Loading...
1989 11 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1989 - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve En~ings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning, Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager and Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planning Intern PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CONST~UCTION OF A BOARDWALK ALONG THE EDGE OF A CLASS A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 7280 KURVERS POINT ROAD, WOODDALE BUILDERS. Public Present: Don Begin - Wooddale Builders e Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. public hearing to order. Chairman Conrad called the Conrad: Is the applicant here? Don Begin: Yes. Conrad: Okay, any conlInents? Don Begin: No. She explained it... The berm is pretty much of a natural bermthere...through the natural berm... Ba tzl i Inoved, wi ldernluth seconded to close the pllbl ic hear i ng. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Just a quick question on filling next to a lake. That just is real intriguing. What governs filling next to the lake? Who's governing that? Basically we don't allow construction within 75 feet of a lake. It seenls real interesting that we can allow filling going in right up to the lake. e Krauss: It is being handled on the wetland alteration permit and it is regulated by us in that manner. The area that's being filled, Chairman Conrad, is an area that's above the wetland and lake elevation now. It is high ground. All they're doing is adding enough dirt onto the high ground to make it firm enough to use. We didn't see any impacts on the surrounding area because it's basically lawn area now. It's in sod. There's no wetland vegetation. There will be no fill into the lake or into the wetland so we were conlfortable regulating it under the wetland -- -- .--- Planning COI\"\I\'\i ss ion Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 2 e alteration permit. Conrad: And the DNR or Fish and Wildlife or the Corps of Engineers, they have no, they don't have any regulations on filling right up to the edge of a lake? Krauss: We showed this to the Fish and wildlife and they didn't have a concern with it. Conrad: I'm real surprised. It just, and I don't know. The wetland, I'm not concerned about the wetland ordinance. I'm just real surprised that people can change or add to elevation right up to the lake e~en though we have regulations that say you can't build within 75 feet. That's just real surprising Paul. Krauss: DNR regulations start at the ordinary high water and this is all above that. We can put in son\e extra calls to confirn\ that but I believe all those agencies have been contacted on this. e Conrad: In 10 years I've never seen anybody fill right up to the edge of a lake and I've been around. First time. Not that I know that it's wrong. I've just never seen anybody do it. We've always kept construction and construction is different because we're building stuff but that's been monitored by other things. That's a surprising feature. Well anyway, I don't believe the wetland permit process has much to do with that fill there but I snre thought something else would. We'll go around. Jim, comn\en ts . wildenluth: What's the distance between the retaining wall and the wetland? Is that within 75 feet? AI-Jaff: feet. It's over 100 feet. No, I'm sorry. It is approximately 100 Krauss: The retaining wall itself to the Class A wetland? Conrad: Yeah. Krauss: Is probably within the 75 feet. Jo Ann and I had a discussion on that tonight and in the past retaining walls have not been considered structures in that regard. In fact they're, in talking to Fish and Wildlife and DNR, it's deemed as sonlewhat beneficial." If you had a graded slope, you wonld have a gradual slope going down in there, there would be a tendency to sod everything down beyond the wetland elevation. with the retaining wall, you have a distinct break and we've put a stipulation in there that the area below the wall be kept natural. But your point's well taken. We do have a lot of problenls frankly with the wetland ordinance and how it handles these kinds of i teI\"\s. Jo Ann and I are probably going to be putting out a posi tion paper on the wetlands ordinance sonletime in February citing what the pros and cons are with it in it's entirity and looking to e propose SOI"le changes to it. Thi s would be one of theI"l. Planning COIlIIldssion Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 3 e wildermuth: What happens when the next lot to the west of that is developed? Is that individual going to come in for an application to fill too I would imagine? Krauss: As I recall, the next lot to the west has a more distinct wetland as you go, or to the south. As you head in that direction the wetland spreads out. I mean you don't have that known situation down by the lake that we have on this lot. It would probably be handled differently. This one as well, you have a way of crossing to that area of high ground without intruding at all into any wetland area. You could not do that on the adjoining lot. That's not to say we wouldn't recoIl~end approval of it if we saw it if it was done well but it would have different issues. Wildermuth: I guess I really don't have any problem with a retaining wall and I don't have any problem with a boardwalk. It's adding fill next to the lake that just somehow doesn't seeIlI in keeping wi th our wetland and shoreland requireIllents. . Krauss: We looked at the fill, if I could speak to that a little bit. The fill is not really creating a substantially different situation out there. It's not very deep. Wildermuth: Yeah, it's not very deep. 8 inches is not... e Krauss: The reason for it is just to provide, I mean the soil right now is rather squishy. It's high but in a normally wet year it may be difficult to get any kind of use on it even though it is high and above the ordinary high water. The fill is being proposed is merely designed to firm it up. It's not really going to raise it up significantly. Wildermuth: The ordinary high water mark is 896? Krauss: Yes sir. Wildermuth: It looks like the difference in elevation, at least in one area of that where in the dark shaded area it says 896.2 and the ordinary high water mark is 896.4 or is it 896.6? EIIlmings: It's 896.6 on mine. Wildermuth: It's.2 of a foot difference. Wow. How are you going to get down there to put fill in there? Go across the ice? Because to the east is that retention pond right? Don Begin: Right. Batzli: And to the west is the wetland. Wildermuth: Yeah, and to the west is a wetland. Unless you can get a Bobcat down the bernl. That's going to be pretty slow going. e Don Begin's COnlI\lent couldn't be heard on the tape. Planning COI\\I\dssion Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 4 e Wildermuth: That is a beautiful area down there. I hate to see it altered. Although there has been some alteration with the building of that retention pond. Conrad: Well, they can do what they can do. I'm just really surprised and that's what intriguing is I've never seen anybody being able to fill right up to the lake. Wildermuth: To the ordinary high water mark. Conrad: That's real strange. Anyway, Brian? Batzli: I guess I see that differently than setbacks from the house. I think you're trying to acconlplish a lot of different things with that. In part you're trying to maintain vistas and I think a lot of other things. Yeah, I found that interesting. My question also was going to be, how are you going to do this with wetland in one direction and retention pond in the other. Wildermuth: Well there is a berm there. He could probably drive a Bobcat down there or as this gentleman suggested, going in when the wetland's frozen but that is going to create a haulage path down through there. That's probably going to have to have sonle correction done in the spring. e Batzli: Well with that in mind I guess I would recomnlend that we add a condition and I don't know really what to say about it yet other than, if you do go down the berm or they sonlehow al ter the whole area, that they will put it back in it's original condition. Alnlost like it's sonle sort of performance bond. That ntight be, I assunle they'll need sonle sort, do they need to get any type of perndt before they do this? Do they need to submit grading plans or do anything like that? Or once we give this approval, are they. . . Krauss: Once we give this approval, they would be authorized to do it. Now if you want a condition about a perforn\ance bond, we could do that. Batzli: I don't know. Does that make sense? Krauss: I think it does. You know you've got 2 issues there. On the one hand if it goes through the wetland, you want that restored. On the other hand, if they use the bern\ which is protecting a city owned retention pond, we'd want to n\ake Sllre that that wasn't destroyed either. wildermllth: I liked the preclusion where there's no sodding allowed between the retaining wall and the wetland. I think that's a good stipulation. e Batzli: I don't know. Maybe that can just be handled, I think we should say something about that. My only other question was, this proposed fill area. If I'm looking at the scale on this correctly, I don't really have a good ruler but in the description they talk about it being 30 feet between the knoll area and the ordinary high water mark. It appears to nle that it's closer to 80 on this map. The portion that's shaded in. I'm curious Planning Con~ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 5 e about that. If you take one of the nunlbers that they have off of this house, I aSSUIlle those are feet. En~ings: There's a 40 foot drop at the top there too... Batzli: Well that's much more than 30 feet this proposed fill area. I would prefer not to approve it according to the plans if the plans show 80 feet, approximately, and in the application we're talking about approximately a 30 foot area that's going to be filled. Maybe the applicant could actually shed some light on that. Don Begin: I think probably they had...and I've walked it and I work with a good deal of builders, not as a superintendent but in other capacities and I think what's happened possibly is that they've shaded this whole thing but the actual fill won't go to what you'd call right to the water. I think the fill area to stabilize that useable area what they called out 30 feet. The feet froIlI the knoll area out. As far as the way I read this, that there...that berm is about 30 feet. ...scale although it is surveyed. Batzli: That's what troubled me. The fact that it was a survey and so this appeared that they were going to be filling 2 1/2 times what. Krauss: I don't know what the anomoly's being caused by but I know when you're standing out there on that knoll, it does not appear as though it's 80 feet back from the shoreline. It's considerably closer. e Don Begin: No. It's pretty close. Batzli: I guess then I'd just like to have staff check into that before. Ellson: I don't have anything to add. EoIIllings: Can yon tell me wha t these 1 ines represent here? Al-Jaff: That's an easement. An utility. Krauss: There's a sanitary sewer line I believe that runs through there. EIlmlings: Okay. Right through the wetland. Krauss: It's the lowest point. Emmings: And there must be sewer in place there now right? Conrad: Yeah. - EoIIllings: I once asked about putting sand on my beach and I was told I had to call the DNR. My beach is at king of an angle up froIll the lake, up froIlI the high water mark. I was told that I wouldn't have any trouble getting an approval but I did have to call and check. Can you tell me why and the beach, it's pretty long right now but in other years it's kind of short but can you tell Ille why I'd need to get something froIlI the DNR for something as innocuous as that and why they wouldn't have to go to the DNR when they're Planning Con~ission Meeting Novenlber 15, 1989 - Page 6 e talking about a filling? Krauss: As I understand it, the difference would be that beach sand is typically placed above and below the ordinary high water. Batzli: They also probably don't know where the ordinary high water is so they're doing it as a safety check to make sure that when you're applying the sand, I doubt someone's out there taking a survey to determine where the ordinary high water is. Emlllings: Nobody and I guess it's the kind of thing, they said you could call up and they'd say go ahead but you've got to call otherwise they'll COllie and visit you. Batzli: I've come to understand though. That's an interesting point because for instance on Lake Minnetonka you can't rip rap, you can't do anything on the shoreline without getting a permit to do it and I don't know who's controlling that. Whether it's the LMCD or who it is but you can't touch anything near the shoreland. e Ellmlings: Well, this seems 1 i ke a reasonable thing to do to me. I guess I'd be very concerned, when they talk about how you're going to get there, I think that the condition that Brian wants to have is an inlportant one because I don't know if we're going to be satisfied with saying if they disturb the wetland, they've got to repair it. I don't think they should be allowed to disturb it in the first place so they're going to have to do it when it's frozen if they're going that way and I aSSUllle that won't do any hanl but I don't even know tha t for a fact. But other than, it seenls 1 i ke a reasonable thing to do to me if it wi 11 prov ide thelll wi th use of that area down by the lake. I don't have anything else. - Conrad: Okay. Thanks Steve. I have no problem with the retaining wall. The boardwalk. I do question the fill simply because I have never seen us allow that before so specifically in what's before us tonight, I think the fill process has to be defined in this permit. How do they do it? Do we accept thelll driving over the wetland? I don't believe we accept that but I think we do have to identify the process by which they can fill that. I do think we have to identify how they stabilize that so it doesn't wash into the lake. I think that's a glaring deficiency in this. You just don't fill and aSSUIlIe that it's not going to run into the lake wi th the .next rain that occurs. We need a way to decide that. We require every builder in Chanhassen to put up the barriers around their building site so that it doesn't flow someplace else yet here we're right next to the lake and we haven't required that. That's why this whole thing of filling next to the lake seelllS kind of strange. Nobody has said put up a barrier and I can't believe that. That's just really a unique condition that nobody has a regulation that says you can do that. We're talking about dirt. We're not talking about sand here. So anyway, the stabilization process. HOw we take dirt and Illake it grass or whatever it is that the developer's doing, I think we have to have sonle kind of review of that. Restoration to the original condition. If we don't allow disturbance of the protected areas, then we don't need to worry about that and then I buy Brian's COllmlent on the map that says 80 feet or close to it versus the application which says Planning C01'\l1\ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 7 e 310 and I think we just need better definition on what we're really talking about. So spec i fically, whoever 1'lakes the motion, I think there's some things that staff can check out and maybe, I don't know if they're in the part of the motion or not but specifically to make sure that there ar~n't any regulations regarding this that we've missed and the fill process that I particular care about and stablizing the fill after it's in there. I think those are some important things that I do care about in the motion. Enmlings: When you Il1ention that, just to pick up on your point, if we want them to go in there in the wintertime to do the fill to protect the wetland when it's frozen, that means they're not going to be able to stabilize that with any type of cover. Conrad: That's right. And then that will wash down. Em1'li ngs: Before a spr i ng ra in so tha t 's why I think it's par ticularly iIl1portant. Don Begin: Mr. Conrad, I bel ieve under the recomIl1endations on number 1 here you did reCOIl1Il1end erosion control. Krauss: That was specifically to the wetland... e Don Begin: Could we use erosion control along the lake there to keep this fill f r 01'1. . . Conrad: I think you've got to do something like that but here we are. Yeah, you've got to do something like that but I don't know what it is that you've got to do. Maybe that's the right way to do it. Don Begin: Possibly.. .along there or sOIl1ething to keep the whole thing stable. Conrad: Literally you've got to make it, we have force on this particular lake, we have forced developers and cities and what have you. We've had all sorts of probleIl1s of filling in Lotus. Incredible number of things we've forced people to do so we just have to make sure that when this gets filled in that there's some way that prevents the rain water from washing it in. Don Begin: I'm sure we can work that out. Conrad: I'm sure you can. Is there a motion? I have no doubt that you can. Anything else? e Wildermuth: I'll take a stab at it. I propose the Planning Commission recoIlm1ends approval of Wetland Al teration permi t #89-110 as shown on the site plan dated October 210th with the following conditions 1 thru 5 as they stand but with changes to item 1. Instead of the sentence ending with improvements made on the site it would read, and between the ordinary high water mark and the altered or filled area. I think that would take care of the erosion control between the shoreline and the filled area. Then for item 6. I would add performance bond must be posted with the City to Planning COI\\I\\ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 8 e guarantee that any overland haulage path to the fill area be restored to it's present condition. Conrad: Say that again Jim. wildermuth: Performance bond must be posted with the City to guarantee that any overland haulage path to the fill area must be restored to it's present or pre-existing condition. Conrad: In tenlls of your first amendn\ent to number 1. Wildermuth: The first amendlllent' s going to add erosion control. Conrad: Erosion control. soil afterwards. It didn't specifically deal with stabilizing the Wildermuth: That's true. Conrad: Do you want to address that? wildermuth: How do you do that though? Conrad: I think staff can just say, if it's your choice to do that is just to say that staff will word it so that the soil is stabilized. You don't have to word the ordinance. e Wildermuth: Okay. Well, I'd like to add something there to 1 then that the fill wonld be stabi 1 i zed after placen\ent. Conrad: Is that taking care of the concerns? En~ings: I'm just sitting here thinking there's a performance bond that says that they have to put anything back that they disturb or they have to restore it but do we even want to allow them to go through the wetland? wildermuth: I think they're going to have to. Either that or go across the ice. Erlln\ings: But they could go through it at a tinle. I don't know, from some of the talk I've heard, I don't know if we want to rely on restoration to put the wetland back. I think they should have to go through, if they're going ot use a path that's through the wetland, it seems to me it should be at a tinle when they'll do nlininlal damage to the wetland such as when it's frozen. That's probably the only time. The only thing that makes me say that is... Wildermuth: I don't think you can go through the wetland without filling it unless it's frozen. e Batzli: What would happen if we n\ade the filling and the path through there, they have to get staff's approval to do that so as to cause minimum anlount of danlage to whatever because we don't know what the best way or the Planning Co~~ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 9 e best time to do that would be but I think they should be able to work with staff. ElIson: To work with the~1 to get whatever plan they have okayed? E~~ings: Yeah, I like that. One thing that makes me hesitant to even bring it up is obviously they put the sewer right through there and I wonder what the city did in terms of... Wildermuth: Well they tore it up pretty good. Em~lings: In ternls of doing da~lage and restoring it. Probably nothing but nevertheless, yeah I think that's a good suggestion Brian. Krauss: If I may, before you act on that, it just occurred to me that possibly one way to ensure that this is all done in a tiPlely ~Ianner, is to add a stipulation requiring that they get a grading permit approved by staff before starting the work. Then we actually have a permit that we're going to release to them and before releasing it we can make sure that the conditions are met and it gives us a mechanism to then go back out and check up that it was done right. Batzli: That sounds great. Wildermuth: Okay, I'd like to make that item 7. That a grading permit be e obtained. Krauss: Specify though if you would approved by staff so it doesn't have to go back to the City Council. Wildermuth: Approved by staff prior to beginning work. Batzli: Can we so add in that number 7 that the crossing over or the filling will be done with minimal impact to the wetland areas? Wildermuth: Sure, why not. Batzli: Okay. Then I'll accept that. WildeJ::I1'\llth ~Ioved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Com~lission reco~lInend approval of Wetland Alteration Per~lit #89-10 as shown on the Site Plan dated October 20, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. Erosion control shall be installed between the proposed grading and the Class A wetland and between the Ordinary High Water Mark and the al tered or fi lIed area pr ior to any improvenlents made on the si te. Also, the fill area shall be stabilized after it's placement. 2. The applicant should be made aware if the city or utility company needs to use the utility and drainage easenlent. The city or utility conlpany shall not be responsible for any damages to the boardwalk or restoration costs. e Planning CO~\lI\ission Meeting Novembe~ 15, 1989 - Page 10 . 3. The a~ea between the boa~dwalk and the wetland shall be maintained in it's natu~al state. 4. The a~ea between the ~etaining walls and the wetland shall be maintained in its natu~al state with no sod. 5. The boa~dwalk no~th of the Class A wetland up to the o~dina~y high wate~ Illa~k of Lotus Lake shall be of perIllanent const~uction. 6. Pe~fo~mance bond must be posted with the City to gua~antee that any ove~land haulage path to the fill a~ea must be ~esto~ed to it's p~esent o~ p~e-existing condition. 7. A g~ading pe~mit showing minimal impact to the wetland shall be submitted and app~oved by staff p~io~ to any wo~k beginning on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carr~ied. AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN MODIFICATION NO.9, TODD GERHARDT. e Todd Ge~ha~dt p~esented the staff ~epo~t on this item. Con~ad: Any questions? Todd, what's the pu~pose of the p~ope~ty acquisition? I can see the pa~king lots in downtown but the EIllpak, what's happening the~e? Why a~e we doing that? Ge~hardt: The Housing and Redevelopment Autho~ity as it's incentives ~equested o~ gave app~oval to Empak, an incentive p~ogram that would p~ovide a land w~ite down as a pa~t of thei~ incentive to locate in Chanhassen. The facility was one of 98,000 squa~e feet that gene~ated app~oximately $200,000.00 a yea~ in taxes so f~om that they had enough Illoney, 3 yea~s wo~th of taxes, not diffe~ent than any of the othe~ incentives p~ovided to any of the othe~ businesses that located in the indust~ial pa~k but left over that much increment that you could also w~ite down a po~tion of the land. And to do that, the tax inc~ement plan must make notice of that land acquisition o~ w~ite down. Conrad: Questions? It looks consistent to me with the goals, at least f~om a planning standpoint that we've looked at fo~ downtown. Ge~ha~dt: All the documents a~e b~ought, or site plans a~e b~ought th~ough the Planning COIlmlission so you do ~eview those p~io~ to any app~oval given. Again, this is a State law ~equi~eIllent that we bring it to you and pass ~esolution. -- Con~ad: Good. Thanks Todd. Planning Con~ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 11 e En~ings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Con~ission adopt Resolution No. 89- finding Modification No.9 consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. EnlIltings Illoved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. EIl~ings: I read through this and I've just kind of burned out on this a little bit. What we did before on this seenled reasonable to Ille at the tiIlle and what they put together now seeIlIS reasonable to me and I have a feel ing they could put it together in a different combination and I think that was reasonable too. I really don't have any conlIllents. The proposals that Paul's put together this time around seem fine to me. e ElIson: I got a little confused when I read it. By saying that we have a conditional use permit, what does that gain us? Krauss: Conditional uses indicate to me that you have a use that is permissible in the district but because of characteristics associated with it, it requires additional review. If we say a use is permitted, you're in a much more difficult position to establish. ElIson: To add anything on if you want that... Krauss: Special conditions, right. And in this instance with auto related uses, we're able to set out, specify what those conditions are that we want to have Illet before we would allow that use to exist. ElIson: Okay. So we could actually do it on a case by case basis? Krauss: Yes. I don't wish to give the indication though that conditional uses give unilateral control to the City to create conditions as they come along. I believe that when you do make a use condition, you have an obligation to establish those conditions so you can see if they're met or not and not to just develop them on the spot. ~~ings: But you do have some flexibility there because there's a public hearing associated with it and if there's perculiarities in the neighborhood for example where this thing is and the people COIlle in and talk about it, you can address them. e Planning COI\:\~\ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 12 e Krauss: Right and the conditional use per~\it ordinance does allow that as some general guidelines. ElIson: Okay. I like that. It's just one of my pet peeves so I'm glad to see it being resolved once and for all. Batzli: I guess I don't understand the rationale for the difference between convenience stores without gas and convenience stores with gas pumps. Is that the same, Council's feeling was that it was the gas purllpS that were the proble~ls and not the fact that you're being flooded wi th convenience stores? Krauss: Well we got into that a little bit and it took, I don't know that they actually came out and said that but that was what I defined that it was cODling down to. We talked a little bit about convenience stores these days and basically convenience stores are rarely proposed as such without gas pumps. But a convenience store wi thout a gas pUDlp is a little cOJ'~ner Plarket. Batzli: Is that a Kenny's? Krauss: Yeah. ElIson: Or a Tom Thup\b. Most of those don't have gas PUP\ps. e Krauss: In which case it really isn't, it's a consistent retail use and it belongs in a lot of these things without any special review. Batzli: So you're not going to allow any gas in the CBO? Krauss: No. That's the way that was originally proposed. There was some discussion about it being inappropriate within the dense CBO area. Batzli: So what do you do with the current ones in the CBO? Non-confonting uses? Krauss: Yes. Batzli: When would those ever be extinquished? If someone bought that parcel, a different gas company bought the parcel, would they then still be allowed to... Krauss: As long as the use is continued. The grandfathering is a good question. As long as the use is continued, there's no probleD\ regardless of who owns it. En~ings: It's either the use has to be given up for a year or it has to be destroyed. More than 50% destroyed. e Krauss: But if there was a wish to avoid that, I personally wouldn't object to an ordinance that permanently accepted those uses which existed at the date of the adoption of the ordinance. Planning COI'nmission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 13 e Batzli: For instance the MIOCO. They're going to rebuild that. affect does this ordinance have on that? What Krauss: It's already been pe:r.ntitted. We issued a building permit on it a few weeks ago. ElIson: What about someone like a BJ'~ooke's that ntight want to expand or something like that? They'd have to maintain just where they are because that's what's considered grand fathered? Krauss: It would be grandfathered in. There wouldn't be an issue really unless they wanted to expand the gas pump aspect of it. If they wanted to expand the store itself say into the next retail space, it's not something that we would review. ElIson: But if they wanted to put a few more islands in? Batzli: I actually find it somewhat of a convenience to have a couple of gas stations downtownish personally so I just don't know that I necessarily totally agree with your clumping of the areas. I agree it would be better handled with a conditional use pernlit. The only other thing that I wanted to tOllch on was your nleasurenlent from gas punlps. I assume that's what you're doing in these various sections. You're actually measuring it like gas pump to gas punlp? e Krauss: Yes. Batzli: Why are you doing that rather than parcel to parcel? Krauss: Parcel to parcel, I've wr i tten sonle ordinances that are parcel to parcel and what you get is a city that has no auto service. Parcels are often quite large and for example, if you have a multiple tenant site as where the Brooke's is, you'd measure it from the nearest point of that entire property to the nearest residential property and you'd never had a gas station in any kind of proxinlity to residential. Even though the gas punlps are 4013 feet away. Batzli: But here we have a 11313 foot lot, or 1213 foot lot. Your gas station could abut the residential. Krauss: Physically yes. The station could. The pUlnps could not. Batzli: But does the entire station with parking and the traffic and all the problems you're trying to avoid, could abut the residential as long as they put punlps on the far side of the lot. Krauss: The most intense part of that use, yes. ElIson: I pictured it that there'd be like a building between where all the driving is going on and like the residential area. e Batzli: Not necessarily. Planning Conm\ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 14 e ElIson: I know but that's kind of. Batzli: If it's going to be fronting the street. In any event, other than a couple of typos and I think we should say something about in the definition of motor fuel station and...gas pumps we talk about air and oil dispensing. It's also required that they collect oil now too if they dispense it. You rnay want to look into that. I'll listen to what Jim has to say. Conrad: Jim, what do you have to say? Wildernluth: Well, I'l'l standing by nlY guns being basically a free market advocate. I guess I could find sonle argun\ents that this agree wi th sonle of the p's and C's and X's in the little matrix here Paul but I think we could probably find as many different opinions on that matrix as we have people here tonight. There's just one thing that does bother me a little bit. If we're going to say that gas pumps have to be 250 feet apart, why are we going to allow gas pumps and residential parcels to be so close as 100 feet? Krauss: You're getting at two different situations with those setbacks. The 250 foot separation is to avoid the clustering of, the Council's fear was that you'd have 4 gas dispensing operations on an intersection. e Wildermuth: That would bother nle less than seeing a convenience store wi th gas pumps within 100 feet of a residence. If they can all survive, fine. Chances are I don't think 4 convenience stores on 4 corners out here in Chanhassen would survive. Krauss: I wouldn't dispute that and we discussed the free market taking control of these things at the Council Illeeting but they seem to want the reassurance of having a separation requirement. Wi ldernlu th: Is that legal? Krauss: I had the ordinance reviewed by the City Attorney. Batzli: What's the difference between this and requiring a mile distance between contractor's yards? Conrad: It seems the sarne. Anything else Jin\? Wildermuth: No. Other than the fact that I'd like to see that 100 feet increased. Conrad: The logic for 250. Does that basically eliIllinate, what does that really do? What does 250 feet do to, the typical stereotype is 4 gas stations on a corner. I don't know if we have many corners that that's ever going to happen to but what does 250 foot do to let's say a typical intersection where that's protential? e wi lderI1111 th: It precludes 4 gas stations. Planning Con~ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 15 e Krauss: It precludes 4 gas stations. Conrad: But how many can we have there? Probably kitty corner huh? Krauss: Even then, probably not because the right-of-way is only 60 to 80 feet wide typically and TH 5 might be up to 100 feet now. You would be able to have one on the corner and another one down the block is the closest. Batzli: Then you put thenl in a row instead of on the same corner is what you're going to do with this. Krauss: They'd be staggered, yeah. wildernluth: I just had the feeling that we ought to switch those nunlbers around. Put that 100 feet between gas pumps and 250 feet between the gas pump and a residence. Batzli: I think just add a 0 after the 100 feet. Conrad: So that 250 feet basically says only 1 gas station per intersection. No two gas stations side by side basically distributes gas stations throughout the buildable zones. e Wildermuth: Is that desireable? Batzli: I don't think gas stations, most gas stations wouldn't do that. Nowadays they've got all their numbers and they're going to plug thenl in and they're going to go for the right traffic volumes and everything else. They're all franchises and I think you're going to basically allow a first come, first serve situation. Wildernluth: dealerships. one another. But convenience store wi th gas punlps are a lot like car They seenl to work better when they're in close proxinli ty to There's this energy. I don't know. Conrad: I don't know about that. They do tend to cluster but that's typically based on traffic volume and lintited number of intersections. I really do care about that intersection. Wildermuth: I really would not have any problem with convenience store with gas pumps on adjacent corners of an intersection. Batzli: Well when we both vote against it then, the City Council will know that won't they. Conrad: A couple things. Basically I don't believe in the 250 feet. 1 don't mind the separation fronl residential parcels. I think that's important. I don't know if 100 is right but I like that in there. I like your final observation Paul on what's appropriate. When you reviewed the highway business district I think you're absolutely right there. Back up to conditional use, I couldn't accept a conditional use process until e Planning Co~~ission Meeting Novenlber 15, 1989 - Page 16 e I knew what the conditions were that we were looking for and I don't see them. Krauss: Mr. Chairman, they're in there in Section 3 and 4 on page 2. Conrad: So those are the conditions for the conditional use process? Krauss: Yes. That plus the general purpose conditions that are applied... Conrad: Have them treat those as conditions. Krauss: The ordinance is a little difficult to read because it's taken out of context but the sub-heading for those sections relate to conditions. Conrad: So when a neighborhood can\e in and complained that something was too close, what condition are we going to use to guide us? Actually the condition is they can't be within 100 feet period. What is it that's going to tell us that we're going to in\pose 150 foot? What tells us that we can go up? Not a thing. The 100 foot is the absolute so we really don't have a guideline, on that particular condition we don't have a guideline to increase the number of feet between the use. It would be subjective. e Krauss: You nlay have some ability under general issuance standards to apply a more severe guideline. If you can justify it based on that particular site and there's 12 general issuance standards'that would apply to all CUP's that would allow you to do that. On the other hand, you've got to be careful to a point. You know, what we're looking at is establishing tougher than usual conditions for these types of uses. If you're going to go beyond that, you need to have a rationale to support it based on that particular site or else you're being arbitrary and that's the tightrope that has to be walked. Conrad: Right. I understand that but I don't understand the conditional use process. If we have the specifics that we're looking for right here, then what other conditions? What gives us leverage or flexibility to review the thing and apply a little bit different standards? Those would be things that would say what the intent of this ordinance is really to protect the individual neighbor from having a par.ticular nighttin\e traffic or whatever and therefore the 150 foot mark might be different. The 100 foot setback zone would be different. I'm looking for those and I don't see those and typically then we get caught into the fact that this is the ordinance and that's what we can apply and therefore I don't know what the conditions are that we're really looking for to have the flexibility. I don't want to see stuff that I don't have control over. As long as you've got definitions in here for what staff is looking for, I don't need to see it because you can apply those things real clearly and it takes no input on my part to make sure that you're applying those specifics. Batzli: But the conditional use pern\it process would allow you to reject it if it didn't fit in. If 100 feet wasn't appropriate, you could reject the application. e Conrad: Based on what though? Planning COI\\1"l\ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 17 - Krauss: The conditional use permit process itself gives you exordinary latitude. More latitude than you would if it was a perl"llitted use under a site plan. Conrad: Well it sounds arbitrary to me though. Krauss: It is to an extent but you've got general issuance standards here and I won't read all 12 of them but one of them is wi{l be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character. Won't be hazardous to planned neighboring uses. It goes on and on. It's kind of the mom and apple pie things that give it S01"l\e discretion. Conrad: I won't drag this out. I just basically have a personal preference. I don't want to see sOl"llething that I really don't feel has SOI\\e guidelines to it and basically I have a proble:m. Unless there's an intent statement associated with what we're really looking for to alter the condi tions, I can't do it. Anyway, those are I1'\Y comments on this ordinance. There's SOI1'le good things in here and S01"l\e things that are I1'laybe not my favorite things and I would accept a motion. Annette, these seems 1 i ke one... - ElIson: I'm trying to figure out how you'd say it... I move the Planning COI1'lmission recol"lm\end approval of proposed ordinance revision regulating convenience stores. Would that work? Conr ad: Yeah. Is there a second? EI1'\I1'lings: I'll second it. ElIson moved, El"lll"ltings seconded that the Planning COI1'\I1'lission recoI1'lI1'lend approval of the zoning Ordinance Amendl'lent to aI1'lend the Ci ty Code I1'lodifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores, gas stations and autol'lotive service stations as presented by staff. ElIson and EI1'lntings voted in favor. Conrad, Batzli and Wildermuth voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Conrad: Is there another motion? ElIson: Can you send just a failed motion? Krauss: Sure. It would help if there could be sonle statI1'lents as to what the issues were. wildermuth: Yeah, why don't we just state our positions. e ElIson: Do you guys just want to add your 2 cents? Planning CO~\I'lission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 18 e Conrad: We can do that. to make this acceptable? Is there not another motion that somebody finds Batzli: I'll Illake a Illotion and see what happens. I Illove that the Planning Commission recoIllIllend approval of the proposed ordinance revisions regulating convenience stores set forth in the packet dated November 8, 1989 as set forth except that the word "on side" shall be deleted and "on site" shall be inserted there for wherever it is throughout this document. Oil dispensing and the words "and collection" shall be added. After the seventh line in the definition of motor fuel station, in Section 3, paragraph 7, 100 shall be changed to 250. Section 4, paragraph 6, 100 feet shall be changed to 250. Conrad: What did you just do Brian? Ba tzl i : I just changed it so the gas pUIllpS are wi thin 250 feet instead of 100 feet of residential sections. Conrad: Okay, that was your first one. Batz1i: There were both. Conrad: Did you make them both 250? e Batzli: Yeah. I think that's the only two areas where that is. And as much as I'd like to do it, I'll leave the 250 foot requirement in there. Conrad: Is there a second? EIlIIlIi ng s : I '11 second it. ElIson: Okay, what's the base difference? This residential neighbor part? Batzli: Basically we've increased the distance that the gas station has to be away froIll the residential neighborhoods so that in theory at this point, you have to have a Illighty big lot. Basically at a 250 foot minirllum, you're going to have to have at least one parcel, hopefully, between the gas station and the residential section. 250 foot lot would be Illighty big to cOIllply wi th all the setbacks. Conrad: Any other discussion? e Batzli moved, EIlIIllings seconded that the Planning Comndssion recornnlend approval of the proposed ordinance revisions regulating convenience stores set forth in the packet dated November 8, 1989 as set forth except that the word "on side" shall be deleted and "on site" shall be inserted there for wherever it is throughout this document. Oil dispensing and the words "and collection" shall be added. After the seventh line in the definition of motor fuel station, in Section 3, paragraph 7, 100 shall be changed to 250. section 4, paragraph 6, 100 feet shall be changed to 250. Batzli and EIllndngs voted in favor. ElIson, Com:ad and Wildernluth voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Planning COI1:ll'lission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 19 - Conrad: Is there another motion? Batzli: What me to take the 250 feet? Wildernluth: Take the requirenlent to the gas pUl'lpS out of it... Batzli: Between parcels or you just want to take it out cOl'lpletely? Wildermuth: Right. Conrad: Is there another motion? Batzli: Well I'll do that. Conrad: We can send it forward without a positive vote. We don't have to cornproIlli se. Emmings: And I don't think that's a particular bad idea. We already sent something to the City Council that we thought was alright and they sent it back with a bunch of directions that Paul's taken into account and he's done some more on his own. They're basically, to me it didn't do a lot to send it back here this time. They're going to wind up, they seem to have sonle fairly strong notions on how they want it to be and if they like it, they're going to do it and if they don't, they're not. I don't see any reason to prolong this. e Conrad: Okay. Is there another motion that somebody would like to make or should we send this forth with a negative vote and the reasons set forth? Any motion? Batzli: Why don't we send it on with the negative vote. Conrad: Okay. Those of us who voted negatively for both motions, Jim would you detail the reasons that you voted negatively. wildermuth: I can live with basically everything in here and I particularly like the way you cleaned up the problem with the zoning Paul but I'd like to strike any reference to distances between gas pumps. Other than that, and I would be in favor of increasing distance between gas pUIllpS and residential residences. e Conrad: My feeling for the reason I voted no was I think the 250 feet is really restrictive and although I haven't taken an inventory of the intersections in town, I do believe that that's going to prevent gas stations frOIlI Illoving in here and therefore in the end I think there will be a lessening of cOIllpeti tion and I don't agree wi th that. I think somebody could persuade me where if there were opportunities, multi opportunities for gas stations to exist I might pay attention but in this particular case, I don't see any way that a couple gas stations could exist on the same intersection and therefore I don't believe we'd have a competitive situation in Chanhassen. The other thing that I don't like is a conditional use process where the conditions aren't clearly defined in Planning Co~\mission Meeting Nove~\ber 15, 1989 - Page 20 e terms of our flexibility and the intent of what we're trying to do. Anyway, we'll forward this one and see how the City Council wants to deal with it. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXIV, OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING, TO PROVIDE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF WARRANTED BY SITE PLAN REVIEW AND TO REQUIRE ENCLOSED PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. Public Present: Dean Johnson - Cenvesco Hal pierce - Architect, Design Resource Group Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this i te~\. called the public hearing to order. Cha i r~\an Conr ad e Dean Johnson: Obviously we've been in front of each other before. I have a project that you know this does affect. I guess you know the part of the change that I'd like to talk to is the double attached garage with the double, 2 parking stalls per multi-fa~dly unit. I guess the way in which I'd like to talk about it is in the fact of affordable housing. We feel that in Chanhassen you have designated land R-12. The different multiple family zonings. So~\e of the reasons for doing this I'm sure in your minds are for affordable housing. We also feel there is a market for it in here. Obviously I wouldn't have been in front of you with the PUD in the R-12 zoning if I didn't feel that there was a market for it. Just thinking of the new businesses that are coming in with Rosemount and McGlynn Bakeries and now I believe there's another one that you talked about earlier that's co~dng in on the industr ial si te over there. You're going to be bring ing a lot of people in with this and these people don't all ~\ake $40,000.00 a year to afford a single family house or $35,000.00 a year to afford an upscale multi-family house. I guess I want to get into those types of things here so you know when you do this and you raise this, that you realize what's happening and what you're doing to the construction and what you're doing to a segment of the population that now works here in Chanhassen or now is going to work here in Chanhassen. I guess we should talk about the product a little bit. With the ordinances you have, when we chose a building to put on this site and as others are going to do after me, we chose a unit where the garage was partially tucked under the unit. When you have your 35% i~\pervious surface restriction that you do have, it kind of requires that. If the garage is now outside, even if it's just attached like a house is off to the side of the house, you have not only the house area that you're dealing with but you're having a garage area. So when you throw a 35% impervious surface, it's hard to get within that area with your design unless you're going in lower density. If you're going to take the R-12 in the case that I have and you're going to start doing those types of things, it means your density is going down. If your density goes down, the price per units going to have to go up because your ground costs are there and your development costs are there and all the he - Planning Conmlission Meeting NOVeI\\ber 15, 1989 - Page 21 e types of things that conle with developing go along. We were also, and I know I've said this 100 times to you, is that we were trying to, in this particular project and in any project that anybody's going to bring in affordable housing, is try to give alternative to rents. We found in study of this and doing what a developer does to see if a project's feasible, that we were given an alternative for people instead of renting. We found that we could build this unit and it would be slightly more per month to own the unit but by the time you got the tax incentives figured out and the homesteading all the other things, that it was actually considerably less. We feel that the double car garage standard is going to make both townhouses and especially apartments just cost ineffective. I guess at this time I know an architect by the name of Hal pierce, I'm going to introduce here and I'd like him as an architect to talk about the different types of things that are going to be required in the construction and the types of costs that you're going to get into for doing this and I'd like him to show you what his thoughts are and what types of impacts they're going to have on that market and how it's going to affect the prices in that market. So if I may, I'd like to introduce him now and then I'd like to talk after that if that's okay. e Hal pierce: I'm Hal Pierce. I'm an architect with Design Resource Group. I'm also on the Planning conlnl1ssion in Plymouth so I sympathize with your dealing with some things tonight. What I would like to talk about tonight is basically how it affects the design of the building fronl the architects point of view and the cost and basically we're looking at, there's 2 types of units. One that Dean has proposed and another is the typical type of a multi-family unit. If I could use your overhead. Basically this is the typical tuck under type townhouse unit. Basically with single car garage, we're at about 763 square feet. To add a double car garage in this type of a design would add about 38% increased to the size of the ground cover and add probably $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 to the price of the unit. Because of the tuck under, not only the garage is bigger but also because of the configuration, the unit would have to get bigger also. Again, there could be some other designs and this has been a very cost effective type of housing design. The other type of design, I think they all 3...are typical 3 story tuck under garage. I'd say 90% of the multi-family is built like this. 3 floors, a garage is underneath the units. Usually it's precast concrete for the 3 hour fire barrier and we go wood frame on top of that. Now these units that I'm using are just a very standard, typical unit with the building with around 750 square feet for a I bedroom, about 1,000 square feet... Take a look at the parking and garage and I've kind of dashed in where the units would go above it. Basically a 1 bedroom apartment would cover about 2 1/2 spaces of parking below and a 2 bedroom would cover about 3 1/2 spaces. Now with 3 floors, we've got with the 2 units, that's 6 spaces so we've got ~ parking spaces we have under the uni ts. We have 6 parking spaces, this comes out I to 1. To increase this to what your ordinance standards propose, we'd have to go 2 spaces for the 1 bedroom unit and provide 9 parking spaces. The only way we could do this is basically eliminate the top floor and go to a 2 story apartment building which would then increase the ground cover like I say to get the density that is allowed in this zone or we could enlarge the units of course and Plake those luxury uni ts so we cover more gar age space. We could attach the garages above the ground. I've only known of one that's done this and it - Planning Corlll'lission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 22 e isn't very handsome building. It makes some very large above the ground garages if they have to be attached or l'laybe go to a 2 story underground parking garage which I haven't seen done but I know it'd be very, very cost ineffective. So what I tried to do with some of the actual physical restraints would be on the typical types of buildings that are being built today. Are there any questions? Conrad: Yeah, go back through this particular one again. ElIson: Did you say if we had a I bedroom, you could have a I car garage? Krauss: That's true. We did consider Mr. pierce's conmlents on this and there's probably sorne val idi ty to it. Yes, I bedrool'1 only does require 1 stall, however it takes up a smaller area so there's more of them and conceiveably there could be a problel'1 in cranmling enough stalls under the building unless the building footprint was enlarged because you had some anleni ty room or something else that pushed out the first floor larger than just the footprint that was required for the apartments themselves. Hal pierce: Just in response to that. I haven't really gone into some of the othe)': thing s that go into... storage possibly, al so trash cornpactor and elevator. Mechanical rOOl'IS and stuff and also access with garage doors usually take 2 spaces at each end. But usually it averages out with the con~on spaces, we usually get a I to I ratio. e Enlmings: Did you say that you're on the Planning Commission in? Hal pierce: In Plymouth, yes. Enmlings: What does Plymouth do with this issue? Hal pierce: PI~louth has a 1 parking stall and 1/2 parking stall outside at the present tinle for a nlulti-family which would be an R-4 zone. En~ings: What about do you have sonlething like an R-12? Hal pierce: Well that's what would be our R-4 zone. EnUllings: Okay, and there you have I enclosed and... Hal pierce: And 1/2 parking stall outside. So that's I 1/2. They like to see more but that's their number. I usually try to design so there's probably 1.7, 1.8 parking spaces. One inside and over the nlinimunl because sometinles, depending on how many 2 bedrool'1 apartments there are. They don't have, 2 bedroOIII apartments require 2. I have worked in some cOl"Ulllmi ties where they require 2 for a 3 bedroo:m apartnlent but that would actually, if we looked at a 3 bedroom, we'd add one more parking space. e En~ings: The thing that interested me about this is whether you have I bedroom, 2 bedrooms or 3 bedrooms, if you have a married couple that are each, or the man and the wife are both working, you've got the same number of cars regardless of the nunlber of bedrooms. Why would we relate it to bedrool"ls at all? Planning Cornmission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 23 - Krauss: There a:re statistics that demonstrate that the number of bodies per unit is related somewhat to the size of the unit. ~~ings: But if it's parents and children, the children aren't driving for the first 16 years or whatever. ElIson: Well even if it was parents and childJ~en that's 2 bedrooms, that's definitely 2 cars but 1 car could especially a lower price place could be easily be a single person that couldn't afford a house unless they were married so they're buying something like this. I would think there's a higher probability of an individual in a lower priced home than vice versa. I would just think there'd be more of a chance of it but you're right. If there's a couple, there's probably 2. Batzli: To really ruin their statistics, I think I lived in that apartment building when I first got married and we had 3 cars. Hal pierce: I guess it comes down to, in trying to get that amount of parking on the site and still stay within your 35% impervious surface area. It Krauss: I think there really is an issue there with the hard surface coverage but the issue may relate more to the hard surface coverage requireIlIent than it does to the parking requirenlent. We haven't conle to you with any kind of proposals to change it but based on a lot of ordinances that I've worked with, 35% hard surface coverage is pretty tight. That's a very tough standard to adhere to. Possibly that warrants some reassessment. But you may have a cart leading the horse type of situation here. What do you think is a valid design standard and then can vou build that within the ordinance. I think vour decision should first be 1s what's the valid design standard in terms of the number of stalls that should be J~equired and then if the oJ~dinance needs changing to aCCOntIllodate that, then consider that. Batzli: I think the issue is really, if in fact that district is designed to have a higher density and lower cost housing, the question is really then what is the change in the affordability of that housing due to what we're requiring here tonight. We're jacking up the price $10,000.00 per unit. Maybe that's a value judgment we nlake. If we're talking about doubling the price of the developments by doing this, then maybe it's something we don't want to do but that's really their point is that by doing this, we are pricing the type of housing that we are supposedly promoting in the district out of the range of the people that would buy it. ElIson: Or change the hard surface or whatever. Krauss: Well there's nothing though as far as the density relates to value. We have a developer here that wants to build to the low end of the market segment and that's fine but you could have another developer before you that was working to hi t another segI\lent and it's not the same kind of requi renlent. -- EnII\lings: We have the townhouses we approved just before Cenvesco first came in down here and they were, all of their units had 2 car garages and Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 24 e they just did that so that obviously was directed at a different segment of the market I suppose. Krauss: In the not too distant past I worked on a number of townhouse projects that were designed to sell for $300,000.00 a piece and apartments that rent for $1,200.00 and up. Now I don't know if they're going to ever see that in Chanhassen but you can see different market segments and that's not related to the density. Conrad: Well you're cOl'ling on impervious surface. In the I'lore dense districts, the higher density districts, a 35% il'lpervious surface right? 65% hard is allowed. Krauss: No. you've got a 35% hard surface coverage. Conrad: In R-12? Krauss: Yes. ~~ings: That's what they've been struggling against with this project on top of the hill. That was my understanding. Krauss: In our recent analysis of the Cenvesco project, you had a lot of the lots at 34%, 34.5%. e Conrad: 34 what? Coverage or open? ~mlings: Inlpervious. 34 il'lpervious. Hard. Conrad: In residential for sure we're talking 35% impervious. Krauss: The maxlnlunl lot coverage is 35% so you're looking at 65% green area. Which if you think that you've already got setback requirements that create open area. That you've got wetland protection that creates open space. You've got drainage that creates open space. You've got oftentimes steep gradings that preserve open space. That doesn't leave a whole lot to work with. It's another issue than what we're discussing tonight but it's a tough standard. Conrad: That's business that we're allowing 70% or 65% coverage right? Krauss: Industrial, yeah. Conrad: Industrial, con~ecial goes up to that? Okay. Anything residential is the opposite? Okay. Any other conmlents? Do you want to come back up? e Dean Johnson: You guys touched a lot on what I was having trouble designing with that building and a lot of the reason. It is hard to stay within the 35% and build affordable housing trying to stay within that thing. If you did increase the impervious surface, then there's more flexibility with design. It's easier to give things and still build affordable housing so I agree wholeheartedly with Paul there. I guess you Planning COI\II\li ssion Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 25 e know where I'd like to go and 1'1'1 going to use the projector here SOI'le, if I may, is get into showing you the types of people that you have working here. Showing you what types of qualifying it take to get these and show that some of these people are making fairly good money. I'd like to show, I've got a lot of statistics on single parent families. On single people. I have a project that I did in Plymouth that I'd like to show you what the nUI'lbers actually ttlJ'~ned out on because it's a finished product in PlY:Olouth so if I I'lay. Conrad: Sure, go ahead. Dean Johnson: The first one here has to talk about occupations in the metropolitan area. These are the different kinds of income that you see in the metropolitan area. E:omlings: Where are the developers? Dean Johnson: They're so far off the scale Steve, you can't see them. EI'mllngs: Which end? e Dean Johnson: The low end of course. These numbers, just to give you SOI'le quali fication, COI'le frOTll Minnesota Salary Survey 1989. These SaTlle nUTllbers, now if I can find the brochure, there's a brochure that's put out. I don't believe it's by the City of Chanhassen but it is put out for the City of Chanhassen by the Minnesota Department of Human Resources is it? Economic Developfllent. These saI\le numbers are in that pamphlet that was put out. The iteI\IS such as secretary, 2, second division. Punch press operator. Electronics asseI\lbly. Welder. Machinist. Tool and die I'lakel~. Those were the i teI\IS we took directly from that brochure that was put out for Chanhassen. The reason I wanted to do it is I wanted to show you what kinds of wages they make and what type of annual wage that works out to. I'd like to talk a little bit about the median range in Carver County. The I\ledian wage in Carver County is $21,112.00. Median wage in Minneapolis- St. Paul is $22,385.00. These are from again this survey and the U.S. Census Bureau. I'd like to also show you this transparency. A lot of this data CaI\le frOI\1 the Metropolitan Council. This is a...Metropolitan Council. It shows that 40% of the people are upper inCOI\le. I believe on that they consider upper inCOI\le over $27,000.00. The nUfllbers are, they use the dollar numbers from 1979 to 1980 because that's when the last census was taken. What they've done for this circle is to analyze what cost of living increases and that are and this...is what they're projecting, what the Met Conncil is projecting frOI\1 1986 to 1995. So what's happening is 40% of the people have incomes that can afford single family honses. The other 60% of the people cannot afford them or would have a hard time affording them. I'd like to go to then, let's see here. I'd like to go to what it wonld take to qualify for the units I have before yon. My particular units. These are the 2 bedrooI\l, single car garages we were anticipating. We've gotten onr bids and these nt1I\lbers again you've heard before. We were expecting to sell these at $55,000.00. Now if we were to put a double car garage on it, it turns out I've estimated a little low. Hal has fignred that they'd be in a range from $10,000.00 more up to possibly $15,000.00 more depending on the style of unit. Let's take the lower end. If you up e Planning ComDlission Meeting Novembe:r: 15, 1989 - Page 26 e it to $65,000.00, my p:r:ice :r:ange, qualifying income fo:r: the single ca:r: garage would need $26,400.00. Principle and interest payment would be $501.00. principle, interest, taxes and insurance would be $638.00. What you would be doing if you required the double car is you'd be requiring $10,000.00 Dlore against SODle in units. Some in the double car itself. If you're putting a double car garage on a unit and you're doing it in a townhouse, you have to attach it somewhere. You're going to end up having to spread the unit on just to even find a place to put that double car garage on that so you're going to gain in the living space and in the garage but you may require the qualifying income to be up to $30,556.00 and principle and interest $598.00 and PITI of $738.00. Our 3 bedroom unit that we had anticipated was $68,900.00 and these people would need to qualify at $31,442.00. Obviously we're up ove:r: Dledian incoDles already. Now we're up over what the ave:r:age person can take. Batzli: When you':r:e qualifying, what a:r:e you doing? Paying 10% down? Dean Johnson: 10% down and also figuring in a car pa~lent because most everybody coming in to buy one of these a:r:e going to, and I guess I use car paYl'lent somewhat loosely. They're going to have some long term debt p:r:obably along the way so we added in some long term debt. Just general expe:r:ience in business tells you that every time you qualify, somebody has one type of loan o:r: another. Most often a car. - EIllIllings: So to the extent that you've got, these are all exaIllples of types of units that you planned into Oak view. Dean Johnson: These are what I planned into Oak View. EIllIllings: And all these are aiIlled at the 40%. Dean Johnson: No. Some of theDI are. The $26,000.00 is in the l'ledian. EI'lmings: So it was $27,000.00? Dean Johnson: That was $27,000.00 and then usually what happens is you do have some down l'loney so you do pick up SODle of the low... We real i ze we're not Section 8 housing. I ':m not trying to say tha t we're Section 8 housing. What I aDI trying to say is we do pick up a category of that housing wi th this pJ~oject. I guess at this point I'd like to show you what happened when we went into the Creekside project. I don't know, were you people out at the Creekside project? Did you people go out there? ElIson: In PI~louth? Dean Johnson: Yeah. ElIson: I think we did. - Dean Johnson: This is what happened when I sold these units. This is from going back through the files and determining who we sold to. We sold to 47% Illarried people. I didn't go back and actually get ages in this. We sold to an awful lot of elderly. We sold to an awful lot of just starting Planning COfllInission Meeting Novenlber 15, 1989 - Page 27 e out single couples. Not a lot of inbetweens. It was either end of the spectrnnl was more empty nesters or just starting ont. To give yon an idea of that, in the married people, only 4 families had children. There was 5 children total. One family had 2 children and the others each had I child so 5 children went in with that and that's why I say there was such a wide range. Either they hadn't started having children or left. Enlmings: How nlany uni ts there? e Dean Johnson: 128. So we've got a fairly good sampling. We've got 4 years of selling. 22% were single people male. To give you an idea of children again. Of the 22% there, 4 of those had children, 1 each so there were 4 children generated by those people. The renlaining was nlade up of 31% of single female households. Of the single fenlale households, we had 10 that had children, 2 had 2 so we gained 12 children there. So we ended up with a total of about 21 children in 128 units in this particular project. These sold in a price range when they started out from $55,200.00 up to $60,000.00 when they started out and ended up in the 60's range, in the upper 60's by the time the 4 years had lapsed and building costs had gone up and the different things that happened. I guess the conclusion I'nl drawing from this is well, maybe we should go to one other transparency. Not to transparency you to death but this is a transparency that was again this was out of the Met Council's book. According to the Met Council in the next years, single parent households, not single people but single parent households is going to be 18% of our people that are going to go into these types of uni ts. I guess what I 'nl saying to you is you're going to end up with a large influx of people that divorced or whatever the reason is, have a child or 2 but there's only 1 parent. Consequently the need for 2 garages is going to be a burden to them. They're going to need the 2 bedrooms but they're really not going to need that extra garage. The other thing is in showing you at the Creekside project is we had single females and single males buying into this project. Most of them wanted the extra bedroom for like an office. What were some of the other reasons that were used in that case? Sometimes a guest bedroom. Sometimes an extra den or a place to store things. They wanted that but they didn't really need the garage. Okay? So you're going to get those types of people that come into this thing. I guess at this point I feel that I've shown you that there are going to be people that are going to go into those 1 story units that are going to end up you know being in that price range that you know to cut all 2 bedroonl, I car garages is going to be a burden to these people. I guess front there what I'd like to do if I nlay is go into what we found when we searched through Chanhassen for availability. We went to the nlulti listing conlputers. This is the 1989, it's a little snlall but everything that was bonght and sold and listed through MLS. This does not represent every house sold but in other words, most builders do not put every house they build on MLS. If they sold it to a client, there's no reason to put it up for sale so it doesn't make this. This is some new houses and then sonle used honses. As you can see in the housing end, the single family homes, you have one house that's in an affordable range or in a range where these people can afford it. $54,000.00. The house was built in 1930 and it's a rambler on Hickory Avenue. I'm not sure where that is but the majority of your houses are up in the $90,000.00 range and more. When you get into nlUlti-fanlily homes, ...54,000.00. The lowest is e Planning COl'n'lission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 28 e $64,900.00 and then it automatically goes up into the 70's and 80's and so again, you're that step above. When you talk about the other project that' you approved before we callie in, you're tal king about South Lotus. I know the gentlePlan that's developing that. I've known him for a couple of years. He is building to a little upscale market than I am. In his market I would go to a 2 car garage also but he is going towards that market. He keeps bringing himself out of the affordable housing range and going to a little more upscale townhouse. So I guess what I'm saying to you is with these, the availability of this house in this price range is next to none. You don't really have affordable housing. I think another point that I'd like to bring up, I don't know how many of you ever read the Council report when I did go in front of the Council for the PUD but at that point Jay Johnson relayed a story about a Korean falllily that through his church he was trying to place in Chanhassen and he Plade the statePlent that he found absolutely no housing that this Korean family could go into in Chanhassen. None of any kind and I know that's in the Minutes so if you want to go back through and read that. I know that he has a personal thing with it or personal contact with it. I guess the other thing is when we get into rental property because so far all I've been talking about is townhouses. In Chanhassen right now as of 8-89, August of '89, this comes from the apartplent guide. The organization called the Apartplent Guide. Of the 354 units that you have that rent in Chanhassen, you only have a vacancy rate of 6.2%. 22 units is all that was vacant at that point. I believe also that in your rental units, I don't believe any of them have attached garages. In fact some of them I don't believe have garages at all and I don't believe any of them are attached. None of them are 2 car garages so right at the moment you don't have any of that and you've got an occupancy rate or a vacancy rate of only 6.2%. You could stand of that type of unit. In other words, low end unit. When you have a vacancy rate of that little at that time of the year. That shows to me and to other people that are knowledgeable that there is a need for that type of housing. I guess I was going to read sonle excerpts out of the housing guide that the Met Council, it's part of this booklet right here. Housing and Development Guide. I'PI assuming you people have this. If you want, I certainly can give you a copy of it or see that you get one. It talks about affordable housing in a number of places and I guess I don't want to read the whole thing. I think this should be read before you review this thing because some of the things in here it does...are being done in Chanhassen and it Plight be good ideas that you do want to do. But a couple of the things I will read. One of them deals, it says several policies deal with ways local governments and d~velopers can facilitate production of affordable housing. They recoPIPlend modifying zoning ordinances for housing size, lot sizes and garages. Then we get farther back in this thing where it talks about ways to do affordable housing. It says the policy plan. The main heading is housing affordability. In that on page 13 it says eliminating garages. A garage can add several thousand dollars to the cost of a house. Many people consider one a necessity but garages are not essential for basic living needs. Eliminating a garage can substantially reduce the price of a house. Market demand should dictate whether garages are constructed. These with other coP@ents on here you might want to look over. I guess the last thing that I want to do is, well...transparency here is where Chanhassen falls in affordability. SOPle of these have, these are alternative types of houses other than single faPlily. What do these people have? Do they have other e e Planning COIlIll\ission Meeting NOVell\ber 15, 1989 - Page 29 e alternatives for this? Chanhassen has only 23.8% of it's housing is alternatives. As you can see the goal that's set up by the Met Council, they would like to see 41% so the Met Council would like to see an increase in this so it has recollm\ended an increase. I guess for conclusion one, I guess I feel that in Chanhassen there is a need for affordable housing that more could be done and there could be more affordable housing. Two, you would be reducing, if not eliminating, affordable housing in going to these garages. You'd be adding $10,000.00 Illinlrt\Ull\ cost a townhOIl\e unit which is the "leanS in which you can get affordable housing and you're certainly not going to get it in large lots and single fan\ily homes so your multi-family method of doing it is about the only way open to you. Three, you are cutting out a large group, well again these are all kind of parts together. There's a large group of people that can't afford housing that right now the housing is not being planned for or allowed for. with this type of restrictions it would lllake it even harder. Again, getting back to you know the public that you are serving is, I'm not saying that you're not trying to think of affordable housing but there's a large portion of the public that is not being served that could be looked at. I guess the fact of going to the garages would again stop anybody from being able to build on R-12 unless it was in the luxury and larger category. You wouldn't be able to use your R-12 for affordable housing sites which, not that that's the only reason for R-12 but it certainly is one of the reasons for R-12. I guess if you were to ask me for reco"~endations, obviously I'm a little impartial here so I don't know how much weight you put to what I say but in looking at it as a person as well as a developer, if you change apartments to having 2 car garages, you're going to force it to only be luxury apartlnents. I think that other COlllllluni ties have probably thought of what you're thinking of now and not gone to it. I can't imagine that parking issues with apartment buildings is for the first time being brought up in Chanhassen. Every co"mlunity that I've ever known has struggled with outside parking in apartnlents and the junkiness that can somewhat cause and towing the cars away and all that type of stuff. I'n\ sure that they've thought about having more underground parking, more enclosed parking but realized that the cost effectiveness would just stop that and you'd lose that flexibility of even being able to build anything but a luxury apartments. And as far as the multi-family townhouse type, I guess my recon~endation is that if you need to raise it, not that I'm saying it needs to be raised but if you need to raise it, 2 is a bit steep because there are those people that do not need that extra stall which you would be putting a burden on. Maybe the alternative is to go to a 1 1/2 stall. Require half the project to be 1 car garages and the other hand to be 2 car garages. I think there's a lot of basis for that and I think there's some good thought in that. If you see a need for doing it, don't across the board do it because you are going to be hurting SOllie people and causing them to bear an unfair burden. I guess that's all I have. e Enmlings: Can I ask you a question Dean? Getting back to your project over here, we saw on the graphic 2 and 3 bedroo1':1 uni ts. Did you have 1 bedroo1':1 units in that? Any at all? e Dean Johnson: No but I think I'll have to admit, after doing some of this, S01':le of thi s surpr i sed 1':\e and I think there is some roo1':\ for 1 bedrooms. Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 30 e EI1mlings: In Plymouth in that developI1lent, were there any I bedroom apartI1lents in that or townhomes? Dean Johnson: In PlYI\louth, they were all 2 bedrooI1l. There were no 3 bedrooI1l. They were all 2 bedrooI1l. Oh, we had one unit that had a 5 course basement in it and in there you could finish a third bedroom, that's right but the basic unit was 2 bedroonl. ElIson: Didn't SOllIe of thenl have 2 car garages in PlYI\louth? I thought I remenlbered seeing 2 car garages. Enmlings: SOI1le of thenl do here too. ElIson: It's been a while but I don't think so. Conrad: Any other COI1lI1lents? Is there a nlotion to close the publ ic hearing? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the pqblic hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Okay fol ks, we're rev iewing the whole ord inance and it's nlore than multi-family and parking spaces issue and it's not a Cenvensco issue. It's a real broader issue and some interesting thoughts. Jim, we're going to start down with you. e Wildermuth: Dean, you did a nice job in your presentation. I guess I started after reading this packet last night, I thought that 2 garages stalls per unit was a desireable thing but at this point I'm thinking something less than 2 with an average blended figure of 1.6 or 1.7 or sOI1lething 1 ike that I1light be appropr ia te. As far as the standards are concerned, I don't know where you dredged these up Paul but they look good. Batzli: Can we get the drawings in the ordinance too? Krauss: I can put I1l0re of them in. I'll be the fir st to admi t that ordinances are typically plagerized from one another and I plagerized heavily on one that I wrote a few years ago. Wildermuth: The other thing I liked about your proposal Paul was it's pretty broad. It looks at not just residential or apartment construction but it's pretty comprehensive except parking requirements in general. That's all I have. Batzl i: In general, I agree I1lainly wi th what Jim sa id. Not knowing really how I1lany parking spots are adequate for any given activity, obviously we're looking to you Paul for guidance and I don't know whether 2 is too many or 1 1/2 is enough. It's worked for PlYI\louth. Maybe that would work here. I don't think that we should necessarily impose some heavy burden. e Hal pierce: 1 1/2 total. One parks in the drive... Planning CO!'I!'lission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 31 e Batzli: Right. 1 1/2 total parking spots for each unit. But the point being that I don't know if 2 is actually required or needed. I don't know what the statistics really say whether how many people have 2 cars and are they going to load up their garage with junk because there's no place to store stuff so they end up putting their one car outside. I think that was the original intent of why we started looking at having larger garages because of the storage problem. They're going to put their snowlnobiles and whatever in their garage. Suddenly they're going to have their car in the driveway and then if they've got 2 cars, they've got lout in the street. I think it kind of escalated fr0l11 there and I don't know necessar ily exactly anymore what the proble!'l is tha t we're trying to solve to be qui te honest with you. If it takes a 2 car garage, then I'm in favor of a 2 car garage and I don't know any better if that's what it takes or if that's not what it takes. If it's a requirement that you Plake the garage over si zed and that handles it because then you can put your car in there and the junk, then it's all the Sal1le to me. I don't care you know to be qui te honest with you as long as there's enough parking so there's not a public safety hazard where everybody's parking on the street and you can get the police cars and the ambulances and fire trucks through. To me it makes very little difference. If there's enough parking so it's not a public safety problem and there's enough space in the unit that you don't end up with every car parked outside and I think those were the two initial problems we started to solve and given this ordinance, I trust you inlplicitedly that this is what's required but he's presented things today and it sounds like PI~louth has a little bit different angle on it and so I don't know that I can make up my mind given that information. COI1~ents, I think you did a really good job. I had 3 minor questions. One was in the first section, paragraph 2, it talks about required parking. Loading areas shall not be used for storage, display, sales, rental, repair or motor vehicles or other goods or for the storage of inoperable vehicles of snow. e wildermuth: Or snow I think it is. Batzli: Is that inoperable vehicles or snow? Krauss: Or snow. Batzli: What's an inoperable vehicle or snow? Wildermuth: It's for storing snow. ElIson: It's so you don't just push it there and leave it there. Batzli: Oh, for the storage of snow. It all becomes clear to me now. Conrad: Were you born in this area? Ie Ba tzl i : There's just too I1lany or's in there I guess. Tha t was about the 15th or. Okay, I see where that goes back to. One other thing that I just thought was really interesting was in the 75 degree angle on page 3. Do you actually require nlore space between the 2 curbs than a 90 degree angle? I tr ied for the 1 i fe of I1le to figure out why you'd need I1l0re space when you're parking at an angle then when you're at a 90 degree angle and I'll l- ~., Planning Conllltlssion Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 32 e trust you there again but I couldn't figure that out for the life of me. Krauss: If you're looking at me for a good answer for that, in all the years I've worked with this ordinance, I've seen this standard in other places. I've never had anybody propose 75 degree angle parking. Batzli: Well at least there's an honest answer. The asterick before the 45-60-70 degree angle. Krauss: What do they refer to? Batzli: Yeah, what are those? Emmings: Is it to put one way aisles? That's all I could figure out. Batzli: Are those one way aisles? Krauss: Those are one way aisles, yes. Batzli: Okay. My final question is, when you nleasure the stalls, are you measuring it like center line to center line? Stripe center line or how do they normally measures these things? Do they just do a total square footage and then divy it up according to the plan that they have? -- Krauss: Basically what you do is if you have a parking aisle, you divide it by 8 1/2 and that's the number of stalls you can fit in that aisle. Bat zl i : But when you're requir ing a mininlunl sur face area for each stall, that's how you end up doing it then is you take the overall area and then divide it by your number of stalls to see if you have that minimum number of square footage for each stall? Krauss: Which section are you... Batzli: Let's see. I lost it now. Since this is such a fun question, why don't we go on and I'll find it. -- ElIson: I thought it was pretty detailed too. I liked how thorough it was. I liked the idea that no change of use can be made without coming back and looking at the parking again. I thought about, we're saying that they cannot use the parking for any kind of storage. In other words, we're saying we don't want people to have boats sitting on the side and things like that and you know, there's a fine line. They are an eyesore but there is very few people in residential neighborhoods that don't have a boat on the side of their garage and things like that and yet we're penalizing these people even more so to say, go to a A-I Storage or something because now we're not even going to allow you to do that so I'nl not quite sure that I'd want to penalize them more on something like that. I kind of question that. I don't think bicycle parking should be a requirement for multi- family type dwelling. I think that those people will in their garage with their bikes and I see a bike stand thing at a school and public facilities and things like that but I don't think it should be a requirement for a honle area. What's the reason behind one way aisles? Planning Conmtission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 33 e Krauss: What's the reason behind it? Ell son: Yeah. Krauss: When you use angled parking in one way aisles, in rnost cases except for the 75 degree, it allows you to shoe horn in a parking aisle in a nluch narrower space. The reason is that sometinles when you have a si te, you need to design in one way parking just simply because of how you have to access it. The bicycle parking, I don't have a strong feeling about the bicycle parking but this ordinance also applies to shopping centers and everything else. Frankly I don't have a strong preference for that. You can require it under a site plan review I would think if you thought it was necessary in a shopping center. ElIson: into the control. that? I like the part about you shouldn't design any parking to back street. All parking lots shall provide islands for traffic Is that going to be as per determined by staff or something like Krauss: Yeah, that will corne out during the site plan review procedure. e ElIson: Okay. I also thought that the presentation you had was pretty nice and it nlade !lIe feel like Chanhassen is a bunch of snobs. We don't allow anybody in without incoIlles over x or what have you. I don't like seeing us being something like that. I think that a garage is a must if you live in Minnesota. I think in SOIlle states you can cut back on housing and things like that because of garages but I don't know, people that live up here, I kind of think it's a mandatory type thing. I guess I'd be open to persuasion on two things. One, taking a look at the impervious surface percentage. If it would give me the garages that I wanted, I Illight be able to look at something between I and 2 parking spaces. The other couple things were just questions. As I looked through this thing, bowling alleys, 7 spaces for each lane. That's seems like a lot to me. I was just thinking churches, I said I parking space for each 3 seats plus 2 per classrooIlI. Krauss: f a!ld ly . We did not change any of those standards except for the multi- All the other ones are contained in the ordinance now. ElIson: I've never really had a good look at it until something came in front of !lIe like that and I just wondered, well where did that come from? That's everyone driving themselves to one of the bowling alleys. I keep thinking we're putting these standards on people that are more than they need. Krauss: There's different ways of getting at that particular one. Bowling alleys not only have teams showing up that share lanes but they also have bars and bars gene)'~ate very high volumes of parking demand. e Batzli: And a league typically will have at least 5 people per lane. At least 5 cars and then if anybody else shows up you start adding up people. So on league night you've got a !llinimum of 5 people per lane. Planning Cornlliission Meeting Novembe~ 15, 1989 - Page 34 e ElIson: I thought it was really well w~itten and I app~eciate the p~esentation that we had also. I don't ag~ee that we need to have, I don't mind the st~ip ga~age look. I know one of the things you didn't like the use of a f~ee standing ga~ages but that doesn't bothe~ my quite as much if it's done I guess tastefully o~ whateve~. If the unit is like towa~d the st~eet and the ga~age is in the back o~ something, isn't that similia~ to what is on Kerbe~ right now and that doesn't seem to bothe~ me at all... K~auss: Yeah. I diffe~entiate between the low ~ise type of duplex or townhouse o~ quad type of developllient that has free standing ga~ages and 3 sto~y apa~tment buildings that have free standing ga~ages. with all due respect to Plymouth, when you go up on 494 and you see that the multi- falliily buildings that have st~ings of ga~ages up against the freeway and typically they' ~e not lliaintained very well. They tend to look ~athe~ t~ashy. It depends on the project and it's always been a personal kind of peeve I guess. I've never particularly cared fo~ them. In the years I wo~ked in Minnetonka, well Minnetonka has a ~equirement fo~ 2 ca~s fo~ multi-family, one of which must be enclosed. Some p~ojects provided a little mo~e than that because of who they were t~ying to address and then we had a visito~ parking ~equi~ellient that we sometimes added to that outside. But all the multi-family pa~king, all the la~ge multi-family buildings, that was required to be underground. e ElIson: Well those a~e my comments. Ellilllings: I always have trouble, I get a Ii ttle spacey when I look at something that's this long because it's ha~d to imagine how to apply it always. It changes completely when you try to apply to any p~oject that COllies in. I 1 i ke the o~dinance because it's just huge so it kind of doubles the size of ou~ ordinance and that ~eally... Apart from those gene~al cOInments, I'In going to look at the mul ti-fa:mily because that's one I can get lliY hands around. My cOllillients really are not n\\1ch different. I think we seern to have some ag~eement up here. Like Jini when I read this, I came in here tonight as a 2 car garage fo~ every unit man and I had, I think Dean's COn\llients kind of opened my eyes to some extent. While Dean talks about affo~dable housing, he's talking really about just kind of a next sniall increment down from where we seeD'1 to be now according to the nUIllbers he put on the board. Where Chanhassen has a lot of uni ts available in the 60's o~ mid 60's and pp and doesn't have much below that. He's really add~essing a population that's between 55 and 65 but I guess the one thing he put up that really imp~essed me is that ove~ 50% of the units in his developInent in Plynlouth were pu~chased by single people. I think that is, that was ve~y meaningful to me. I think that's an impo~tant market that p~obably that $10,000.00 in diffe~ence might mean a great deal to. I don't know. So I guess I would be inclined on this to do something like, to say something like 50% of the units. o~ no mo~e than 50% of the units can have. Ellson: Single ca~. e EIlilllings: Ga~age. See and I think part of the problenl to Itle here is that these places, they a~e cutting some corne~s in orde~ to get thenl down to Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 35 e the price range they want to sell to and they don't have basements and I think Brian mentioned this. They don't have the basements and they don't have the storage places and the storage has to be somewhere or it ends up in the garage and everybody winds up parking outside but I think if we're careful, and where I would in par ticular be wi 11 ing to nlaybe look at the impervious surface thing is on the visitor parking. Or maybe it's not even visitor parking. Maybe it's extra parking that's outside but I don't think there's anything particularly bad in Minnesota about parking outside. I think there should be one enclosed garage. There's no question about that but if there's a second car, I guess I don't nlind if it's outside. I know in illY own neighborhood there are a number of homes, just as I dr i ve down the street that I have to drive down to get down to nlY house, with double car garages where the garage is entirely full of things and not one car can get in there. I think it's a very comnlon snydronle and I don't know why. I think it happens everywhere. I don't think it will just happen in this segnlent of the Illarket. I think it kind of happens everywhere but if in these developments there were adequate extra outdoor parking to account for visitors and to account for a place where these cars can go so they're not just on the streets. I don't like them on the streets. I don't think they should be there. I think they should be in the garage, in front of the garage or in an extra parking. Some kind of an overflow parking area. That would satisfy me. e Batzli: stalls? Let's say you included your no more than 50% has less than 2 2 enclosed. So.mething like that right? Enllllings: Whatever the nunlber is. Batzli: Then are you also going to inlpose a ntininlunl of for instance... or something like that for the ones that merely have a single enclosed garage? Enllltings: You know when they bring thenl in here, they count the space in front of the garage as a parking space. The driveway that goes into the garage as a parking space so they always, I know for example when Dean presented his project he said each one has 2 places to park. If it's a single car garage, it has 2 and if it's a double car garage it counts as just 4 so I don't know what we're counting exactly. When you say 1 1/2. Everyone's, even if it's a single car garage, it's already got 2 so I don't know what the 1 1/2 nleans. Unless you're not going to count that space. Batzli: Well that's the question. Are you comfortable counting that space and then nlerely having like for instance, not to base the whole ordinance on his project but merely have 3 or 4 other spots per unit seemingly for overflow parking if you will. In other words, for those spots where if the spot in front of the garage is filled, where do you park? Do you have these 1 inti ted nunlber of spaces ava i lable? - EIl~ings: Yeah, I don't know and maybe you'd say if you have a 2 car garage, for every single car unit you've got to have at least 1 overflow parking place somewhere else or something like that. I don't know. There's probably 100 ways to do it but like I say, if I was going to get adequate extra parking and visitor parking, I'd be willing to look at impervious surface. I wouldn't be willing to look at impervious surface to Planning Corm'li ssion Meeting Novenlber 15, 1989 - Page 36 e put up a garage I don't think. A strict garage or something because I'd rather encourage people to park in their garages If they want to battle the weather and scrape the windshield likes to, hey, more power to them. like that in the units. like Ladd Batzli: If in fact I think if the spots in front of the garage are really parkable, then I kind of like your idea of having a minimum number of additional parking spots based on single car garages or something like that. That would nlake some sense then. Ernntings: That's all I've got. Conrad: Okay. The general standards Paul in this ordinance, I guess some of the things do fly out like the bike rack, nunlber 5. I feel it does have a place in commercial but it doesn't have a place in residential as far as I 'nl concerned so do we need, well I guess what would you reconlIllend on that? What would you reconlnlend? And I 'nl just talking for nlyself now. I don't know what the other Planning ConlIllissioners are thinking but I do think there should be some standards for conlmercial and downtown but I 'nl not sure I really want to apply thenl any place else so if that were the case, what would you say we should do with that standard? Take it out of the general conditions? e Krauss: I wouldn't be opposed to deleting it entirely and if we ever felt that a bike rack was needed, just... Conrad: Well, Market Square. Krauss: That would be, and unfortunately we didn't do it there. Conrad: That's right and that's a mistake. Krauss: The alternative would be to say that this only applies to conlIllel:cial or l:etail developnlents over 15,(iHH~ square feet in size. Conrad: On the other side of things, I think the retailers who move in thel:e will want to have bike racks so whether we... ElIson: I think so too. Even a Dairy Queen would like... Conrad: We don't need an ordinance to tell them stuff that theY'l:e going to do. Batzli: But they didn't design in where they could put it conveniently. Just in the pal:king lot somewhere. e Conl:ad: I'd be real tenlpted to delete that in total. When you build a project, thel:e's a lot of factors that go into the cost. you've got land. You've got building. You've got profits and you've got amenities and I guess sonle of the things, as you set standards for how we build here... pl:oblenls that we've seen other places or problenls that we've seen in Chanhassen. I don't know that the $10,000.00 is the additional cost to a unit. I don't think that's an accurate nunlber but obviously it is going to -"", Planning Conrrllission Meeting Novenlber 15, 1989 - Page 37 e cost something. I guess I would change what I see in front of me however and Steve, I'm really not persuaded on the impervious surface issue. I still think as you cram more people into less space, you still need areas to be for people so I gness I don't know if I can solve personally the probleIll that way but I can relate to the nUIllber of enclosed parking spaces that we have and I think rather than the 2 that the ordinance has, I believe I need to accomplish 2 things. One, to have a place, inside place to store a car and stuff and I don't know how to do the stuff. Unless we have a building standard that requires basements and storage areas. That's another way to solve SOllie of our problenls. It's not in front of us tonight and it's going to be hard to form a linkage between storage and this issue but it is a fact and it's something that has to be taken care of. I can't get my car in my garage because I've got junk in it. That's a fact. I just don't have enough space. But, the bottom line is, I think we should, I would sure be amenable to reducing the enclosed parking to 1.5 versus the 2. I don't believe we're a singles haven based on the research that I've seen and I've seen a lot of data on Chanhassen. I don't think we're nlaybe the sanle type of si ng les communi ty. It's a pretty family or iented. Those charts aren't Chanhassen. I'll guarantee you that. ~~ings: They may not be today but what about tomorrow? Conrad: Well, they're not today so. e ElIson: Well, here's one of the reasons why. Conrad: Could be. Anyway, I think I would reduce the requirenlent for enclosed parking. ~~ings: I don't mean to interrupt but if you say it's 1 1/2. Does that mean it's for the project or for each unit? Conrad: For the project. Krauss: It's on a gross basis. Emmings: Then you get a question, do you want all your 2 bedroom ones clumped together or all your 2 car garages? Conrad: I don't care. ~lntings: 2 car garages or don't you care? Do you want to ntix? Conrad: That's up to the developer. I don't know that 1.5 is the right answer. The 1.5 in my mind speaks to some of the situations that were presented today. I think it's compensates for singles that ndght move in. ~lndngs : It's more variety. - Conrad: I think it's more realistic. It probably gives, is not as economic a hardship to a developer who wants to put in an affordable dwelling here so. Planning COIlIIldssion Meeting NoveIllber 15, 1989 - Page 38 e ElIson: You're saying the 1.5 has to be completely enclosed? Conrad: 1 1/2 on a gross level. Ellson: Or everyone has to have a 1 1/2 enclosed garage? Batzli: What about the additional parking? Conrad: I think each unit needs 2 stalls. Each unit needs totally 2 parking spaces of which 1 1/2 has to be enclosed. Krauss: One of the things we tried to do in the ordinance is separate out the ability to require visitor parking based on our review of the site plan. Since Dean was relating a lot of this to his project, I know the last time you reviewed his project we were concerned that while the project IIlet the letter of the law, tha t whi le you had for exaIllple one pr i vate driveway was 500 feet long and all it had was the 1 car garage plus the 1 car out in the pad in front of it. We said 500 foot of that is just too long, is there's 2 people there to have a party on a Saturday night out of the 30 units that fronted on it, I can guarantee you that the fire truck's not going to be able to get through. Therefore, we should have the authority to require some visitor parking. I think it might be preferable if you specifically relate this requireI\lent to what you think the dwellings are going to need and let us handle visitor parking as a separate requireI\lent. - ~mlings: How would it work now? with what we have in front of us. The section on page 5 there. That's the one you go to right now to ask for any project, what you need for visitor parking. Krauss: Right. ~Imings : project? out. And now just to, how would relate this for example to Dean's Could you work that through for me because I couldn't figure it Krauss: If in fact we went to the 1.5 gross, we would ask Dean to show us how that's satisfied on a gross basis. Then we take a look at this site plan and we'd say well you've met the requirement as relative to the number of dwelling units but we go to the paragraph, the lead in paragraph for the required number of on site parking spaces that says the City may increase the requirements beyond this minimum based on findings due to the proposed design that additional parking is due to be anticipated. Dean's particular site plan, or the one that we last reviewed was one that it was clear to us that SOIlle sort of a visitor parking was appropriate on that extra long private driveway because of it's design and that's not something that's easv,to set down specificallv in a standard because it is site plan speclflc. ~ Ellson: So this allows you to IIlay increase if deemed necessary? e Krauss: Yes. ; Planning Corlll'lission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 39 e Batzli: Interestingly enough though, I guess I 'Ill having the saIlle problem maybe that Steve was having. ElIson: What page are you on? Ba tzl i : On page 5. That's where you're read ing frOIll that the Ci ty may do so if they find that additional parking deIlland is anticipated. For instance, do you go through criteria for a multi-family dwelling? Maybe I Iltissed sOIllething here but then you just go to G? ElIson: 6(B). Batzli: 6(B) or l(G), excuse me. Is that where you're going to go to to up the number? Is this going to be this whole one that you're going to look at? Krauss: No. l(G) would be used if there wasn't a standard provided in the ordinance at all. EIllmings: Well there isn't. For visitor parking at a multi-faIltily. Batzli: So you're looking at l(G). e Krauss: No. I would interpret the l(G) specifically applies to if there's no listing for that category for use. What I would refer back to is basically the purpose section of that sub paragraph on page 5 that says here's the IlIi niIllum requirements that we're establ i shing for that distr ict. Batzli: Following standards or minimum criteria, right. You don't give a minim~l for visitors do you? Okay, well you say on site parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors, you don't even say residents, and employees shall be provided 'on the preIllises of each use. You're going to have 2 parking, both of which IllUst be enclosed and then additional parking for visitors shall be provided in accordance with the findings of the City so you don't have any criteria on which to base that. Krauss: And there's a reason for that. Let's take for example that Dean came in with a project that had 2 car garages for all these units and had over width driveways. With the 2 car garages per unit, you have 2 cars parking out in front of the garage doors and with the oversized driveways, you may have some latitude to say we can afford to have a car to park in there. It's not going to cause us a problem. without having a specifically designated visitor parking area. Batzli: Okay, but now that apartment has a party. They have 10 people over. What are you going to do? Start parking in the neighbor's driveway? Krauss: If we had a large enough drive aisle, if these were accessed off a private driveway. If it was constructed to a large enough standard as for exaIllple a ci ty street Iltight be, that could absorb parking on one side and still allow vehicles to pass, yeah we might accept that. e Planning Con~ission Meeting NOVeITlber 15, 1989 - Page 413 e Batzli: You've got curb cuts all the way up and down. allow parking on the street? Are you going to Krauss: But see those are all design issues. Batzli: I know but these are the things you're going to hit the first time you try to iITlplement this ordinance and then what are you going to say? Krauss: All I can attest to is... Batzli: It's probably workable sorllewhere else but I've never had to work with it and you have so you've had the benefit of having to interpret this thing. That's just my question is how do you go through this and where would you conle down on sonlething like tha t? Krauss: It's really site specific and that's the problenl I have with it. I think you need SOITle latitude to view what's being proposed in the context of how that design works on that piece of property and a hard and fast rule fOl: something like visi tor parking is kind of tough to apply. It's not to say, I've seen ordinances that do it. I would prefer to have the latitude. e Batzli: I think with latitude the problertl you're going to get into is it's going to be, the developer comes in and you say we want 213 stalls of visitor parking and he says, well what do you mean? The last guy that carne in, you didn't give any. Why are you being unfair to me? Then you're going to have to COITle up wi th SOITle rationale. You're going to have to have all these findings of why did you do this in this case and not in the other and eventually you're going to have standards anyway or else you're not going to have any standards at all. Then you're going to end up with a sliding scale like you wanted earlier. Conrad: Sure, bring me into your mess. Any other cOIT~ents? Is there a ITlotion? Batzl i: I guess I don't know, I heard what Ladd said about having a ITtiniITIUnl of 1 1/2. Your 513%, is that the same thing in your mind? ErllIllings: I guess when I was talking about 513%, I was thinking that it ought to be distributed. That it ought to be, each unit ought to have, some ought to be 2 car and some with 1 car to kind of spread this out in the project. That's why I asked Ladd the question I did. Did he care and I guess he per suaded me. I guess I don't care anynlore. Conrad: The ends will take the 2 car garages and the ITliddle will take the 1. Batzli: Or just make them all 1 1/2 to show us. En~ings: If it was Annette's motion, then they put storage in the other half. e Krauss: Yeah, I think you want to specific on that. If your goal is to provide parking stalls, it should be on a gross basis for the project. Planning Con\1'lission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 41 e ErllIllings: So each uni t should have 2 parking spots and of the ones which are enclosed, the project has to have an average of 1 1/2 or nlore. We don't care if it's higher. We only care if it's lower. A nlininlUnl of 1 1/2. Conrad: Dean, you have a question. We're struggling with this. A quick one? Dean Johnson: What occnrs to me when you talk about the 1 bedrooIll uni ts. It's just nlore inforIlla tion. Is the 1 bedroom uni t. ..1 bedroonl uni ts. Is that just going to be the 1 stall like we did in the...multi-family townhouses or multi-family... I guess what I'm saying is, I see a little bit of a possible conflict there. How does that figure into these things? Krauss: The ordinance accepts 1 bedroom and efficiency apartIllents. EIllnlings: Yeah, but we're tal king about the proj ect. Dean Johnson: What happens to the total number then? ElIson: Does the project need 1 1/2 even though some are 1 and 1 would have been an exception before. e Krauss: I would anticipate having to do some playing around with a calculator so that you only had 1 stall applied to those sInaller units but then all 2 bedrooms and above had that 1.5 requirement. Conrad: See I don't know. I have to let some expert tell me but even on a 1 bedroom, a married couple without children will have 2 cars so I guess I'm not totally sold on a 1 bedroom only needing 1 space. They'd still need 2 spaces in my mind so I don't know. Krauss: Well, they would still have 2 spaces but only 1 of which would be the enclosed one. Conrad: Versus the 1 1/2. EIlIIlI i ng s : So if the whole project is single, one bedroom places? ElIson: none of You could run the risk of having all married couples in there and theIlI. . . Krauss: If you had 100 one bedroom units, a project that had 100 1 bedroom units, you would have 100 enclosed stalls and 100 on the outside. EmIllings: And 200 cars parked outside. e Krauss: That's sOIllething else. I didn't put that in the ordinance but I had a few projects over the years where you required that they have 1 car enclosed and then they said in the lease that that's an additional $45.00 or $50.00 a month and nobody wanted to pay for it so there was a shortage of parking on the outside so I got to stipulating that they have to give Planning COI'\I'\ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 42 e one stall in the rent with each unit. Conrad: I don't know. I think the City Council can wrestle with this just like we are. I still think we have an issue of storage and parking and we're kind of solving the 2 with this parking deal but I'm not convinced we've solve storage problen\s really but anyway. I'n\ still waiting for... Er!lInings: But I think there's a dr~n\atic increase in the amount of stuff people have and need to store when you n\ove into a house as opposed to when you live anywhere else. That's my own experience. You accumulate a lot more crap when you have a house. Conrad: It makes sense but these many supposed affordable units have no basements and we've gone through this probleIll before in Chanhassen and it's been a complex problem. When you have no baSell\ents and limited garages, you end up with problellls. It's just an absolute thing. That's where I'nl trying to solve that problem and I think there are multi ways to solve it. This is one way to do it. Ell\rning s: I don't think that a 1 bedroom, under the thing we're proposing now, I don't think there's any reason to treat a 1 bedroom different. Conrad: Is there a motion? e Batzli: I'll lllake it. I don't know that I understand what you're really going for Ladd but we can just find out. I move that the Planning Commission reconlIl\ends approval of the amendll\ents to Article XXV, Off Street Parking and Loading set forth in the n\emo dated NOVell\ber 6, 1989 as set forth except with the following changes. In section 20-1117, A(2), the word "of" shall be changed to "or". In Section 20-1118, paragraph A(l), this is by the way on page 2, after the wotd 18 feet a paranthetical which reads, (except parallel parking shall have ll\inimum din\ensions as set forth below) . Conrad: You didn't touch bicycle parking. Batzli: Delete bicycle parking, I'll\ sorry. That's paragraph 5 of Section 20-1117. I had that on my list. I wasn't there yet. In paragraph 20-1124, the third line after the word visitors, insert the word residents. Then in paragraph 6(B) of that same section, we're going to change the first sentence to read, actually make it two sentences. The first sentence would be, Two, (2) parking spaces. A minill\Um of fifty percent (50%) of units shall have 2 parking spaces both of which must be completely enclosed in a garage. Make sense to do it that way or do you like your 1 1/2 better? Enllldngs: Isn't it the same? Conrad: I think it's the same. I understand mine but I think yours is probably the same. e ElIson: A mininlUll\ of 1 1/2 enclosed. Planning Con~ission Meeting November 15 1989 - Page 43 e Batzli: Well this reads 50% of all the units shall have 2 parking spaces, both of which are enclosed in a garage. I think that does the same thing. And those are the only changes I have. That'd be the extent of the motion. Com:ad: Is there a second? Krauss: Would you mind if we also deleted the 75 degree angle parking? I don't think we'll ever need it. Wilden'\llth: I would rather see the nUI\lber of the staff than put it at 1.5. Something less than 2 per unit. Batzli: I guess what I would propose, if it's been seconded, is that we make it the number that it is but that obviously staff should take a look at that nUIllber and see if it's reasonable and make a reconlnlendation to the City Council as well. I think we should put a number in there but you're right. I don't know that our number is any better than the nUlnber that was in there before we started tonight. ~~ings: Well maybe check in with some other local municipalities. Krauss: There are no other municipalities to the best of my knowledge that require more than 1 enclosed stall. e ~Imings: PIYnlouth. Oh no, that's right. His is 1. Batzli: So we're requiring 2 per unit and at least 50% of the units shall have the 2 spaces enclosed. Emmings: It still contains an exception for efficiencies and 1 bedrooms. Conrad: Is there a second? ElIson: Second. Conrad: Discussion. ElIson: I just had a question on if anyone thought about may point about the first page. I know no one ever mentioned it except me but, required parking and loading area and the driveway, inoperable vehicles or snow. We're saying here that a person can't put a boat or another car or anything else out there? I nlean I agree that you shouldn't display, sell, rent or being repairing stuff out there but I don't know if it's fair to tell somebody that either they can't have a boat or they can't keep their boat. Conrad: See I read that. It didn't say boat. Is the word boat in there? EIlmlings: Other goods. It ElIson: Maybe this doesn't apply to that but I know we saw those at the other one. Conrad: See I paid attention to what you said. L Planning COl'mdssion Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 44 e Krauss: It doesn't say boat. I probably should say boat but I think the intention here is that it's not prohibiting you parking a boat. It's just prohibiting you parking a boat in the required stall. If you want to allow outside parking of these sorts of things on a project, you've got to provide some additional spaces for it. Batzli: Well the key word there then is required right? Kranss: Yes. Batzli: But I think in the nuisance ordinance or sOl'lewhere else there is something that says you can't park a boat in front of your house and it has to be on the side of your house. I think that's covered someplace else in the Code. Conrad: Right. I know we've talked about that. Ellson: But this isn't saying you can't do it. Conrad: You can do it. ElIson: That's it. I didn't want to take that possibility away. I'll just leave it as it is. - Batzli I"loved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Cornmission recommend approval of the amendI"lents to Article XXV, Off Street Parking and Loading set forth in the I"lemo dated November 6, 1989 as set forth except wi th the following changes: In Section 20-1117, A(2), the word "of" shall be changed to "or". In Section 20-1118, paragraph A(l), after the word 18 feet insert, (except parallel parking shall have I"dni!1:lU!1:l dimensions as set forth below). Delete bicycle parking in paragraph 5 of Section 20-1117. Paragraph 20-1124, the third line after the word visitors, insert the word residents. In paragraph 6(B) of that same section, change the first sentence to read, Two, (2) parking spaces. A minhlum of fi fty percent (50%) of uni ts shall have 2 parking spaces both of which must be cOI"lpletely enclosed in a garage. Also delete the 75 degree angle parking. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Brian's got to go and I've got to go real quickly. ElIson: Well we've only got one more thing. Conrad: Well we have 2 don't we? Krauss: You have 2 more. I guess one of them is fairly involved. It's the site plan review ordinance. I guess if it wasn't controversial, we're looking for ammunition in terms of handling projects as they come along. I think that's the more important one but I could understand it. You'd want to discuss it more at length than the hour permits. - f. ",\,.. Planning Cornplission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 45 e Conrad: I just have a si tuation where I can stay a few nlore ndnutes but I don't know that it would do it justice. Krauss: We could hold it over. Conrad: I think that's my preference. So what do we have? Emlllings: We have nUlllber 5 and nUl'lber' 7. Inter il'l uses. Conrad: Okay. Is that controverial in anybody's mind? Will there be a lot of discussion tonight? I've got some comrnents on it. Batzli: I have one comment. Conrad: Maybe we could try to get the interim uses taken care of tonight and j llSt hold the one i telll over. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE TERMPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. e Ellmlings: We're going to be al\'lending this one a lot. wi th every proposal that conIes in, we're going to have to do an ordinance amendment which seenls sort of funny to me but maybe it's the only thing we can do. Ellson: It also gives us the chance to say no to thepI. Conrad: It solves a particular proble:m right now. It's real incomplete but on the other hand it does solve a particular problem and I think there are needs for interim llses. I really don't mind interim uses at all. I think that's pretty good. Krauss: And the context of interim rather than temporary is a better one. Interim implies that something's going to happen to change it. Some cities that have had temporary conditional use permits basically have had ad hoc changes to the ordinance and so they just keep delaying when this temporary use has to disappear. Conrad: I'm going to open this up to the public. Is there any input from the public? Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. -- El\'lnlings: I already lllade my comments. I think it's sonlething that we need. It's a hole in our ordinance now. We need sonlething to plug it. I 'Ill not real happy about it because I think we're going to be aIllending it when something conies up and I don't like that but I can't think of any other way Planning CO!l:t!l:tission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 46 e to do it. ElIson: The only thing that I thought about and you kind of answered it was I didn't like the idea about it could be extended or sontething like that. In other words, this could be tied to sO!l:tething that we'd see following or an end. Do you know what I'm saying? That's why I was so hesitant with the bank. He looked like he had an end but I was just not sure that it could actually be tied to an ending point I guess. Krauss: Right and one of the conditions of approval here is that the applicant has to demonstrate that the date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. ElIson: Right so that makes it better. Conrad: I'll get out of order here but it implies, there was not a method for an extension. Now things do change. Zoning change. Land uses change. Comprehensive plans change so when those changes, I think there may be, I think there should be a methodology of applying for an extension. Krauss: There would be. Basically you could come in and ask that the approval be revalidated based upon a new set of conditions. ie Emntings: Or just ask for a new permi t. If my permi t expires on nddnight, Jnauary 1, 1992, I can come in and say I need a new permit. Conrad: Okay. Are you comfortable with that? ElIson: I don't like that they can extend it, that's for sure. bank comes in. If the Entndngs: That's not what he's saying though. He's saying that they'd have to conte back and apply anyway. It's kind of the sante thing. Com.: ad: It's the same thing only different. - Batzli: My problelll with this is the sallte problellt I have with the conditional use permit and that is, it's fairly vague as to termination. The conditional use permit, we really have a hard time trying to decide whether it's terminated or not. This reads fairly clearly that the minute that the violation occurs it's terlllinated. What normally happens is the City is you write a letter and you tell them to change it back and then that doesn't happen and then 6 Illonths later you write another letter and then sonlebody goes out to visi t the si te and then you decide whether you're going to have a public hearing or not. By this tinte you don't know, you've allowed the supposedly terminated interim use to proceed now for a lengthy periOd of time. That's really the problem with the conditional use perntit and one that I see here also is that if it said that upon a violation occuring or coming to the attention of the City, a public hearing will be held and the Citv shall vote on whether it's in violation and it shall be revoked, I'd feel a lot better than what's there right now personally. That's my only cOIl~ent. In other words, there's a definitive process for this is what happens and if they rule on it, you're vapor fella. That's Planning Con~ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 47 e what I'd like to see but I'll still vote for it because I think there's a hole that we need to fill. Wildermuth: I like what you said Brian. I was comfortable with the change to begin with but then I agree that I think any motion ought to reflect something like that. Conrad: I don't mind that either. Anything else? The only other thing that I wrote down here, and ~ don't know how to apply it but when you allow a temporary use, do we want it to meet the intent of the district's use or is that contrary by definition? Ellson: That's a philosophical thing. Krauss: It's not philosophical. It's just the discussion that Roger and I had. My approach would have allowed you to consider anything anywhere but Roger pointed out some good reasons for not doing that. First of all it completely undermines the whole intent of structuring an ordinance the way traditional zoning ordinances are structured. If anything could be allowed anywhere on a temporary basis, why prohibit it on a permanent basis? Plus he said that he fel t there were some real problenls wi thin the context of the State enabling legislation for how you would regulate something like that. It also tends, frankly, to lead to arbitrary determinations by ci ties that could affect future developnlent and neighborhoods and on and on. e Conrad: You could make that point. I can make the contrary point. It is more specific. If you've got the intent of the district in mind, you do have sonle guidelines. That's again these intent statenlents that we talk about all the time are real important. Once you understand the concept behind an ordinance or a zone, then I don't have a problems making rulings, as arbitrary as they may be because I'm trying to match that intent statenlent so that's why, I think I could counter Paul your argunlent on that one but it basically, you've persuaded me that we can't do this. But it still hasn't set the right guidelines. you've persuaded nle we can't put an intent in there. Enllllings: Why? Conrad: Because if it met the intent of the district, it would have been a permitted use in the first place. Enll'lings: Well what about saying it should be compatible with other uses in the district because see that will give some guidance too when you conle around to anlend ing. Because you're going to have to anlend the ord inance just about every tinle, you're going to be able to look at that but I think it would be good to have something like that. - Krauss: I asked Roger that exact question again because I had drafted sonlething that did say compatability and he said well that's all taken care of, as a lot of things are, by when he referenced that an interim use has to l'leet the standards of the condi tional use perroi t. So when we went back to that discussion earlier tonight, the 14 standards of a CUP section that Planning Cornmission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 48 e get to mom and apple pie, those all apply here. Wildenluth: Except that it's got SOllie kind of a ti:me lintit right? Krauss: Yeah. Enlntings: I'nl going to nlake a counter argunlent to Brian's point that you guys all j unlped on down there. Rather than trying to figure out a spec i f ic systenl for enforcement, the event that triggers enforcenlent is very specific here and I think enforcenlent is just a nleasure of the will and deternlination of the City and the availability of resources and energy and conlnlitment and all those things. What happens, and what's a little bit different about the CUP than this is with the CUP, first of all it runs with the land and it's embedded a little more than this ever would be because this has an event or a time that terminates it. With a CUP there's always some interpretation. They say he's violated a condition of his CUP. Well, have I really violated it and you get into a big argunlent over that and I don't think you're going to have those kinds of arguments with the interinl uses just because the ending point is going to be very specific. Otherwise it will never be allowed in the first place. Then whether or not the City chooses to enforce it, the tools are certainly there already. So I don't think you have to design the systenl for enforcement. I don't think it will add a thing. If the City doesn't have the will to enforce it, it won't do it and if it does, it already can so that'd be the other side of that one to me. e Conrad: Okay, the one who nlakes the nlotion has the power on this one. Who wants to make the motion? En@ings: I do. I'm going to move that the ordinance, amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding provisions concerning interinl use perntits as presented in the staff report, November 6, 1989 be approved. Reconlnlend approval to the City Council. You all know what I nlean. Conrad: Is there a second to that wishy washy motion? Batzli: I'll second it. Enlnlings nloved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Conmtission recomnlend approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding provisions concerning interim use permits as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Do we need a motion to defer the i tent 7, which is a publ ic hear ing to the next meeting? We do need that motion? e Enlntings Ploved, Wildernluth seconded to table item 7, Zoning Ordinance Arnendment to amend the City Code, Division 6, Site Plan Review to revise the procedure, expand on developnlent standards and require financial guarantees for landscaping and other site improvements be tabled until the next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Co~~ission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 49 e APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ~~ings moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning COIlIIltission meeting dated November 1, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except Annette ElIson who abstained and the motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION: Krauss: NoveIllber 29th we're going to hold the next special nleeting. EmIltings: See no one called. one called me. I thought they were going to call around. No Krauss: Were we going to call on this one? EIlllltings: That was my understanding. I was a little surprised to see that in here because that was my recollection. That's what it said in the Minutes also. That's alright. I'd prefer getting a call though. Conrad: How many applicants for Dave's position do we have right now? Krauss: I think we're up to about 8 or 9. Would you like to schedule it - for the next nleeting? Conrad: Next nleeting, yes. Krauss: And is the process that you have all of them present here? Conrad: Yes. sit outside. We'll invite them ih. We give thenl 113 Iltinutes each. 113 or 15. Probably 15. If they've been here before, that doesn't take too long. ElIson: 8 times 15 minutes? Conrad: Yeah. That's 2 hours. They won't all make it. Krauss: Why don't we turn it back a little. To give a little snynopsis of theIllsel ves? ElIson: I :t~enlenlber wh~n I came through you had questions on the board. Conrad: Basically we all ask questions and see. If you think that each question that we ask is one Illinute and we have 6 people here, tha t' s 6 minutes right there and usually at least 6 minutes. Is 113 minutes fair or should we keep it at 15 minutes? ~Imings: Well one thing we nlight do is try to decide ahead of tiIlle what conlnlon questions we have for all of them. That would speed things up like _ we did that tiIlle when we had so many. That was a good system. ElIson: In other words you're j udg i ng theIlI all on the sallIe questions? Planning Coml'lission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 50 e En~ings: Well, and then ask them individual questions if you want to. Conrad: That's probably the best way to do it rather than us repeating them and looking like jerks. So yeah, let's bring them in Paul. We'll give them 12 1/2 minutes each. El'll'lings: Why are there suddenly 8 when there was only 1 or 2? Is anybody beating the bushes? Is there any stacking going on here in terms of interest groups? Krauss: Not that I'm aware of. ElIson: Concerned Citizens for the Future of Chanhassen I bet have one or two. Krauss: We had approximately 3 or 4 based on the notice in the newspaper. We had asked our secretary to mail out renotifying past candidates and I had thought that it was done but apparently it wasn't so when we asked her to do it, we got 4 or 5 more. Conrad: I knew there were some interested people that I was really surprised didn't apply. Anything else? e Wildermuth moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Director of Planning Prepared by Nann Opheim -