastern cities. of 1 percent to 7 percent. For example the residential ratio in Long Beach,California, is 79 percent. In Pittsburgh,it is only 28 percent,according Commercial Uses to the 1983 survey. Since the 1950s and 1960s,commercial uses,which include Suburban sprawl also explains the residential ratio office and retail,have occupied an increasing amount of increase in small towns from 42 percent in 1955 to 52 percent acreage in both large and small cities.The land-use ratios in in 1992.An increased level of automobile ownership led to 1955 were 3.32 percent for the central cities and 2.54 percent the creation of the bedroom community.Employment, for the satellite cities.By 1992,these averages increased culture,and goods and services were not necessarily needed significantly,to 10 percent. in these communities as long as the nearby major city offered The biggest factor in this large percentage increase is them.Therefore,residential uses predominate the developed parking.Parking has become a major regulatory concern land. over the last few decades,as both large and small cities have These high ratios of residential land should begin become dominated by cars.An entire parking lot is to decline due to a combination of many economic, considered a commercial use.Many uses require parking that demographic,and regulatory trends that are decreasing effectively doubles the acreage of commercial land. demand for single-family detached homes.The 20-percent- Unlike in large cities,where suburban office migration has down conventional mortgage is no longer affordable for the caused commercial land-use ratios to plateau at 10 percent, average U.S.household.According to U.S.Housing Markets this ratio continues to climb in smaller cities.The Land Use C (January 29, 1990),a household needs an average down Institute estimated in 1986 that 57.3 percent of the country's C payment of 28 percent.The cost of the average home from total office market was located outside major downtowns. 1988 to 1990 increased 8.4 percent,or$11,000,while the This was an increase of nearly 10 percent from 1981. Height average income of a household has increased only 4.8 restrictions and a strong bias toward low density development percent. exist in these areas,so buildings cover more acres. Quickly rising land cost is another major factor Also contributing to the higher commercial ratio is the contributing to the inconsistency between housing cost and rise of average square footage allowed per office worker, income,according to an article in Building Sciences according to a 1991 Price Waterhouse Study. Between 1942 (November 1987). Land costs are now one-quarter of the cost and 1979,the average work space increased from 110 square of a single-family home.Thirty years ago,that figure was feet to 199 square feet.In 1988,only nine years later,that only 10 percent. average had crept up to 342 square feet. Demographic changes are reducing demand for single- Currently,trends between office and retail development family homes as well.Couples are purchasing houses at differ greatly.The construction of office buildings has an older age and having fewer children.Builder magazine decreased considerably in most cities since the late 1980s reported in January 1992 that the percentage of home buyers due to high vacancy rates. But according to Real Estate who are first-time buyers has dropped significantly from 47.7 Perspectives magazine,retail overbuilding continued at a rate percent to 34.6 percent in 1990.Furthermore,the 1990 nearly double its absorption rate well into the recession in Census indicates that household size declined from 3.33 1990.The common types of retail development—strip centers persons in 1960 to 2.62 persons in 1989.Ultimately,this and regional malls—consume large amounts of land.Given means less space will be required for each family.In fact, that these development styles are being used in small and surveys conducted recently by the National Apartment large cities alike,the commercial ratios in both sizes of cities Association have noted an increase in apartment living. can be expected to increase. Zoning trends have become an issue as well.Recent environmental protection regulations encourage development Industrial Districts patterns such as cluster and planned unit developments. Also, In large cities,the amount of land used by industrial firms courts are ruling against five-acre estate lot sizes and other peaked in the late 1970s or early 1980s,and has recently been large minimum lot size zoning when the effect is to exclude declining.In 1955,the average industrial land-use ratio was certain income groups. 6.4 percent.The 1983 survey indicated an industrial land-use ratio of 12 percent,while this current study shows a ratio It Breakdown by Housing Type of only 10.5 percent. In small cities and suburban areas, although this study provides general land-use ratio the industrial land-use ratio has remained within a third percentages for residential land as a whole,some of a percentage point since 1955,at around 7.5 percent. communities may be interested in the housing stock The trend most affecting industrial land allocation is the 3 country's economic shift from manufacturing and other An example is Hoffman Estates, Illinois, a Chicago heavy industry to a service industry. This may be causing suburb, where institutional uses cover only 3.4 percent of what Coldwell Banker identified in 1990 as the highest ever developed land. In El Paso,Texas,the percentage is 17 national vacancy rate(6.9 percent)of industrial buildings percent. El Paso is a county seat and therefore must offer larger than 100,000 square feet. the entire spectrum of institutional uses to the region. This shift has led to the conversion of many industrial buildings into residential loft or commercial office space, Transportation and Utility Uses thus decreasing the industrial ratio. Transportation and utility uses have consistently covered the Differentiating between industrial and commercial uses second highest amount of acreage in a city since these data has also become more difficult.For example,many light were recorded. As evident from the data set,many cities do manufacturers also have service centers, showrooms, and not include streets and right-of-way in their acreage.These warehouses on the premises. Therefore,when ratios are cities therefore have disproportionately low transportation calculated, they are categorized as heavy commercial uses, land-use ratios. Because of this discrepancy, averages for not industrial uses. this category are not listed. As the ratios from the three studies show,economic The amount of land devoted to right-of-way increases restructuring has not affected the land-use ratios in suburban as a city's single-family housing stock increases. But areas nearly as much as large cities,because heavy because many cities calculate streets into institutional and manufacturing never was a dominant force there. recreational uses, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint transportation land-use ratio trends. For the purpose of this Parks and Recreational Uses analysis, it is understood that streets and right-of-way The following analysis is based primarily on improved parks constitute most of the transportation uses and utilities and open spaces that are maintained by public park districts category. The utilities and communication uses are usually a or municipalities. very tiny portion. For example, only one-half of a percent of Historically, the rule of thumb for calculating the number developed land in Austin,Texas, is occupied by utility uses. of acres of park land needed in a community is one acre of There are two major current planning issues that may land per 100 residents.However,for the past 40 years many affect future street and right-of-way ratios: the recently communities have fallen well short. In the 1955 study, the adopted Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency percentage of park and recreation land for central and satellite Act(ISTEA)and neotraditional town planning. ISTEA marks cities was 7 percent and 4.4 percent of developed land, the first time that the federal government plans to tackle respectively. Eleven small communities from the 1983 congestion problems head-on by improving the management survey list an average percentage of only 4 percent. These of existing transportation systems and coordinating data are difficult to compare, in part because, in many transportation planning with land-use planning. Until now, communities,parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields on the solution has been to increase road capacity.Successful school property,as well as vacant lots, are calculated into the implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes, bus lanes, institutional ratios rather than the parks and recreation ratio. ridesharing,encouraging the use of alternate modes of travel, This makes the ratios appear as though less land is available and coordinated land-use and transportation policies,could for parks and recreation than really exists. mean that right-of-way and transportation use ratios will hold The explosive growth in single-family homes also had an steady even if population increases. interesting effect on the use of public parks. Most suburban homeowners have their own private front and back yards. Words of Caution This explains, in part,why suburbs will typically have a It is not recommended that these ratios be used as urban lower percentage of land in the parks category. Manassas, land-use models. Any city predicting its future land-use Virginia,an outlying suburb of Washington, D.C.,has only requirements solely on the ratios of other cites could be 1 percent of its land as parks while in St. Paul, Minnesota, seriously misguided. Every city has different factors this use covers 12 percent of the developed land. affecting its land-use distribution. Instead of considering these numbers rules of thumb, consider them examples of Institutional Uses land-use ratios that exist in cities today. Look closely at The percentage of land occupied by institutional uses has what factors affect your own city's land use before increased slightly in the last 50 years.The Bartholomew comparing your ratios to these data. study indicated that central and satellite cities had about 10 percent of their land devoted to institutional uses. The 1983 The PAS Memo is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory survey showed that the ratio of institutional uses in small Service,a subscription research service of the American Planning Association: No Israel Stollman,Executive Director;Frank S.So.Deputy Executive Director. towns was 13 percent. No averages were calculated for this study.However,the data do not differ drastically from the The PAS Memo is produced by APA staff in Chicago.Research and writing by Research Department staff:Marya Morris.Editor.Production earlier studies. by Publications Department staff:Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor; Large cities typically will have higher institutional land- Dennis McClendon,Design Director. use ratios. Uses such as hospitals,churches,schools,and Copyright 01992 by American Planning Association, 1313 E.60th St..Chicago.IL 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 government buildings are all directly related to the Massachusetts Ave..N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. population; as the number of people grow, so will the acreage All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any of these institutional lands. Other institutional uses are not so form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording. or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing clear cut: state capitol grounds,museums,civic centers,and from the American Planning Association. colleges and universities are all uses that serve a regional Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber market and are therefore more common in large cities. and lock postconsumer waste. 4 ; ,� RetaII Report f_ \ Market Overview C--ti � - All of the reported Still, the Twin Cities metro area is con- . - - - statistical successes of the sidered an attractive market to national �•. ( r\—T..; Mall of America after its second full year of chains. Several retailers are planning to enter „� r \4,SI operation are impressive.The 35 to 40 million the market in 1995, including Office Depot, visitors, $650 to $700 million in total dollars Home Place, Media Play and Petsmart. `. t\ .';; spent, and even an estimated 6% of its cus- Daytons has purchased the eight closing \ g_��-jj NIN tomer base made up of tourists coming from Carsons stores and will open new Mervyn's 1►-- outside the United States, are impressive fig- stores in seven, and expand its Daytons .��` �[:(��` ures. The problem is that despite all of the Department store in one. All of these retail- \ optimistic news being reported by Mall of ers are entering markets where competing America officials on its success and the posi- stores are already established. Development ' '\ tive influence it has on the Twin Cities econ- of new restaurants is increasing throughout \ ♦ 41 omy, the true impact on the local retail mar- the Twin Cities as well. f ``- - ket is very difficult to measure. The desirability of community center !fS." 'i i ,�� One aspect of the Mall of America's space still runs high, and is reflected in both ! impact is very evident; it has focused the the new construction which took place in ( ' attention of almost every expanding retailer 1994,and the proposed new developments for jf ii �''` �, � in the United States 1995. Two new com- :.`\ j on the Twin Cities ' munity centers were ,!� market. Before the € developed in late 1994 .d�\� I 'i" Mall of America • - along the I-494 strip \ 4.'... ("��.opened in 1992, the s;:_ 3aia..z and one community \ 4 4\ .1,4 Twin Cities metro 1 � � center added a second �► \�� area was considered - 'YAR_ ' - phase in Woodbury. . i� _ an under-retailed _ — - — -,�,,,,,,, --� In addition, nine pro- �� 7.N market with a strong `� _: posed community cen- ♦ ,,s r► ♦ ;" economic base. ters could break f'-- - Approximately two ground in 1995. t\• he remaining eight -�. and one-half years For other retail 1 {arsons'stores will be. later, six Circuit center types, the pace dosed in.1995 a�d�d, City's, three Sport- a"n"'` of development is `_ 71¢i Filene's Basement is marts,two Computer modest with four r` I closing four of its five ,, City's, two Comp USAs, eight Barnes and neighborhood centers (30,000 sq. ft. or larg- locations. �� Nobles,four Filene's Basements along with a er) proposed in the Twin Cities, and a pro- `� I k-'?.`S . , handful of other smaller retailers have posed regional center in Maple Grove. "\` /•`More comtwaity centers sprouted throughout the metro area.Some of Despite all of the growth in discount- rwih"a- 3 aka these retailers, particularly Circuit City, oriented retail in the suburbs, some urban - 0 I 1•s f-are' sided' Sportmart and Barnes and Noble,are contin- retail centers have not fared as well. Sears C"" probable to happen)995: uing to look for new sites in the Twin Cities. announced the closing of its 1909 flagshipsl/ 4, ,. -1ti J "11 As some retailers may attest, the Twin store in Minneapolis, due to poor 4,:s",„\`.. O'The current vacancy rate Cities metro area may no longer be under performance in recent years. Owners of _ for all multi-tenant retail retailed. Consider the closing of four Carson Spruce Tree Center in St. Paul, ,� . space is the lowest level Pine Scott locations,two in 1993,two in 1994. Riverplace in Minneapolis and Gaviidae I \ I' �. remaining eight Carsons stores will be in downtown Minneapolis are downsiz- ear ti f14... closed in 1995. In addition, Filene's ing the retail portion of their centers 0- The �N' t\ -' Basement is closing four of its five locations and converting to more office space211 •1/4..'s%\__..%"41 »,,,� in the Twin Cities in 1995, (leaving only the which is in higher demand in their ------ti-- 7-----7J.-- Mall of America store). Heavy competition respective locations. ��" r�.� �`1 by numerous competitors have forced The retail investment market is =1 r: i NA., g f'-.../- ri -----,.4 ‘' 'I \'>."-1 „„ these closings. active with 11 transactions in 1994. . ;'- >7 f f* Well anchored centers are in high a �1` '1 , '1 * ' . �' `t• 23 ._ -_ m--,i, .\ ... demand. This is reflected in the increasing sale prices. Sale prices COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT per sq. ft. in 1994 ranged from $8.36 1985-1994, AND PROPOSED FOR 1995 for the Skywood Mall,to$103.31 for MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA the Southporte Centre. (See Page 27 for a list of transactions). Community Center Development Accounted for 60%of total retail center The downtown Minneapolis development over the past decade cInk Red EumeCompaq retail market is relatively healthy 2,250,000 '2,012,435 with good occupancy in both 2,000,000 Gaviidae Centers, City Center and W 1,750,000 Proposed 1995-3,000,000+ the Crystal Court. Approximately u. 28 retailers came to downtown 1,500,000 Minneapolis in 1994. Many were 4CC1,250,000 skyway related, but some notable 977,59E retailers include Barnes and Noble, 1,000,000 Aveda and the Thomas James in 750,000 657,185 Gallery. The downtown St. Paul 445,149 S21•2� 559,000 331 150 retail market is losinggroundand is 500,000 185,326 r 130,256 I I I 98,258 mainly servicing downtown workers. 250,000 • Overall, the Twin Cities retail 01.1 Al market improved over the past year, 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 reporting an annual net absorption '9 community centers contoing over 2 million sq.ft.come on line in 1990 of approximately 575,000 sq. ft., and a decline in the vacancy rate by 0.8 as four neighborhood retail center and anchored by Byerly's. Also percentage points to 8.0%. The cur- developments are currently pro- proposed is a 7,000 sq. ft. Kinko's rent vacancy rate for all multi-tenant posed or under construction. Copy Center and 35,000 sq. ft. of retail space is the lowest level since Carlson Real Estate is constructing shopping space. 1989, which is impressive consider- the 56,000 sq.ft. Rosemount Market A new center of approximately t' ing approximately 10 million sq. ft. Square anchored by a Jubilee gro- 60,000 sq. ft. is proposed in F- has been added to the multi-tenant cery store near the intersection of Minnetonka. This center will proba- li retail base over the past six years. In County Road 42 and Chippendale bly be anchored by a Circuit City addition, an estimated three to four Avenue in Rosemount. and an Office Depot. million sq. ft. of free standing, "big T.F. James is currently develop- Approximately 31,000 sq. ft. of box" retail space has been devel- ing a retail complex in Chanhassen free standing retail tenant buildings oped over the same time period. near Kerber Boulevard and West are planned for construction in out- 78th Street. Phase One is complete lots at the Roseville Crossings Neighborhood Centers The neighborhood center retail _._ a market in the Twin Cities is showing - -'14% ` df _ 1 continued signs of improvement. - • K V '- • _- For the third consecutive year,it has - -- $\ reported strong absorption levels ., _ - • � ' and decreasing vacancy rates.Part of - - — : R this tightening in the market can be r-- ipotts ��r94 attributed to a lack of recent devel- - • .' •• • , = opment. Still, the current vacancy I c�"""=`E"`O1D • -. `� ~ � rate of 8.9% is the lowest level since _ ' 1987 and the market has steadily - ° ,� ' • , • tightened from the peak vacancyapp. r' ' level of 13.3% in 1992. In the past �„ s� _ • • three years, the neighborhood cen- - - ter market has absorbed over 1 mil- / ' - N ; lion sq.ft.. - The general improvement in the _ '~ market has stimulated new growth Pork More Plug,proposed Camay Gar,St.Loa P.k • ii OW LE - - 24 WI Center at County Road C and ,; Snelling Avenue in Roseville. VACANCY AND ABSORPTION The Spruce Tree Center located MINNEAPOUS/ST. PAUL METROPOUTAN AREA • FIRST QUARTER 1993 - 1995 in the Midway area of St. Paul was urchased in 1994 and now is bein Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net P g Market Sector Date Centers Leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption marketed almost entirely as office ANOKA COUNTY space. This center has been Neighbalaod 1993 20 1,616,786 182,792 11.3% 174,595 removed from our survey. 1994 20 1,564,102 160,841 10.3% (30,733) Neighborhood center owners 1995 20 1,590,384 119,571 7.5% 67,552 have been attempting to control Community 1993 7 1,314,448 85,498 6.5% 29,878 operating costs in recent years by 1994 7 1,305,263 80,869 6.2% (4,556) reducing amounts of common areas 1995 7 1,296,940 156,646 12.1% (84,100) in centers and reconfiguring centers Regional 1993 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 4,000 1994 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 0 with interior mall space. The aver- 1995 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 0 age CAM cost for neighborhood Speriahy N/A space for first quarter 1995 equaled Total 1993 28 3,742,234 284,290 7.6% 208,473 $1.56 per sq. ft., a 9.3% reduction 1994 28 3,680,365 257,710 7.0% (35,289) from 1994. It is also 17.9% lower 1995 28 3,696,324 292,217 7.9% (16,548) than the average level in 1992. DAKOTA COUNTY Neighborhood 1993 37 2,328,280 310,962 13.4% 167,465 CommunityCenters 1994 37 2,310,912 267,912 11.6% 25,682 1995 37 2,325,912 269,922 11.6% 12,990 Community centers and power community 1993 13 2,521,812 260,100 10.3% (56,418) centers have been the dominant 1994 13 2,516,565 232,328 9.2% 22,525 development story in the Twin 1995 13 2,513,812 184,160 7.3% 45,415 t Cities over the past five years. Regional 1993 2 1,600,000 46,000 2.9% 32,000 1994 2 1,714,343 25,000 13% 135,343 1995 2 1,664,343 56,000 3.4% (31,000) r Approximately 18 centers contain- ing over 4 million sq. ft. have been specially N/A developed over the past five years. Total 1993 52 6,450,092 617,062 9.6% 143,047 This equates to an approximate 51% 1994 52 6,541,820 525,240 8.0% 183,550 increase in the total community cen- 1995 52 6,504,067 510,082 7.8% 27,405 ter universe of the Twin Cities. The MINNEAPOLIS tendency towards the community,or Neighborhood 1993 7 381,141 23,166 6.1% 1,162 power center, style of development 1994 7 381,141 24,966 6.6% (1,800) is due to the value,convenience and 1995 6 438,141 22,907 5.2% 59,059 volume-oriented retailers emerging Community 1993 2 311,938 39,082 12.5% 37,070 1994 2 311,938 55,013 17.7% (15,991) in the market in recent years. 1995 2 311,938 38,700 12.4% 16,373 In 1994, two new community Regional 1993 3 796,516 313,000 39.3% (156,945) centers were developed, and one 1994 3 802,875 49,000 6.1% 270,359 community center's second phase 1995 3 804,645 68,000 8.5% (17,230) was completed. Speciohy 1993 6 787,544 187,941 23.9% 108,594 The Robert C. Muir Company 1994 6 787,544 267,117 33.9% (79,176) 1995 5 701,946 257,500 36.7% 3,817 completed the second phase of its To 1993 18 2,277,139 563,189 24.7% (10,119) Woodbury Village Center at the 1994 18 2,283,498 396,156 17.3% 173,392 Northeast quadrant of Valley Creek 1995 18 2,256,670 387,107 17.2% 62,019 Road and I-494. This second phase ®Towle Red Estate Company totaled 117,000 sq. ft. and is anchored by Best Buy. 100,000 sq. ft. of multi-tenant retail Place and Office Depot. It also has CSM Corporation completed with Petsmart as a potential anchor. a remaining bay of 26,000 sq. ft. the first phase of the Shops of Homart completed the Circuit available. Lyndale at the Northeast quadrant City Center located at the In looking ahead to 1995, the of I-35W and I-494 in Richfield. Northwest quadrant of France total amount of proposed communi- This first phase includes Best Buy, Avenue and I-494 in Bloomington. ty center development is staggering Sportmart and Comp USA, and This center totals 136,150 sq. ft. and with approximately 13 centers totals 128,000 sq. ft.. Phase two is is anchored by Circuit City, Home potentially breaking ground. Of planned to contain approximately TOW LE FL/.I FSJAI! 25 \•1 Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net these proposals, nine centers with a Market Sector Date Centers leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption proposed 3,000,000 sq.ft.are consid- NORTHEAST ered probable to happen in 1995. Neighborhood 1993 29 1,962,033 337,543 17.2% 42,942 (See Proposed Community Centers 1994 29 2,061,740 304,972 14.8% 132,278 chart on page 28). 1995 29 2,036,425 239,475 11.8% 40,182 The significant number of new Community 1993 6 1,229,803 104,000 8.5% 57,866 retailers entering the Twin Cities 1994 6 1,229,803 33,046 2.7% 70,954 market, and the additional competi- 1995 6 1,229,803 83,600 6.8% (50,554) tion they bring with them, increases I Regional 1993 4 2,859,625 250,071 8.7% 131,471 F. 1994 4 2,879,625 211,057 7.3% 59,014 the potential for shake out of retail 1995 4 2,843,477 211,210 7.4% (36,3011 tenants and increased vacancies in Specialty N/A community centers. The recent clos Total 1993 39 6,051,461 691,614 11.4% 232,279 ing of four Filene's Basement stores 1994 39 6,171,168 549,075 8.9% 262,246 and the sale of the Carson's stores to 1995 39 6,109,705 534,285 8.7% (46,673) Mervyn's are examples of that. NORTHWEST However, the vacancies from Neighborhood 1993 19 1,488,663 155,650 10.5% 22,544 Filene's leaving the market were 1994 20 1,508,239 197,089 13.1% (44,174) 1995 20 1,494,704 182,855 12.2% 5,407 quickly absorbed by existing retail- Community 1993 7 1,350,842 33,580 2.5% 13,945 ers (Marshall's and Linens N' 1994 7 1,351,096 90,685 6.7% (56,851) Things) looking for good locations. 1995 7 1,489,021 114,463 7.7% 114,147 This quick absorption of anchor Regional 1993 1 925,000 10,000 1.1% 17,750 spaces may not be repeated as quick- 1994 1 925,000 25,000 2.7% (15,000) ly in the future if the Twin Cities 1995 1 925,000 20,000 2.2% 5,000 Specialty N/A retail market reaches a saturation Total 1993 21 3,764,505 199,230 5.3% 54,239 level and national attention on the 1994 28 3,784,335 312,774 8.3% (116,025) local market wains. 1995 28 3,908,725 317,318 8.1% 124,554 SOUTHWEST Neighborhood 1993 28 1,801,473 84,348 4.7% 145,030 1994 28 1,800,654 99,657 5.5% (16,128) �., 1995 27 1,787,465 64,131 3.6% 22,331 ?--- Community 1993 5 804,826 74,364 9.2% (5,424) -• • . 1994 5 805,066 34,989 4.3% 39,615 �I _ . ;;�--- _ = _-_ 1995 7 1,075,386 69,626 6.5% 235,683 --- • - --=_ -.--` Regional 1993 4 5,550,221 362,560 6.5% 2,447,639 1994 4 5,550,221 475,560 8.6% (113,000) 1995 4 5,350,522 200,560 3.7% 75,301 Specialty 1993 1 417,784 75,201 18.0% 0 Westwind Plaza Minnetonka 1994 1 417,784 62,200 14.9% 13,001 1995 1 417,784 75,201 18.0% (13,001) Total 1993 38 8,574,304 596,473 7.0% 2,587,245 1994 38 8,573,725 672,406 7.8% (76,512) Regional Centers 1995 39 8,631,157 409,524 4.7% 320,314 Little change occurred in the ST.PAUL regional center market over the past Neighborhood 1993 10 620,195 110,232 17.8% 45,946 year with approximately 25,000 sq. 1994 11 617,759 73,906 12.0% 33,890 ft. of absorption and a decline in 1995 10 534,214 52,324 9.8% (4,063) vacancy rate of 1.7 percentage points Community 1993 4 823,929 123,245 15.0% 29,200 0 1994 4 882,935 100,880 11.4% 81,371 to 5.2%. No new space was added 1995 4 891,929 76,288 8.6% 33,586 in 1994. Regional 1993 2 363,000 181,000 49.9% (121,000) The Mall of America,which has 1994 2 363,062 180,000 49.6% 1,062 been dominating the retail news in 1995 2 359,150 145,344 40.5% 30,744 the Twin Cities market over the past Specialty 1993 5 261,535 27,048 10.3% 3,022 1994 5 262,650 22,580 8.6% 5,583 several years, has reportedly had a 1995 5 262,650 25,976 9.9% (3,396) successful second full year in opera- toral 1993 21 2,068,659 441,525 21.3% (42,832) tion meeting and/or exceeding 1994 22 2,126,406 377,366 17.7% 121,906 expectations so far. Its occupancy 1995 21 2,047,943 299,932 14.6% 56,871 level has reportedly reached 95%, ©Towle Reol Estate Company l OW LE 26 < j and its impact on the local hotel Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net market has been very positive. Of Market Sector Date Centers Leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption the tenants located in the Mall of WASHINGTON COUNTY America, the restaurant and enter- Neighborhood 1993 7 466,065 72,782 15.6% (11,4680 1 tainment oriented businesses appear 1994 7 466,065 61,832 13.3% 10,950 to be doing best. While three of the 1995 7 466,065 45,664 9.8% 16,168 _ four anchor tenants reportedly are Community 1993 9 1,808,509 130,247 7.2% 649,800 satisfied with sales,Bloomingdales is 1994 10 1,892,052 176,209 9.3% 37,581 1995 11 2,006,452 226,506 11.3% 64,103 rumored to be looking for a replace- Regional N/A ment anchor to sublease its space. phy 11/A A new regional shopping center Total 1993 16 2,274,574 203,029 8.9% 638,332 development has become a possibil- 1994 17 2,358,117 238,041 10.1% 48,531 ity in Maple Grove. Two sites have 1995 18 2,472,517 272,170 11.0% 80,271 been named as potential regional WEST mall locations. The first proposed Neighborhood 1993 30 1,668,588 91,196 5.5% 53,022 site is a 100-acre site located at the 1994 31 1,734,416 91,503 5.3% 65,521 southeast quadrant of 1-94 and the 1995 31 1,677,732 100,052 6.0% (31,583) • planned Highway 610. Rouse Community 1993 7 1,063,548 38,839 3.7% (4,276) 1994 7 1,063,548 68,711 63% (29,872) Company, which owns Ridgedale 1995 7 1,063,548 67,757 6.4% 954 Center, would be the developer of Regional 1993 2 1,654,000 32,425 2.0% (11,699) this site. The second site is at the 1994 2 1,670,000 32,300 1.9% 16,125 - northwest quadrant of I-694 and 1995 2 1,670,000 32,000 1.9% 300 SpecHighway 169. This site consists of Total Ny N/A 2,000 total acres of gravel mining Total 1993 39 4,386,136 162,460 3J% 37,047 1994 40 4,467,964 192,514 4.3% 51,774 land held by a consortium of owners. 1995 40 4,411,280 199,809 43% (30,329) Potential anchors for a new regional METROPOLITAN TOTAL center include Daytons, Sears, Neighborhood 1993 187 12,333,224 1,368,671 11.1% 641,238 Macy's and Nordstrom's. Each pro- 1994 190 12,445,028 1,282,678 10.3% 175,486 posal is only in the talking stages, 1995 189 12,351,042 1,096,907 8.9% 188,043 and either would likely take three or Community 1993 60 11,229,655 888,955 7.9% 751,641 more years to complete. 1994 61 11,358,266 872,790 7.7% 144,776 Carson Pirie Scott's vacated 1995 64 11,878,829 1,017,746 8.6% 315,601 anchor space at Knollwood Mall in Regional 1993 19 14,559,362 1,211,056 8.3% 2,343,216 1994 19 14,716,126 1,013,917 6.9% 353,903 St. Louis Park has been demolished 1995 19 14,428,137 749,114 5.2% 26,814 and a new Kohl's Department store Specially 1993 12 1,466,863 290,190 19.8% 111,616 is being developed in its place. 1994 12 1,467,978 351,897 24.0% (60,592) 1995 11 1,382,380 358,677 25.9% (12,580) Total 1993 278 39,589,104 3,758,872 93% 3,847,711 RETAIL CENTERS SOLD IN 1994 1994 282 39,987,398 3,521,282 8.8% 613,573 1995 283 40,040,388 3,222,444 8.0% 577,884 MINNEAPOLIS/ST.PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA m Towle Reol Estate Company Price Sale Property Name Per sq.ft. Date Kohl's is also adding new stores in signed Barnes and Noble as a 44,000 1 Southporte Centre S103.31 1/94 Eden Prairie Center, Maple sq. ft. anchor. This center's owners, Westwind Plaza 585.35 11/94 Grove, Southtown Center, Eagan, Bradley Real Estate Trust, recently Mopleridge 90.62 10/94 and is expanding its store at completed a $1 million renovation Maplewood Mall. and repositioning of the center. Knoliwood Village $57.00 9/94 Owners of Brookdale Shopping Though claiming its first two Birch Run Station S46.98 4/94 Center are still attempting to sell, years of operation a success, the Town And Country Square $21.46 7/94 and the operating covenants with Mall of America is appealing its • Century Hills Shopping Ctr. $17.91 2/94 the center's anchor tenants expiring assessed market value of $378 mil- Valley Geek Mall $17.16 9/94 . in 1995 will remove the major obsta- lion. The largest and costliest real Falcon Crossing $10.31 7/94 cies hindering a sale. New owner- estate development (approximate St.Anthony Main PI 58.95 5/94 ship of this aging regional mall $700 million development cost) in Skywood Mall 58.36 2/94 would likely bring a renovation. Minnesota will also be its largest C Towle Real Estote Company Har Mar Mall in Roseville has property tax dispute. Other regional TOWLE 27 .... -.., t. . I malls are appealing there property tax levels as well. Rosedale Center PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTERS (1995 AND 1996) won the first round of its case in MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA Breaking 1994, but the decision was appealed Possible Size Center Ground to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Development Name City Anchor(s) (sq.ft.) Type Probable In Southdale Center is also disputing its assessed value. It will most likely Centre Pointe Roseville Office Depot 400,000 C 1995 take months, or even years, to Fontana Square VodnoisHeights Target 260,000 C 1995 resolve these cases. Hartford Place Eden Prairie Mervyn's,Office Depot 165,000 C 1995 Maple Grove Power Center Maple Grove Kohl's,Gander Mountain 260,000 C 1995 MidwayMarketpkae St.Paul KMart,Wards 485,000 C 1995 Specialty Centers Specialty centers in the Twin Northtown gage Blaine Sporrmart,Media Play 175,000 ( 1995 Park Place Plaza St Louis Park Rainbow 420,000 ( 1995 Cities metro area are gradually Roseville Gassings Roseville TBA 31,369 N 1995 becoming a thing of the past as more Shops of Lyndok II Richfield Penman 100,000 C 1995 existing centers reposition space. Tamarak%Sage Woodbury Cub Foods 750,000 ( 1995 Specialty centers are typically ossa Eagan Promenade Eagan Home Depot,Byerly's,Mervyn's 416,000 ( 1996 ciated with upscale retail, which has lover Grove(enter Inver Grove Heights TBA 300,000 ( 1996 struggled in recent years. Maplewood Power Center Maplewood Cub Foods 215,000 C 1996 Riverplace in Minneapolis closed its Ryan(enter Brooklyn Park Home Depot 400,000 C 1996 Mississippi Live entertainment corn- TheQuarry Minneapolis Rainbow 430,000 C 1996 plex and is now renovating its space Total proposed retail space=4,807,369 sq.ft. for office use. The Conservatory in Center Types: (=Community Center N=Neighborhood(enter 0 Towle Real Estate Company downtown Minneapolis was pur- chased in 1994 and will likely be performed well. The current vacan- Market Outlook repositioned in 1995 due to histori cy rate for specialty centers equals cally poor performance. Other cen- 25.9%, and negative annual ters which have repositioned special- The primary story for the ty space in recent years include absorption was reported for first Minneapolis/St.Paul retail market in quarter 1995. Bonaventure in Minnetonka, and 1995 will be development. The hot Upscale retailers had a rough type in 1995 will once again Pavilion Place in Roseville. year in 1994. Established retailers property yp g After removing Riverplace from such as Sims Clothiers and Mark be community centers,with over 4.8 our survey, 11 centers containing Cross closed their doors. Saks Fifth million sq. ft. currently proposed approximately 1.4 million sq. ft. of throughout the Twin Cities. The specialty retail space exist in the Avenue and Neiman Marcus potential exists for a repeat of 1990 Twin Cities metro area. Of these added clearance areas to their when over 2 million sq. ft. of multi- Minneapolis stores. remaining specialty centers,only the tenant retail space came on line. Galleria in Edina has historically This was the largest retail develop- .,... _ ment year in the past decade, - - , - excluding the completion of the Mall . `� of America in 1992. .\ • . • . The mass entrance of national s - - _ retailers into the Twin Cities market .:•:.'z•:.- �''+ = � will continue in 1995. Possible new - - •• ;-i --'% - -- - ;, . retailers entering our market over ' .�� • ; ------ -..- the next twelve months include ...a` ren* - CUR', - Home Depot, Home Quarters. .'+�.. ^ , - • Pacific Linen Bed, Bath and � •. Beyond, Lil' Things, Kidsource and r. ..`- =- L S _ Today's Man. • ,0,.. ` �! • J S 1 'f E The majority of today's growing • -x : r'~.`: retailers are "category killers". '•i Extreme price-sensitive competition - _ V will continue to grow in the retail totooty L± ' r- .. . _ market, possibly forcing out weaker Maple Grove Power Center,proposed Community Center,Maple Grove retailers. The national "category TOWLE REAL ESTATE awe ssei . J killer" chains have strong buying RENT AND EXPENSES power, and operate on higher volume sales and lower profit mar MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL METRO AREA- FIRST QUARTER 1995 gins. Local retailers will continue to Median Net Rent struggle in 1995. Center Type Low High Net Rent Range Avg.CAM Avg.Taxes Competition between larger Community S10.00 S14.00 S5.00-S25.00 $1.85 52.86 "category killer" retailers will also Neighborhood S8.00 S11.00 S1.50-$20.00 $1.56 $2.52 be fierce. Price wars between retail Speaahy S12.00 S23.50 S10.00-S50.00 $6.30 $4.67 giants such as Best Buy and Circuit Regional $15.00 $35.00 $5.00-S65.00 $6.57 $6.70 City, Comp USA and Computer O Towle Real Estate Company City, and Office Max and Office Depot,may cause retail center casu- and I-35W, is a redevelopment pro- A growing disparity in property alties. Best Buy won its latest war in posal of aging industrial and com- values between newer, national-ten- the Twin Cities with Highland mercial buildings into a modern ant anchored centers and older tra- Superstores,which was forced out of community retail facility. Ryan ditional strip centers anchored by the market in 1991. Companies is planning to redevelop local and regional tenants will occur While retail development con- the former Honeywell site in St. in 1995. Demand by investors and tinues to focus on the second and Louis Park. Proposals for redevel- lenders for prime retail property is third-tier suburbs such as opment of the Sears Tower site on growing,pushing capitalization rates Woodbury, Maple Grove and Eden Lake Street in Minneapolis may sur- down. Prairie, redevelopment of inner-ring face in 1995 as well. Specialty retailing should con- suburbs and urban locations should Older centers will continue to tinue to succeed in isolated urban happen in 1995. The proposed renovate and remodel space in order areas such as the 50th and France Midway Marketplace development to stay competitive by minimizing area and Grand Avenue in St. Paul, located along University Avenue in common areas and upgrading exteri- as well as unique suburban locations St. Paul would redevelop the old ors. Older existing retail centers' such as Downtown Wayzata. Look Montgomery Wards site. This largest competing advantage over for more specialty shopping centers development proposal has been newer centers is rental levels. to rethink tenant mixes and uses in hampered by environmental con- Controlling rising operating expens- 1995,minimizing their concentration cerns but should break ground in es is critical in order to maintain of upscale retailers. 1995. The Quarry site in healthy effective rental rates, and Plans for a new regional mall in Minneapolis, near Johnson Avenue hold value. Maple Grove should become more concrete in 1995. The two proposals for this development are still in very VACANCY RATES preliminary stages. This project most likely will not break ground FIRST QUARTER 1 987-1 995 until 1996,if at all. ©Towle Real Estate Company Look for stronger absorption of 35% retail space over the next twelve months due to more retailers enter- 30% ing and expanding in the Twin Cities.Vacancy rates will most likely 25% rise with the potential for heavy u+ retail construction in 1995. V 20% W a 15% 10% 5% es_ 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 raw Specialty Regional Neighborhood num Community TOWLE REAL ESTATE ,.t: 29