Loading...
1979 10 03 COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION 10/3/79 e The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. City Council members present were: Mayor Hobbs, Dick Pearson, Dale Geving and Dick Matthews. Planning Commission members present were: Roman Roos, Walter Thompson, Pat Swenson, Clark Horn and Tom Droegemueller. Members of staff present were: Don Ashworth, Mark Koegler and Bob Waibel. Roman Roos explained that the Planning Commission wanted this session to discuss a multitude of topics, and to get City Council's opinion about these topics. A list was compiled of items that could be backed up by ordinance, those applicable ordinances to the various topics. After receiving opinions, we would like to compile that list into a general guideline, so that the Planning Commission has a better feel as to what the Council's desires are, and how to handle some of the developers, and some of the attitudes that have been expressed by the various developers. Mark Koegler explained that Don, Bob and himself discussed this, and came up with a format that they think would work. First, if anyone had anything to bring out at all, do that first. Secondly, go through the topics that were compiled by the Planning Commission members on an item by item basis. Staff would first like to give a quick overview of what existing city policies are on each item, and how they relate to that specific topic, and then seek comments from individuals. Bob Waibel took the first 4 items, as they are under the planning and development portion: e 1. Lot Size relating to planned unit developments - We essentially have no criteria as we interpret the ordinance at this time to govern density and lot size, under the preamble of the Ordinance 47 for PUD development. 2. Zero lot line units - this is the type tif thing we will be dealing more with, this essentially allows ownership in what is commonly perceived as a duplex situation. 3. Quads is along the same line. 4. The portion on single family homes, it was not clear exactly what the question was. As far as the criteria, hopefully we will be working together to draw up some guidelines that we can actually use, instead of trying to anticipate what the judgment will be as far as densities and lot sizes. e Roman Roos stated regarding lot size, what do we require, what do we want at the present time with the given market conditions we have. Relate that also to the zero lot line or townhouse situation. How much lot do we require or would we like to see for a zero lot line double duplex townhouse situation, and also expand that to quads. In quads, are we looking at about a 5,000 per, or a 20,000 sq. ft. lot for a quad? It was asked if lot size could be tied in with the sq. footage that is occupied by the building, A small home on a small lot, a medium sized home on a medium lot, a large quad on a large lot - is there a practical formula that maybe could be agreed on? Roman Roos said he didn't think we can. He would like to have just the comments, what you think you would be comfortable with. e e - COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 2 Dale Geving stated many times it varies with the community development. Tpey looked at one the other evening, there were some lot sizes that were in the 12,000, 12,300, 12,500, on East Lotus Lake, there were some pretty small lots in there, and each development is kind of an independent entity in itself when it comes to this based upon some of the concepts that the developers try to portray. I kind of like the 15,000 myself. I like to think in terms of a bigger lot even though that may become more and more impractical as lots become more expensive. He said he personally likes the bigger lots. Dick Matthews stated when he put his home on the market he found out that instead of having a 15,000 sq. ft. lot he has a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, and he feels it is big enough. He said he is trYing to relate that area of the home and its occupying area around it, can we say does it occupy 20% of the land, l5%? Mayor Hobbs said he felt there is no way you can start to tell someone who owns property what size house he can have, other than set backs, etc. Roman Roos said he felt they had to look at minimums for single family, for doubles and quads, because that is the state of building today, in terms of cost. Clark Horn said if you look at consistency of building, how do we justify different lot size between a PUD and a guy with 4 or 5 lots. That's the problem. Mayor Hobbs stated the original concept of the PUD was to allow a variation in lot size depending on what kind of amenities that developer was going to put in the overall development. When we looked at some of the plats we have seen over the last couple of months with the 10,500's, the 11,000 and 11,200, what the Council has seen are gridded lots, and then we have a problem with the guy that has 1 or 2 lots, and then we tell him that he has to have 15,000 sq. ft. That can be expanded on into the zero lot line and the quad. New Horizon, we looked at a plat drawing, the way they showed those quads located, some of the drainage areas, and their outlots, gives you the feeling of more space than someone else that might come in and want to put 4 quads on 4 16,000 sq. ft. lots, so that gets to be the judgment call or the questions that the Council would like the Planning Commission to ask, and second, us. People aren't going to smaller houses yet, they are going to the unfinished basement, the unfinished garage, they want that initial sq. footage. Dick Matthews stated all mortg~ge companies, for the last 30 years, have been advising people to buy the biggest house you can possibly swing a mortgage for. Clark Horn asked if a,;W~~~opriate guideline would be, based on average lot size, taking the whole area including outlots, and dividing it by the number of lots? Dick Matthews said we look at the 15,000 sq. ft. overall average. Mayor Hobbscstated B.T. phased this thing into I, II, and III, and they said their open space was at a certain point. The Council did not agree, and Mayor Hobbs said he can't say how far away you have to get before the open space south on 101 doesn't really give you the right to 25 80-ft. lots here. These are the judgment calls the Planning Commission has to make, it should be somewhere in the neighborhood. If it is a half mile down the road, it really doesn't relate. These are just personal opinions. e e e COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 3 Pat Swenson asked to what extent is Ordinance 33 still effective? There are a lot of things in here that are guidelines as far as these questions, for instance, In no event shall a lot contain less than 11,700 sq. ft. My point is that this is for a subdivision. If we are going to tell a man with a few acres that he has to abide by this, the 15, Then we take a development, at this particular time the developers have their signs up. What is going to happen a few years from now when the signs are down and these developments become a part of the whole, and they would be a certain development but a part of the city, and someone will question the lot sizes. She stated she finds little justice, if this isn't good anymore, lets get rid of it, or lets use it. Mayor Hobbs said we have two things happening. When the planning-zoning ordinance was put into effect you probably had a different overall philosophy on building. That changes. You get into special areas like Carver Beach with the 20 ft. lots. We sewered an area that needed to be sewered, and we made exceptions to the 15,000. Where we had larger lots, we said they stayed that way. I'm not uncomfortable with that. I begin to get uncomfortable with some of the PUD's I've looked at. Roman Roos recapped what was said, stating they can look at PUD based on ordinance and also on the amenities, densities, etc, as done in the past. If a private citizen has an acre he wants to cut into 4, 5 or 6 lots, we are going to have to somewhat hold the ordinance on that individual, unless he puts it in the PUD status which he can not do. Mayor Hobbs stated it might be appropriate for the Planning Commission if they were so disposed to recommend a change to the ordinance, to reduce it to 12. Dale Geving stated if we don't, somebody is going to iake us to court and win very easily because we are discriminating. Roman Roos said getting back to minimums, what is the m~n~mum that you are comfor- table with on a single family lot, just an opinion of all of you. Mayor Hobbs said his would be 12,000; Dxck Pearson saidhe sees no big problem with 10,000; Dale Geving said he would go for somewhere around 12,500; Dick Matthewsaid he would be content with 11,700. As far as doubles or townhouses, Roman Roos asked how that would be handled? Dick ~atthews said it wouldn't necessarily have to be any bigger than a single family. Mayor Hobbs said it becomes more important to ask that particular person to start showing those houses on his plat, at least what he is proposing. Dale Geving said here again, a double or a quad could range, the actual size of the building, could vary greatly. I guess maybe 15,000. Dick Pearson said he was in sort of a quandry. All the things that are being talked about he can't live with personally, because they are not what he wants to buy. He is going to get a small house very shortly, and there is nothing in Chanhassen that he can buy. He wants to get a town house type of thing, and we don't have any. He wants a fair amount of space, but no yard. This is the sort of thing that he would like to see, but we are not doing this. I have no minimum in mind, but I think it is the design and concept. These are the things he feels are much more important. COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 4 e If you are looking at just a single piece of land and it had 13,000 sq. ft. you could design that for a single, a double or even probably a quad. It all depends on the piece of property and what it looks like. I think my feeling is again, a little bit higher maybe than the rest, but I think I would go for 15,000. Walter Thompson said he lives in a double, about a 12,000 lot, there is plenty of room. The setbacks were observed. There is a big yard. Mayor Hobbs said he felt Dick's comment was a good one in terms of the planning and concept. Lets say we settled in with 10,000 as a minimum, so you have a Qtuad on that with almost no yard. Next to it you have 15,000 with a yard. One thing that you might possibly achieve here that I think would be nice, you might have an older couple on the smaller lot, next to a younger couple, and you get a neighborhood mix. What you, have to guard against when you spart putting specifics down, some developer is going to come in and they are all going to be 10's. The planning commission or council is going to say, well, we allow 10. I guess I would go more to the 12 or 14, but then if you want to put one in there where it fits with almost a 9, I really wouldn't have any hangup with it. They have done that in Eden Prairie in the Preserve, and it was done beautifully. e Dale Geving said we have to provide the kind of homes and living area for people of all different makes, shapes and sizes of income, ages, etc. We don't have that. I think that is what we've got to look at. We need a real mix for everyone who wants to come and live in Chanhassen, and we can't do it today. Our population is mostly young now, and that is going to change over the next 15 or 20 years. There are a lot of people moving in Chanhassen with no children, a lot of single people. We have got to provide housing, even if it is an apartment type of structure. Craig Mertz commented on the history of the PUD's. The PUD's were aimed at re-allocating the open space. The theory is you move the houses around, you might have some far apart, some close together, and you make for some open space, maybe in the middle of the plat. That is why there is a lack of standards. There is no way that a person with a one acre lot can do the same thing as a person with 100 acres can do. The man with 1 acre can't re-allocate his land to make for open space and park land. Clark Horn said he can't, but he could live within the same restrictions. If we had it on an average rather than a specific lot size. If his lots are all lot.s and no amenities, that would just mean that it would go into the lot. Bob Waibel answered, pointing out what is taken into consideration. He stated they have to have regard for existing developments. Regarding PUD's for secondary access, Roman Roos asked the Council if it was their desire to have two accesses into every PUDZ Mayor Hobbs said it was his~ e Roman Roos said, :i!\!the secondary access can not be a normal roadway, can you live even with the comments engineering has made about the so-called "emergency access"? Such as Chanhassen Estates? That's a temporary situation, Clark Horn said. That temporary period of time is 3 years or so, but still our long term goal would be two accesses. COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 5 e Clark Horn said because of the things that we ran into years ago, this is something that we feel is important, at least temporarily until the thing gets developed, and you are sure of having at least an in and out, two different in and outs in the property. Roman Roos asked if a secondary access is not possible, then is a knock down barrier approach emergency access acceptable in PUD's in your eyes? Mayor Hobbs said only as a last resort. He stated that they would be kidding themselves if they said that on occasion they did not make mistakes, and one was probably made on the Hesse farm. Walter THompson discussed secondary access on the B.T. proposal, off the west side going down the gully, the Wilma Thompson property. There is an access up that gully, but it stops there, it doesn't go any further. I don't see that we have a working secondary access in that area. As far as engineering comments on the knock down barrier, and why we voted against the BT situation, it was primarily because if you put a base in and grass it over, people are going to use it any~ way. If you put a temporary barrier up, who is it temporary for? Over a period of time the barriers become roadways. Dick Matthavs asked if it couldn't be vacated? Once it is a temporary thing, as soon as you get another access in you can vacate that like we did on the north end of Lotus Lake, and give it to the abutting properties. e Clark Horn stated the problem he had with B.T. Land Company was not the secondary access, it was a secondary access into the park. I feel there is a real enforce- ment problem if you have two accesses into a park. Roman Roos asked, what should we be looking at, always a secondary access? If we can't give a secondary access, we are looking at emergency access. Walt Thompson said they agreed with engineering staff, that the knock down barrier thing wasn't a practical thing, so we decided then to make it a road. Clark Horn said he felt that really doesn't have to be a problem, because he still doesn't see that the park road has to tie into that road. Roman Roos brought up the subject of cul-de-sacs. He stated what the ordinance requires. He said he has no problems with turn arounds, as long as the maintenance vehicle can turn around and get back out of that area. Clark Horn said he has two problems with cul-de-sacs. First, the temporary cul-de- sac which no one ever knows for sure if it is temporary, and second, certain areas like the Wilma Thompson property, that the roads are almost dictated by the lay of the land. I think that in those cases where you can have an unusual development like that one looks like it should be, we can make exception and I have no problem wi th that. e Tom Droegemueller said he is comfortable with the ordinance. COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 6 e Dick Pearson said he doesn't like to see too many - I think this is a logical approach based on ordinance. Walter Thompson asked if they weren't going to increase the width of the road on that cul-de-sac to 36 ft? I think in consideration to the length of it is probably a very good idea. Dick Matthews said he thinks cul-de-sacs and turn arounds etc. are almost like lot sizes, design criteria. I don't have any trouble particularly with the length. Mayor Hobbs said he had a little problem with the length of the cul-de-sacs. I think the planning commission and the council have to remember when any developer buys a piece of property, the onus is on him on how he is going to develop his property. Secondly, I am not hung up on 500, but what I have seen happen over the years, you pegin to make exceptions which I think is reasonable. What I have said time and time again, as we have approved these exceptions, is take it out of the ordinance. e Don Ashworth said that on some of these he would like to have an opportunity to go through the basis of some of them. On the cul-de-sac issue you should be aware that they are a maintenance problem. You can not take a truck down and clean them. They have to be cleaned with a pickup as a secondary piece of equipment coming in. So they do increase the city cost maintenance wise. Cul-de-sac's historically, the reason that they have had the limited portion, is again the emergency situation. You can carry someone on a stretcher for 300 ft. If it gets in 500, 700, 900, you have got the same problem as with an addition that is cut off. There would have to be exceptions because with an addition, one access that you are 700 ft. no matter which way you go, whereas with a cul-de-sac, there could be a cul-de-sac right next to it which means then they could come in and literally be 300 ft. from some- body's home. Roman Roos stated the sidewalk issue is next - sidewalks on collector streets, sidewalks on the H & K developments, etc. Don Ashworth said right now we really have no standard for sidewalks, so typically from a policy standpoint sidewalks are seen as a good idea in areas like to and from schools or where you have large walking populations. Mayor Hobbs said he felt the planning commission could take Don's comments and probably develop a policy fairly quickly on the to and from schools, or possibly churches, public buildings, and where you have heavy traffic. I think in a residential area, I don't see the need for sidewalk. Dick Pearson said provided the streets are wide enough. If you have streets that aren't wide enough, I guess that is where you trade it off. If the streets are exceptionally wide or wider, or make them wider to accommodate the jogger, walker or bike rider. As time goes on we will see more and more activity in the street or sidewalk. I think we should always be conscious of people walking, riding, roller skating, or whatever. I think we should at least plan for that. e Mark Koegler said when staff was reviewing these points it was evident that they fall into two categories, one is needs that have been identified on a short term basis that need to be addressed, and the other being on a long term basis. We didn't really attach a definition to either of those, but the sidewalk issue I COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 7 e personally would consider a longer range issue because we are covering it in the comprehensive planning process. That will be part of the policy statements that we are getting to. Those will be developed according to our schedule which we should be on by the end of the year, roughly. The lot size issue is something that has been facing both groups and has been causing problems, which is something that we viewed as short term and immediate, and we need to get some consensus on it. As you go through these, you will see that they do fall into the different categories. Dale Geving said he really didn't see any need for sidewalks in a residential area. We don't have them in most of the areas that we have developed. I think we should have it where we have public buildings such as a schuul, the shopping centers, and places like that where there would be a lot of heavy foot traffic, but in residential areas I can't see any need for it. Dick Pearson said if he had his druthers, he would have them, but he didn't know how we could afford them. They are almost really a luxury that the average person with the average size lot just couldn't do. They are a pain to maintain, as far as shoveling etc. Roman Roos brought up the subject of concrete curbs and gutters - vs. blacktop etc. e Don Ashworth stated they are recommended only because of the service length. Asphalt deteriorates faster on the curbs, the roads faster. Roman Roos said it has been his experience that where curb and gutter were put in, that the streets were put in much better, with a better foundation, and they have held up better. It costs a little bit more for initial outlay, but over the long run it is a much better product. I am for it. Walt 'Ihorrpson said that he goes along with that. They just have to make a better footing because if they have a good concrete curb and gutter that is going to stay there, and if the road doesn't have a good base it is going to look bad, so they just do a better job, so the whole thing holds a lot better. Clark Horn said he fully supports it. Mayor Hobbs said something the planning commission might remember is that these developers are going to come to you first. They are going to give you 100 reasons why they shouldn't put concrete curb and gutter in. After it is in, they are going to give the road to us, and we have to maintain that. Roman Roos said another item that is tied into that is lot frontage on a public street and street sizes. Don Ashworth said that staff has continued to recommend that street sizes that we have are really inadequate for parking on one side and consideration of emergency vehicles. We have been trYing to push that up to 32 ft, and some of the streets at 36 ft. e Pat Swenson asked whether you preferred a larger one on a cul-de-sac? COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 8 e Don Ashworth said as far as street sizes are concerned, it really depends on what the carrying capacity of the street is. In the newer residential sections he felt we should be looking at 32 ft. If it is any type of a collector street you should be at 36 to 40 ft. Mayor Hobbs agreed with Don about the main collectors, but commented on the size of the cars. Pat Swenson said if we are going to eliminate the sidewalks, we are going to have people using the streets. If a 32 ft. street is put in, and parking is permitted on one side, the worst that can happen is that maybe we will have a little bit safer place for someone to walk, so I think my inclination, for the additional cost for 4 ft. when this is being put down, as opposed to the cost of the sidewalk, and we are concerned with the health and safety of the citizens. Eventually there might be a bikeway going down one side. A lot of communities are doing that. Lot frontage on cul-de-sacs was brought up next by Roman Roos. He had no objection to 90 ft. on the street. He does have some objections as far as cul-de-sacs and lot frontages on cul-de-sacs. Clark Horn said where this really comes to be a key area is when it comes to assessments. e Pat Swenson asked what does happen on an assessment like that, do people with a 35 ft. frontage on a cul-de-sac, is their assessment less? Usually the minimum is taken. The next item - Park and Rec. responsibility for park dedication fees - The question to the council is, is the park and rec. area responsible to you or to the planning commission? Pat Swenson stated there is a criteria for that. The commission established by the village for the planning commission does have a series of 4 or 5 specific responsibilities, the community facilities and the park & rec. are listed there- under. I don't know to what extent this is covered. I think there is some question in their mind also. Mayor Hobbs stated he always felt that the park & rec. commission was responsible directly to the City Council. Walter Thompson said he felt with the finances that the park & rec. commission are obviously going to be responsible for, that the relationship ought to be directly with the Council rather than going through the planning commission. Dick ~atthews said as he recalls, and he thinks he was on the council at the time, that basically the idea was commissions as such were entitiesunt6~their own responsible to the Council, and committees were then responsible to a commission. e Roman Roos asked about the relationship with park & rec, and its relationship to the planning commission, and both relationships to the HRA. We understood that anything that comes in to the HRA would come through the planning commission and then to the council, so there would be a double input. Does the same thing hold true for the park & rec. date? COMBINED CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 9 It does not. e Mayor Hobbs said this is the way he thinks. If the park & rec. commission develops funds and they come up with a 5 year capital improvement program, that deals directly with the large parks and the neighborhood parks, I would think if we are going to work together, they can shoot that over to the planning commission for your review, but it is going to come directly to the council on whether we want to put hockey fields or whatever. Your comments back should be innluded to the council. If you've got a PUD, you shoot it over the park commission for their comment, it comes back to you, you can include or exclude them as you see fit. Put them in the report and that comes to the Council through the planning commission. Roman Roos said that they need those comments from park & rec. Mayor Hobbs said he sees two separate things happening there. Clark Horn said where they meld is in the zoning issue. When we zone for open spaces, we don't zone that part of it, we zone more of the development, where they zone the open spaces, and those two mesh together. Dale Geving said his feeling is that the park & rec. in the development of a new park, should be working with you and the developer to get that all ironed out before it gets up to us. In the case of an existing park where they are allocating funds and monies, then I don't know, but it would come back to us. e Roman Roos wanted to know if the park & rec has been totally made aware of their charge and their responsibility? I think it should be made known what their charge is, and how you expect them to function. Dick Matthavs said he finds it hard to believe that Joe doesn't know what his function is. Mayor Hobbs said they could talk to him, have the same kind of a meeting. I think for example, in the planning process, the park commission has made a determination and I think the council has been in agreement, that they have got land, so we put in this park fee for single family, and now we are wrestling with the residential park fee, and I think really that is their function, so when the planning commission comes in you no longer tell a guy to set aside 10% or whatever. Your function comes in in those gray types of land use. I think it is very important from a planning prospective that those lands be utilized to their fullest, but the park commission would be way out of line to tell you to move the sewer over because if we need a trail over here, they may have to then buy it from the developer. Anything that falls in that gray area is a result of planning, not of park. If it can then be used some way in a path or recreational nature, that is great. e Roman Roos stated, then if he understands correctly, the park dedication fees for industrial, commercial and residential are going to be set by the park and rec. directly to the council, and that is our guideline. Don Ashworth said you are either taking a dedication of land, or you are taking fee in lieu thereof. Typically there is not a problem. The planning commission reviews a sight, the park commission takes a look and gives their decision, as to whether they want the park or the money in lieu thereof. Each individual site must be determined whether you want it as a conservation area or do you want fees. COMBINED CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 10 e Roman Roos stated that the planning commission in review of the trail system, the lake usage, shoreline dedication, etc., there are some areas called maintenance, leasing, financing dollars, and the commission doesn't know how to handle it. He stated they needed to be consistent. Mark Koegler stated he has been ope~ating under the premise that it is the role of the park & rec. commission to dictate the planning and the policy decisions with regard to parks and open space sites, and then it comes back to the staff to assure that those sites that are selected are in harmony with the future land use plan that the planning commission is coming up with, and that there are no conflicts between the two of them. Roman Roos said if the park and rec. had their overall plan complete , when we start talking about linkage of trail systems, if we had the maintenance and policing costs of those trails, the control of those trails for snowmobiles, etc., if all of that were done then we would have a guideline to make decisions when developers come in. Clark Horn said the problem comes in because we have heard from adjacent areas of the real enforcement problems of a continuous long trail system. What we are questioning is, is that really feasible in light of what some of the other areas have experienced? None of us really disagree with trail systems, our question is, is what we h~e proposed feasible? If not, we should know about it very quickly. e Mayor Hobbs said they didn't have the answers to that, but when you talk about enforcement that gets back to planning. If you grow with your trail system along with the growth in your population, you can enforce it, maintain it and keep it up. Pat Swenson stated we can't seem to take the parks outside of Lake Ann that we have already, this is what concerns us. Mayor Hobbs said he felt the park commission became aware of that about a year ago and that is why we have a fee instead of land, we became land poor. Mark Koegler said he personally feels that we have a mechanism set up now with the review by the park and rec., and in the time he has been here he thinks it has improved quite a bit. Me felt that is the only interim solution there is to that problem. As far as completing the park's element, we are scheduled to have that in draft form by the end of November. That will address the bulk of the issues stated here. Walter Thompson said he would like to know the definition of a "trail system". Mark Koegler stated you can concult 5 sources, and get 5 answers. That is something that we will have to define for our own purposes as to whether they are pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle movement corridors, or attach some similar definition to exactly what a trail is. e Mark made comments on I-F. There have been a lot of comments brought up about future land use work regarding lake usage, shoreline dedication, lots abutting lake property, etc. The lake study committee has been reactivated and has been meeting over the last 4 months. They are presently working on formulating policy guidelines with regard to all of the points identified under F, and a number of other things. Some preliminary standards should be coming from this group within 30 to 60 days. COMBINED CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page II e Tom Droegemueller made comment about 6-F - Financing, not only in regard to trail systems, but almost everything we do. It is very easy to sit down and think about ideal planning concepts, etc., and divorce that from what it breaKs down to on a per capita tax burden. I am concerned about that, because everybody would liMe to have sidewalks, curbs and gutters, big parks, and all of these things, but they cost money, and there is a tradeoff at some point. I don't know if we address that enough. I think the trail system is a beautiful concept, but I think it is very impractical. Maybe it will work, but I guess I am just skeptical. Mayor Hobbs stated that if you don't plan for the trails, you will never get them. In terms of financing, I think you will find that the staff can go a dozen different ways, and they may complete a trail system using all of them. He said when you look at the trail system you may be tying it down the road to a very passive use on a lake. It is nicer to walk around a lake and see ducks, geese and canoes than it is a speed boat. Walt Thompson said his personal viewpoint is he wants to see us continue the trail system, the linkage of these, acquiring easements, whatever we call it, but I think down the road when Chanhassen is pretty well developed, that these trail systems are going to be very important. I want to make my statements known, that I am very much in favor oJ! continuing this. e Clark Horn said what he sees is an overall philosophy shifting. In the past people wanted a larger lot, you maintained your living more on the lot that you were on, the lake shore was controlled by the people who lived on the lake. I see now more of a generalized making the lot smaller, but giving the people more public land to exercise on, etc., more than what we have in the past. Is this a consistent philosophy, is this where we should be heading? It is a shift or change, is that what we want? Dick Pearson said times are changing, and we are not going to be able to hold on to the standards that we lived with 2 years ago. I think you are quite right. Costs are going to dictate to us that we are going to have to change our philosophy. Pat Swenson said that in the last 2 years, the trend is moving for people to move out of the cities, they are young people wanting to get out of the compact living. They want out of the programmed living - ~hey want the same thing that all of us have always wanted. Dick Pearson said he heard exactly the opposite - he heard the property is inflating faster than any place else in the whole area in Southwest Minneapolis. These are big, older houses, but the thing that made them grow is Lake Harriet, Lake Calhoun, and the parks in that area. Roman Roos recapped this, saying we are going to depend a lot on the park and rec to put together the plan, their review of the PUD's as they cane in prior to, with recommendation from them and staff regarding the trail system, to the planning commission which will react when we gather all those comments. e Roman Roos next brought up Extate Type Developments - it has been an indirect request from council that we definitely do have "all type of living" including estate type developments. Where are we at on these type of developments? COMBINED CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 12 e Mark Koegler said I have always taken the posture that it was my op~n~on that the Council has always in the past indicated they would like to see a mix of housing types within a community, so we are trYing to identify areas. He said present ordinances on the books seem to relate to what existing policy is, which does prohibit the subdivision and platting of land and issuance of building permits in the unsewered area. At the present time there is no exception as to whether or not that is an estate or a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. I get concerned that we have a pocket of land right in the center of what is to be in the future the very developable portion of the community that is not perhaps to be sewered, and there is going to be eventually development all around that. Chanhassen has a documented history of failures of septic systems, and he feels it inevitable that those estates are going to have to hook up to sewer facilities. What will costs be at that time? We have talked about how estate developments compare to other types of residential developments, pay their way as to city services. That is really yet to be resolved. The issue is still very much open. e Mayor Hobbs said, going back 2 or 3 years, the council probably approached the idea of estate type developments because it was brought to us. At that time, I said I am not uncomfortable with it, we try to provide moderate and low income. This is an area that does need to be a little better defined. I don~t think it is necessary that these people ever connect to municipal sewer. I think we are going to find in the next few years, very viable alternatives to municipal sewer systems. I think you can carve out these types of lots and put in systems that will be very compatible. Estate type developments should almost be allowed in the community in a ratio exactly to income. Roman Roos said under the present conditions that exist right now, my interpretation of estate type development, would be the Hesrefarm, and that any other large development of land would have to be within the r1USA line. It would dictate that that wont occur because of the price of land, you wouldn't put 5 acres in a sewered area. What we have to recognize is that down the road we may be in this area that is unsewered, be perfectly acceptable to go and build in half, 1 or 2 acre parcels because the individual development will have it's own septic system. It wont be a septic tank, or necessarily connected to the community sewer pipe. 'vjhat I am saying, at the present time I think only of the Hesse farm, and nobody has approached us to put in any estate type development anywhere else. Pat Swenson asked, what about the one on 14 and 17? It was on the southwest corner, and he wanted to break it up into 5 acre sections. If we don't permit people to do things like that, are we not forcing a farmer to go to a mass developer, to a PUD. Do we want PUD's allover the city? What kind of a hardship do we impose on a man like that? Dick Pearson said he thought 10 years ago that technology would come up with good satisfactory home disposal systems. Everybody would have their own system, but this hasn't happened. I think when we have such a system, then it makes sense to open up estate type developments, but until we do have~ e Roman Roos said, then based on all this, consistent with ordinance, right now estate type development. If he puts it on 5 acres, and he really has a system, Bale Geving didn't feel our ordinance would hold up. said he COMBINED CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 13 e Mayor Hobbs said two things with the ordinance, where he feels we have a real opportunity - first, Dick you are probably right on the on sight systems, but the technology notwithstanding, they fought an uphill battle all the way with the bureaucracy. I would like to keep that option open. Right now then, Roman Roos said, as far as the council is concerned, estate type developments is premature. If, in our overall guide plan, and the land use planning procedures, we feel that we can, you would be receptive to that. Pat Swenson said the ordinance was brought up. How can we say a man can not subdivide a piece of property into 5 acre lots, when in our own ordinance it says in areas which are not served by public water and sanitary sewer systems, no lot should be developed for residential purposes unless it contains a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. and has a frontage of at least 180 ft. Dick Pearson said that was state law at that time. If you had 5 acres you could develop it. Pat Swenson said what she means if someone has 30 acres and wanted to make six 5-acre lots, how can we say no. Dick Pearson said every time we have been able to do it, it has been on the basis of the land not meeting various requirements. There were other reasons. e Item No. 7 - Industrial Guidelines,,- Roman Roos said the planning commission has no real guidelines on industrial development. The developer does have certain controls, constraints from his development point of view, but from a planning point of view we have none in terms of set backs;,:;etc. other than the ordinance. Bob Waibel said the only guideline we have is the performance standards. It relates to a number of the PCA rules and regulations sited in there. We have no guidelines as far as setbacks. Mayor Hobbs said he felt this is an agenda item for the planning commission, the council doesn't have any either. The one thing we would like to see is some type of a guideline, we don't want a conditional use permit on every business tha~'comes into the industrial park. Walter Thompson wanted/t~ ~Ro~ould get some data from Eden Prairie, he felt they were doing a pretty good job there. He also mentioned getting information from Jonathan. e Pat Swenson said we try, conscientiously, to find the right way to approach these people, and one of the main reasons for getting together with the council was to try to ooordinate our thinking as much as possible so that if a recommendation does go, we don't have to have the developer and the council go through the same process again. It seems like everyone is spending a lot of hours doing repetitious work. Along that line, Mayor Hobbs said, in trying to guide the growth of the city to the best of our ability, where the planning commission has the option to exercise a lot of discretion is in the very beginning on who the developer is. Probably more than regulations of the city are the people who are putting it together. COMBINED CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION - 10/3/79 Page 14 e If the planning commission has doubt at that point in time, you can weed out a lot. You really have to rely on the developer's integrity. Your big decision is when you have given them the go ahead, and if they come back in 60 or 90 days and say to apply this is what we reed from you, and we start to do it, it is too late the:c. Clark Horn said in light of what Pat was talking about as far as getting some consistency, the biggest inconsistency I have seen since I have been on, in how we were going, related to this Holiday-Happy Chef type of thing, on which we spent quite a bit of time going over and reviewing the site plan, recommending the signage, etc. At that point it didn't seem consistent with what your philosophy was as far as that development went. When it was changed, it was not re-reviewed, it changed from a double tenant type of situation to a single tenant. Mayor Hobbs said that is a perfect example. He feels two things happened, the lot split started that off on the wrong foot. ' The large lot worked very well into our concept today of the entrance into Chanhassen. Then you come back and try to accommodate uses, and we had to say really the use of the property is not inconsistent with the highway use. The trade off was that we would get the Happy Chef which he felt would be amenity. We are going to give them the Holiday station which is also better architecturally than they were a few years back. e Dick Ma.tthavs said right from the beginning everyone had a problem with that, but you couldn't refuse it because you didn't think it wasn't appropriate or you didn't like it. That is one area, no one was really happy with the design of the Happy Chef building, but you can't tell the man he builds a lousy looking restaurant. All our problems all focused there. I guess the consensus of opinion was that there wasn't any way to tell them we didn't want it there. Dale Geving said he wanted to make one statement. The planning commission performs a very important and vital function in doing the preliminary work and the recommendations that come to us are pretty well thought out and pretty well laid out for us. I can get my package from Don, and pretty well bring together in a matter of 4 to 6 hours, the idea that went on in the planning commission, and how I am going to vote on that issue. The work that your commission performs is essential and very necessary to us, we couldn't do it without the planning commission. We do have differences, that is what makes this interesting. I would really like to see the staff beef up, and get us back up to speed. Roman Roos brought up Item No.9. Concept Plan - types of businesses, Frontier Development Park and types of zoning. There are 3 different types of zoning in that park right now. It is very difficult to do any control in that area. Clark Horn wanted to know if CBD no longer has a function as it was originally intended? e Bob \vaibel said that is probably true. He said we find ourselves at a junction where this concept plan for redevelopment has been before us for a long time and in many instances it seems to fill a lot of ~oids that the CBD does not afford us. He feels the idea is to look in depth to that concept plan and give the planning commission recommendations at this time to get closer to a point where it may be adopted in place of the current zoning. Also to incorporate some of the philosophies of the CBD zone category and include them into this concept plan. Part of the staff materials would be the BRW booklet that was worked up with a number of uses. They were all broken down by category. There may be a shifting of some categories. Also shifting of the district allocations. Don Ashworth stated he feels very uncomfortable with a lot of our zoning from the COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION -~0/3/79 Page 15 e standpoint of CBD, the HOliday/Happy Chef type of thing. It would seem very logical that we should be at a point of having consistent zoning, telling people exactly what it is they can put in there, certain set backs, etc., something that you have guidelines for usage, and literally getting rid of the entire development contract or conditional use contract system for those areas. Roman Roos asked if a moratorium on an interim basis would give us enough time to nail this down? Mark Koegler said part of this gets back to the relationship between the HRA, the planning commission and the council. Who sees what at what point in time, and obviously the Council has final approval authority. Where this is a refinement to the overall land use plan, obviously the land use plan that we have been discussing at the planning commission level is not parcel by parcel level of detail. It has to be with regard to the downtown development and I think it has to be very soon. We've got a proposal now as far as the re~enactment of the moratorium for 120 days. I don't think 120 days is feasible to accomplish that, maybe 3 or 6 months is. I guess part of it depends on how much generally it is viewed as a priority and where we want to apply the manpower. e Mayor Hobbs said the Council basically enacted the moratorium to give Kraus- Anderson a chance to work on their plan on 2, 3 and 4. We would be somewhat remiss in the planning area if we didn't use that 120 days to at least get a start. When Kraus-Anderson was finished, whatever the outcome might be, and the planning commission and staff would say we are 2/3 of the way done, I think the Council would look with favor on extending it if you came in after that one expired and say now we want another one so we can decide land use, we would probably give it to you. Don Ashworth said this moratorium as it is relates to the downtown plan and would allow buildings to proceed if they did not interfere. This could be good or bad. If you want to tie this in, the moratorium during this next period, to determine those land uses, then what you are saying is none at all. There may be some exceptions there, but things like Burdick's warehouse should be very seriously considered. Is that an appropriate use in that area? There is one, but should you continue that type of use? That is coming before you right now, and under the current moratorium it could proceed. Under the one you are talking about it would probably stop. Mayor Hobbs said you've got to start dealing in specifics with these developers. He stated what the planning commission and the council could see in a very short time, we have identified the complexities of the PUD and the downtown redevelopment. I agree with you, Roman. I think that the staff could at least give us an outline of how they propose to approach this, because it is extremely confusing. e Craig Mertz stated the fault with the CBD ordinance is that if a developer calls and asks what uses can he potentially look for in seeking a developer to use his property, a specific list can't be given, that's Why Bob feels that we've got to develop a list of uses. Mayor Hobbs said you might try to have a broad definition of general business, and if that did not include a factory, you could tell that factory to forget it. In other words, not trying to ask the planning group to come up in 60 days with 22 uses here, but at least have an overall idea, so if you get something in there you don't hinder development. If it's not what you would have wanted in the long run, at least it's not going to be 1800 out of base. COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION-lO/3/79 Page 16 e Roman Roos said that we've already made recommendation to you six months ago. The BRW booklet breaks it all down. We needed final approval on that concept plan, that never occurred. If it had, then Bob would have something to go back to these developers and say, this is what it is. That's not saying we couldn't modify it. Craig Mertz said that in Dec. 1978 the HRA voted and said that is what they wanted. A formal resolution. ~he planning commission voted on this in December 1978 and said this is what they wanted. When the formal resolution was submitted to the City Council the clause that said we endorse that was stricken from the resolution before you passed it. So nothing was passed. Roman Roos asked if the council could make recommendation to accept this concept plan subject to the ring road alignment, and get us off the hook? Dick ~Btthavs said just delete the 2, 3,4 - just delete that and accept the rest of it. Let 2, 3 and 4 fall where they may, the ring road and the 2, ~ 4 concept. Mayor Hobbs said if we came up for planning purposes and have the same deal, and show the road coming through here, and show land uses, e Don Ashworth said during a moratorium phase you've got a period of studying and you can kind of hang your head on that. That's what you are saying, during this moratorium period things should be prohibited unless they meet a concept. I think the final adoption is going to have to be more specific. If you have an area shown as green, you've got to adopt a plan that shows how you are going to acquire that green, and how big it is going to be, etc. But ;i::f".you are going with this other concept, during the moratorium period we would literally have an interim guideline during the moratorium period that would be in line with this. Craig Mertz said that is deciding what is going to be in there while you are in the process of what is going to be in there. Roman Roos said we already made recommendation to Council, as did the HRA, to accept that proposal with the ring road looped up. Mayor Hobbs said if the Council had ordered a public hearing last January on this, we didn't have Super Valu, we didn't have Kraus-Anderson, you are going to get a lot of people concerned. We have to have a public hearing. You go through all of that and six months down the road we don't know whether this is going to fly or not. We were going to know by June or July I, and HRA came back and said this thing isn't moving, we don't have anything yet, we'll get back to you. We said fine. Now you are to the point, and all this time we haven't adopted anything in terms of resolution, now we have Kraus-Anderson studying it. The people are very concerned. If it wont fly, you are back to the street going right where it is. You've got to take a different approach. If they say it will, then we are going to have to put this thing out and hear all the comments. A year ago it would have been extremely premature. e Roman Roos recapped this, stating at the present time you are considering a moratorium. That moratorium includes the industrial park. If that is so, then we have got 120 days before we have to have a public hearing and have a final decision on the public hearing. From a planning point of view, we now have a means of control, for at least 120 days. COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION-lO/3/79 Page 17 e Don Ashworth said to re-emphasize, this 120 day moratorium is to get input back from Krause Anderson. That's the intent. It doesn't solve your problem and we are not going to be able to address the solution of that problem until we know whether it is a go/no-go situation. They were supposed to come back within 60 days, but we gave them 120. Mayor Hobbs said our problem gets into a procedural one. If they get hung up, then we have to go through the public hearing, then the moratorium, and I had hoped they would be back in 60 days,and I think we indicated that. I think what you can do, the staff between now and the 15th can look at the public hearing on the moratorium. I would like to see it encompass that whole area or at least adopt if the Council and the Planning Commission were in agreement, that concept for everything but the ring road, 2, 3 and 4. Craig Mertz said the last moratorium had a variance section. Perhaps the same night you enact your variance, you could by resolution maybe adopt a policy state- ment that you will entertain no variance petition that is inconsistent with the concept. e Bob Waibel pointed out that the most immediate problems are the industrial areas, as far as land usage. I think we could concentrate on those, and give a recommendation within a matter of weeks as far as what land use should be occurring. As far as the overall downtown, I think we should have, hopefully a month or two before the expiration of this moratorium being considered right now, a package to be presented that would outline land use, permitted uses in place of the zoning, and do it in sufficient detail that we are comfortable with it. This could be adopted at any point in time. Item No.8, Pat Swenson asked for clarification on the Crosstown, what the Metropolitan Council had irradicated. Mayor Hobbs said the Mayor of Eden Prairie called him several months ago stating the Crosstown Extension from Baker Road west had been cut from the capital budget. Eden Prairie is very interested in having it come across there. He asked if we would support them in ~ng to put some pressure on getting it reinstated. Mayor Hobbs said he would bring it up to the Council and the planning commission, that he didn't feel that our concerns were as great as Eden Prairie's on having that. Dale Geving said one issue here is the competition for road money, and from Chanhassen's viewpoint we would be better off sticking our dollars into 212 and forget about Crosstown, because they are all competing for the same dollars. I think that is kind of how we looked at it that night, we were in sympathy with Eden Prairie, we were more concerned with what may happen to 212. e As far as Pleasant View, Roman Roos stated it was pretty much the consensus that there would be no more accesses onto Pleasant View. Is that still true? Mayor Hobbs said we have/%ery vocal group of citizens on Pleasant View, that's good. On any plat that has come in they have taken and at their expense, have replatted. The thing that concerns me, and I think it should be spelled out, in no way endorse a 40 000 sq. ft. for any area of Chanhassen. I really hope that none of these deveiopers, whether the large ones or the small ones, are going to_be intimidated._ I feel the same way about access. I don't think there is any feel~ng of the counc~l on accesses on or off of Pleasant View. I think the Council was very explicit, if you go back to the minutes, that we didn't want to hear anything about increased traffic on Pleasant View a few years down the road. There is no way things are going to be status quo. COMBINED CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION-IO/3/79 Page lB e Mayor Hobbs said to him, as far as anything on Pleasant View Road, you should look at it exactly like you would review a plat any where else in the city. Roman Roos said that is exactly his point of view. He would not treat Pleasant View any different than I would any other street in the community. We had a proposal on the board to handle that, and they were against it, and we went with them knowing that they knew what the consequences were going to be. They were the ones that were going to have to suffer. We tried to lay that aside so that we were relieving that situation, but we went against the road telling them that they are going to have to live with that situation, and don't come back to us abou~ it 2 or 3 years from now when development starts taking place there. Dick M3.tthavs said Pleasant View got what ~hey wanted, as far as the road. Meeting adjourned Don Ashworth City Manager e e