5. Amendment to Chapter 20 of City Code Concerning Landscaping, Creating a Transition Zone1
r_
'J
7-
1
1
CITY OF - '�T
�8AN8ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II
DATE: July 19, 1995
SUBJ: Buffer Yard (Transition Zone) Ordinance
BACKGROUND
The city currently has language in the ordinance which requires buffering between different
intensities of uses and a buffer requirement is part of the comprehensive plan. However,
there is no defined standards for either staff or developers to determine what constitutes
appropriate and adequate buffering. At the Planning Commission meeting on December 7,
1994, there was discussion about what is a transition zone and how could it be applied in
situations where there is a change not only in uses but densities. The commission directed
staff to research this item.
The Planning Advisory Service sent information regarding buffering and screening ordinances.
They included ten jurisdictions. Of the ten, staff has incorporated a hybrid of two of the
ordinances: Lake County, IL and Clemson, SC. These approaches to transition zones provide
buffering standards that are easy to interpret and apply. The ordinances provide charts that
include all zoning districts and abutting districts giving the required buffer setback and
landscaping intensity level. Since Chanhassen has not zoned all property consistent with the
land use plan of the comprehensive plan, we are specifying the use of the land use
designation in determining appropriate buffer yards rather than the zoning.
Recently, there has been considerable discussion concerning transitions and buffering between
different intensities and densities of uses, e.g., Creekside Addition/Timberwood Estates, Lake
Ann Highlands/Windmill Run. While the city has revised its ordinance to address tree
preservation/forestation and parking lot landscaping requirements, there are no specific,
quantifiable standards regarding what constitutes acceptable buffering or screening. In each
instance of proposed new development, the city has responded on an ad hoc basis in
determining what is appropriate buffering. The buffer yard ordinance is an effort to provide
MEMORANDUM
Don Ashworth, City Manager
July 19, 1995
Buffer Yard Ordinance '
Page 2
quantifiable standards for both city staff and property owners in determining minimum buffer I
landscaping.
GOALS I
A discussion of the buffer yard standards should begin with agreement on the goals as to
what is to be achieved by the ordinance. The following goals are presented for discussion I
purposes.
1. Buffer yard standards should be calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to
buffer.
2. The buffer yard standards should provide aesthetic as well as functional planting '
requirements for sites and buildings. These plantings should not only provide
screening or transition between adjacent uses, but they should also be designed to add
color, natural growth, a sense of identity, as well as an enhancement to the natural
environment.
3. Standards should be understandable, reasonable, and easily implementable.
4. Buffer yard standards should compliment preservation/forestation and parking lot ,
screening requirements. Emphasis shall be given to the protection and enhancement of
natural features, rather than replacement.
5. Buffering should be provided between different intensities and densities of uses.
6. Standards should be comprehensive covering all sorts of development.
7. The ordinance shall provide minimum standards to assure that a baseline level of
quality is achieved.
8. The ordinance should not unduly limit design flexibility and should allow a good
designer to reflect the demands of the site and the setting in which it is placed.
CURRENT ORDINANCE
Section 18 -61 (a) (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be
required by the city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined by
the comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required
buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and
shrubs and /or tree preservation areas. Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot
Don Ashworth, City Manager
July 19, 1995
Buffer Yard Ordinance
Page 3
depth and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and
the home protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty -five (25)
percent over zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the
preliminary and final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees
acceptable to the city shall be required.
Section 20 -1176 (f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses
and between a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required
by the comprehensive plan.
COMMENT: The city's current language requires buffering between different
intensities of uses and a buffer requirement is part of the comprehensive plan.
However, there is no defined standards for either staff or developers to determine what
constitutes appropriate and adequate buffering.
Staff has provided a cost estimate per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, review of the ordinance
vis -a -vis existing landscaping buffers, a survey of other local governments' requirements,
create a partial location map where transition areas are located, and further refinement in the
required landscaping illustrations.
F 4 Me
Staff has created a cost estimate for each type of landscape buffer illustrated in the ordinance.
Cost estimates range from a low of $100 to a high of $7,600 per 100 linear feet of buffer
yard.
A survey was completed comparing six different land uses and their existing buffering zones
completed in Chanhassen within the last 2 years. Comparisons were made between low,
medium, and high density residential areas and the neighboring roads, various densities and
commercial uses to the proposed densities listed in the Table of Buffer yard Requirements.
The following situations were found:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
July 19, 1995
Buffer Yard Ordinance
Page 4
LAND USE
PROPOSED
EXISTING /COMMENTS
buffer; not a consistent
REQUIREMENT.
planting - some areas would
Bluff Creek (LD/ROAD)
B
Exceeds B; present buffer is
Estates /Audubon Rd
Hts. (HD/HD)
wider and more heavily
sample area 100' x 70'
planted than ordinance
Does not meet D; lacking
(HD /COMM)
would require.
Windmill Run /Galpin Blvd.
B
Fairly equivalent to B;
(LD/ROAD)
(COMM/HD)
contains 1 more overstory
sample area 100' x 20'
than would be required, but
Does not meet E; no buffer
(COMM/ROAD)
no shrubs.
Willowridge/Lake Lucy
B
Somewhat equivalent to B;
Road (LD/ROAD)
in the types, rather than the numbers, of plants installed would occur. Recent plantings
contains more understory
sample area 100' x 20'
vegetation then required,
but no overstory trees.
Prairie Creek/ Lake Susan B
Does not meet B for overall
Hills Developments
buffer; not a consistent
(MD/LD)
planting - some areas would
sample area 100' x 25'
meet req., some wouldn't.
Oak Ponds/West Village A
Exceeds requirement
Hts. (HD/HD)
sample area 100' x 25'
Oak PondsByerly's D
Does not meet D; lacking
(HD /COMM)
in all categories - overstory,
sample area 100' x 30'
understory, and shrubs.
Byerly's /Oak Ponds E
Does not meet E; same
(COMM/HD)
comments as above.
sample area 100' x 30'
Byerly's/W. 78th St. B
Does not meet E; no buffer
(COMM/ROAD)
was provided by Byerly's
sample area 100' x 20'
It appears that in no case should the buffer yard be reduced.
In most cases a slight increase
in the types, rather than the numbers, of plants installed would occur. Recent plantings
tended to exclude overstory trees, the new requirement would include them in all plantings
' Don Ashworth, City Manager
July 19, 1995
Buffer Yard Ordinance
Page 5
' near residential areas. In only one instance does the increase of the buffer yard requirement
appear necessary. Planting between HD/HD usage should be increased to reflect the present
trend of existing buffers with present buffer yards more closely reflecting B or C
' requirements than A.
Staff has also made an estimated material cost comparison between approved landscaping
plans and the proposed ordinance requirements for Shenandoah Ridge, Richfield Bank and
Trust, Oak Ponds /Oak Hills, and West Village Center.
' Shenandoah Ridge is an example of the ordinance's impact on a residential development
adjacent to a collector street. The landscape plan approved as part of the subdivision provide
32 trees being planted (17 deciduous and 15 conifers) in the sample segment. The proposed
' ordinance, utilizing buffer yard B with 15 foot width (requiring 2 overstory, 4 understory or
conifers and 6 shrubs per 100 linear feet), provides 45 trees (15 deciduous and 30 conifers)
and 6 shrub groupings within the same sample segment. In this instance, the ordinance
provided significantly more vegetative screening (a 40 percent increase in trees).
' Richfield Bank & Trust is an example of the buffer yard ordinance's impact on commercial
development adjacent to a collector road. City ordinance currently requires trees planted 30
feet on center, or in appropriate groupings, along boulevards. This site plan proposed
' planting 12 trees (9 deciduous and 3 conifers) and shrubs. The proposed ordinance, utilizing
buffer yard B (2 overstory, 4 understory or conifers, and 6 shrubs per 100 linear feet) of 15
feet on the north and 20 feet on the east, provides 18 trees (7 deciduous and 11 deciduous
' understory or conifers) and shrub groupings. Again, the ordinance proposes a significant
increase in the number of trees being provided (50 percent).
' Oak Pond /Oak Hills is an example of high density residential adjacent to commercial. The
approved landscaping plan provided a total of 29 trees (17 deciduous and 12 conifers) in the
sample segment. The proposed ordinance, utilizing buffer yard D (5 overstory, 10 understory
or conifers, and 15 shrubs per 100 linear feet) 30 feet in width, provides for 51 trees (17
deciduous and 34 deciduous understory or conifers, and 71 shrubs). The ordinance represents
an increase in tree planting of 76 percent plus the planting of shrubs.
West Village Center is an example of commercial adjacent to high density residential. The
approved landscaping plan provided 18 trees in the sample area. The proposed ordinance,
r utilizing buffer yard E (6 overstory, 10 understory, 20 conifers and 28 shrubs per 100 linear
feet) 30 feet in width, provides 46 trees (6 deciduous, 19 understory deciduous, 20 conifers,
and 28 shrubs per 100 linear feet). This represents a 56 percent increase in tree planting.
While the first three scenarios provide an increased landscape requirement, they meet the
' intention of the ordinance. However, the fourth example provides a slightly excessive
Don Ashworth, City Manager
July 19, 1995
Buffer Yard Ordinance
Page 6
planting requirement. It may be appropriate to rtduce the u pper end of the landscaping
requirements so that our ordinance provides a reasonable yet beneficial amount of
landscaping.
511Lvg,v Results
Staff contacted the following communities to determine how they address transitions and
buffering: Apple Valley, Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Plymouth, and
Woodbury. All the communities had ordinances that require some type of "screening"
between different uses. However, all the standards were generic in nature stating that
screening shall be provided, but providing no specific guidelines. Three of the communities
had an opaqueness requirement in their ordinance, Apple Valley, Burnsville, and Eden Prairie.
All of the communities contacted had greater setback requirements when residential uses were
adjacent to commercial or industrial uses. In addition, none of the communities contacted
made a distinction between single - family attached and single- family detached. Rather, the
density of the development was used to differentiate land uses.
The ordinance definitely could improve the quantity, and possibly the quality, of landscaping
provided in the city. The ordinance is effective and relatively easy to understand and
administer. Staff is still a little concerned that we may be getting too specific in our
requirements and that we may be somewhat excessive at the higher densities and intensities of
use. Staff is very supportive of the standards for boulevard plantings along arterial and
collector streets, since, we believe, that we have not been receiving adequate landscaping in
these areas.
Staff met with members of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities on July 17, 1995, to
discuss the proposed ordinance. The consensus of the meeting was that the Builders
Association did not support the ordinance. Their primary concern was that the ordinance was
cost prohibitive or make many developments economically infeasible. There was also
unanimous agreement that low density housing need not be screened from other low density
residential. Staff also mailed copies of the ordinance to developers in the community as well
as the Tree Board requesting comments.
Staff requests that the City Council evaluate the merits of this ordinance. Staff also requests
that the City Council make a determination of whether the city should adopt only that portion
of the ordinance that deals with boulevard plantings along collector or arterial roads, or adopt
the entirety of the ordinance to address buffering between all land uses.
r
' Don Ashworth, City Manager
Y g
' July 19, 1995
Buffer Yard Ordinance
Page 7
' PLANNING COMMISSION
A public hearing regarding the ordinance was held on June 21, 1995. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the ordinance with the request that the City Council
address the following issues:
' 1. Should the buffer yard requirement be included between low density and low
density (e.g., single - family attached and single - family detached)?
' 2. Are the costs of the ordinance justified by the possible benefits?
' 3. Is the ordinance easy to understand and interpret?
The Planning Commission discussed transition zones, buffering, and this ordinance at the
' following additional meeting dates: January 4, 1995; February 15, 1995; March 15, 1995;
May 3, 1995; and June 7, 1995.
t RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission adopted the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the zoning ordinance
revisions concerning landscaping and tree removal for transitional buffering between uses."
' ATTACHMENTS:
' 1. Ordinance dated 4/27/95
2. Buffer yard Landscaping Cost Estimate Per 100 Linear Feet
3. Cost Estimate Comparisons
' 4. Memo from Hans Hagen to Karen Christofferson dated 7/17/95
5. Memo from Daniel J. Herbst to Karen Christofferson dated 7/17/95
' 6. Planning Commission Minutes of 2/15/95
7. Planning Commission Minutes of 6/21/95
8. Copy of Letter to Joan Archer from Robert Generous dated 6/30/95
Revised 4/27/95 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL
FOR TRANSITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN USES
PURPOSE AND INTENT
It is the policy of the city to provide buffering between different intensities and densities of
land uses and between developments and public right -of -ways in order to provide screening
from light, noise, and air pollution, to enhance public safety, and to improve the aesthetics
and compatibility of uses. The intent of this ordinance is to provide minimum standards that
are understandable, reasonable, and implementable. The standards must address a
comprehensive range of development opportunities. Standards shall not unduly restrict design
flexibility and they should permit a good designer to reflect the demands of the site in which
it is placed.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS, Section 18 -61 (a) (5).
Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is amended to read:
(5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision and adjacent to collector and
arterial streets shall be required by the city as specified in section 20 -1176 (f).
Section 2. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION
1. GENERALLY, Section 20 -1176. Intent, scope and compliance,
subsection (b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
(b) Except for buffer yard requirements specified in section 20 -1176 (f) below, this article
does not apply to single - family detached residences in Al, A2, RR, RSF, and R4
zoning districts which are regulated by landscaping requirements contained in the
subdivision ordinance (chapter 18).
Section 3. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION
1. GENERALLY, Section 20 -1176. Intent, scope and compliance,
subsection (f) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
(f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses and between
a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required by the
comprehensive plan. Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard.
The buffer yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. The
e. All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development
' or storage of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or
organic material shall be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained
free from junk and debris. Dead or diseased vegetation shall be
' removed and replaced with healthy vegetation. The responsibility to
maintain, remove or replace plant materials shall be that of the
landowner on whose property the plant material needing maintenance or
' replacement is located.
' TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS
amount of land and the type and amount of planting specified for each buffer yard
required by this ordinance are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land
'
uses or between a land use and a public road. The planting units required of buffer
yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to "buffer."
'
(1) Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending
to the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural
features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line.
'
Buffer yards shall not be located within any portion of an existing public or
private street or right -of -way.
'
(2) To determine the buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels or between
a parcel and a street, the following procedure shall be followed:
a. Identify the proposed land use of the parcel and the land use of the
adjacent parcel based on the City of Chanhassen Future Land Use Plan.
b. Determine the buffer yard required on each boundary, or segment
thereof, of the subject property by referring to the following Table of
Buffer yard Requirements and illustrations which specify the buffer yard
required between adjacent uses or streets.
'
C. Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer
feet buffer
yard and the number of plant units required per 100 linear of
yard. Each illustration depicts the minimum buffer yard required
'
between two uses. The plant unit multiplier is a factor by which the
basic number of plant materials required for a given buffer yard is
determined in accordance with the selected width of the yard.
'
d. Whenever a wall, fence, or berm is required within a buffer yard, these
are shown as "structure required" in the buffer yard illustrations. The
'
erection and maintenance of all required structures shall be the
responsibility of the higher intensity use. Whenever a wall is required
in addition to a berm, the wall shall be located between the berm and
'
the higher intensity use in order to provide maximum sound absorption.
e. All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development
' or storage of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or
organic material shall be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained
free from junk and debris. Dead or diseased vegetation shall be
' removed and replaced with healthy vegetation. The responsibility to
maintain, remove or replace plant materials shall be that of the
landowner on whose property the plant material needing maintenance or
' replacement is located.
' TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS
I
(
I MD
I HD
I OFF
I MIX
I COM
( PUB
I ACT
I PASS
I OF
D UL
LL/LD
A,
B
C
C
C
E
B
B
A
H
MD
A
A
B
B
C
E
B
B
A
H
HD
B
B
A
B
C
E
B
B
A
G
OFF
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
MIX
C
C
C
B
B
B
C
C
C
B
COM
E
E
D
B
B
A
C
C
C
B
PUB
B
A
A
B
C
E
A
A
A
F
ACT
A
A
B
B
B
C
A
A
A
F
PASS
A
A
A
B
B
C
A
A
A
F
OFF /IND
F
E
E
B
B
B
F
E
E
E
ROAD
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
1. Single - family attached adjacent to single - family detached shall provide a bufferyard.
(The land use of the proposed development is across the top of the matrix. The land use of
the abutting property is along the side of the matrix.). The land use abbreviations are as
follows:
L/LD - large lot and low density residential;
MD - medium density residential;
HD - high density residential;
OFF - office; Mix - mixed use;
Com - commercial;
Pub - public /semi - public;
Act - active park/open space;
Pass - passive park/open space;
Off/Ind - office /industrial;
Road - collector and arterial road.
(3) Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting
requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total
buffer yard plant material requirement.
(4) Buffer yards may be used for passive recreation and they may contain a trail
provided that no plant material is eliminated, the total width of the buffer yard
is maintained, and all other regulations of this ordinance are met. Utility
easements may be included within buffer yards provided that the utility
requirements and buffer yard requirements are compatible and canopy trees are
not planted within said easement.
(5) Where front, side and rear yards are required by this ordinance, buffer yards
may be established within such required yards.
3
(6) Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary
deciduous trees in the city's subdivision ordinance.
(7) Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer
trees in the city's subdivision ordinance.
(8) In instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year round
screening, the city may designate that all planting be of conifers.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1995, by the City
Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
1
2
BUFFERYARD A
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS /100'
1 Canopy Trees
2 Understory Trees
3 Shrubs d
Evergreen Trees/ 12
Conifers
Plant Unit
Multiplier
.4 25'
d
100' 1
I
E
.6 20'
.8 15'I � 0'
—k� 1A
BUFFERYARD B
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS /100'
2 Canopy Trees
q9
4 Understory Trees
0
6 Shrubs
d
Evergreen Trees/
Conifers
Plant Unit 100'
Multiplier I
. 4 30' a �
I3
. 6 25' 00
— — ff-0
i
BUFFERYARD C 1
. 1
REQUIRED
RED PLANT UNITS /100 '
3 Canopy Trees 1
6 Understory Trees 1
9 Stn bs d
Evergreen Trees/ 1
Conifers
.1
1
Plant Unit
Multiplier 100' Structure 1
f Requ:red
I
.6 30 '
1
.8 25� 1
1
1.0 2E � - � 1
Boa .
1
Lower Intensity Use
. 9 loo 1
y � ►P F
Hlgtw Intensity Use 1
1
1
BUFFERYARD D
1
1 REQUIRED PLANT UNITS /100'
1 5 Canopy Trees
10 Understory Trees
1 .15 Shrubs d
1 Evergreen Trees/ >�
Conifers
Plant Unit Structure
Multiplier 100 Required
30'
.6 d
i
1 .8 25' •�
ad •a
1
1 1.0 20'
T
i
1 15' F
.9 2
i
Lower Intensity Use
T
1 .8 � F 3
Higher Intensity Use
i
BUFFERYARD E
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS /100'
4
Canopy Trees
6
Understory Trees
24
Shrubs
d
12
Evergreen Trees/
12
Conifers
Plat Unit '
Multiplier loo Structure
Required
.6 40'
m
� � -�� � =• � `� jam' � �.:
1i ►:d�. i.. i.�ii.Z .T���7
*0 , 11 , 3
Lower Intensity Use
�'�`:.- ice.
Higher Intensity Use
BUFFERYARD F
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS /100'
5
Canopy -Trees
7.5
Understory Trees
0
30
Shrubs
d .
15
Evergreen Trees/
Conifers
Plant Unit 100' Structure
Multiplier } Required
.6 50, d
.:
n
- a fivff"7"m
owl
Lower Intensity Use
T
. 6 20� yti , Fs
y
Higher Intensity Use
X11 1
BUFFERYARD*G
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS /100'
6
Canopy Trees
.t _
9
Understory Trees
F5
36
Shrubs
d
18
Evergreen Trees/
12
Conifers
too'
4 too'
�F3
e 4
0 0 e 0)
Q �
Plant Urtit structure
Multiplier 100, Re aired
.} Q
75'
q(D
8,
.8 50' ' d o
F
� •. t�� �:a i � •� ?��: `�
.75
Ol
30 14
.t _
5 =��
►•.ti` 1
F5
Lower Intensity Use
a6 25- so Fj
Ill
Higher Intemit Use
1�
BUFFERYARD
1
1 REQUIRED PLANT UNITS /100'
1 8 Canopy Trees
12 Understory Trees
1 48 Shrubs d
24 Evergreen Trees/
1 Conifers
1
1 too'
• loo Q
1
1
1
i .
Plant Unit
i Multiplier
g 7 s'
1.0 50'
B
or
F
B 3
or
F
Lower Intensity Use
Higher intensity Use
H
Structure
100' 1, Required
1
1�
FENCES
MINIMUM
OPACITY
25%
50%
95%
TYPICAL
SYMBOL
HEIGHT
MATERIAL
F,
44
-_ - - --
,
Wood Rail
i
nnnnnnnnnnnn n n^ '
F2
48
Wood Picket
F
6'
F
8'
Wood Stockade
F
6'
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
F6
8
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
Masonry Wall (Required)
(Poured Concrete. Cement Block. Brick. etc.)
A 1
MINIMUM
OPACITY
25%
50%
95%
BERMS,
SYMBOL HEIGHT
B I
4 1
- B2
51
B 3
6 1
MATERIAL
EARTH
it
BERM WALLS,
SYMBOL HEIGHT
BW 4' BERM w /6' MASONRY WALL
BW 5' BERM w /7 MASONRY WALL
BW 6' BERM "' /8' MASONRY WALL
LESS! MORE!
INTENSIVE{ INTENSIVE
BUFFERYARD LANDSCAPING COST ESTIMATE PER 100 LINEAR FEET
BUFFERYARD
Canopy
Understory
Shrubs
Conifer
COST ALTERNATE
TYPE A
COST
25 FT.
20 FT.
1
0
$100
$175
15 FT.
1
2
2
2
0
$325
$400
10 FT.
1
2
3
0
$400
$550
0
$425
$575
TYPE B
30 FT.
25 FT.
1 2
2
0
$400
$550
20 FT.
0
4
0
$450
$600
15 FT.
2
4
6
$975
$
$850
$1,150
TYPE C
30 FT.
25 FT.
2 5
5
0
$900
$1,275
20 FT.
3
6
7
0
$950
$1,325
10 FT.
3
5
9
0
$1,275
$1,725
8
0
$1,175
$1,550
TYPE D
30 FT.
25 FT.
3
4
6
9
0
$1,275
$1,725
20 FT.
5
8
10
12
0
$1,700
$2,300
15 FT.
5
9
15
0
$2,125
$2,875
10 FT.
4
8
14
12
0
$2,025
$2,700
0
$1,700
$2,300
TYPE E
40 FT.
30 FT.
2
3
4
14
7
$2,100
$2,400
25 FT.
4
5
6
19
10
$2,950
$3,325
20 FT.
3
5
24
12
$3650 ,
$4,100
15 FT.
3
4
18
9
$2,775
$3,150
17
8
$2,525
$2,825
TYPE F
50 FT.
40 FT.
4
6
18
9
$2,775
$3,150
30 FT.
5
24
12
$3,650
$4,100
20 FT.
3
5
15
$4 ,600
$5,200
18
9
$2,775
$3,150
TYPE G
100 FT.
75 FT.
2
5
14
7
$2,100
$2,400
50 FT.
5
7
22
11
$3,375
$3,750
40 FT.
1 8
29
14
$4,350
$4,875
30 FT.
5
2 7
9
$6,150
25 FT.
4
5
$ 5,475
14
$4,300
$4,825
22
11
$3,375
$3,750
TYPE H
100 FT.
75 FT.
4
6
6
24
12
$3,650
$4,100
50 FT.
8
10
12
19
19
$5,275
$6,025
40 FT.
6
10
24
24
$6,700
$7,600
30 FT.
5
7
19
19
$5,275
$6,025
14
14
$3,975
$4,500
Notes: Cost estimates
- Canopy
$200, Understory $75, Shrubs $25, Conifer $150
Alternate Pricing replaces all understory
trees with conifers
9: \plan \bg \buffer.wk4
o '
2/151,
n,
J
I
r
Ii
�
cc
CD
6
3
1
1
1
1
0
O
U)
CD
w
0
CD
o D_ <.
p o Do
p o DC?
p 0 D�
0
C W
v 0
N -°
0 mfl.
0 v0
0
CD
CD y
CD <
CD 0 co
m °< =
CD N
CD CD 0 < �
OL
< CAD
0 a CD0
m O
:3 °- m
CD
0 CD ;r
Q7om
N
nP ana:
n� a0 m
n� ana�
CD
0 a0 co
-4
ZC7• $ Z �
c o
~� 0 � c
c o y c w
a
CD
3 cn C
c C �
3 w C
a w c r- cn
B C
O
CD CD
CD
r
ro
m
CD
1 Q
1 Q "1
1 Q "7
CD CD
CD
CD
CD
1
0
O
.60
Ge
� �
-60 -60
rt
O
Efl O Et
O Cn
OD 00
{� {fl Ge
N V 0
in
j C) V
C
j
O�OO)0C71
000VDV
N) -4
O�OC7100)
1 0
C1
C
0
G�
M CL
`Z
{e N
H9 Efl
X �
@)
ffl
Cn
N
V -` V 69
C W
V V f19
O d9
Cn V
071000000 0
Cn VCn VOO
071Cn
O46 071U7
C 4
m
.69
CD
CQ '/1
0) �
4 A
L
V
1 .1
CD
0 j
Cn O p
�
Vi 'G/
GJ O
� �
VJ V% 69
W A
IV IV
�
0) O N .P -•
O V OOO W
O CD -& 0) �
0Cn0 V ON
N co 0)
0 .0600)O N
'69 O � O -`
0 O0 Cn00n
{fl
p
IV
ffl Efl
N
O
O
{�9
N[nNWt)�1c0
ffl ffl
CO CO
L1
C +OAC
O -N OODO•P
V-4
Ln—c1 j 00
UlC71U1GD0O0
OWOWffl
00)00)00
CA
S
cr
(1)
N W '^ N
W 0 N
N W
- N
j � W
P
�•POCOtCn
J
Lyl(DOODDN - O D
j J
UlUlCAW 00
O PT - W
N
Cn — OWON
O CA) ONOCO
0O00CA) C) CO
OCOCn — CAN
071
s 6,--fb AA.X -`
�� Nl
�
0
w
CD
0
.a
0
m
0
0
<
CD
CL
w
CA
0
w
CD
C2
a
w
07
CD
0
Z
H
V1
x
W
/y 5
,�c� JJJJ�7J7 •• ` a 14
DECIDUOUS y i / L34 33 ,
2 1/2' DIA. MIN. s
LL- T RF-ES L-L- BE
?OM THE CITY oP Z $ T o M PL.ANTeT
{ANHAt'�ENL-s AFi -fvVe7
ZEE SP�-GI E5 LLS'T IFE[Z� , s,. .
3 I •�
1 -
__ - -� i
a
EY RIDGE
AIL N0. - � 1 �•
roo a } ✓
7ti a I 5�E -Y� _
a I :x_ ; gin.:•
} •� � j � I I I ;` I
1 2
Z � I
Iy I I so
L - - - J I L
3 I ' 1 =So
F 77
I
� r 1
f
Il
' I 4 �j07 I�5 �6 90.:
a ino inn I cz e o s
•
I
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ L- - f Rf=-a6 - W—
ZoM TRE C
DEB Sp�GIES LIST
q
F W
.777�'�
Ix
,,.ACV
j o
QP, /
0
EY RIDGE
4,11- 'NO. --L-
34:
% 61
I I9 1 j L i 1 0
L
r)
13� I ® I If L
3
77�
`7
�r �- t
.14&--
k;r;4.,C` - -
r.
So
W
s }
t I ► '. t ���i t It
4}} 4 y w•�!Ik k!! a k k k l r. ! If v
J' r }i �'��IJi � } t t� } { 1� •1 a
It lLfi {r fit;`, { 1 31 1
!Jt'� ►
� i s
Tj
�- - : ....... - .. sE�(i!�1 ►t�jd��� �i�cs :.�It�1t1
�� {� �� �aJ �t�t �,ajl �I{ �,�j tr.' ��� �� � � � f • ' � 1 �'t� , { �
•» - - VIOS3NMW N J
• DW YW M3N
u MIOV3 N3SMMrJ J
Nrie•
aerasoNri
ISM 4 XNVB 01313HM �
1d30N0�•
Isa w mp+ct tat -c .aca IS�uu.zcasuartwla��- '
e t �
s a
k�l,{
I
- � 11 •1
1 F'• t
,r
1 1
(
f �j-
a
CL
�m
w
I
C�
t
S
F
0
L +• ' rr
r�
~ 't^f
r
11. tl Yt w.•Y11i! �M er10GY
t
---• --- • - - - --
S 1 3 311 H O N V
011 U3M 1JOSH31SWHl 'o.'YH
W
s }
t I ► '. t ���i t It
4}} 4 y w•�!Ik k!! a k k k l r. ! If v
J' r }i �'��IJi � } t t� } { 1� •1 a
It lLfi {r fit;`, { 1 31 1
!Jt'� ►
� i s
Tj
�- - : ....... - .. sE�(i!�1 ►t�jd��� �i�cs :.�It�1t1
�� {� �� �aJ �t�t �,ajl �I{ �,�j tr.' ��� �� � � � f • ' � 1 �'t� , { �
•» - - VIOS3NMW N J
• DW YW M3N
u MIOV3 N3SMMrJ J
Nrie•
aerasoNri
ISM 4 XNVB 01313HM �
1d30N0�•
Isa w mp+ct tat -c .aca IS�uu.zcasuartwla��- '
e t �
s a
k�l,{
I
- � 11 •1
1 F'• t
,r
1 1
(
f �j-
a
CL
�m
w
I
C�
t
S
F
0
V1093NNW N3SSUwM
rte ,:.__._...,. ..d...�.....,.y �1.,.., --,�• AU110V4N3SSMp —�
i --- . »•_ --• - - S 10 311 H J N Y Nvt!
.,..•.� .•� U11 Ulm NOSM3ISHOHt k:bm 3araso 1Sfld1 I *m Q131jm
---- 1��ON0�•
N �
J.
g �
v
s o
M
F ,
0
W
0
CL
0
cc
M
C
� ; rT1�(i•
O � v
i j i
I ; ; 1 r . , t
tier. i
•Ililltlll ..,.,
t
}p_..r.r.r tt!tttll t! I'�al�t
!trill
X \
r ►I� s tlt
I I ' Jil I Itt
t! lit[ [,� ! �• � � t t ' '� I, � !ll
�� • [ l l ! 1 [ t� � . it � � [
• .it�lirt .!�il� #�� .I��1n
� I'
lo
Ii
I
L'
na -. @/cc c.-c -c ac.- �s�uw.acsurn.n.•
[ j 4 0
C
Ck
n
i
j
l
i
.:N.: >L. a �� �` QS. Ham: >.. , :�- r4•°
h .. � . •;.; • ` "ter � :,.; 4 . ,
;.62.0 ,.. ...; ., '::rw:� •� Y �tr'. ��+' ✓ =Y.�•
, . :rig �'• x ...a� • _ S`t _�
W
.•...,,:� .+ 81 09
d
III
• ^h. ma .
f
� t-r /r .u+'• it
40 0
k V
I ' • k "' ^ .,,tom i:. i.: � �� ..yw. �
(T�}� it '•i� -'. • x _, - �i:...�.r, .�: "tip'
mm
_ � I
a I t0 09�
cq
Pp
�J
;::,•
p �
;y/, a :� ' . � �• ?.:
o I a
1°C d .
�. z \ o z
.r co 0)
00
;III •
7;
r m � •J.
1 0 0%.
IR
t4f
0
h � ` x � o
x co 11,
N O-
.{ Ir I I 1
I o^
k , w
•
U)
C-)
w
w 0 ;
w
LLI
u w
:3
0-
V)
W °
I-
W U)
3
U
Z
Ln
T7 .:.., %:
LX
LL
cr
LL
w z
> ..... I...x
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .. .
Ln
m
iii
........ ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .. .
Ln
m
iii
: X .'
WE
x} 0:
::fi
• d
N(
lA
Z
r
O
O
O
a
� •
y am• � � ��
EL
Ai
- xz,
uj-
li '
:IX r
w co
o N cr.
I
w
m
g
Y }f
Z
yyy,
:; •''.•�'`. ::r�i:•� ?} iv: %% ?::iii TTT
ice+•: ., t ,:,{
� •�' r
t�
IIIII� I I
7/17195
To. Karen Christofferson
From: Hans Hagen
Re: Buffer Yard City Code Amendment
Robert Generous's letter asks three questions. Listed below are my answers to the questions
and my reasons for the answers.
Question 1
The ordinance in not clear and leaves many unanswered questions, such as:
Who is responsible for the cost of maintaining of the buffer yard.? A f . " 411 1 i
What are the design standards for the buffer yard?
Who owns the buffer yard? Awl
Do different standards apply to different classifications of streets?
What is the impact on the cost of housing?
Does elevation change between different land use change the requirement of buffer
yards?
Does the buffer yard limit the ability of the city to "ameliorate nuisances "(Sec 3 f)
by establishing a rule that the developer can rr eet ,i.e. buffer yard, a possible nuisance
may be not be buffered but the rule, buffer yard, is satisfied?
How is it possible to add buffer yards without being contrary to the "Purpose and Intent "
paragraph where is states "Standards shall not unduly restrict design flexibility, etc "
because it clearly adds an additional complex and expensive rule that will in fact restricts
the ability of die city and the developer to negotiate under the existing more flexible
rules.
Why can't plant material be eliminated from a buffer yard for a trail (Sec. 3,e,4) when
plant material can be removed under the existing rule and what is the definition of plant
material?
If it the intent to place buffer yards in the front of single family homes (See. 3,e,4) what
rights does the homeowner have to the buffer year, who maintains, who pays taxes, can
the landscape material be changed?
QUESTION 2
There is no way to calculate the cost of this change. If a property owner is making a simple
lot division the cost may be 100% of the lot now lot value because the additional land may
prevent a lot division that is permitted under the existing code. In any event the cost to the
user will be more than to cost under the existing code. The cost of administration in future years
will be expensive.
07 -17 -1995 10:04AM FROM HAMS HAGEN HOMES, INC. TO 8519560 P.03
QUESTION 3
' The city should continue negotiating buffers. Land development has many variables including
swamp, trees, topographical change,
boundary lines, and finance considerations. Flexibility
' should be maintained to permit the city and the land owner to take into consideration all of the
variables. The addition of buffer yards to an already complex code will ultimately become a
burden to taxpayers through inefficient land use and motion expense. In nary cases the
' rule will not even achieve the desired results. The buffer yard is an expensive and inefficient
way to resolve buffer requirements for land planing. The cost for installation and maintenance of
buffer yards will become one more rule that restricts flexible land use and eliminates innovative
land planning. Each land plan should be considered on it's merits. if a land use causes a problem
the problem should be resolved through negotiation with the governing authorities.
' hh/landlclty /code
r
I TOTAL P.03
47
TO: Karen Christofferson
r � `
SUBJECT: Chanhassen Transitional Buffering Ordinance
DATE: July 17, 1995
FROM: Daniel J. Herbst, The Pemtom Land Company
I have reviewed the Ordinance and my comments are below. I
will make an effort to be at the meeting today at 2:00 p.m.
With respect to the draft of the Ordinance, my comments are
as follows:
A. Subsection F on page 2 of the Ordinance indicates that
each buffer yard as required is "designed to ameliorate
nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land
use and a public road." It might be beneficial in
interpreting the Ordinance to have them define what
particular nuisance they are experiencing now between
adjacent land uses that they expect to minimize with
this buffering.
B. With respect to stating on page 2, paragraph 1, that
buffer yards shall not be located within any portion of
existing public or private street or right -of -way, a
sentence should be added that states that in the event
the buffering is being installed by the City, County or
State, it would then be on the public right -of -way
in the event that a street widening was proposed.
Further, it may be beneficial for both the City and
private parties to have the buffering on the public
right -of -way.
Attached is a sketch that shows a 2 acre senior or low
income housing tract consisting of 30 units on a site 200' x
435' abutting a road on the front with single family homes
on one side and office and industrial on the other two
sides.
The road side of the proposal would be buffer yard B
consisting of a 15' buffer strip that would be required to
have 4 canopy trees at $200 each, 8 understory trees at $100
each, and 12 shrubs at $25 each for a total cost of
buffering of $1900 x —equ 4s-4 40 0
The single family side of the property consisting of 435'
would be buffer yard C and a 10' buffer strip would require
F
Karen Christofferson
July 17, 1995
Page 2
a 435' long split rail fence at $5 per linear foot, 13
canopy trees at $200 each, 26 understory trees at $100 each,
39 shrubs at $25 each for a total buffering cost along the
single family side of the property of $8350 x .9 equals
$7515.
On the two remaining sides adjacent to office and industrial
use, would consist of buffer yard E spanning the 200' side
of the parcel and the 435' side for a total of 635 It
would require 635' of stockade fence at $10 per linear foot,
26 canopy trees at $200 each, 38 understory trees at $100
each, 153 shrubs at $25 each, and 76 evergreens at $200 each
for a total buffering cost of $34,375 x .7 equals $24,063.
r�
The total buffer yard cost for the four sides would be
y Yr $31—, Is this substantially greater than what would
1 normally be negotiated?
OF,r�e e1: 1W
�jOVG.c� amo�
1
1
30 OXIITS
1
1 c::,2
El
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Conrad: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staffs recommendation on this item.
Is there any discussion?
Harberts: Again, I would just reiterate that staff include those comments...
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
Preliminary Plat #93 -11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 49 single family lots, 5 oudots and a
neighborhood pa& All voted in favor and the motion carved.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPING SECTION OF
CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE TO CREATE A BUFFER YARD REOUIREMENTS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Farmakes: But if you're looking at how many problems you can solve with the least amount
of ..isn't the majority of times this issue comes up is the transition to single family detached
housing adjacent to either single family, higher amount of use or ... You don't see a lot of
industrial people coming in here and complaining about the poor quality building next to
them.
Aanenson: Right, but I think it's ironic that we're seeing a lot more of single family adjacent
to single family that want to see buffering.
Mancino: Well single family detached... it's like, wait a minute. It's just because one
subdivision got there first, so then they want to be buffered to the same exact reflection of
them on the other side.
Farmakes: But you have a targeted customer. If you have an environmental development
where people are paying $2- 300,000.00. They're moving out to be on a wetland. Looking
out the back of their vista they're looking at, not only their property but someone else's
property. Kind of after a while, since there's nothing there, being that that's their view and
when somebody comes in and puts in a house there ... it's not their view.
Scott: Yeah. I don't think the issue is, you're right. The issue is not buffering between exact
housing types but I think once you, I mean low density, the classic example is the Windmill
development. I was at the Council meeting on Monday night and the issue is not low density
from low density but it's low density single family detached versus low density single family
41
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
attached. So I think perhaps in this area low density and low density might need to be split
! into attached and detached. Because I think what people object to are differences in housing
types.
' Aanenson: Well I don't know. I think that was proven tonight.
! Harberts: Or is it just perception problems?
Mancino: Well the one thing about the, and I'll be specific, the Windmill Run and the
! detached and the attached, is the attached is 92 units of the same looking style that you're
looking onto all the time. That that single family, whether you think Rottlund is, that
particular development has enough diversity going on in that neighborhood. You know that's
! everybody's different perspective. But they're sitting there looking at kind of a company town
development where all 92 attached, whether it's attached, detached housing, does look similar
and the developer has said that there's only one color there and that's a gray tone. They don't
! have any other tones. They don't do different earth tones, so I'm getting even more particular
about the low density and the differences.
Farmakes: I think that's a very valid comment based on the simple fact that people who live,
who purchase and invest in these homes have a perceived loss of value in their home. Now
we can have Council in here recommending that it doesn't make any difference but I would
' submit that if these are the customers, and if they say that, if that's their perceived loss, then
it does affect the market. And it does lessen the value of their home. Now, you don't
understand what I'm saying?
Aanenson: No. I'm just wondering when we went through that same issue on the Oak Ponds.
When you have, I mean throughout this whole city we've got multi - family that's going to be
' adjacent to something else.
Farmakes: But that's true. But the question then becomes, who absorbs the loss? Does the
! multiple family adjacent to their ... or is there a buffer?
Aanenson: Where have we ever had somebody lose value in this city?
Farmakes: Well let's look at what we did down where 212 is going to crossect where that
' little shopping center is there. The Klingelhutz property.
Aanenson: Mission Hills.
! 42
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: Mission Hills I think it was. There were larger lots and they came by and they
created the buffer, that there was some transition. And the question here is I think from
people who are in the existing development, you're dealing with humans here, they just don't
trust that explanation that it doesn't make any difference. What they want to see when they
look out the back yard is the same type of home that they're living in. And the question is,
who absorbs what they see as a loss in value to their real estate. They want to see, if they're
in single family detached housing, they want to look out on that. They don't want to see...
connected homes and be told well it's the same zoning, and therefore it's the same thing. And
I wonder, even just two rows of housing or something like that is always required as a
buffer...
Aanenson: But the issue there is, it's okay for somebody else to live next to those two
homes. They still have single family adjacent to it.
Farmakes: There's a significant difference though Kate. The issue is that when a consumer
comes in and they purchase that, they purchase knowing that. And the people who are in an
established home, they're looking out on a farm field and they don't perceive that. They're
not making that decision and you saw several of them come in here and they were under the
understanding otherwise. That that wasn't going to be there. That they were going to have a
like home and I certainly think that the burden for that is on the developer who's bringing in
good development to smooth that problem over. Again, what the perceived issue of a buffer,
even behind Byerly's here. We're talking about there's a dip coming down and a wetland and
then coming up to a bunch of trees. Even though that was several hundred feet there, it was
hard to sell that to them that that was a buffer. And I don't know if each case that we come
up with here, that you're going to solve a problem by coming up with a long drawn out
ordinance. I'm not sure if you can qualify each particular topographic situation that's going to
come up and say, well if there's 6 trees in the way here, then that counts. I don't know.
That's going to be a real challenge.
Scott: I think too that with the Windmill Run and that particular thing, the thing that really
generated the interest was their, as Diane was saying, is that however it was communicated to
them and I've got my own theory where when you read the language verbatim, that our staff
member probably did. The way it is written, it would lead you toward the impression that it
was going to be single family. But when you say single family to us, we know it can be
attached or detached. You say single family to somebody else and most people will think
that it's detached. But anyway, on this particular thing. If we have, I think that if we have
two different low density housing types, such as detached and attached, I think we need to
buffer those. That's my opinion, and it sounds real similar to what you were saying.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: Well yeah, and I'm not sure if you take the tact that what exactly constitutes a
' buffer other than perhaps consumer choice is a buffer. That it's then left up to the people
who are going to buy those detached housing next to the attached, and it's reflected in the
price that they pay for the home based on consumer demand. It's believable to me that there
' would be less of a consumer demand for those units. That they would be less in price than a
housing that was surrounded by detached.
' Ledvina: Well what one community might call a buffer, like 50 feet or something like that,
between two different housing types, when we had, what was it. 60 to 100 feet or something
like that with Windmill Run. I mean, there was quite a bit of separation distance there and
other communities would have said, yes. That's fine. That's more than what we...
' Farmakes: The word transition too may be part of the equation other than the term buffer. It
depends on what you're looking for ... not necessarily. It's not necessarily talking distance or
obstruction. Sometimes it's a couple of rows of houses. It changes the make -up. Even on
PUD's, you have the transitions within your own development.
Ledvina: Okay. I can see that, yeah.
Scott: Yeah. So I mean in that situation the transition would be single family detached
above the road and then the attached stuff starts on the other site. It seems like people, and
' this is just from the last couple of years. People seem to look at a street as a sign that says
now you can do something really different. But when there's property that's touching, people
tend to think that it's transition. It's buffer or something like that.
'
Farmakes: New Horizons even has it, and that's what? That's 15 years, 10 years. Was it 15,
16 years old? I mean it's single family wrapped by attached housing.
Harberts: Well and I think one of the broader questions too. You know what is our role
here. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to protect the value of a perceived problem?
' What's prohibiting a property owner to, in a sense provide their own type of buffer or
enhancement if they feel their property value's being devalued. You know I guess is it, you
know I've had discussions with some people that, you know as it deals with LRT or whatever.
' The perception that it's going to devalue their homes when we put an LRT station, and it did
exactly the opposite. So unless you know, what fact are you really dealing with at that
perception... the customer, and I think the comments that Jeff has said, I think they have a lot
' of validity and I think that one of the real questions here is what are we trying to accomplish
and what is our role. It's almost on, well I don't want to say on a project by project basis but
otherwise how do you take into consideration all the possibilities that may exist in terms of
what's included in a buffer. What is buffer?
44
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Aanenson: I guess what we're saying right now is, really we don't have anything that's
quantitative, and so this was an attempt, and that's why I think we just want to get some
feedback from you. Are we going down the right path? It is a hard thing and if we don't
have something in place, how do you tell somebody to do it?
Farmakes: Yeah. Well is there a way to do it as something that's desired without
quantitativeness? State how many feet...
Aanenson: Well we do right now for industrial. We say 100 feet. You have to buffer 100
feet but there's no qualification as to how much landscaping has to be in there. We say you
have to, and so what we're saying is, maybe we should have something in there that says, this
should at least be the density of the vegetation after the screen and then we also put in here
criteria for a wall, fence or berm so there is some more qualitative sort of thing in there.
Again, this is kind of a jumping off point. This came out of the discussion, I'd hate to have
this whole ordinance developed around this one issue. We're trying to look at the broader
picture. This kind of kicked off a discussion about transition. I guess our perspective, single
family is single family. I don't know if we want to buffer people from themselves and that's
kind of always been our staff position. But we started talking about the different types and
attached versus detached, and that makes sense and take it from there.
Farmakes: I don't think socially that buffers anybody. Having a transition of housing types.
It's just like Joe said, I think the problem that has occurred with that is just that people think
of single family. They think of detached housing. The consumer situation. We do not. The
city does not follow that.
Scott: Did you rework that description? I think it was in the comprehensive plan that talks
about low density. Because that's something that we need to make sure that in that definition
that single family attached is.
Aanenson: Oh, that we list the gambit of things that could be low density.
Mancino: Well in the comprehensive plan it says that low density in our city is
predominantly detached single family.
Aanenson: Right. And that's a true statement though.
Scott: It is a true statement but I'm thinking.
Mancino: But it's changing. I'm saying it's changing now. We're seeing it right now, and it's
going to come up more.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: I think it's ripe for misinterpretation.
Scott: But can also include.
Aanenson: It always will be because the only place we have, the only thing we have
townhouses in right now is in medium density.
Scott: I don't have a problem with that. I just want to make sure that next time somebody
calls in and says, oh I see the property next door to me is blah, blah, blah. What is that?
And you want to be able to say, it's predominantly single family detached. However, it can
' also include the following housing types and that's something that needs to be changed
yesterday.
Aanenson: That was changed quite a while ago. We try to tell people, this is the
possibilities. The range of possibilities.
' Farmakes: From what I hear, it's not necessarily an issue of city staff or somebody
miscommunicating. A lot of times people who are trying to get a corn field off the ground as
1 a development are kind of elaborating as to what goes next door. And the information that
they pass on is not necessarily factual either.
' Aanenson: And frankly we haven't had an R -4 come through. I mean it's been, Ladd do you
remember the last time we did an R -4? I mean it just caught us off guard. I mean certainly
it's going through the process. It's meets the criteria but when you give some people the
' realm of possibilities, R -4 wasn't one that we had envisioned. Something certainly the
applicant figured out he could apply for.
Scott: When you're buying real estate it's... we've seen legions of well educated adults come
in here and start their sentence with, but the realtor said. But that really focused my attention
on what was that real definition and I sat down with Bob Generous and I read through that
' thing word for word and I went, man. If I didn't know what I know about planning, and
heard somebody read that to me over the phone in the frame of mind of someone who's try ing
to make a decision, I could see where I would misinterpret that. So there's, I'm 100% behind
city staff on that. As a matter of fact, I did talk with the neighbors and I said, when you
bring this up at the next meeting, don't mention any staff member's name because I said that's
ridiculous.
Aanenson: Well we all know what happened and certainly there was no intent to mislead
anybody and again.
1 46
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Scott: No. I agree with you 100% and we know how it happened. However, getting back to
this issue.
Mancino: Kate, I am in support of the buffer yard and what you're doing here. The direction
you're going and that is, having it a little more quantifiable as a baseline where you want, not
only buffer yards but what needs to go in there, as a direction. As a guideline for
development.
Aanenson: I think even on streetscape. I think we have not got enough on streetscape where
we thought we were getting something better and it really didn't provide the screening.
Mancino: I think Joan Ahrens brought that up in the Lundgren development on Willow
Ridge.
Aanenson: We went out and checked it. We counted all the bushes and trees and they were
all there. Again, it wasn't really what our expectations were. I think we didn't press harder
for that.
Mancino: And I talked about Windmill Run on Galpin. There is supposed to be a berm and
a buffer for those homes since they're on a collector road and it's not working. So they've
had to put up a big fence there, which I think is visually, the natural buffering of plant
materials would have been so much better if it would work.
Farmakes: Would this be better to handle a specific guideline or as an ordinance? I mean
like a PUD or like guidelines we use in PUD or a specific ordinance.
Mancino: Because we always say...
Aanenson: Well I mean, the diagrams and stuff is what makes the lengthy portion. Again, if
you want the ability to enforce it, you've got to have it in ordinance form. Certainly someone
that comes in, just like they would in any other case, could ask for a variance. Maybe they
want to reduce the density because they've already got a significantly wooded area and you
say, that makes sense. Okay. Or there's another natural feature that creates a break and in
this application it really would take away from that natural feature. Certainly I think those
are things we want to look at. We can build it into the ordinance that the Planning
Commission may consider other alternatives based on topography, natural features. We can
put some of those ordinances down. Or you could just give a variance.
Scott: You know what, since this is a public hearing, could I have a motion to open the
public hearing please?
47
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Conrad: Well, that wasn't Kate's intent.
Scott: Well it's published that way. I figure we can open it. Close it. Get through it now.
Aanenson: It was published as a public hearing. It wasn't our intent.
Scott: So I guess it's a technicality but.
Harberts: But what does it do to the process?
Conrad: Boy, but we still can have a real public hearing when we want to though?
Aanenson: Exactly. When we're ready to have one. We're not ready to have one yet.
Scott: Well.
Aanenson: I don't know. Technically because it was published, maybe you should open it.
Scott: Yeah.
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public healing was opened.
Scott: Let the record show that there are no members of the public here, so may I have a
motion to close the public hearing.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hewing was closed.
Scott: We've had a lot of discussion so can I have a motion?
Harberts: Are we tabling it?
Scott: That would be a motion.
Aanenson: Yeah. If you had specific comments. Good, bad.
Conrad: Are you leaving?
Harberts: I am.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Conrad: I move that we excuse Diane. Good -bye. I guess I don't agree with many of the
things I heard, especially within a residential area. Buffering different things. I've been
around so long. I'll just guarantee you that everybody, any new development that comes in
doesn't want, the old one doesn't want the new one there. Regardless. I don't think we'll
figure it out. I just don't. I'm real sensitive to old, the old neighborhood having priority in
terms of they've been here. They've been paying taxes and we don't need to put in something
that's really dissimilar next to them, and that's why we have zones. But I'm not sure, we're
getting so fine on some of this. So the housing types are different. Then where do we go
from there? I guess I'm just not sure, the people are different.
Mancino: Say that again.
Conrad: The people are different. Seniors versus yuppies versus whatever. So again, I guess
I understand, these people that they heard something that wasn't right and their recourse is
maybe a different way but to develop an ordinance to separate R -4, I don't know.
Mancino: But I don't think that's what this does. The buffer yards.
Conrad: Okay. Let me continue. I don't mind what I see here. I'd like to understand a little
bit more. I like, it appears simple but maybe the simplicity might not work. So I guess I
need to do, I think Kate you said a couple things. There has to be a credit for existing
buffers. So if there is one there, you know. But I like this as a, this could be a nice standard
for what is required. But I also would like to see the cost implications of this.
Aanenson: I did put that together and we'll put that in for the next one. We did look at some
costs.
Conrad: And I'd like to be able to compare it what we require. So I just need to know if
we're costing somebody a whole lot of money. Fencing, I really just hate fences as a buffer.
They are not a buffer. They are an eyesore and I tell you, anything where we say fence in
here, I don't like that. But I guess my gut feel is there's something good about this that I'd
like to keep pursuing and see, it seems like a standard that the staff can fall back on but I
think we've got to put it through some tests. We've got to go through some, I think there's a
lot of work in here. It looks so simple but I think there's work for us to go through the
exercise of okay. So now here this comes and this is sitting there so what are we going
between the two, and does that really make sense? Is that all there is? Is that all there is and
then we write the ordinance. Maybe that's not all there is. Maybe there's still more that
should be done.
Mancino: You want a reality check.
49
' Plannin g Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Aanenson: Well that's what we were proposing to do. I think Bob put that in his report here
' too. We've got the cost estimates which he just finished tonight before he left and what we
were planning to do for the next go around of this is actually show you, like you said Ladd,
visually what does this mean. What is the spacing? Does this add anything to it or not?
And maybe if we can find some areas where we could take some slides too and show you.
Conrad: So my last question is just to understand. What is a plant unit multiplier? So under
' A it says .4. What does that mean?
Aanenson: If you take that .4 and you multiply it by the number of trees that would be
' required. So if you need 100 foot, you need 60 trees. Or excuse me, if you need 30 foot. 30
x .6 and that tells you how many trees and you select from that. Plant units per 100. Too
' complex?
Conrad: Maybe not but I don't get it. Tell me a different way. Start from the beginning.
Aanenson: Okay. We're on buffer yard A.
Conrad: Buffer yard A and so now the transition between two things required between one
park property and one public property requires buffer yard A, and so.
Aanenson: So if you go with at least 100 foot, excuse me, a 20 foot wide buffer.
Conrad: And why, if you width.
Aanenson: If you go wider, you need less trees for the buffer yard. If you go narrower, then
you've got to put more density in there.
Conrad: So any of these are acceptable?
' Aanenson: Right. Right. You can go wider. Put a wider space in there. A berm. A wider
berm.
Conrad: Okay. So developer pick A, B, C.
Aanenson: Yeah. If they want to put more, if space is an issue to them, they've got a narrow
i strip, they can crunch it in and so it gives some flexibility. But then that means the penalty
for that is, then you'd better, you've got...
' Conrad: Okay, I get it. Thank you. That's all I need.
i 50
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Ledvina: I guess I would agree with Ladd's comments. I think expanding on the fence thing.
I think berm walls are inappropriate. I wouldn't want to see that being constructed. When
you have those types of retaining walls, you're going to have maintenance issues, etc. Safety.
I don't think it's appropriate. I guess what I'd like to see is a map. Just kind of, where are
the areas that this is going to be, or come into play. I don't think it's going to happen at all.
Mancino: You don't think it's going to, pardon?
Ledvina: I don't think it's going to happen all that often.
Aanenson: That's a good thought.
Ledvina: I don't know. Generally I don't like the idea of generating new ordinances if we
don't have to. I think that the situation with the Windmill Run, Lake, what was it? Lake
Susan Hills?
Aanenson: Lake Ann Highlands.
Ledvina: Lake Ann Highlands, okay. I think that was kind of blown out of proportion. I
thought that, when I looked at that situation, I thought that wasn't that bad.
Farmakes: You're going to see that all the way to TH 41.
Mancino: All the way down Highway 5.
Farmakes: There will be a connection to single family detached all the way down.
Mancino: And they're going to be twin homes. They're selling right now. They're hot.
Ledvina: 41? Oh, to TH 41. Okay.
Mancino: So this is going to keep coming back.
Farmakes: 90% of this is going to be where it's been single family detached housing.
Mancino: And big developments of twin homes.
Ledvina: Well, they were talking about doing berming and landscaping and that kind of thing
but, and then maybe this is entirely appropriate but I don't know, I guess I didn't see all the,
or wasn't present for all the discussion on that so I have to kind of back down on that a little
51
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
bit, but in general I thought that what was laid out seemed pretty reasonable in terms of the
' transition and buffering and I could be wrong about that but that's my feeling on it. But if, I
think if it's felt this is needed, I think we need to look at where it's going to be applying
and...
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: I just have a couple of comments. I think it will come back. I think that Jeff and
I, from being on the Highway 5 task force know that it will come back and it will depend
which goes in first. If the twin home goes in first, and everybody then and the single family
that builds around that twin home already knows it's there.
Ledvina: A quick question then. Are those going to be PUD's though, and then we're going
' to have the control there?
Mancino: We can't force PUD's ... you can't force a PUD because in this situation.
Aanenson: I think they'll be looking at a PUD for the piece that's adjacent to Highway 5 is
what they've indicated to us.
Mancino: But not the piece north of that.
' Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: Which they're looking at right now.
Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: Which they're pursuing right now. So there is no way, I don't know if there...
' Aanenson: Unless as they agree to, they have another neighborhood meeting set up and...
Mancino: And so just west of Galpin, that will come up again. How far south we go to
single family.
Aanenson: Well first we've got to bring that into the MUSA area so that's going to be a
' while. Again, some of this is market driven which we don't have a lot of control over. How
we respond to what comes in. Like I say, I guess we hadn't thought of that type of product
coming in. Although we did try to, Boyer's did try to do it on Highway 7. That same
' 52
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
upscale, but you still have all the Gorra piece which has got high density and medium density
adjacent to Highway 5. So there will be some transition zoning through there.
Mancino: And it's interesting what Eden Prairie has done, as everybody knows on Highway
5. I mean it has, near Chanhassen it has both single family abutting Highway 5 and the
multi - family, what I call multi - family. What I think is interesting there in buffer yards is,
they have the big berms. The big slopes and they didn't plant them. I mean they just, you
know. They didn't do anything with it which is, I think too bad. So then we have these
buffer yards on each side of the berm. Do you plant it on the side where the house is going
to be or do you plant it on the side where the streets are or do you have to plant them both?
So that's kind of open when it abuts an arterial or collector. And I think we need to look at
that.
Conrad: So what's your thought. ...buffering twins from single family. And pretend you're a
pure planner and don't think about any specific project but, now you can design a buffer
between zones. So you would, is it your thought that. On the one hand you're saying, hey if
the twins come in first, we don't have a problem but as a pure planner, we're hearing the staff
say, they really don't, I won't put words in your mouth Kate but there really aren't that many
cities that really buffer the different types. So why are we different? What do we see?
What are we trying to do? Are we trying to segment the different quality neighborhoods with
little mounds of trees or what? Here we're going to try to appease some people probably.
That's the biggest issue to appease something because they probably did their homework and
heard some miscommunication before hand. So we'll appease them but now we're talking
about the next couple of projects. What are we trying to do?
Mancino: ...and my concern is, how... I mean the footprint is 92 units that all look the same.
And instead of, let's saying buffering it to single family. Within that 92 units, should we go a
step further and have some more open space or ask for open space.
Conrad: And what does that do? What does that open space do?
Mancino: It creates what I call the company town effect or something. Having it all look
exactly alike. Row houses down Highway 5.
Ledvina: But that's looking at it from an airplane or driving through the subdivision. How
about from the people that are living right there.
Mancino: Yeah, I'm just throwing it out. When you look down Highway 5, you're going to
see all these. They all look the same and it's going to be segregated and look different.
53
Plannin g Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: Why would you see that and create some sort of berm or fort around each
' development? What you're saying, if there's an existing twin home area, and you have a
cornfield next to it and all of a sudden they're going to come in and put in single family.
You're not going to get any people from twin homes coming over because it probably adds to
the value of their property as they abut single family detached. Or if you reverse that. Who
absorbs the difference there? To me the perception would be that the people who abut
housing that per square foot costs less than that conceivably.
Conrad: I'll just make a point. There will be no diminished value in homes. I'll almost
assure you that there will not be a loss.
Farmakes: I would say that it's pretty, if that's the case then, why the perceived value
difference between detached housing and attached housing?
Conrad: Well different people. These are different people moving in.
Farmakes: The square footage of it is cheaper. It's a cheaper house.
I Conrad: Cheaper.
Farmakes: Now you can find with Boyer's or something, you can find examples that are
' exceptions to the rule but as...
Scott: Well Lake Ann Highlands, they're talking about anywhere from $200,000.00 to
$350,000.00 a side.
Farmakes: But you're not going to find that next to Highway 5. You aren't going to find
Boyer coming in and building a half million dollar twin homes. You're not going to have
that. So the question then becomes is, who has, now if you solve that problem by having,
here's detached housing and instead of having the new development come up to twin homes
so you have another two rows. A transition of the like housing, detached housing, and that's
part of their development. So that they incur, it's easier for them to sell that, so be it. But
it's not. It's harder to sell with single family detached homes that are adjacent then, that's that
r developer's problem.
Conrad: But realistically that's not what developers do. They have a product and they bring
' it in. They don't bring in, have you seen any developer come in with a whole bunch of
different products?
Farmakes: New Horizon. Goes, it was just like that.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Scott: But Mission Hills.
Conrad: They're all the same stuff, aren't they?
Scott: No, there's single family detached.
Conrad: Okay, Centex but that was a huge. They're bringing that thing in piece at a time.
Scott: Yeah, they have all those 8- plexes.
Mancino: ...all different levels which I think is even better. They had single family. They
had fourplexes. They had 8- plexes and it was more of a planned development versus these
that had 92 of the same ones. I mean let's get some different kinds of multi - family within
that space.
Conrad: Okay, that's a valid point.
Ledvina: Well that's variety within a development. It's not necessarily transition from single
family detached to the attached.
Scott: But that was what we encouraged them to do. Where transition needed to be made. It
was residential single. It was large lot. Transitioning. But initially it was proposed going
large lot to fourplexes or something like that and then it went from large lot to 15,000 square
foot lots and then large lots to maybe 23,000 square foot lots.
Farmakes: And we're looking on the other end of the spectrum. There's another end of the
spectrum like when that Song property goes up. Where you have half a million, $750,000.00
houses and then you have a cornfield next to them and somebody's coming in and putting in
$350,000.00 house. I don't think that that's probably going to happen but the market has it's
own way of creating the value to the adjacent property of the development.
Scott: Your comment about fences. About the only time I can think of an example where I
think a fence made sense is that if we're going to be going from like single family to attached
single family to multi - family, and then we've got this neighborhood commercial thing, which
we probably will see some of those cropping up down Highway 5. I think about Brook's and
all that and then this residential single family right there and they have that fence across
there. That to me makes sense but that's about the only time I think it makes sense. Because
you don't want to be, from your back window you don't want to be looking into the gas
station or the backs of a strip mall. And that's about the, I mean your comment I thought,
maybe they don't make sense and that's the only time.
55
Plan nin g Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Conrad: Yeah. There could be some validity.
Scott: Yeah , that's the only time I can think of it but I agree with you.
Conrad: See I guess I'd rather, there's a case where I'd rather berm it than fence it.
Scott: If you can do it. But it was like lot line to lot line.
Conrad: Hey, that's fine. If they have to put a berm in, then I'm not sure really what I mean
but.
Scott: There's something else too. Then we have the gated community, which we, I mean
Bearpath obviously is a gated community. We don't have any here. Down the road, I think
that's an extreme transaction. Or excuse me, an extreme transition but I mean that's, when I
think of fences and what we're trying to accomplish. When you talk about hooking
neighborhoods together, having the streets and stuff. Something that just popped into my
mind is that, we're talking about connecting neighborhoods and encouraging this kind of back
and forth, and then here we are talking about.
Conrad: If you read any of the planning books, boy you just, they just constantly harp on
connecting neighborhoods. They don't like cul -de -sacs. At all.
' Aanenson: We put in the administrative section. Did you read the article I put in there about
new urbanism? The things that, and that's exactly.
Scott: About the guy's who, actually Kate you should probably... that guy as the expert. You
just need to write a book.
Farmakes: Just don't live in college subsidized housing.
' Mancino: Have we given you any direction?
Aanenson: Yeah, I think Ladd had some good comments, which we're going to follow up on.
t We'll bring back some costs and then try to visually show it and then map, show you on the
map and try to get a better understanding what this means and how it would be applied and
just have another work session on it and then fine tune it a little bit more and get some more
' comments. So yeah, I think we got direction.
I Scott: So, can I have a motion?
56
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Conrad: To leave?
Scott: Can I have a motion on this so we can handle this public hearing thing? We already
got the public hearing taken care of Do we have a motion to do something with this? Like
table it. Give staff direction and then have them bring it back. I can't make that motion, by
the way. I can second it though.
Mancino: I move that we continue this discussion to our next Planning Commission and have
staff give us some new input from all the commissioners suggestions.
Scott: Good. I'll second that.
Mancino moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission table the Zoning Ordinance
amendment to the landscaping section of Chapter 20 of the City Code to create buffer yard
requirements until the next Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mancino: Oh, I just have one question Kate. ...detached and attached. It's obviously
happening in other cities. And it's obviously happening in other cities near us. I mean is
there any.
Aanenson: We can do that with the last one too.
Mancino: What is Eden Prairie doing? Are they having the same kind of property owners
come in with the concerns that we're hearing?
Ledvina: Maybe just survey some of the Planning Directors and say, what are your thoughts
on this.
Aanenson: That's a good suggestion.
Farmakes: And the majority of time that we have seen this, has been in those attached,
detached and large lot to, and we're going to see a lot of...
Mancino: Well and I think it's going to happen, you know when we get down to 212. I
mean it's going to happen everywhere.
Aanenson: It's going to happen everywhere now because we're getting infill. There's not a
lot of space between developments. I think you're going to see more and more single family
and single family. When you've got an existing neighborhood.
57
Planning in Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Mancino: Well it's an end product right now and realtors or real estate people aren't long
' range planners so in 10 years nobody may like this product because it all looks alike or
whatever. But right now it's selling and that's all they care about. So I'm concerned what
we're going to be left with as a community in 10 or 15 years when the baby boomers really
get to that age, and are they going to want this product?
' Ledvina: Yeah. We're discriminate.
Mancino: Yeah. I think we are more discriminate than maybe those now. Are we going to
want those areas where you have this footprint of everything looking alike. That's my
concern...
OLD BUSINESS.,
Conrad: This is either new or old. But thinking about this tonight. After all these years I've
been around Kate, we opened up a public hearing again. Tonight on, let's see. For Lake
Lucy. We opened up a second public hearing. We had already conducted one. We got
citizen input and we opened it up again. Why would we do that? And then the City
Council's going to open it up again. I bring this up because Joe, it's entirely your call
whether you want to do that or not, I think. There's no requirement to open. Once you have
a public hearing, you don't need to open it up for anything else. You can say, what do you
1 guys think but we didn't need to go through that public hearing, to my knowledge.
Scott: Well what if it's, I'm thinking but what if it's noticed?
Aanenson: I'll check on that.
Scott: Yeah, because that's.
Conrad: Well if it's noticed, you should do it. And this is not a big deal but.
Aanenson: What he's saying is we didn't have to notice it as a public hearing.
' Conrad: I think we can manage, you know they're going to say exactly the same thing they
said to us before. And I think it's fine to open it up, if you think that you want to.
Scott: Well you know what, why can't we have a consent agenda?
Aanenson: Yes, and this has been on before. Sure. We could. We talked about that. Like
1 when Todd had something for HRA but I think there was an issue, there were things we
1 58
Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995
insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
9. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and /or trail construction.
10. The applicant will be responsible for a water quantity fee of $440.00 and a water
quantity fee of $990.00.
11. The applicant's grading and erosion control plan shall be in conformance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review
and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review.
12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins
and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
13. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and wetland areas lying outside the right -of -way. The MWCC easement shall
be increased from 20 feet wide to 30 feet wide centered over pipe.
All voted in favor wid the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPING SECTION OF
CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE TO CREATE A TRANSITION ZONE.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you, very much. Any questions of staff? We can go back and ask after the
public hearing. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing.
Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hewing was opened.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995
P g
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Does anyone wish to come up and approach the
Planning Commission on the impending buffer yard ordinance? Seeing none, may I have a
motion to close the public hearing.
Meyer moved, Comad seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public healing was closed.
' Mancino: Discussion with commissioners. Jeff.
Farmakes: I hope this will solve the continuing problems that we seem to have with this. I'm
not sure that we'll, not 100% sure. I guess I'm close enough to get to the point where maybe
we should try it. I still have a problem with the word buffer and I still have a feeling that the
Council's going to wrestle with this anyway maybe. I know we talked about it the other
night. There are winners and losers in this thing, which goes beyond the intent of just putting
up trees inbetween houses and perhaps something like this coupled with looking at the
problem in general of that and what placing two types of development do to one another
where they meet up. I guess I'm willing to trust staffs judgment in this regard rather than nit
pick whether or not we've got 3 trees or 4 in trying to apply some quantifying tool to try to
alleviate the problem. That's all.
Mancino: Ladd.
' Conrad: I'd like this to go to City Council. It does make things more predictable. Less willy
nilly. I don't see the need to buffer single family detached from single family attached. I'm
concerned a little bit about the cost implications and would be interested in City Council's
perspective on the cost implications. I'd be interested in knowing that City Council
understands the draft. The wording should be so clear in terms of how to interpret so the
staff shouldn't have to lead the developer or an applicant through the process. It should be
clear. So my perspective is, send it on. My perspective is to recommend that they not have
buffers between single family attached and detached. Interested in their perspective on the
' cost implications, which I'm sure staff can address. And interested in their understanding of
this ordinance that is easily interpreted by...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The following is transcribed from a
poor quality recording.)
Peterson: ...question really would go back to cost. What are the developers going to ... or is it,
as you inferred, is this standard in other cities say in Minnesota. Are we going to stand out
as a city that they have to spend double on landscaping to get property developed, or is it so
close there's not an issue.
1 22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995
Generous: We did send a copy of this to another community who was looking at having a
landscape...
Peterson: They may be copying us and having the same problem. That's my only question.
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: I think from a planning standpoint it makes a lot of sense. Whether the cost is a
problem I guess Council will have to decide that but ... your perspective, it's going to make
your job easier and their job as a developer coming in knowing what they're up against right
away ... so I'm in favor of it.
Mancino: Thank you. ...I am assuming that this is not added onto the tree preservation
ordinance... using some of these funds to...
Generous: Right. And saving trees can reduce the amount of planting that they ... Those
examples that we made, I can run a cost analysis of..
Mancino: And they can also...I also agree with Ladd's comments about the buffering ... I think
it should go up in it's entirety. My thought is or my concern has been on collector and
arterial streets first ... I'd like to hear their comments. So do I have a motion.
Conrad: Yeah, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
zoning ordinance revisions concerning landscaping and tree removal for transitional buffering
between uses.
Generous: ...resolution.
Conrad: I'm going to make that motion ... but I would footnote it. I want the entire motion
going forward. The entire ordinance going forward as drafted. Then I'd like to challenge the
City Council to review the following factors. Whether they really would like buffering
between single family detached and single family attached. The Planning Commission may
not feel that that's... would like to see if they feel that the cost implications are excessive.
And if they do, then it would return to the Planning Commission for review. I'd like their
input as far as clarity ... understand this ordinance as drafted ... It's more of a participative
ordinance than it is a requestive ordinance. I'm really sending this up to see what they think
versus saying we...
Farmakes: As a matter of practicality
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995
Mancino: Do I hear a second?
' Meyer: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
' Council approve the zoning ordinance revisions concerning landscaping and tree removal for
transitional buffering between uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino: One little side bar I would add to that is, what you talked with us about Bob is..I
mean how hard are the negotiations to get what we think is right for these kinds of scenarios
with developers?
Generous: Well it depends on the developer. Some of them are real easy and then others are
' like pulling teeth.
Mancino: That's something that I would ... 90% is just pulling teeth all the time and it's so
' hard...
Aanenson: ...and I think it's our job to look at those kind of issues... and I think we've seen an
' increase of the ... that people are willing to do a good job. We have a hard time saying, and
that's where we rely on you... We rely on our forester... Obviously when the neighbors see it,
they want as much as they can but it's going to mature. It's going to grow and we've got to
make sure it's the appropriate scale then ... so I guess that's what we were looking at too when
this ... make sure we're not over crowding a site too. There's safety issues there too. As Bob
indicated, at a minimum, I think streetscape is something we definitely could do a better job...
' improve the visual. The view from the road issue...
Farmakes: ...we had the discussion about doing things that aren't necessarily... somebody's
t going to want to build here. The ultimate cost of everything that's done in real estate...
Ultimately that cost doesn't go to the developer. It goes to the person who buys the house
from the developer. Whether it's indirect or direct, ultimately it's paid for by the consumer,
' and the question really comes to then, the individual that lives in the community either wants
to foot the bill ... and since we do this already, I'm not sure that this is a question that we're
burdening the business person or simply defining... and I don't know what the response would
' be but I'm hoping...
' Conrad: ...Jeff s comments...
1 24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995
Mancino: Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Staff, thank you for your work.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: ...I've been looking at a couple different designs, I'll pass it around. This is going
to come before you as a subdivision. I just wanted to let you know what we're looking at
here. As you look to the, if you put the street at the bottom so you're facing north. West
79th Street is at the bottom of the page. To the west or to your left would be Americana
Bank. To your right, or to the east would be ... bowling alley. What we're looking at doing,
the City is doing this, is dividing into four parcels. We tried to pull the development of two
restaurants close to the street. Put the parking behind. What kind of drove this is there's a
piece of property between Highway 5 and West 79th Street that a Tires Plus came in and
wanted to go on that location. We felt like that really should be left open and enhanced as
you look across that piece so we worked to try to put them on a site, on the parcel behind
and buy that parcel out and make it vacant so it's really an amenity. You have the pond next
to it that the city already owns so it'd be a nice view. Looking across that landscaped area.
And then you would look at two restaurants right on, fronting on West 79th ... not parking in
the front. This is one I think we'd have some good control on and I believe these two will
probably be the tenants there. Applebees ... We're having somebody put together a plat. You'll
be seeing that shortly and probably the site plan review for a couple ... so I just wanted to let
you know that that was coming forward. We're trying to tie this in again so you can see...
Farmakes: I'm just curious. How does Tires Plus as a retail...
Aanenson: They've gone together in other projects in Eden Prairie... We felt it would work
good for them to be ... not as visible with the restaurants in front... They're the ones that kind of
drove this whole project...
Farmakes: I guess the only other place I can think of that there's a tire operation next to a
retail restaurant is over in Eden Prairie.
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. There's one in Eden Prairie.
Farmakes: It's the only one I can think of
Aanenson: There are some other ones in Apple Valley and...
Farmakes: Right off from ... I think there is an Applebees there in a smaller shopping center
Peterson: Southtown has got an Applebees too ... tire store.
25
CITY OF
�
HANHassEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Ms. Joan Archer
Executive Vice President
Builders Association of Minnesota
570 Asbury Street, Suite 301
St. Paul, MN 55104
' Dear Ms. Archer:
The City of Chanhassen is proposing an amendment to City Code requiring landscape buffering between
different intensities and densities of land uses and boulevard plantings along collector and arterial
roads. The proposed ordinance is designed to provide minimum standards for perimeter landscaping that are
understandable and effective.
The city is requesting comments from developers and other interested persons regarding the proposed
ordinance. Specifically, we are requesting that you review the ordinance and comment on the following:
1. Is the ordinance easily understandable (i.e., user friendly)?
2. What are the cost implications based on your current practices for perimeter and landscaping
buffers?
' 3. Should the city continue the current practice of negotiating "buffering "?
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 937 -1900 extension 141. This
ordinance is scheduled for City Council review on Monday, July 24, 1995. If you would like us to include
' your written comments in their packet, please have them in our office by Wednesday, July 19, 1995.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert Generous, AICP
' Planner II
Enclosure
' July 19,1995
Mayor Don Chmiel
Members of the City Council
City of Chanhassen
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 -0714
Dear Council Member Senn,
' We appreciate the opportunity given to us by your planning staff to review for comment the proposed
Buffer Yard Ordinance for the City of Chanhassen. We also appreciate the time Bob Generous and
Kate Aanenson took to meet with us to answer questions we raised about the ordinance.
We fully appreciate that elected officials are often in conflict when they must find balance between
the diverse needs in the city and the individual and collective demands of residents. W e appreciate
that buffer yards may appear as a deceptively simple mechanism for the city to use to accommodate
the diversity within the community. However, we ask you to consider with us, the usefulness of this
ordinance to accomplish your goals.
We recognize tha t the long standing practice of negotiating buffer yards in Chanhassen may need to be
modified to streamline the development process. However the flexibility of negotiation is a benefit to
the city especially when you consider not a 11 needs, not a 11 geography, and not a 11 possible land uses f i t
neatly into a single set of rules. For example, we could support reasonable and flexible parameters tha t
would be negotiated with the developer in the case of streetscapes as long as natural topographical
barriers, wetlands, or storm water ponding areas do not exist between the development and arterial and
collector streets. If these conditions existed, they would make this ordinance ineffective and would
prevent you from achieving your desired goals.
We question in this proposal the rigidity of the specifications that may not translate to sound
development practices. For example:
(a) Using buffer yards between different types of low density housing (e.g. single family homes and
twin homes) to quantify how developers or builders (or an individual landowner) would "...ameliorate
nuisances..." may be extremely difficult, and best left to c muTm sense negotiations among the affected
parties. We think i t would be very difficult to legally define the necessity for delineation between
housing types in this case.
(b) The ordinance specifies that buffer yards should not bean the public right -of -way. I f new right -of-
ways are created after development, or in the case of existing right -of -ways, it maybe desirable to use
this land as part of the buffer yard. We recommend flexibility in these cases.
(c) It is our understanding that this ordinance does take into consideration other ordinances and laws
' related to wetlands and tree ordinances. However, in some cases the ordinance would require a buffer
yard against a designated wetland. This requirement may adversely impact your desired goals, and in
fact, the city benefit through negotiation.
1325 East 79th Street, Suite 6, Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-1196
' Phone (612) 851 -9242 • Main Fax (612) 851 -9560 • Parade Fax (612) 851 -9570
(d) We are concerned that buffer yards may result in increased cost to housing. We have asked one of our
members to specifically address this issue by example in Monday nights hearing. While the
temptation maybe to speculate the impact of a few thousand dollars difference between the old policy
and the new, under varying circumstances, costs could be substantial. Cost needs to be considered not just
in the case of installation a t the time of development, but continued costs related to maintenance and
the performance of future land owners.
(e) The cost issue also raises the issue of longterm maintenance. How will the city address the need for
administration of maintenance needs? What are the legal ramifications for future changes in
ownership and uses?
(f) Consideration should be given to cases where thi s ordinance could result in an over use of buffer yard
requirements. This may be a major factor where some residential development could occur where
commercial buffer yard requirements also apply. Again, negotiation and common sense need to be the
standard for practical consideration as opposed to an ordinance that is not flexible enough to address
the everyday realities of land uses and peoples needs and desires.
(g) This ordinance has the potential for major impact on the aesthetics and practical development in
Chanhassen. We recommend review from not only commercial, industrial and residential developers,
but also comment should be solicited from your chamber of uu,,LL....« and other business associations.
Foresters and landscape architects should also review the ordinance to see if this combination of
plantings works with fencing and wall requirements and to consider the aesthetic impact on the
community. Possibly, lighting and sound engineers would be another source of practical input to insure a
workable ordinance.
At Monday's hearing I have asked several of our members who are developers in this community to
address by example some specific problems in this ordinance.
In dosing, we believe that we have raised valid questions and concerns for further consideration. We
request that this ordinance be tabled until we have time to work through some answers for an ordinance
to serve the common good in this city.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
`�\) C'L�
Karen Christofferson
Public Policy Director
Dan Herbst, Chairperson
Local & Metro Public Policy Committee
cc: Kate Aanenson and Bob Generous Chanhassen Planning Staff; Hans Hagan, Dan Hunt, Terry
Forbord, Members of the Local & Metro Public Policy Committee; Members of the Board of Directors