8. Planning commission Minutes re: Buffer Zones, Councilman Mason1
i
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 park 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 REQUIREMENTS.
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
1 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
I
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.
11
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 hat buffers anybody. Havin a transition of housing Y g g tYp es.
' 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.
1 45
I
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
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 trying
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,
46
1 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.
1
n
F
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.
Hatbetts moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public heating 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 heating. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public heating 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
i 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
Planning 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
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.
50
1 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
1 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
i
I 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
Planning 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.
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
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
Planning 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.
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.
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 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
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
when Todd had something for HRA but I think there was an issue, there were things we
58