Loading...
1986 08 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING _ AUGUST 13, 1986 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT Steven Emmings, Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Todd Gerhardt, Intern. A quorum was not present at the meeting with only three Commission members present. Therefore, an informal discussion meeting was held on items that did not require any official action. A special meeting was called for next Wednesday, August 20, 1986 at which time a quorum would be present. _Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies ~ Mark Koegler. Barbara Dacy: Basically, in his (Mark Koegler's) memo, as a result of the meeting that Mark and Staff had, are policies that we felt should be changed. Those are the ones that refer to the Rural Surface Area and in the downtown. We felt that the other policies were just as applicable now as they were in the past and did not warrant a change so we are in a position of recommending that, pursuant to Mark's memo, we will go ahead and amend the policies as presented. Ladd Conrad: Any thoughts on what Staff recommended as the additions to the Comprehensive Plan? As we looked at the Land Use section, specifically the goals and policies, any comments? Tim Erhart: Number 1, suggested policy of Chanhassen's Rural Service Area. The term Rural Service Area, where are you drawing that from? That term is not used in the proposed zoning ordinance. Dacy: The term is drawn from Metro Council's definition of the Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area. Erhart: So there is a statute on this... The only other one I would add is the word "septic" after "on-site". That leaves the sentence a little vague. It says on-site systems and it should say on-site septic systems. On the suggested policy on the next one on the next page, the portion of the Rural Service Area between Chanhassen's MUSA line and the Metropolitan _council's MUSA line, obviously you are planning on sticking to your guns on ~~ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 2 e that argument? Oacy: That is up to the Commission but we are perceiving no change on that and we still disagree with the population projections so we will stick to our guns. Erhart: The question I had though was in the definition of the proposed zoning ordinance. Well, let me ask you this, what we are changing here is in the previous one. We basically said that all the general rural area was a transitional area. Okay, now we are changing that to say that only certain areas of the general rural area are transitional. Is that correct? Is that what you are stating? Oacy: We saw the areas between the MUSA lines as the area that we really wanted to concentrate on because now that the Lake Ann interceptor is for sure, but what you are saying is that... Erhart: I haven't said anything, I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from on this. Oacy: Since we know now that the intercepter is going to be in, that we are positive it would be resubdivided after the year 2000. ~Erhart: My attitude about this zoning thing, of course, I was new on the .Commission when we first got into this and we've had time to reflect on it. My attitude about the whole zoning thing is that we haven't really looked at putting some area in A-I which is agricultural preserve and that seems relatively common with a lot of things but even though we don't have any now... zoning ordinance. Oacy: No, because it is upon the request of the individual property owners. Erhart: The way it is assigned? That doesn't mean that we couldn't arbitrarily say that some of these large sections out here where there has been no development to date, couldn't be agricultural. I don't want to get into that argument now but what I'm saying is that there is, I think, there is another area besides that area here where there is a lot of development going on and I would like to see them closely reviewed in order to assess their compatibility with future urbanization of the area and I would say let's apply that to A-2 as well. Oacy: So what you are saying is include the entire rural area? Erhart: No, A-2 and R-IA as in the proposed zoning ordinance. Oacy: Okay, but that is the entire rural area. Erhart: Well it is today because there isn't any A-I. eoacy: Again, the zoning districts may change and the comp plan is talking CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 3 _ in general so did you want to bend that somehow or what? Erhart: Yes, I would like to see it apply to more area. There is just a lot of development going down in my area down there and I'm just concerned that these things get assessed for compatibility with future urbanization with the guys up there and I really don't like 10 acre lots with the access every 300 feet. Conrad: How are you interpretting that paragraph? Dacy: I am interpretting that as saying that the proposed policy said development proposals would be closely reviewed in order to assess compatibility with future urbanization and only refers to the area between the Chanhassen MUSA line and the Metropolitan Council MUSA line. Conrad: And you want to expand that? Dacy: You really don't want to specify and just say that it is the policy throughout. Conrad: Yes, I like that. Dacy: I certainly agree. _Erhart: Can we suggest policy regarding the downtown area? Is there some way to add a little more strength to our feelings that we are trying to maintain a single downtown commercial area as opposed to having all kinds of little rural commercial areas? Do you guys have feelings on that? Conrad: I think that is the intent of the City and in order to establish Chanhassen's downtown area as the primary commercial.. Erhart: I guess that sort of says that. Siegel: I don't know how much stronger you could make that. We still can't retard development in a community the size of Chanhassen for commercial satellite businesses. Dacy: I think what the plan now says also is that it stresses the downtown development but we realize that there may be large PUD areas and I guess I am thinking of the Eckenkar piece that would have a neighborhood commercial center to serve the surrounding folks. Siegel: That is almost downtown though. Dacy: Even the area around TH 7 and TH 41, even though that is still up for grabs, we didn't want to preclude that. Conrad: It is kind of a wishy-washy statement. There is a lot of commas in _there and you sort of loose any kind of policy statement because of, in CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 4 e order to establish. I think maybe what we want to do is make it very clear that it is Chanhassen's intent to establish a downtown area as a primary community residents and surrounding trade area. I don't know as though that means anything. It sort of fakes me out. It waters down the original sentence but if that is meaningful to you Barbara, then you can keep that in there, surrounding trade area. Does that direct our development someplace? Does that direct the type of people we want? It seems just like words that don't have a whole lot of meaning to me but I will let you decide whether those are meaningful. Dacy: Okay, so you want to strengthen the sentence. Conrad: I would potentially strike "both communi ty residents and surrounding trade area". I don't know what that means. If I knew how that was interpretted into real action maybe I would leave it in there. Siegel: I think what is meant there is the trade area is not just Chanhassen. You've got a development in a primary downtown area that is less than a quarter mile from the border of Eden Prairie. That is the surrounding trade area without naming names because there is probably more potential shoppers from the developments going on in Eden prairie right now then there is from the developments going on in Chanhassen for the downtown area so that is why they are incorporating it. _conrad: So if we put that in there, what does that mean? How do you interpret that? I know what you are saying. We are not just supporting our local community but then what are we doing? Are we saying that we want to encourage visits from Eden prairie? Siegel: Absolutely. Conrad: So what are we going to do differently to do that? To encourage shopping business from Eden prairie? Siegel: It all depends on what happens with downtown Chanhassen. That is the whole purpose of the plans for downtown Chanhassen is to encourage trade coming in from the surrounding trade areas. Not just Chanhassen but Eden prairie particularly, to draw those residents into Chanhassen instead of the 7-Hi or to Eden prairie Shopping Center and that is the whole goal. Conrad: So you think it is meaningful to leave it in there? Siegel: Yes, I read it that way. Of course, it is also going to pull from the west and north and south. Erhart: I was coming at it from the point, let's say a guy wants to put in a gas station at TH 5 and TH 41. Then a gas station leads to a SuperAmerica. Conrad: I know exactly where you are coming from. I'm more comfortable e with where you are com i ng from. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 5 e Erhart: Maybe the words in addition to these words say we want to discourage commercial development. Jay Johnson: You want to discourage the secondary? the City to have smaller secondaries. It would be good for Conrad: I think it is real good to say that a very positive statement. We really do want to keep everything a core city but I don't think we want to make a statement to the surround ing... Dacy: What will happen too, at the next regular meeting on the 27th, Fred Hoisington of Benshoof will update you on the broadened study area traffic report and will review the status of the downtown redevelopment plan, CHADDA, the concept plan because what we intend to do is adopt the broadened study transportation plan as part of the comprehensive plan because it really analyzes the whole city. Also, it will refer more closely in the text to the revised concept plan for the downtown and strengthen what is in the Land Use text section. Everything has been dove tailing perfectly in the process because we have about three separate processes going on at once so I think it will be clear in other parts of the plan. Siegel: I just had one question, maybe this is for Barbara. As we look at a Comprehensive Plan and we look at the rural service area and Chanhassen's a role in the metro area, we tend to sort of forget that Chaska is to our ., southwest and south and that it is also a growing community and so is Shakopee and they are all bordering. We have had occasion where we have considered properties that are really closer to Shakopee or Chaska or even Victoria, to look at those as rural service areas. Are are looking at those in relationship to the growth that is going on in the adjoining communities? One of the things that I thought of as I read through the material is that Assumption Seminary potential historical site development. Here it is really, it is much closer when we think of downtown Chanhassen, it is much closer to downtown Chaska as a draw but it is actually in Chanhassen. Are we looking at those kinds of things and what is the relationship between those border areas? I know that one time that we considered that triangular piece of property that somebody wanted to develop into a cold storage thing and because there was no sewer or water down there we denied it. What is the relationship to those kinds of things with hook-ups to Chaska's systems as a more feasible alternative as opposed to hooking up to Lake Ann Interceptor? Dacy: Chaska is defined by the Met Council as a free standing growth center and they have their own sewer system, etc. but they are governed by the Metro Waste Control Commission so they have their own MUSA line around the i r Ci ty and they are under the same rules tha t we are. Shakopee down to the south to Jackson township, their urban service area is on the south side of the river so the river forms the boundary. Over in this area 11m not sure how the boundary relates to Chanhassen other than I know they are on it's own treatment plant agreement so as to how Chaska relates to ~Chanhassen is that the rural service area abuts the Chanhassen border in CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 6 e this location and down by the substation site across the street, that is the Jonathon Industrial Park and that is all served but as you go south then it does become not served by water and sewer. You are right because you have technically an urban area here and an urban area here so what happens in between? Do you go together or do you still want to maintain this strip as a rural area and keep that separation? Siegel: I guess that goes back to your point about trying to put some A-l in that area when really nobody wants it. Erhart: Nobody wants A-l? Siegel: Nobody wants A-l really. Dacy: Because they see pressure from all sides and a good example of that is we have been having a lot of requests at TH 41 and TH 5 because Chaska Investment Company has an Industrial Park property and they own all that property up to TH 5 so people have been coming in asking what is the possibility of a commercial area at that intersection now. Well, it is completely outside of our service area at this time and will be until the year 2000 and commercial uses in the rural area on septic systems is not going to be looked on favorably by the Met Council because they will have to go through a Land Use Plan Amendment to change that from agricultural to a commercial so you are asking a very good questions. Where do we draw the .line? Siegel: Are we getting any kind of feedback from like Chaska to hook up to their sewer and water systems in any of those areas? Like the Gedney, they are hooked up in the municipal in Chaska? Dacy: No, they have their treatment on-site. The only area that may be incorporated into Chaska is a portion of land on TH 41. Merle Volk has always talked about deannexing his property so he could be served by Chaska for industrial. Again, for Chaska to expand their urban service area, they have to get Met Council approval and that is doubtful until everything is filled out or they do a land swap. Siegel: You would think it would be to their benefit too because they have adjoining properties that are going under development like Colonial on 169 there over 212. That is kind of at a standstill down there because no sewer or water is available. Dacy: Also, as a major freeway, do we want to be creating more commercial activity and more interruption onto a major road? As the plan is now, it is very clear that the community wanted to keep this rural, period. Now, is it a question that maybe you want to maintain that and with the density requirement that is pretty much establishing it. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 7 e Conrad: Do you see any change in the policies based on your thought. I see one that applies. It is about the fourth one in. Establish a land use pattern which reflects compatibility with adjoining developments. That policy applies internally with Chanhassen but you could also expand that to other communities. I guess I am looking for a way... Siegel: phrase it? I thought we should be looking at what the adjoining properties are being zoned for. Dacy: We can follow up on that because we are required by State Law to notify adjacent communities of any type of amendment to the Comp Plan so we can very easily direct Mark or do it in-house to follow up on that. Get an update on where they are since their Plan adoption. Siegel: I don't know if this would effect any part of our overall zoning ordinance recommendations but we've got a lot of that territory zoned R-1A and we can say that we are 90% sure that a lot of that is not going to be single family homes 25 years from now. Dacy: We are not sure that area that water and sewer is going to be served and it should be zoned for agricultural and single family until urban services become available then the City at that time can move to rezone the property. ~siegel: Even if the adjoining community has it zoned as industrial? Dacy: Correct because Chaska can not extend beyond that boundary. That is their MUSA. They can't go beyond that. Jay Johnson: You really have a good point there that some dialogue between the two cities on that. It really does appear to be to the betterment of Chanhassen and tothe betterment of Chaska to save time if the two cities aren't talking about the possibility of extending their MUSA line a little bit out of their town could help their town as much as help us and some dialogue there... Dacy: If it was up to Chaska and Chanhassen to extend their MUSA line, believe me they would do it but it is the Met Council that decides that. They are under the same restr ictions that Chanhassen is and there is no possibility of that line enlarging. Jay Johnson: If we take the attitude that there is no possibility that something can occur, it will not occur. I'm not into it enough to know and you have fought that more than I have but I think Bob had a good point. Dacy: I agree and we will follow up on that. Siegel: I don't know where you would put that. Do you just make sure that we are in communications with adjoining communities' zoning actions? I e know we are going to have a lot of things come up along TH 212 and I guess CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 8 _ we have already had 2 or 3 in the last six months and now we've got the other one that was supposed to be on tonight. That Assumption Seminary thing which to me sounds like it would make an ideal historical monument. If somebody can do something with it but if we say no, they can't do it because it is R-lA. It is completely opposite of what exists there or did even exist in 1909 when they built it. Dacy: Ladd, you had pointed out that policy "to establish land use pattern which reflects compatibility with adjoining developments". We could expand that to say adjoining developments and adjacent communities. Conrad: That is where it would logically fit in. Now, "residential neighborhoods should be planned and developed with pedestrian ways connecting homes with schools, open spaces, commercial and industrial centers and other significant features", whatever that means. Dacy: Sidewalks. Conrad: That's what we call sidewalks. Isn't that a funny way of not saying something but again, as we develop. That was a conscious decision not to put sidewalks in out here or ways to move and I think this policy, I believe that there should be ways to move people and now is the time to do it. That statement either should be off or on and if it is on there ~should be some execution of that as we look at PUD's and look at the ~developments coming in. Right now everyone is coming in. There are no sidewalks that are moving people one way or another. There are some trails. We've got a trail system that I have yet to see materialize a great deal but I think some people take satisfaction in the fact that we are putting in a trail system someday but really I guess I would like to. Erhart: What do we have now? Conrad: We have nothing. There is no motivation to put sidewalks in Chanhassen. Erhart: What is the trail system that we have now? Conrad: A series of connecting links between the lakes basically and as areas develop then those little pathways are being converted. Erhart: You mean they are easements now? Conrad: They are primarily easements aren't they Barbara? Dacy: We will obtain trail easements or a dedicated space to the City. Erhart: We're not putting in through movements at this time? Dacy: The major reason that we're not doing a paved trail is because of _the maintenance. Chanhassen is 23 square miles and about 1/2 of that is in CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 9 e the urban service area and if we end up with an extensive trail system, that is a tremendous amount of maintenance cost so what has been established is the designation of a trail system with a wood chip trail. Conrad: I think it is a real mistake that we don't. We've hi t in some of the new developments south of TH 5, as we are trying to move people from the development to the park. We are telling them, hit the streets folks. We want you to walk in the streets to get over to that park and I think with this policy statement in there, it doesn't make sense. Streets are not a way that you move walkers. Dacy: I th i nk wha t a good comprom i se m igh t be is tha t the developer s are going to come back and say cost, cost, cost and that is true but what a compromise could be in looking at sidewalks. On one side of the street of a major street going through a development, like in Chan Hills that would have been Lake Susan Drive, then try to set up an overall pattern. Conrad: I think we should. That doesn't mean a sidewalk on every street. I think on a major connecting... Erhart: You've got a good point there. When you get to the point when you require all developers to put in a sidewalk on the major roads but then you negotiate with them that they can put that sidewalk on a trail off the _ road in the event the City wanted it but if you had it required on the ..,major roads then that expense would be required. Dacy: It is not so much the installation of the trail cost that we are concerned about as the long term maintenance. Erhart: I understand that but are you saying that the developers are opposing the trail easements? Dacy: No, they are opposing sidewalks because it adds to the cost of the home, etc, and it is true. Conrad: I'm not saying sidewalks on every block. I'm just saying from major centers of residential development there may be one sidewalk that leads to downtown and we might call it a bikeway, we might call it a walkway and I don't know as though we require that throughout all of the 23 miles of Chanhassen but I think it is real foolish that right now we have the major opportunity of having just a few sidewalks where we can't connect people to downtown, this glorious thing that we are building and what we are doing is weare forcing them out. Erhart: I agree with that but are you suggesting that they put in sidewalks now or just reserve the land for it? Conrad: I don't know how to do it. What I am doing is challenging the e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 10 e policy statement. I like it but basically that policy statement has been there for, the only way you can justify that statement is that we talk about a trail system which connects parks and doesn't really connect us to downtown. Siegel: Have we ever required based on that? Conrad: No. Siegel: Why not? Conrad: It has been the City policy not to. Siegel: Is it that the developers won't do it? Dacy: The Council has kind of an informal policy that they would look at sidewalks on major streets through the subdivisions but historically they have not required them. Siegel: Has there been any discussion about exchanging a PUD requirement that as a benefit versus dedication of park land? Dacy: That might be a good idea. e Siegel: I agree whole heartedly wi th you that sidewalks are becoming a thing of the past in Chanhassen anyway. Sidewalks are in communities that exist from 1890 and they are being used. Dacy: Do you want to add "on major streets" after "pedestrian ways"? Conrad: Yes, I want it real clear however we word that and I think that is real significant. Erhart: Have we done anything on this? I thought what I heard here was the City can't afford to maintain upgraded walkways to date so they elected not to require yet at the same time it would seem to me that I am hearing everyone wants to make provisions by use of easements or whatever else, PUD's have in the future so why don't we add a little more strength to this which is what I think you were suggesting and say, rather than say what should be planned and developed with pedestrian ways or provisions for future pedestrian ways connecting homes with schools. Dacy: Are you talking about trail easements or sidewalks? Erhart: I'm talking about trail easements. Dacy: Okay, were you talking about trail easements or sidewalks? Conrad: I really don't care, both. I'm talking about both and right now I e don't see the trail easements as solving anybody's problems of moving back CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 11 e and forth in a community on foot. Erhart: At least if we do that in the future we can put cement in when we got it and what I'm hearing is somehow Council said we can't afford the maintenance of the cement at this time which does cost money but as a Planning Group let's at least make provisions so that in the future when we have a higher tax base the land has already been set aside. Siegel: The sidewalks would be maintained by the property owners wouldn't it? Dacy: The sidewalks would be part of the boulevard area which would be maintained by the City. What I'm saying as far as maintenance costs in the trail easements. For example, Chan Hills where you require an easement between two lot lines going down to the wetland area. Do you want a paved surface going down into a wetland area that let's additional impervious surface runoff and so off. We would also want to encourage a natural setting for the trail easement. I thought you were talking about sidewalks more than trails. Conrad: I was talking about sidewalks because I don't see that the current trail plan is really moving people in the right direction. They are moving them from park to park and I could be wrong, but they aren't moving them to ~downtown. Eden prairie has some nice asphalt little sidewalks along some "'of the main roads. That is kind of what I'm thinking. Siegel: If we are talking about the City being liable for the maintenance, I was assuming the adjoining property owners would be responsible for it and this would insure that they be responsible for the upkeep especially in Minnesota and a concrete sidewalk. I would hesitate to recommend to the City putting in miles and miles of sidewalk and have to maintain it after a freezing rain and then be liable if anyone slips and falls on that sidewalk. I think it is up to the adjoining property owner who is closest to the improvement to take care of it like they do in the central city. I don't know why because it is on the boulevard the City would be responsible for maintaining it. Conrad: I think the difference is when you are in the City, everyone has a sidewalk so everyone has to take care of it but here not everybody is going to have, there is going to be very little sidewalk but there is going to be sidewalk taking you from Chaparral into downtown or on Kerber Blvd. or whatever it might be. There should be a sidewalk there so who maintains it? So it seems rather unfair that on just those few streets that the residents have to maintain it when it is for total public people moving. I don't know as though I have an answer for it. Siegel: It's a more complicated issue than I thought. Conrad: Yes, it really becomes that and I think the City's position has e always been, let's just get park space rather than anything else, or a CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 12 e dedication fee. That is easy to get but I just get real upset that here we have a chance to take a look at how people are going to walk and bicycle and move around. Dacy: I guess to answer Tim's question, Mark will be working with the Park and Rec Commission on their new extended trail system and those things will be defined as which one will be a paved bikeway, which would be a sidewalk, which would be a landscaped rock or whatever. Mark Koegler: The existing plan works for general in that regard. It did call for linking anything that was described as a key facility whether that be a park or downtown or whatever it might be. Since that time there have been a couple of petitions. Recently, particularly in the western half of the City that residents are asking for bituminous bikeways/walkways. Prior to going that step and saying yes, let's do that, the Park and Rec Commission wanted to take a comprehensive look and we basically included that as one of the recreational elements in looking at the nuts and bolts approach. I don't think it is going to be any easier for them to wrestle with then what you are starting here tonight but they do seem willing to take on the charge and they are going to be concerned with maintenance costs and how maintenance is going to be performed and what type of facility will be run for that and so forth so they will be addressing that as part of the park element. _conrad: Okay, but we have it right now in our comprehensive plan so when you say that "they" will be. That always worries me. We have it right here and they are not looking at this so if we keep that statement in here as a policy then how are we going to carry it out? You are saying the Park and Rec is going to look at it. Well, how are we going to carry that policy out in the rest of the comprehensive plan? Mark Koegler: There mayor may not be overlapping interests. I think it is presumptuous on my part to sit here and tell you that they are going to be interested in connecting everything to downtown for example. Maybe they are only interested in connecting park to park as you mentioned. I don't know. All I can tell you this evening is that they singled that out as one item that they specifically wished to addressed. In what form that takes I guess we will find out in the next couple of months but they will be addressing one aspect of that, I would agree with you. It is probably a bigger issue. Conrad: So what is going to happen? How do we deal with this? Are we going to leave this statement in and it is just going to sit there? Dacy: The recreation chapter is going to be reviewed by the Park and Rec Commission and we have a number of items to review as part of the Comprehensive process. We can bring, after Park and Rec is done, we can easily bring information back to the Planning Commission to reevaluate it. _ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 13 - Conrad: So moving people is not transportation, is that right? Moving people on walkways, is that a transportation issue or is that a park issue? What is that issue? Dacy: Probably both. Conrad: So when we get to the transportation section will we be reviewing this? Dacy: It is primarily the park area that defines the trails. Conrad: This is sidewalk, not even a trail. You're just specific now. Now that you are putting it to me that way it is getting out of our control when you say trails. Mark Koegler: You are challenging an issue that is probably left dormant either intentionally or unintentionally the first time around and I think at that time the Planning Commission just said anything that was part of the trails, we will let the Park people handle that, they can come back with recommendations and we're not going to critique that too much. We'll just pass that onto the Council and that is in essence what has occurred. There wasn't really a lot of dialogue between the Planning Commission and the Park Commission on the park element. That may be something where a it is going to have to be ironed out a little more thoroughly this time .. around. Conrad: Okay. Would you take the message from us to them and say that we are real interested in how, not only moving them from park to park but what their recommendation would be to us as far as moving people from residential communities into downtown and commercial. I'm interested in their perspective. If they don't want to deal with it, I would like to hear that. If they would like to deal with it, that's good. Jay Johnson: Could you put schools in there too. Conrad: Yes, that is natural. Jay Johnson: That is my wife's biggest concern is the kids on the street in the winter. Conrad: What I'm looking for is a way to execute our policy. The policy is there but we're not doing anything about it. We're doing some things about it, I'm making a bad generalization but I think there should be more things. Erhart: The wording on that last one on that page is inconsistent with the wording on the other ones. It is typed in afterwards. I don't know why it was typed in. e Dacy: Which one now. Which page, what page. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 14 _ Erhart: Page 10. You just want to look at the wording. Obviously it is written by a different author and is inconsistent with the wording with the rest. Dacy: Do you want it removed, is that it? Erhart: No, it is just inconsistent with the wording with the rest of it. It starts out with "Because" and has all these reasons. The other ones are not all that, they are just policy statements. You put it down as a policy and then it will be consistent with the rest. Discussion of Amendment of planned Unit Development Regulations. Conrad: Let's just go through this thing sequencially. Tonight we're not acting in an official capacity but maybe we can air some things and I have something that I presented as far as a variation to what she has presented here. Going through the Staff Report, anything under the Analysis Item 1 or 2? I guess specifically 2, Establishment of Minimum Lot Size. Does anyone care with 12,000. Siegel: I have a real problem with doing that. _conrad: Do you just have a problem in general? Siegel: No, it doesn't seem to fit with the whole concept of having PUD's and that is to allow the developer to be creative in the design of the community in which he is working. In other words, he has a plot of ground and now he has to work with it. Now, what is he going to do with it if he comes up with strange lot shapes and all this stuff. All I'm saying is, I foresee if we should put a minimum lot size of like 12,000 square feet into the requirements, that we are going to be bombarded with variance requests on every PUD for special occasions. In almost everyone or at least 90% are going to come in with a variance to get by with it. In other words, are we making more work or are we trying to get less work out of this minimum. Conrad: Is that your feeling Barbara? On this one specific, don't generalize from this, but if we put a minimum, what do you think is going to happen? Dacy: I guess through the past year and a half, I don't see the Council issuing a variance. I can understand your point that we will have requests and we will have developers in here saying, well, I've got 11,500. What is 500 square feet but the Council appears to be adamant that they want to establish a minimum lot size to establish consistency between development rules. This is the major reason for the limit. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 15 e Siegel: Yes, I know but I don't really see it lasting for too long a time before it is changed. Dacy: If this passed with the 12,000 square foot minimum lot size, developers come in and meet with Staff. We are very blunt. We can show them the Minutes and say, look if it is not completely justified by some unusual circumstance, they are not going to approve anything below the 12,000 square feet. Conrad: I think it will cut down on a whole lot of conversation and that is what they are trying to do. That is what Pat is trying to do and the Council backs her up on some of these points. Let's make it crystal clear because what they have done in the past through their decisions is to make things crystal clear. There has been variation and they have been caught. Siegel: How did that development with 62 lots below 12,000 square feet get approved within the last year? If the Council was in this frame of mind this last year. Dacy: Near Mountain went in first, Fox Hollow, Hidden Valley, Triple Crown, Chan Hills and Chan Vista. with each development the minimum lot size steadily increased with each development. _ Siegel: For what reason though? "'neighborhood or citizen pressure? Because was it the developer, the Dacy: They felt with the lot size issue, in the case of Near Mountain, Fox Hollow and Hidden Valley, that they have done their part as far as creating smaller lots. They feel they have made their contribution in that overall metro area concept to provide... Siegel: Then I go back to my statement before I was relating, what are we doing on this huge community by the name of Chanhassen that has all these borders with surrounding communities and we are going to be having industrial development in some of those areas and commercial on the outer sides of those because of developments in those areas, are we going to be strapped in to not having any more lots in Chanhassen under 12,000 square feet even though they are next to Chaska lots that are 9,500? Dacy: Yes. Siegel: That is my point. I'm looking at the long picture here and how can we put this into a policy in the scope of looking at the total future of the development of Chanhassen? Dacy: That is what you have to discuss. The Council is coming back and saying 12,000 is it. Siegel: Yes, it is fine if you had problems because it really wasn't the ~ Council that initiated the discussion. It was the citizenry of Chanhassen CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 16 e that pointed square feet. we are being the whole 23 out that they didn't really appreciate lots below 12,000 Some of the neighborhoods or adjoining neighborhoods but now asked to approve an overall policy of a minimum encompassing square miles of Chanhassen. Conrad: Basically it is already there in our Subdivision Ordinance, we have a minimum lot size. We already do, they are there except the PUD's so now we are going to take minimums that you already have in other areas and now we are going to plunk them in there so it's not really a new thing, we are just applying it to the PUD. Erhart: Why do we need PUD's. to ask here so I'll ask it. I think that is the question I was suppose Conrad: I like PUD's and I think you can negotiate with them. You can get some things for the City and you have seen in the last couple PUD's that have come in, I never knew what we were getting and I never knew how much we should get and what should we give. What is the trade and I could never make... e Erhart: I'm trying to figure out what there is to trade. If you take a park, they assume certain territory apparently and you can't develop on wetlands, what is left for the City to get and what are we trading up size for what? What can the developer give us? Is it these trees? Somehow I'm not so sure about that because we can control the trees in different ways so what is left to get. Dacy: Okay, you want to start at the traditional definition of the PUD and then you can go from there. PUD's were created as an outgrowth of all the growth occurring in the sub~rban areas. The intent is to preserve natural resources, stands of woods, ponds that are not protected by another governmental authority, some unique land feature in exchange for allowing the developer to increase in density and allowing to cluster, waiving all the standard subdivision requirements and his trade-off being that he would save costs in that a 90 foot lot width is now reduced to 60 or 50 or whatever. Back to the City is that those natural resources are preserved. You can also interpret that the reduced street lights, the utility lines are also a benefit to the City in that we don't have to maintain as much so there is a long term benefit in that interpretation but I think what Ladd is saying is that the City hasn't been too sure of what exactly they were getting in return. Erhart: That's because I don't understand what is left to get anymore. We already regulate the wetland areas, the Park already comes in and says you have to give me some land. Am I wrong on that? I'm not sure I understand this Park thing. e Dacy: In the case of Chanhassen Hills, that 7.8 acre parkland. There was no monetary exchange. What the trade-off was is that the park fees were reduced 50%. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 17 e Erhart: Okay, so they can negotiate there. Conrad: Some other things. Creative design so all the streets aren't parallel so maybe there is some uniqueness in there. We could really regulate housing variety. Say the developer comes in with four house styles and we say that just isn't enough for the 300 you want to put in there. We would like eight house styles. Solar access. We could regulate or grant things that if the housing styles were taking into solar considerations. I think if they improve the transitional areas. Think of all the problems we have heard in the last month or two. You can, in essence, encourage the developer to solve those problems if you have this give and take. In other words, maybe if the developer solves the transition from neighborhood 1 and neighborhood 2 and has exactly the same lot sizes, you grant them a reduction in the density or an increase in the density. live got a list of things that are important to me that I think can be negotiated with that are above and beyond the typical negotiating thing. The trail easement for the sidewalk. I think that is a good one. If we want sidewalks in Chanhassen or want a sidewalk that leads from Chaparral to downtown, let's give the developer something for doing it. Let's let that density go down or increase and let's compensate him for putting in that asphalt or dedicating the land or whatever he wants to do. e Dacy: You hit on the mixture of uses idea which heretofore we have not seen yet in Chanhassen. Because of the market situation, the market is saying that people want single family, detached homes rather than attached homes so we have been seeing more of those developments but Ladd is right. Traditionally, there is a mixture of the single family, townhomes, apartment buildings. Well, the old Lake Susan West and Lake Susan South plans. Classic example of a PUD. Siegel: Couldn't it be that the pressure is not in the plan because we don't give a minimum size for a PUD in area. We only have a unit minimum, right? If you have, for instance, like Eden prairie they have 40 acre minimum, if you have a 40 acre minimum on a PUD that means they have to consider 40 acres whereupon they have to include a much larger area then maybe what some of these developments in Chanhassen have been and they have to include areas that they have to build multi-family units because nobody is going to buy a single family home in that portion of that 40 acres or build apartment units on a portion next to the highway because nobody is going to buy a single family home next to that highway. In other words, if we have a minimum area wise, we probably would be getting more PUD's with a mixture rather than just single family homes tucked away in this little area with a pond. Dacy: Actually, Chan Vista, Hidden Valley and all of them are around 80 acres anyway. Chan Hills was 121 and they wanted to subdivide into single family detached. e Siegel: Of course those are all R-l zoned areas anyway. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 18 e Dacy: Right but they still have the right to apply for a PUD. So what I'm saying is that the minimum acreage size. The Commission discussed it before and you felt that you didn't want to set a minimum because there may be a 25 acre piece that may have some unique areas on it that you might want to negotiate with so in the proposed ordinance a minimum acre site was not set for zoning requirement. The intent here is that have the applicant prove that it is a PUD and not require it to be a PUD and just call it a PUD j~st because it has 50 acres. Erhart: I think that is one of the funniest things about this whole thing is that if the idea is to stimulate the developer to come up with creative programs, then require it to be a PUD from the City's side is sort of self defeating. They should convince you first that the thing qualifies for a PUD. Dacy: and if it doesn't then he's got to go back to the zoning ordinance. Erhart: What I'm hearing is you are so I won't argue, then moving along. couldn't understand why we would put of in the developer's... all convinced that PUD's are the thing I guess that was one thing that I a requirement on it that's taken care e Conrad: And the developers would love that. They don't know what we want. Let me show you something that I typed up that makes sense to me. This is a way to approach it and Barbara hasn't seen this and she will probably say that isn't administratively possible. I don't mind some of the things that Pat put out there just because they are guidelines but I hate a lot of numbers. I'm not really wild about her 50, 20, 20 and 10 because I think that totally takes away any flexibility from the developer and doesn't really solve the problem. I don't think the problem can be solved with numbers but I would accept some of the things that she is talking about. 50% of the lots greater than 15,000 square feet; a minimum lot size of 12,000 and if you take those two numbers together, that is going to guarantee an average lot size of 13,500. The way I figure it, given those two, that 15,000 square feet for 50% of the lots and even if all the rest of the 50% are at 12,000, you are going to balance out at 13,500 which is basically 1,500 feet under the current 15,000 square foot subdivision standard in a residential area. So what I'm saying is if we don't mind those things, let's tell the developer how they can get down to that 12,000 square foot lot size and what we would do is give them a bonus for things that the City perceives to be important. I'm not sure what the right numbers are but if the 1,500 smaller lots which we could grant based on Pat Swenson's numbers, that is a 10% reduction on that lot size. How do you get to that 10%. I'm saying there are some things that if a developer did those things, housing variety, what I thought since I typed this, maybe it's not 1, maybe it's 3 points. Maybe we allow more points out there then what I just said. Maybe one item alone is enough to be awarded that whole 10%. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 19 e Dacy: If they get, based on your goals and points, if the developer proves that he is getting 10 points, then what is reduced? The minimum lot size? Conrad: Then square feet. automatically to earn that. I am saying that you can have 50% of your lots in 12,000 In other words, I'm not saying that they are granted a reduction from the 15,000 square foot lot size. They have Dacy: You're saying that everything has to be 15,000 square feet unless you can show housing variety, creative design, etc.. Conrad: Right, and that's the point of a PUD. The PUD is give and take. Creative design. All they have to do is say that it is creative design. Sombody's got to agree, planning staff has to agree that that is creative design. I'm not suggesting that these are the 10 points here either. I think the City Council should say the five top most important things to us are, and put those five down there. Maybe they won't be those five but that way it reflects straight back to the goals of the City Council so if the City Council wants to encourage natural area above and beyond what is normally required by any of our regulations, they can encourage that through these points or standards, whatever we want to call them. e Dacy: This is very similar to what the City of Plymouth does. They base it on another system but the concept of awarding points or bonuses based on certain things has been done. Conrad: It gets away from strict regulations. The 50, 20, 20 and 10 which I really don't like. I think that is contradictory to a PUD. Taking all the creativity away and if we buy that we want it averaged out at 15,000 in the City of Chanhassen and we agree that that 12,000 is probably the minimum that we are comfortable with. Let's tell the developers what we look to so he can get down to that 12,000 to earn half of his lots at 12,000 square foot lot sizes. Dacy: So the 10% is, I just want to make sure I understand it. If you have 100 lots and say you got 10 points, then 50% would be 15,000 or above and 50% would be l2,000? Conrad: He could actually have 50% at 12,000 square foot lots. He earned the right to have half the lots at 12,000 but if he only got 8 points, then he would basically only have an 8% increase versus a 10% increase. Erhart: Then his average lot size would have to be 13,800 square feet. what you are doing when you award points is regulating the overall effect. Dacy: I understand that. What I'm confused about is the 10% because if say the remaining 50% becomes 12 and 5, are you saying the 10% of the average lot size would be reduced? So the 10% is applying to an average lot size. we e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 20 e Conrad: Under Pat's formula, the 50, 20, 20 and 10, the average lot size would be 14,300. Under my formula, potentially the average lot size would be significantly less than Pat's. Jay Johnson: I totally agree with you and I am also one of the most verbal persons against the very small lot sizes. My thoughts have been the maximum for things below 13,000 in the 12,000 range would be 20, 20, 10. In other words, 20% could be less than 13,000; 40% could be less than 14,000 and 50% could be less than 15,000. So if 50% is over 15,000 and you give them the total 13,000 size range you have 20% at, then the 12,000 to 14,000 size range you would have 40% of the lots at and 15,000 you would have 50% of the lots at. It is a little more creative than what Pat is doing so if Pat reverses her, it would be more like a 50, 10, 20, 20. It still gives them a lot more creativity. I think her's is far too restrictive, I agree with what you are saying. I love your point system because is that was my number 2 point is how do we judge what we giving us. Your point system, I haven't seen it but it sounded good. e Conrad: Somebody has to make that decision and I think City Council has to decide what they want in this City and it is not wait until a developer comes in. What is the City looking for? We complain a lot but let's put our objectives up front and if we want the PUD to have certain things in it, we are going to reward them for it. I feel really, in the worse case, my scale takes the average lot size down to like 13,800 versus Pat's 14,300 and I guarantee it is not perceptible. The difference in those lots to the naked eye, you can't see it. There is no difference but what we would do, and remember we are just talking about lot sizes here, we're not talking about the rest of that parcel. There may be some open space that maybe they would give them some open, well, we grant them reduction in lot size because they gave open space for the communi ty. There are so many things if we want them. Let's at least dangle, if we buy the PUD concept at all, let's dangle a little carrot out in front of them. Right now I didn't see any carrots, to tell you the truth, other than simply closing down the PUD process or making it so restrictive that we don't have any development here. Dacy: I think that maybe the Commission should go a step further and make a recommendation. Conrad: And they can react to it because they can always fall back to Pat's guidelines. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 21 e Siegel: I just have one question about your point system here. Do they have to come up with 10 points? Conrad: No. If they only come up with 3, we grant them 3% increase in density so it is all based on how many points and if you felt that developing. Howie likes solar, he's a big solar nut and brick is good and everybody should build with brick so I put 1 point in. Dacy: If you could identify out of these goals what your top 5 are, and we will key the rest in there because I think they are all good. We will go back and refine it and we will get existing plans and evaluate if it is administratively possible. I think it is. Erhart: I see the mechanism would be is you come in here with a development and you would show us your analysis of this and we would have the opportunity to laugh at you or whatever. Dacy: No, you're not going to be laughing at me, you're going to be laughing at the developer because we are going to take this and say, you've got to meet these things, you meet these things and this is what you will get. e Erhart: It still comes down to a judgment in whether his presentation requires I point or 2 points. Conrad: See, I don't know how to handle that one. Erhart: That's what I'm trying to walk through here. I think you ought to do that. Take the first pass at it, then when the development proposal comes in, we basically have the opportunity to view your judgment on the plan and we have the opportunity to reject him. You get to learn what we are looking for to get it to want something and after a while the process will work. Dacy: What will be critical in the first stage of the process is the general concept plan stage which is similar to what the sketch plan is now except it is a public hearing process and if they go through that and Commission and Council say go back to the drawing board, then I think it is a little more clear in this process whereas before it was, we'll see you when you are formally a plot. Jay Johnson: In putting in a point system, the City goes right into the ordinance and chisels something in concrete. Instead of saying here are the points or this is going to be what your judgment is based on this amount, and you have to change the ordinance to make a change in the points or something. Things change so could you possibly say that Council will prepare a priority list and decide the points. This would be part of the ordinance that says that you have priority listed, the Council will do this and annually review the priority list to keep it up to date with what is happening in the world. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 22 e Conrad: I think that is valid. I don't know if it is technically the way to do it but I do like that because again, it puts it back on City Council to communicate on a yearly basis what the community's priorities are and they do change. Sometimes we like development and sometimes we don't and it is based on a whole bunch of stuff and I think the Council should go through it. What this does is puts a lot more pressure on the Council to be more up-front with a developer and what we are requiring and I think it should change but I don't k~ow if we change the ordinance every year or if these are outside the ordinance. Dacy: Essentially what could be incorporated is language like "the City may have the right based on submission of a particular application to amend the above schedule of points based on it's location". Jay Johnson: Location makes a lot of difference. Dacy: Exactly because you may not need a park in one area, and if that gets 5 points then they will have the right to only award 1. Jay Johnson: They might need additional drainage like between the Triple Crown and Chan Vista, there is where the guy got some points because he has agreed to help pay for the new pond on the other side. Somehow you have to give him points for that. It is going to be a hard system to do but it is necessary. e Erhart: Why don't you see what Plymouth does? Dacy: There's is a little more intricate because, it is hard to explain now, but it is a concept that can be done. Jay Johnson: Are there other towns that do it too? Dacy: Yes, quite a few. Conrad: I think this concept could work. Whether administratively it could work. Dacy: I think at least it should be tried. Conrad: Again, this is just off the surface and I don't know if we need to put points down there. The ultimate would be for City Council to determine points and maybe some of these are worth 5 points so let's say somebody comes in with a drainage plan that is really important and we are only going to give him 1 point, so those are the intricatcies that I don't know. That wouldn't encourage a very good drainage plan if they are only going to increase their density by 1% or whatever it is so I guess I would like you to think about an easy administrative way of handling that. Maybe the points can be arranged or maybe they just have a maximum of 3 no matter what. I guess I would like you both to consider that and tell us what seems to make sense and if there are other goals that should be down there. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 23 e Those are just off the top that I saw. Dacy: You are all agreeing that we eliminate the requirement for a PUD on number 1 there. All Planning Commission members agreed. Dacy: Then minimum lot size of 12,000. Conrad: Well, let's keep going. Bob's not real comfortable with that but let's keep running with that and you can vote it down but let's keep it there for a bit. Dacy: So your point system would replace then what we have under number 3. Jay Johnson: There are also other things in a PUD besides lot size that you are giving away. You are giving away lot width. In Chan vista they had some lot widths down in the 60 foot range. They had some 60 footers lined up together and it is a very undesirable situation so you could have a point system saying, if you want decreased lot width, this is your debits or whatever. Here are your credits, we are giving you these points in credits, what are your debits that will balance it. Here's what we are giving you, what do you want from us. Setbacks. They want 25 foot setbacks. They could have realigned their roads and had 30 foot setbacks but it was cheaper to get the 25 foot setbacks so there is a debit. e Dacy: Lot widths was one of the things I wanted to talk about because I didn't bring lot widths up before. Siegel: The widths of the property of the property. There may be some front lots that are very attractive. shaped lots so it all depends on the set. is all contingent on the overall design feasible construction with 60 foot Cul-de-sacs where there are pie design factor it is not necessarily Jay Johnson: Chan vista is the one that I am most familiar with, had some good examples of bad design from lot width standpoints. They put in as many lots as they could, as narrowly as they could. One side they had a very small percentage was at the 90 foot and almost everything under 90, the standard that you are looking at is 90 in whatever district it is, the single family district, 15,000, 90 foot width, and they had one section where they had four under 70 lined up together. They had a whole lot of 70's so they ended up with long narrow lots. When you look down the street, it is a different thing then what Chanhassen seems to be a little more rural than South Minneapolis or whatever where the houses are right up against each other. I'm not against giving a guy a 60 foot lot width as long as they don't line them all up together. They space them out along the entire development. It is creatively designed but there is on creativity. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 24 e Dacy: Maybe that would be another item under the goals. Do you want to set, as they do for a minimum lot size, a minimum lot width saying we will allow a reduction from the standard 90 but in no case shall a lot width shall not go below x feet. Siegel: What if somebody just wanted a 50 foot access to a property that was heavily wooded and use it just as a driveway up to their mansion? Jay Johnson: You put it where the house is. The lot width at the setback. Dacy: I have an assistant planner here who always takes the words out of my mouth. Usually in a flag lot situation, we look at the lot width at the building setback line. Also, on cul-de-sac lots, obviously at the street line you will have a reduced width but you could further define it as the interior lots, non cul-de-sac lots shall not fall below x amount of feet. The Council is going to be looking at that and saying approximatey 80 feet probably but I wanted to clarify with the Commission if you wanted to do that fine, if not. Conrad: Barbara, why don't we put in the 80 foot at the house. Density Transfer makes sense. Number 5, e Dacy: If we do go along with your proposed point system here, we can amend the language so things flow. The density transfer also because you are also referring to a density increase based on those goals. Conrad: The only thing I would say is to make very clear that we will only transfer buildable building lots. Erhart: Isn't this Density Transfer, couldn't you eliminate number 5 if we have a point system. Dacy: Probably. The only thing that I think we should keep is that the area of the density should be within the project area and only by the proposer so that there is no controversy. Todd Gerhardt: Ladd, in your proposal, say the developer gained these points, there is no way he could use those points to reduce the minimum lot size and come in and use those points to have smaller lots than the 12,000? Conrad: No. Dacy: That is an absolute. Conrad: In certain cities you can sell those density transfer rights or whatever. You can do that but I don't think we need to do that here. The definition of clear-cutting is what? e Dacy: Total removal. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 25 e Conrad: Of everything. Well, why don't we incorporate those few things. Dacy: Did you want me to go ahead and schedule the public hearing for the September 10th Planning Commission meeting. Maybe at the next regular meeting we could have a refined point system and we could talk about it but at least get the thing advertised. Erhart: Do we need to give some direction on some of these things? On preservation of wooded areas. Dacy: Do you have comments? Erhart: Have we really looked at the numbers and everything. Are you really comfortable with those? Dacy: Yes, we looked at other ordinances in Eden prairie, to be honest I lifted this from the Eden prairie ordinance because it seems to work in their city but to allow the City to replace the amount of trees removed on a caliper inch basis. That can be pretty heavy duty and really goes beyond our one boulevard tree per lot which is very minimal. I think it strengthens the City's position as to a trade-off and would maybe cause a developer to be a little more sensitive to heavy vegetated areas. e Erhart: We are not incorporating anything that a developer has to replace removed trees as I see it. Dacy: The Council may require replacement of any removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. Erhart: Are you going to include that? Dacy: Yes. They will have the right to require that. Jay Johnson: What if the developer has some trees that are really diseased or messed up or something or over 6 inches? Dacy: If they are dead or diseased then obviously they probably would be removed then we would have to look at the plan. Jay Johnson: Isn't there someplace in here to allow them to remove the trees that is damaged where it isn't going to be a good looking tree again? Dacy: I don't foresee that as a problem. Siegel: That is really regarding clear-cutting that is being controlled. It's not reforestation of the area. Erhart: You could get into the situation where there is a heavily wooded area where a guy wants to have an area where he mows it and it is open and e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 26 e he wouldn't be able to do that. Jay Johnson: Does this count for development or when the guy is putting his house in too? If you want to nestle your house in amongst the trees, you are going to take out some 6 inch trees. There are several beautiful lots where you can do that. You have to remove 4 or 5 trees but once you put the house in it isn't going to hurt anything. Siegel: Maybe we could improve on that by putting in an exception there. Erhart: There is an exception, "it shall be saved once it is demonstrated that there is no other feasible way of developing the site". Obviously, trees that are on the pad can be removed. Conrad: Again, it is back to definition. I don't know, clear-cutting. When I look at the section, wooded areas and clear-cutting. You put a house in there. I'm not interpretting that as clear-cutting. Taking down trees to me is not clear-cutting. Dacy: I can easily add a sentence that says dead or diseased vegetation are exempt from the replacement requirement and may be removed. Siegel: At the discretion of the developer? e Dacy: Exactly, if there are a bunch of elm there, this is not intended to prevent that. Erhart: You are saying that these are words from Eden Prairie's ordinance? Dacy: You bet. Erhart: Obviously it works there. Maybe it is very strict but people comply. The other thing, it would read a little easier if you would say that where the house pad goes, those trees can be removed. The other thing, your last sentence kind of dangles. I don't quite understand it. At least one shade tree per lot shall be incorporated into the plan, such tree shall be a minimum of 2 caliper inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height. Does that mean that the coniferous tree can be used as a shade tree or what does mean? Dacy: Good point. The intent is to have, as is now required, to have one tree per lot incorporated into the plan so it can be either a deciduous or coniferous tree, so maybe shade tree should be removed. Erhart: You made a statement that you thought that was rather minimal. I think it is too. Is this the time and place to increase that to two? e Jay Johnson: That's a VA requirement, I think is the same way. isn't it? To have two trees. FHA, CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING e AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 27 Dacy: You can consider increasing that to two or, what is the intent of the section also with the replacement, if they are going to remove some, that they replace and plant those trees, for exmaple, along the rear lot 1 ines to prov ide a break from maybe some of the decks or to put that in a double frontage situation so if you want to approach that from two ways. An overall landscaping plan, plus the boulevard trees. If you want to increase that to two, you have that perogative. Erhart: What about those guys out in the fields and there are no trees to begin with. Dacy: Chanhassen Hills. Excellent example. Erhart: Right now developers are more in tune to landscaping then they used to be. I'm wondering if Eden prairie is really strict in landscaping even in open areas. Was there maybe another section on that or something? Dacy: I don't recall reading anything in their ordinance. Conrad: Do what you want Tim. What do you want to do on that? Two trees on the boulevard or do you want to take Barbara's thoughts about the landscaping. ~ Erhart: If it can be done as an overall landscaping approach, I think that .., would be the preferred method. Dacy: A lot of people do a lot of their own landscaping anyway. It takes a while for the neighborhood to develop it's own character so if you require two per lot you could have an immediate impression. You are going to have an immediate landscaping plan. A 2 inch caliper tree isn't really a big one but they are expensive. Erhart: I think we should either increase it or come up with a more specific landscaping plan and maybe the developer that is starting commercial developments, he has to come in with that as part of the plan but then again that is where you are going to have to have a minimum requirement. Siegel: I just wonder if that would be a little too restrictive in putting these constants. If we've got all these other things going, we're still talking about PUD's? We've got a point system for creative design and all this stuff and I don't know as though we have to worry about whether we require preservation of woodland areas. The intent here is really to preserve the areas natural trees the best we can and include more that are built in there. Dacy: That could be another point. Installation of 2-3 boulevard trees, 5 points. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 28 e Siegel: Put it in the point system area instead of trying to be too restrictive in this one section. Erhart: This would be trees above and beyond what was already there. Jay Johnson: Another thing would be to say one should be 2 inch caliper, which is the expensive one. live planted a lot of trees that arenlt 2 inch. In fact, most of the trees on my lot wouldn't meet these requirements and live done extensive landscaping. Amendment to Ordinance No. 36, Section 3.13 for Off-Premise Temporary Directionar-Signs. ---- --- Dacy: We prepared an ordinance to allow off-premise directional signs for residential subdivisions and have come up with some proposed standards based on what Council action was on August 4, 1986 and based on what the Commission said at the last meeting. Again, we can easily call a public hearing and proceed. Staff is not whole-heartedly behind the amendment because we feel it may be opening the door too much for a lot of signs along what is going to end up as TH 5, the major entrance into the community. On the other hand though, it could work if we have strict enforcement and making sure that the designs of the signs are appealing. a Siegel: You know just 3 to 4 weeks ago we turned down a similar off- . premise sign for a development that was in Chaska but the sign was on owned property by the developer in Chanhassen and the Council agreed with that one. They turned that guy down too but Klingelhutz comes in and he gets his off-premise sign. Now, to me this is not being consistent. Was it industrial? Conrad: Yes, that is the one difference. Whether that was the key reason bu t . . . Dacy: I disagree. I think in ei ther case it is off-premise. allowed under any... It wasn't Siegel: I was going to say. I read this over pretty thoroughly and I'm going to go along with Staff on this. I think you should go back to your original ordinance definition which I whole-heartedly agree with and disallow these off-premise signs and petitions for them. One of the things that bothers me about them is that Chanhassen is starting to pop up with all these signs and into the downtown area, when we start going with this downtown area, if we donlt start getting consistent with this sign ordinance, I don't know what we are going to end up with out on TH 5 directing people into downtown shopping areas and what people come in with to request variances for. I better get real strict with it. I know that is sort of a turn around from my standpoint. We either got to say one thing and mean it. It is becoming every meeting one of these things is coming in. I was at the Council meeting, it sort of washed through. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 29 e Conrad: You might swing my vote but we can't do anything tonight. The only th i ng we wan ted to do was to see if there were any changes tha t we wanted to incorporate into here. We asked Staff to prepare this for us. We generated this. Dacy: Yes. When Bob was there they were asking about your proposed amendment and he said that yes, they had directed us to prepare an amendment and they said yes, good, we're supportive of that and continue the process. Conrad: We'll wait on action on that until we have a quorum. Erhart: What are you recommending? I don't see that you are recommending anything. Dacy: If it is going to be approved, we have come up with seven items that the sign would ha ve to comply with bu t we are recommend i ng tha tit not be implemented. Erhart: I have a question then. Number 1, such signs will be placed with at least three developments can be displayed. What does that mean? e Dacy: That means instead of having three signs for pheasant Hills, Lake Lucy Highlands and Chanhassen vista at Powers and TH 5 that we would have one sign providing directional signage for three. Erhart: So Tom is going to make up a sign for his sign and two of his competitors. Siegel: They all love competition. It is the same thing with the retail establishments. They're not afraid of other stores in the area. The more the merrier. Dacy: When they approved Tom's, they said design it for yourself and at least Merrill Steller's. Assumption Seminary property. Dacy: I've got it on the Council agenda on Monday night and basically what it comes down to is we've got an ordinance that specifically prohibits apartments in rural areas but yet there may be an opportunity with this buiding to do something with it. On one hand, if it has historical value the City certainly does not want to discourage the reuse of that but then we have an ordinance on the books. We have gotten so many requests for the use of that building, we are trying to get some direction from the Commission and Council. Would you be willing to creating a separate zoning district for a historic building or doing an ordinance amendment for reuse of private buildings that have historical value and allow it on a situation by situation basis. e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 30 e Erhart: Are you asking for our opinion whether we feel it has any historical value? Dacy: Right, and here is some additional information from the realtor on it. It was originally what they called a health sanitarium and they gave mud baths and was established in 1909. It finally went under then Monks took it over as a seminary and it remained as such for years past that. what I handed out were some articles from the Tribune in 1909 and 1908. Jo Ann has been working on this a lot and according to her information, it is possible that the building could be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Erhart: Who would initiate that? Dacy: It is an involved process and I think at this point the City would look to the property owner and/or the redeveloper to do that. The City would assist but it can be lengthy and possibly costly. I'm not even sure what the application process is but obviously if it is designated on the Register, then there are tax benefits available for the redevelopment. Siegel: One of the primary problems is the sewage right? Dacy: That is correct. There has been a septic system. e Jay Johnson: But you also have a package plan for stuff like that where you put in a small group where they utilize a modern, basically miniature sewage treatment plant that is a lot better than a septic system. Erhart: That is fairly expensive. Dacy: What we are looking for is, let's say if it is determined that there is an historical value and it is just an old building. Is the City going to consider any reuse of that site or should the building just be torn down and the existing uses remain for future single family use possibly or if it is historically significant, maybe you would be willing to entertain apartments, bed and breakfast, or commercial use at that location. It is so hard to say because this gentlemen has indicated that he would want to redevelop that into apartments. Siegel: Is he the owner? Dacy: No. Siegel: Who is paying taxes on this property? Dacy: The property owner. Siegel: Who is? e Dacy: His last name is Notterman. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 - PAGE 31 e Siegel: I would like to see it created as historic if there is the possibility. Conrad: Do you think there is something significant about it? It looks neat but is there something... Dacy: Tha t has yet to be de term ined and tha tis why we thought maybe they should go through this historic registration process first because if it is not worth anything then maybe it should be destroyed. Erhart: To express my opinion, I personally feel it isn't worth anything. I especially feel that the City shouldn't invest any more time or money on it and that you should take the position that if some developer is interested to get it registered as a historical site, then maybe we ought to do something about it but at this point, I just feel Jo Ann should not be wasting her time on it. That is my opinion. Conrad: I would keep the zoning the same. I don't want to intensify the use down there and without sewer so they can reuse it the way it is would be fine with me but I wouldn't spot zone it and intensify the use. Siegel: I think the property owner or the petitioner should generate his own support in going through the processes if he wants the City to get interested in it. e Dacy: Okay, that was the kind of things we wanted to hear. Some kind of direction. The final thing, did you see the public hearing guideline. I've had it in the packet. Conrad: I want to change some of the words in it. It is a little bit too stiff for what I want to say. Dacy: Basically it came right out of our adopted By-laws so whatever you want to change is fine. Conrad: I will look at some of the words. Basically, overall it is okay. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner. e Prepared by Nann Opheim