4. Zoning ordinance to establish PUD districts 1
CITYOF -
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' Action by City Administrator
Endo d- ✓ 7 &P
' MEMORANDUM
Reims .e �.
' TO: Planning Commission 'e Su ^iied to Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 0> r --
Date SUb7 Ited to Council
1 DATE: September 26, 1991
SUBJ: Draft Ordinance Changes /Residential Components for the
1 PUD Ordinance
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
On numerous occasions over the past year, we have discussed the PUD
ordinance. It has resulted in the approval of a PUD ordinance,
which is currently on the books, that represents a dramatic
departure from an improvement to the original ordinance.
' One of the main topics of discussion during the ordinance was
concerning PUDs for single family residential dwellings. Over the
course of several meetings and presentations, the Planning
Commission had generally agreed that a minimum lot size of 9,000
square feet would probably be acceptable and general terms were
discussed. In the interest of expediting approval of the bulk of
the PUD Ordinance, the Planning Commission agreed to leave the
issue of single family residential PUDs unresolved and recommended
approval of the balance of the ordinance which ultimately was the
action taken by the City Council. Our purpose in coming before you
today is to resolve remaining concerns regarding the residential
PUD and hopefully gain the recommendation of approval so that this
too can become part of the City Code.
As before, staff continues to recommend a 9,000 square foot minimum
lot size. Modifications have; however, been incorporated into the
ordinance designed to ensure that a PUD does not arrive on your
1 desk with only 9,000 square foot lots but that there be a mix of
lot sizes provided. Furthermore, the ordinance has been amended so
that each applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to
accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad plus a 12' x 12' deck without
intruding into any required setback area or protected easement.
Hopefully, these and other standards contained in the ordinance
will reduce or eliminate the variance issues that have occurred
1
1
1
Residential PUD
October 2, 1991
' Page 2
with residential PUDs in the past where these concerns were not
taken into account.
1 Another matter of concern dealt with Section 20- 506(e) concerning
the reservation of open space within a PUD. Initially, staff had
' recommended that an across the board requirement of establishing a
25% open space be mandated. Several developers reviewing the
ordinance pointed out that, in their opinion, this was unfair since
it in effect resulted in a penalty wherein even a PUD that had
1 15,000 square foot lots or larger would be required to have the
same open space requirements as a 9,000 square foot lot
subdivision. Thus, a sliding scale was recommended and has been
' incorporated into the current Code. Staff continues to support the
idea of increased open space requirements for residential PUDs.
The promotion of clustered development that results is, in our
opinion, a fundamental improvement inherent in residential PUDs.
This was exhibited in the current Lundgren proposal to develop the
site on Lake Lucy Road. On this site, which is being developed as
a PUD, the 33.3 acre site with 37 single family lots results in 8.6
' acres of permanently protected wetland plus 3.8 acres of
permanently protected tree preservation areas and wetland buffer
yards. The resulting subdivision will result in the permanent set
' aside of 12.4 acres of open space, which is equivalent to 41% of
the gross area of the site. In addition, clustering of development
and resulting lessening of environmental impacts is being
accomplished in this project through the reduction of front yard
setbacks that will allow homes clustered more tightly to the road
system.
In another change, staff is proposing Section 20- 506(a), which are
standards and guidelines for single family attached or clustered
home PUDs. We feel this was an issue that went unanswered with the
original discussion which pertained solely to single family
detached structures. The proposed ordinance would allow these
residential PUDs to occur only on parcels guided for medium and
high density uses by the City Comprehensive Plan. In these cases, -
' minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be allowed.
The last revision being proposed by staff is basically a
housekeeping item. Last year, the city established a buffer yard
requirement for industrial areas indicated on the Comprehensive
Plan when they share property lines with residential areas. The
buffer yard language was added to the PUD ordinance last year;
however, through an editing error on staff's part, it was deleted
accidently when the new PUD ordinance was put into place this past
spring. Therefore, staff is recommending that (m) be added to
Section 20 -505, Required General Standards, in the underlying PUD
ordinance. This will take care of this error and put the buffer
yard section where it belongs in the ordinance.
1
1
Residential PUD II
October 2, 1991
Page 3 1
RECOMMENDATION -
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve amendments to 1
Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District for the City of
Chanhassen dealing with standards and guidelines for single family
I detached PUDs, single family attached PUDs, and the establishment
of buffer yards.
i
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. Proposed draft ordinance.
2. Memo from Paul Krauss dated June 5, 1991 and minutes dated May
15, 1991. II
3. Memo from Paul Krauss dated March 15, 1991 and minutes dated
March 6, 1991.
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
1
1
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of
the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows:
' Section 20 -506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family
Detached Residential PUD's.
a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows
lot sizes down to a minimum of 9,000 square feet. The
applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes
' consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of
natural features and open space and that lot sizes are
consistent with average building footprints that will be
concurrently approved with the PUD. In no instance shall
project density exceed Comprehensive Plan guidelines. The
applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to
accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck
without intruding into any required setback area or protective
easement.
b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet 50 fcct at
r
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
d) Minimum Setbacks:
' PUD Exterior - 30 feet
Front Yard - 20 feet
Rear Yard - 20 feet
' Side Yard - 10 feet
Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or
behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property
' line.
e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided
' by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features
such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These
areas are to be permanently protected as public or
private -= . -- _ . -_ .'- ..- -= tracts or protected by
permanently recorded easements. The Planning Commission and
City Council will make a determination regarding the
suitability of land to be set aside as open space. Open field
11 areas, area with steep slopes and similar land will only be
1
suitability of land to be set aside as open space. Open field
areas, area with steep slopes and similar land will only be
accepted when land containing natural features described above
is unavailable in the PUD. Where open field areas represent
the only available option, these areas shall be landscaped
and /or reforested according to plans approved by the City. A 1
- = -- -- - - Public park space must be
provided to meet or cxcccd requirements established by the
City. Park areas required by the City may be used to satisfy
up to 50% 454 of the standards. Wetlands and other water
bodies protected by City ordinance and permanent easement can
also be used to satisfy up to 25% of this standard. 1
The following table illustrates minimum open space
requirements:
Average Net Lot Size Open Space Percentage
(excluding designated wetlands)
15,000 square feet 10.0%
14,000 square feet 12.5%
13,000 square feet 15.0%
12,000 square feet 17.5%
11,000 square feet 20.0%
10,000 square feet 22.5%
9,000 square feet 25.0%
f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall
contain the following: 1
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these
shall require a mix of over -story trees and other
plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms
shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways,
railroads and more intensive land uses Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading
for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block
retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve
mature trees and the sites natural topography. 1
2) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation
plants shall be established and approved by the City. As
each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be
required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding
the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to
the City.
3) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two
over -story trees. Preservation of existing trees having
a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can
1
1
of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize
tree preservation.
g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate
that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural
design and building materials. While this requirement is not
' intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of
architectural standards covenants should be prepared for City
approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure
the City that high quality design will be employed and that
home construction can take place without variances or impact
to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement eeveniants should include
the following:
' 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
' 2) A Prohibition against free standing garages may be
required by the City when it is felt that unattached
garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot
sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to
living space at some time in the future, the applicant
will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to
accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain
' a permit.
3) A rcquircmcnt that applicants for building permit3 be
•
I/ - --
accommodate a minimum of a 12' x 12' dcck without
variancc3.
1 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners,
dog kennels, storage buildings and other accessory uses
that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to
1 small lot sizes.
Section 20 -507. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family
Attached or Cluster -Home PUD's.
a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line and similar
dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites guided for
medium or high density residential uses by the City Chanhassen
Comprehensive Plan.
' b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square
feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density
exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen
' Comprehensive Plan.
c) Setback Standards /Structures and Parking:
PUD Exterior - 50 feet
Interior Public Right -of -way _ 20 feet
Other setbacks Established by
PUD Agreement
3
1
d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided
y p ovided
by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features
such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These
areas are to be permanently protected as public or
private -- . -_ • .' - -= tracts or protected by
permanently recorded easements. A minimum of 25% of the gross
area of the PUD is to be set aside in these protected
categories. The Planning Commission and City Council will
make a determination regarding the suitability of land to be
set aside as open space. Open field areas, area with steep
slopes and similar land will only be accepted when land
containing natural features described above is unavailable in
the PUD. Where open field areas represent the only available
option, these areas shall be landscaped and /or reforested
according to plans approved by the City. A minimum of 25% of
protcctcd cNatcgorics. Public park space must be provided to
meet or exceed requirements established by the City. Park
areas required by the City may be used to satisfy up to 50%
256 of the standards. Wetlands and other water bodies
protected by City ordinance and permanent easement can also be
used to satisfy up to 25% of this standard.
e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall 1
contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these 1
shall require a mix of over -story trees and other
plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms
shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways,
railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading
for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block
retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve
mature trees and the sites natural topography.
2) Foundation and Yard Plantings - A minimum budget for 1
foundation plants shall be established and approved by
the City. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the
builder shall be required to install plant materials
meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to
issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial
guarantees acceptable to the City.
1
3) Rcar Yard The rcar yard Shall contain at least two
a diameter of at lest G inchcs at 4 feet in height can
be used to satisfy this requirement.
3) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A
detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design
of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize
4 1
1
tree preservation.
f) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate
that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural
design and building materials. While this requirement is not
' intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of
architectural standards cove-tents should be prepared for City
approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure
the City that high quality design will be employed and that
home construction can take place without variances or impact
to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement covenants should include
the following:
' 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) A prohibition against free standing garages. If an
' attached garage is to be converted to living space at
some time in the future, the applicant will have to
demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate
a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
3) A rcquircmcnt that applicant3 for building permit3 be
rcquircd to dcmonstrate that thcrc i3 3ufficicnt room to
accommodate a minimum of a 12' x 12' dcck without
variance.
' 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners,
dog kennels, storage buildings and other accessory uses
that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to
small lot sizes (lots under 15,000 square feet).
Section 2. Amend Section 20 -505, Required General Standards,
by adding the following:
(m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a
requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established
' in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses
interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot
buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a
' public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required
where the interface occurs on internal lot lines.
' The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be
cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above.
The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on
the parcel containing the higher intensity use.
The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical
separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such,
they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming,
landscaping and /or tree preservation to maximize the buffering
potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the City, new
1 5
11
plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,
however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain •
consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the
property owner.
-
Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded
conservation easement running in favor of the City.
In instances where existing topography and /or vegetation provide
buffering satisfactory to the City, or where quality site planning
is achieved, the City may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to
50 %. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating
compliance with the standards herein. ,
I/
1
6 1
CITYOF
7.
1 ., it:
I' CHANHASSEN
1 ,
*. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937- 5aa1i by City kd-rn,s rator
I Endorse" !f tit
Modm
MEMORANDUM Re
II -- q 1
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager DM SI.L.Y ; eC to C._,.
II FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director t ' °—�-- - --
DATE: June 5, 1991 --- ------t-2:21_ 1 " -
.._
II SUBJ: Recommended Modifications to the PUD Ordinance
Staff has been working with the Planning Commission on developing
a new PUD ordinance for our community over the past several months.
This has long been a concern of staff's since we believe the
II existing PUD ordinance is extremely inadequate. Fundamentally, it
provides the developer with all of the flexibility usually
associated with the PUD ordinance but is very poor on defining what
I the city's expectations are for higher quality development that we
should be receiving in return. The current ordinance contains
virtually no standards that establish minimum criteria against
which a PUD is to be reviewed. We also note that it is commonly
I accepted by many on the Council and Planning Commission that a PUD
designation must be earned, that in exchange for the flexibility,
the city is to get a better and higher quality development than
II would otherwise be the case. It is interesting to note that this
trade -off is nowhere to be found in the current ordinance. Lastly,
the single family standards in the PUD ordinance do not appear to
1 be working. They were originally adopted to amend the PUD
ordinance due to the approval of several residential PUDs which
served only to cram more homes on smaller lots. There was no
trade -off in terms of higher quality, design or open space and the
II end result is that there are a larger number of variance requests
that a coming from these subdivisions. However, no one has since
used the new standards and upon further review we found out that
II they really were not working very well.
Staff's concerns regarding the PUD ordinance is of more than
II academic interest. We truly believe that the PUD ordinance
represents the most ideal method for a city to regulate
development, particularly development that occurs on a large scale.
The PUD ordinance is unique in that it gives a good deal of
II latitude to work out an acceptable design compromise, meeting the
needs of the developer, surrounding property owners and of the
city. This program then becomes part of a development contract
II
II
1
PUD Ordinance
June 5, 1991
Page 2 1
that is in essence their zoning on the property. Nothing else can
be done on this property unless it is rezoned in the future. As 11 you are probably aware, the City Council has a lot more latitude on
approving or denying rezoning than it does on approving a site plan
on a piece of ground that is already zoned for the use. We further
note that we have a number of large tracts of land in the new MUSA
area which can be ideally developed with the PUD ordinance. In
fact, we are working with developers on two large 100+ acre
industrial parks that we envision using the PUD ordinance. Against
this background, we believe that it was necessary to act quickly to
adopt PUD ordinance amendments that would give us the quality of
development that we have a right to expect.
The Planning Commission met to discuss this ordinance on several
occasions. By in large, most of their comments focused on the
section of the ordinance dealing with single family housing. At
their meeting on May 16th, the Planning Commission recommended the
adoption of all sections of the ordinance except those which
pertain directly to single family detached housing. They wished to
continue action on this section to allow for additional discussion.
The reason we took this action to separate out that part of the
ordinance is to allow the bulk of the PUD ordinance proceed to the
City Council for action so that we will be in a position to deal
with development that will probably be coming along now that the
MUSA line has been relocated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1
Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of
amendments to Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance amendment.
2. Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1991.
3. Staff report dated May 6, 1991. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
' ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of
the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows:
1
ARTICLE VIII. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
1 DIVISION I. GENERALLY
Section 20 -501. Intent.
' Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a
site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district
standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction
phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange
' for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality
and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the
use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the
1 applicants responsibility to demonstrate that the City's
expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following
criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
' (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space
and protection of sensitive environmental features, including
steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic
views.
1 (2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and
public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and
development of land in larger parcels.
(3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding
land uses, including both existing and planned. Site
1 planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the
community.
1 (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between
different land uses and along significant corridors within the
11 city.
1
1
(5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive ( P p pl an.
(6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may ,
be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be
consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail
plan. - II
(7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if
appropriate within the PUD.
(8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building
designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land
uses. '
(9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the
potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads
and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Section 20 -502. Allowed uses.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be
delineated in a development plan.
(a) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which '
the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except
that the city may permit up to 25 percent of the gross
floor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for land
uses for which the site is not designated in the
comprehensive plan if the city council finds that such
use is in the best interests of the city and is
consistent with the requirements of this section.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD
shall be delineated in a PUD development plan. 1
(b) Where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more
than one land use in the comprehensive plan, city may
require that the PUD include all the land uses so
designated or such combination of the designated uses as
the city council shall deem appropriate to achieve the
purposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan. 1
•
Section 20 -503. District size and location.
(a) Each PUD shall have a minimum area of 5 acres, unless the '
applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the
following:
1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of
the surrounding neighborhood such that development as.a
PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of
importance to the neighborhood or community.
2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right -
of -way from property which has been developed previously
11
1
as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will
be perceived as and will function as an extension of that
' previously approved development.
3) The property is located_in a transitional area between
different land use categories or on an intermediate or
principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan.
Section 20 -504. Coordination with other zoning regulations.
a) Subdivision review under Chapter 18 shall be carried out
simultaneously with the review of a PUD. The plans required
under this chapter shall be submitted in addition to or in a
11 form which will satisfy the requirements of Chapter 18 for the
preliminary and final plat.
b) Site plan review under Article II, Division 6 of this code
shall be carried out for each non - single family or duplex
principal structure, that is proposed.
c) PUD plans shall be coordinated with and in compliance with
provisions of Article V, Flood Plain Overlay District; Article
VI, Wetland Protection, and Article VII, Shoreland Overlay
District.
Section 20 -505. Required general standards.
a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of
view of all standards and purposes of the comprehensive land
use plan to coordinate between the proposed development the
surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of
buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features
with response to the topography of the area and existing
natural features, the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the
proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green
areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non - compatible
' land uses and parking areas.
b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the
city higher quality architectural and site design,
landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees
and buffering for adjoining properties that represent
improvements over normal ordinance standards.
c) Density. An increase /transfer for density may be allowed at
the sole discretion of the city utilizing the following
11 factors:
1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on gross acreage
located within the property lines of the site in
accordance with the land use plan.
2) The area where the density is transferred must be within
the project area and owned by the proponent.
3) Density transfer in single family detached area will be
evaluated using the items listed in Section 20 -506.
Density transfer eligible for multiple family areas are
not permitted to be applied to single family areas.
4) In no case shall the overall density of the development
exceed the gross density ranges identified in the
comprehensive plan.
d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction '
of projects which are consistent with the city's housing
goals. Incentives may include modification of density and
other standards for developments providing low and moderate
cost housing. Incentives may be approved by the city only
after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to
ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available
to persons of low and moderate income for a specific period of
time.
e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: '
Comprehensive Hard surface
Plan Designation Coverage ( %) '
Low or medium density 30%
residential 1
high density residential 50%
office 70% 1
commercial (neighborhood 70%
or community) '
commercial (regional) 70%
industrial 70% 1
Individual lots within a PUD may exceed these standards as
long as the average meets these standards. ,
f) The setback for all buildings within a PUD from any abutting
street line shall be 30 feet for local streets and 50 feet
from railroad lines for collector or arterial streets, as
designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case
shall the setback be less than the height of the building up
to a maximum of 100 feet. The setback for all buildings from
exterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be
30 feet except that in no case shall the setback be less than
the height of the building up to a maximum of 100 feet.
Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be
determined by the city based on characteristics of the
specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set
back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD.
1
The setback for parking structures including decks and ramps
shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other
street classifications except that in no case shall the
setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking
structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be 50 feet or
the height of the structure, whichever is greater when
adjacent to residential property; 35 feet when adjacent to
non - residential properties. Parking structure setbacks from
internal public or private streets shall be determined by the
city based on characteristics of the specific PUD.
Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single family_
lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking
' setbacks may be required in order to provide effective
screening. The city council shall make a determination
regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant.
Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth
berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features
such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of
uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard
requirements established by the Comprehensive Plan.
g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or
recorded lot in a PUD.
h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the City, all property
to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership
or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved
master development plan and final site and building plan.
After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without
restriction, however, all parcels will remain subject to the
PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain -
of- title.
i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a
sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by
permanent covenants, established in the PUD Development
Contract.
11 j) The requirements contained in Articles XXIII, General
Supplemental Regulations, XXIV, Off - street Parking and
Loading, and XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal. May be
applied by the city as it deems appropriate.
k) The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and
standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and
subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city
ordinances ordinarily governing them. The City Council may
11 therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and
land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual
specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that
strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not
required to meet the intent of this or to protect the health,
L
1
safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding
area or the city as a whole.
1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on
property included within a proposed or approved PUD nor shall
any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the
proposed or approved PUD.
Section 20 -506. Reserved for Single Family Detached Residential. '
Section 20 -507. Controls during construction and following
completion.
a) The use of the land the construction, modification or
alteration of any buildings or structures in a PUD shall be
governed by the final development plan. '
b) After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes
shall be made in the approved final development plan for a PUD
except:
1) Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of
existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the ,
city planner if they are consistent with the purposes and
intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this
section may increase the bulk of any building structure
by more than ten (10) percent.
2) Any building or structure that is totally or
substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in
compliance with the final development plan unless an
amendment to the final development plan is approved.
3) Changes in uses, any rearrangements of lots, blocks and
building tracts, changes in the provisions of common open
spaces, and all other changes to the approved final
development plan may be made only after a public hearing
conducted by the planning commission and upon final
approval by the city council. Any changes shall be
recorded as amendments to the final development plan. 1
c) Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be
approved by the city council after review by the planning
commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for
such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the
original PUD. A major amendment is any amendment which:
1) Substantially alters the location of buildings, parking
areas or roads;
2) Increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling
units by more than five percent;
3) Increases the gross floor area of non - residential 11
1
buildings by more than five percent or increases the
gross floor area of any individual building by more than
ten percent;
4) Decreases the amount of open space by more than five
percent or alters it in such a way as to change its
original design or intended use; or
5) Creates non - compliance with any special condition
attached to the approval of the master development plan.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its publication' according to law.
Passed and adopted by the City Council this day of
1 1991.
ATTEST:
1
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 30
Emmings: Okay. I like that. It's easy. 1
Batzli: Strike my withdrawal. -
Emmings: Does anyone else have anything on the bluff line? You have our 1
blessings here to do whatever...
PUBLIC HEARING: 1
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. II
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on.this item. Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order. 1
Erhart: Let me ask you this. What other reason why a developer would want
a PUD as opposed to, anything other than a smaller lot? What other reasons
in a residential area? Is the crux?
Olsen: The setbacks.
Erhart: Okay, so then the question would be, let's say the guy just wanted"
different setbacks. So he wanted to go to a PUD but the way this is formed
now, he automatically has got to give up 25 %, even though he's willing to 11
stick with the 15,000 sqaure lots. That's where I guess in looking at
this, if you were to use the minimum lot size which you ought to have as a
scale. Like if it's 9,000, then it's 25 %. If it's 10,000 then it's 20 %.
If it's 11,000 it's 18 %. 1
Krauss: That's a possibility. If you figure it on the average lot size.
Erhart: Well it seems to me it ought to be done on the average lot size. ,
Not use the minimum lot size at all. And you have a scale so that yeah,
it does allow him to get more total lots as the average gets smaller and in
exchange we get some open land but I don't think you can just pick a spot
and say that's it.
Ellson: You're saying as we squish people more, we get more open space?
Erhart: Yeah. And the advantage to the developer is that he gets more
lots and we get more open space but what you can't do I think is pick one
point and say, if you're going to come in for a PUD, whatever the reason
is, you're going to be on that point. Because then you give up any
creativity at all to adapt to the land itself or what the developer's
trying to accomplish there.
Krauss: Realistically though nobody, I can't understand why somebody would
come in with 15,000 square foot or better lots and request a PUD. If the
sole purpose of their requesting a PUD is to be let off the hook on setback"
standards or street widths or something else, then there's no net gain for
the city.
Erhart: Okay, so that's just as unrealistic as the guy coming in with 144
9,000 square foot lots? What I'm saying is there's going to be someplace
between that spectrum. That particular development or that developer or '
Planning Commission Meeting
II May 15, 1991 - Page 31
I what he's trying to accomplish in terms of house styles and values of the
houses, that he's going to pick and what we ought to do is, you want to
nail it down so it doesn't get to be a "negotiating, totally arbitrary and
let's put a little table together. It says okay, if your average lot size
II is 10,000 square feet and the City wants 200, every size is 11,000 square
feet...so you allow the developer to kind of, you can still create. We can
get what we want but he can still create the development that he has in
II mind.
Krauss: That might be reasonable. Again, we're flying a little bit by the
seat of our pants on this one. Many communities experiences with single
family PUD's are similar to Chanhassen's and there's not, and that I'm
aware of, there's not a lot of progressive thought on okay, you've all been
burned. How do you then fix an ordinance that doesn't do that? I mean
I it's clear to me the trade off is, some of the trade off involves open
space. What the magic number is I think is an issue.
I Erhart: Yeah. If it's just open space for the same number of lots,
there's no incentive to pay the extra fees and everything. You're going to
have to give them a little bit of incentive to give us the open space by
actually increasing the number of lots. I don't think it has to be a lot.
I Krauss: We can certainly play with that.
I Erhart: I know that a guy's going to come in with the whole place isn't
going to be 9,000 square foot lots. I guess I'm having a hard time even
envisioning that.
II Conrad: Would we still get a Near Mountain development with this? Near
Mountain is a good PUD. I kind of like what this does but I guess I don't
know what it discourages or if it forces one thing versus another. So
I I guess my feeling is that I'd like to have staff work a couple scenarios
just like this one so we can see what it does encourage. And one would be,
if it could go back and reconstruct the Near Mountain PUD and see what this
I would do to it. Now they have a lot of ponds and, I'd just like to know if
we could have another development like that or if this would not allow a
Near Mountain.
II Krauss: We could certainly check that. I didn't have the time but in
doing this I was, my gut reaction was that Near Mountain should qualify.
If it doesn't, then something's wrong.
II Erhart: Do they get 25% open space?
II Olsen: They may have to give more open space.
Krauss: Except that we've credited, I mean there are ways to credit.
We're not only looking for, this is open space that the public can use or
I
that's common open space. We're saying that of your 25 %, one quarter of
that can be park. You're probably going to have to dedicate more than that
but it could be. One quarter of that can be wetlands but then we've said
I if you're protecting other natural features. For example Near Mountain has
a lot of forested areas. If we had those forested areas, which may or may
not be on somebody's lot, protected by a conservation easement, then that
11 would be, you could attribute that towards your requirement because we're
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 32 1
guaranteed that that open space amenity, that natural feature is going to 1
be preserved in perpetuity.
Olsen: ...remember where the outlot, the summit? That was originally
going to be condos and now it's single family lots. That probably wouldn't
have been...
Krauss: It's kind of tough adopting that after the fact too because those II
lots were not structure with this sort of ordinance in mind. What you'd
have to do is go back and make some assumptions which you may be able to do
but I think it's a useful exercise.
II
Conrad: What I don't want to do is force, you know I don't want to stiffel
the creativity and I don't want developers coming in here with all 9,000
square foot lots. So Near Mountain had a mixture and that's kind of what II
we're trying to look for, plus the open space and I get lost in the
formula. I don't know what happens. So again, I think some of the
concepts is kind of neat if it works. If it works for multiple sized
developments. Now I don't know how it works from a 10 acre subdivision or
PUD to 1,000 acre so I guess it's a neat concept to pursue.
Erhart: I think you ought to try it with the average because we don't want"
all 9,000 square foot lots. This is what...kind of what we're encouraging
here. Table of different averages and see how that works. I think that
the concept that you're working on is right on.
II
Emmings: Maybe you ought to show Terry Forbord your example and get some
feedback from him.
II
Krauss: I will. I'll bump a copy over to Shardlow too.
Emmings: And also ask him if the system that Tim isn't talking about 1
wouldn't be, I think that's kind of...
Erhart: I think you actually mentioned it. 1
Krauss: In fact he suggested, when he and I were talking, that was one of
the topics that we thought of.
II
Batzli: Paul, would your zero lot line type things, if it was 4 foot away
from the lot line, would that come under your single family detached?
Krauss: I intentionally didn't deal with that and Roger raised it again as"
a concern. The most recent ordinance I've written before this one, I
actually set that up as a separate district. 1
Batzli: Separate from the PUD?
Krauss: Well no, as a PUD but it was separate standards. Single family
II
detached lots on typicaly single family homes were treated one way. Zero
lot lines were treated another way. As I read through this ordinance again
tonight though, I think that the reason for that is when you get closer.
When you're building on the zero lot line, you have more implications as toll
what the architectural design is. How you're imposing on the adjoining
II property owner. How you want to treat common space because there has to be
1
Planning Commission Meeting
I I May 15, 1991 - Page 34
more common space when it's that tight. But as•I thought about it, the
1 ordinance, the way we've structured it right now, the single family
detached works pretty well.because we've built 'all that architectural stuff
in there and the language is loose enough that we could allow zero lot
1 lines under the same set of procedures and standards. I don't think we
have to change very much to allow that. One thing you may want to consider
though is some communities have a problem with zero lot line homes being in
single family neighborhoods. I don't know that I ascribe to that
philosophy because basically they're single family homes. They're just
scrunched to one side. I don't see us lowering the lot size much. I don't
see us lowering the lot size below 9,000 ever in the RSF district or in the
1 low density district. If somebody wants to do a high intensity zero lot
line development, it really in my opinion ought to belong in areas that are
guided for medium or high density use in the Comp Plan because that's the
1 densities you're dealing with. And I think we can make that
differentiation. It's not that hard.
Batzli: Did Forbord like, did you show him the whole proposed standards?
il
Krauss: No, we haven't had a chance to sit down. I just briefed him on
the phone.
1 Batzli: I was curious what he thought about the foundation plans and
architectural standards. The other elements of this besides the 25 %.
Krauss: I don't know. I suspect he didn't have a problem with that
because that's the way they design their project anyway. I mean we're not
specifically designing for Lundgren Brothers Homes.
1 Ahrens: Yeah, I was going to say. Terry Forbord, it's fine to run some
things past thim but we're not designing our ordinance for him. Especially
1 since he's going to be coming in with probably another PUD. He has some
property in Chanhassen and we don't want to give him our ordinance and say
how do you want this to read and what's the best deal for you and then he
II can design it around whatever development he wants to come in with.
Batzli: No, and I wasn't proposing that. I just thought it was
interesting because other developers don't develop to their standards and
II while Terry might not have had a problem including certain number of trees
and plantings around the foundation, I'll bet you a lot of other developers
would. I was just curious.
II Krauss: Well I'll be happy to sit down with him. We can certainly do
that. He's useful as a gauging point though because on the spectrum of
residential developers, they tend to be a little better than most.
II Ellson: Right. If you want to encourage anybody it would be him. .
II Krauss: Yeah, and if he has a significant problem with something, it's
probably note worthy. If he believes he can live with something, it
doesn't imply that all other developers can live with it but it may mean to
1 us so what? That's the standard of development we want to achieve.
1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 35 1
Ahrens: But there are a lot of good developers in town too. You may want II
to run it past them.
Krauss: We can send it out to a few people who develop in the community
and see what they think.
Conrad: I had a couple just statements or comments on what we see in front
of us and I think Paul's going to work some things but just philosophically"
my intent on this ordinance was not to put more density in but to shift it.
If there is more density that's fine. I guess I was, well if there is more
density, I want to make sure that it's good quality density. That's just all
general comment on my part. I'm interested about the density transfer
issue too because I really feel that that's a viable thing. Again, if
I had my way, if a site is approved for 10 units and we can shift 5 of
those units to the other half of the property and leave the other half
open, that's what I'm trying to do. So I don't mind building up the
density. I'm kind of interested in how the transfer formula works. Using
gross versus net. Is there a conversion factor? We've always used net II before in terms of units per acre and now we're going to use gross so.have
we compensated for that changeover in terms of the number of units allowed
per acre?
Krauss: There's no standard factor Ladd because it's really highly
contingent upon the individual site. How much park are you dealing with?
How much wetland are you dealing with? I think though that the PUD gets at
that issue in another way. It's demanding higher quality design. It's
demanding higher quality landscaping. It's going to demand some modicum of
additional open space. You know you're achieving your goals through a
different mechanism and if the developer happens to get more units out of
it but it looks better overall and is less impacting, I guess that's a fair
compromise.
Conrad: But what is the standard? The standard that you set is 1.7 units
per acre. How did we get there? How did we get to 1.7?
Krauss: We developed that in doing the Comprehensive Plan. Basically what"
we wanted to do is the Metro Council was telling us that the rule of thumb,
everyone develops 2 1/2 units an acre. We said well that's not an
appropriate assumption here because we are basically a no net loss wetlands"
community. Our park dedications are pretty stiff and all this and so we
went back in. Jo Ann and Mark and I and took apart, I don't know, 12 or 15
plats we've done over the last 5 years and tried to find what the average II
density is. Now this is standard platting. This is not PUD's.
Conrad: So average gross density? ,
Krauss: Right.
Conrad: Based on history? And that turned out to be 1.7? i
Krauss: Correct.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 36
Conrad: Okay. Over how many years?
I/ Krauss: I would say it was the plats over the last 5 years probably.
II Olsen: Maybe even 10.
Conrad: And just a picky point. On page 5, letter (g). It said, more
than one building may be placed on one platted recorded lot on a PUD. What
does that mean?
Krauss: Under standard zoning you're obligated to have a separate tax
II parcel around each building. Within a PUD you're approving an overall
master plan. You've got a lot of control over exactly what happens.
What's built where. It becomes less important to us if an industrial
occupant has three buildings on a single tax parcel. You've exercised all
the control you need.
Conrad: Okay.
Emmings: Does anybody have anything else on this? Any other comments?
Batzli: Yeah, I don't like 9,000 feet. I think it's too small.
Ahrens: You think 9,000 is too small?
II Emmings: I wonder, what if it said something. Instead of saying you can
have single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of
9,000 square feet and seeing some developers just licking their lips.
II Can't wait to go in here and make a development of all 9,000 foot lots.
What if we just said that some of the lots may be as small as 9,000 square
feet.
II Erhart: That's where I think you tie in this average thing.
Ellson: But if someone does 9,000 and it looks good and transfer and
things like that, I think we have to, we don't know.
Emmings: What were, the lots that we were all remarking about in.
II Krauss: Were 9,000 square feet. That's where that number came from.
Erhart: Yeah I know but there was only a lot here and there. It wasn't a
mass of these lots. Were there?
Batzli: Yeah, they're all on one end.
Ellson: It's one group of them and they're very well done.
II Conrad: There's probably about 60. 40 to 60. Something like that.
Krauss: All of the professional literature says that, don't take the micro
I view of what the property line says. What kind of context is it sitting
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 37
in. I mean if you have a 9,000 square foot lot backing up to a protected II
forest, it's going to look a whole lot better than a 15,000 square foot lot
in a cornfield. -
Ahrens: I think though that we're worried about implying that we're going II
to give them something that we really have no intention of giving them.
Batzli: I think if somebody comes in here with a bunch of 9,000 square 1
foot lots, we're all going to be stunned and we're going to sit here and
say, help us. What can we do to stop this?
Ahrens: I think we'd better put some language in there just to give us the l
right to reject it.
Emmings: Or that we consider PUD's where some of the lots were as small as '
9,000 square feet but not less than that. Something but you've got to make
it a lot more.
Krauss: But we have that existing PUD that has the average, it doesn't 11
work.
Emmings: I don't understand. 1
Olsen: Well we have it right now where there's an average of 13,500 and 11 you can go as low as 12,000. And it has worked where it's not all 12,000
square foot lots but the PUD's haven't been successful for other reasons.
Because we still don't require preservation of open space and creativity
but...average doesn't work. 1
Krauss: Well I think what came across loud and clear though again for
Forbord was that .a deviance of 1,500 square feet isn't enough to induce
anybody to do anything.
Ellson: That's why we came up with the 9.
Erhart: ...gross density. That's not now what you're doing.
Conrad: But Paul is changing the formula. 1
Erhart: No, he's increasing the gross density. You're getting more lots
on the original piece of land. 5o that gives him the incentive then to
preserve some other piece of land.
Krauss: But you're not going to get more lots if you have a high average
minimum. '
Erhart: I'm not saying whether it should be high or low. You kind of have
to work it out what it is. The way you have it now, you've only picked one ll
point and it has to be 25% and what...
Krauss: Well that's variable but I thought the intent of this was to get
away from the hard and fast, thou shalt have an average of no less than 13. 11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 38
Ellson: That's what I want to do too. I think we should leave the 9,000
I and our intent in here is telling them that we don't want to see all that
and then you guys are certainly going to see it and the fact that it's a
PUD, we have a chance to negotiate. That's the whole idea behind it but
I we're putting more fences around them before we've even seen it. We're not
even giving them a chance to try to bring something to us. We're telling
them right off the bat we just have decided there's no way you can do it
�
j well and don't even bother.
■ Erhart: I guess I'm a little confused there. You don't want a formula in
here now or you do?
I Krauss: No, no. We're talking about two different things. The open space
formula I think we need because that's one of the trade offs we're getting.
That's one of the benefits of going with the PUD. The question is what
I kind of minimum lot area do you adhere to and from a strictly designed,
philosophical standpoint, I don't care if all the lots are 9,000 square
feet if everything else is done well.
II Erhart: Okay, but what we could do to satisfy I think the concern is to
say yeah, you can have 9,000 square foot lots but your average can't be any
I less than.
Ellson: 9,000.
I Erhart . : No, no.
Ellson: That's what I'm saying. If he can do a thing of all 9,000 square
I foot and it looks good. See you're making an assumption that you'll never
see a 9,000 average that would look good. You're making a big assumption.
Like he said, if they're all backed up against this bluff area and things
like that, it might not be that bad.
Erhart: That's not realistic.
' Krauss: It is if 25% of your land has to be in open space.
Erhart: Oh, I see.
1 Conrad: That could be.
Ellson: I think you ought to give them a chance to do it and if you don't
I like it, tell them then.
Batzli: The problem is, somebody's going to come in with a plan.
1 Ellson: That's when we deal with it.
Batzli: Well, it's going to happen and then we're going to look at it and
say why in the world did we let them build 9,000.
Ellson: No, we didn't let them. We get a chance to look it over.
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 39 '
Conrad: We don't give them the PUD. It's not what we're looking for.
Ellson: You're not trusting them enough.
Batzli: We've seen what, never mind. I'm not convinced that we will look
at it and know what we're looking at because every time we look at PUD's we
sit there and we say, gee. We don't really get a sense of what they're
doing and we don't see this and we don't see that. We won't see it. We
will not see what is actually occurring in the PUD until it's in and then
it will be too late.
Krauss: One of the problems we've had with PUD's is, and I've heard the
same thing echoed on the Council, is Ursula's often going well what are we
getting out of this. We're supposed to get something. What are we
getting? And I don't have a good answer normally because our PUD ordinance'
right now doesn't demand anything.
Ellson: And we haven't given an intention of it to anybody until now. '
Krauss: This ordinance says, if you're going to want this, you're going to
have to earn it and here's how you earn it.
Ellson: I think because of that intention will ward off the guy who thinks
he'll be able to sell us a PUD with a 9,000 back to back thing. He'll go
well I know I'm not meeting it. I'm just trying for it. We've got every I
reason to say forget it.' I don't think we should say an average. I think
it could potentially be done. Who am I to say no without seeing it?
Erhart: What you're saying is if the average...maybe. It'd be interesting I
to look at.
Krauss: There's lots of examples to demonstrate it. I have some slides of
it. I can give you books that show those kinds of plats. What happens
when you bottle up that space. It's a fairly...
Ellson: It's not like we're changing the residential lot size to 9. '
Krauss: Keep in mind too that a PUD is a rezoning and I think it falls
into that legislative ability of the city. You can be fairly arbitrary on
rezoning and especially when there's an intent section now that lays out
what your expectations are. If you really feel something doesn't meet the
standards that you've adhered to, don't approve it. 1
Ellson: That's the leverage we have.
Conrad: Do you feel Paul that we have to, my statement was, I'm not really '
trying to pack more in. I'm just trying to shift it so it's economically
more viable but basically it's your gut feel that we really should allow 11 more density to encourage. Economically we need more units per acre to
stimulate the open space?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
g
May 15, 1991 - Page 40
11
Krauss: Well there's certain trade offs there.' I mean Forbord indicated
' that that indicates when you cluster you save money on streets. You save
money on utilities. You save money on development costs. You probably
make a more attractive development which will help you sell it quicker but
I don't philosophically have a problem if they get 15% more lots and we've
achieved the open space that we want and we got the better standards,
that's fine too. They're still consistent with the Comp Plan. They can't
exceed the gross density that we have in that.
1 Batzli: I just, you know my feelings are, I live in a PUD. I don't even
know what size my lot is. We have a big park next to us. I still think
' the lots that our houses are on are too small. I'm the kind of guy, I like
a big yard. Maybe it's just personal but I'm in a PUD every day and if you
made the lot sizes 9,000 square feet, and I go by those in Lundgren all the
' time. I think those are too small. I mean the picture makes them look
really nice but those things are crammed together. They back right up
against the little extension of Town Line Road there. Whatever it's called
there.
' Ahrens: Pleasant View?
' Emmings: But do the people that live there like them?
Ellson: Is there a market for it? That's what Terry was saying. You're
not that customer but there evidentally is people.
II Batzli: They're tiny lots and I don't find them attractive personally. Now
maybe there's a market for them but I don't know. I would be hard pressed
1 to find something that I'd like, you know if I had a chance to look at it.
If enough landscaping, enough transferring, enough open space to make it
worth while to give them that small of a lot.
Ellson: Well his example was that people wanted a 15 minute mowed lawn and
things like that.
Batzli: I would buy something else, yeah. If I did it again.
Ahrens: Where are we going on this?
1 Emmings: Well I guess what I hear is that you're going to work out some
more examples. Maybe give us a little more concrete idea. Maybe try and
II work out a schedule and get some input from some other people to what
you're doing here and bring it back again. This is a public hearing again.
Did we close it? Do we need to close it? Why is it a public hearing?
I Krauss: One thing you may want to consider. There doesn't seem to be a
whole lot of concern or issues any longer with the body of the PUD
ordinance. It's the single family section that's generating the comment.
I'm growing increasingly concerned that if the Metro Council does what I'm
hoping they're going to do in the next week or two, we're going to need
this pretty quick.
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 41
. Emmings: What do you propose Paul? Can you pull that section out and get I
the rest going up to the City Council?
Krauss: Yeah.
Emmings: So it's basically just pulling out 20 -506?
Krauss: Yes. 1
Emmings: Now what if somebody came in with asking for a single family
detached PUD?
Krauss: Well there is an existing single family detached PUD section that
we would not be eliminating until we replace it. You may want to cancel
that because it's a bad section.
Emmings: Right. Couldn't you do something like this? Could we put in a
new section 20 -506 to replace the old one that says that the City's in the II
process of developing standards and just use that to retract the old one?
And just not have standards but put everybody on notice that standards are
in the process of being developed. 1
Krauss: You know you'd almost be better protected by leaving the old one
in place since nobody wants to use it anyway. It will kind of hold our
spot for us.
Emmings: Okay. Is there a reaction to that? For passing the rest of the
ordinance and just pulling out 20 -506?
Erhart: I think we should just leave. You're talking about not making the
change at all then?
Emmings: No, we pass everything that's here except Section 20 -506.
Krauss: And we'll leave the existing single family intact until we can
replace it.
Ellson: So you really think that if it gets approved we'll have stuff
really quick?
Krauss: I don't know how quick it's going to be but we've got people that
seem to be chomping at the bit. But some of these projects are so large,
they're going to take a while to get off the ground.
Conrad: 5o your intent is to vote on the rest of the motion tonight? ,
Emmings: That's what Paul is proposing.
Batzli: I didn't feel like we're that far away on 20 - 506. I mean I'm 1
whinning about the square footage but I'm a sole voice here. I'm just
trying to see if anybody is... If everybody else likes 9,000.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
g
May 15, 1991 - Page 42
Conrad: No, we're just looking right now Brian. We don't know yet and it
1 may be, yeah I just don't know so it's not that I don't agree with you. I
just don't know how to handle. I think Paul and Jo Ann have a good, there
seems to be one simple solution and that's what they've presented but I
I want to see how that works in a variety of circumstances. I haven't
disagreed with anything you've said yet. If we want to pass the rest, then
I've got to get back into something on page 3. Under Section 20 -505,
Required General Standards. Under Section (b). The applicant shall
I demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the City high. That's the word I'm
questioning. High quality...and then the last line says that represents
improvement over normal ordinance standards. So are we saying higher? Is
I the word higher?
Krauss: In that sense that's what you're looking at.
I Conrad: Maybe that's just a small thing but I guess I'd rather see the
word.
I Batzli: What about the—word highest?
Conrad: I guess I like the word higher in there. And then I get back down
to my density transfer. In single family detached, which is what we're
debating, so I don't know what that means. I don't know how that works. I
don't know how to approve that right now until I see what we're doing in
single family.
I Krauss: Well that wouldn't be applicable until you passed the new section
anyway. •
1 Conrad: Until we passed the new section? Okay. I'm comfortable.
Emmings: Anybody else want to comment on whether the, what they think
about passing the rest of this except for 20 -506?
Batzli: Paul on 20- 505(f)? Is parking lots and driving lanes shall be set
I back 20 feet from all exterior lot lines?
Krauss: Yes.
Batzli: Never mind. I was confused. Do we cover in here or have we
previously covered our recurring problem of somebody putting in a road next
to an existing lot? Do we talk about that at all anywhere in here?
I Olsen: We did somewhat address that with the setback.
1 Batzli: In here?
Olsen: No...accessory structures and... That was something that you could
I determine as part of the subdivision of the PUD. You could say no, we
don't approve...application. To determine setback for a road. We found
out it was difficult.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 43 1
Krauss: I don't understand the question.
1
Olsen: We don't want to allow a street at the edge of a PUD connected to
somebody else. You know like happened in Vineland.
Batzli: You've covered it for existing streets but not streets that may be
put in later. Okay.
Emmings: I think we need a motion to close the public hearing. 11
Ahrens moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Is there a motion with regards to the ordinance? •
Erhart: I'll move that we recommend adoption of the PUD ordinance as
outlined in the memo to the Planning Commission, May 6, 1991. Is that a
good way to describe it? Do we actually have the ordinance written out in II
here?
Conrad: I•t's right here.
Erhart: Okay. Alright. The ordinance as stated in Article VIII Planned
g
Unit Development District except for Paragraph Section 20- 506(e) which will
be left open with a note that. ,
Krauss: Well I think you'd want to preclude the whole 20 -506.
Erhart: Okay, the whole 20 -506 which will include a note that says, what? 1
Krauss: If you just exclude this one, what will happen is you'll have a
new PUD ordinance with the old single family section. 5o you don't have toll
do anything. Just exclude this.
Erhart: Okay, so we're going to exclude Section 20 -506. ,
Emmings: I'll second it.
Ahrens: Did you have some changes Ladd? 1
Batzli: I thought Ladd made some changes.
Erhart: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, Ladd had some changes.
Emmings: He intended to incorporate those. I heard him say that. '
Erhart: Yeah, I said that.
Emmings: And I intended that in my second also. 1
Batzli: Paul, is the old standards for residential 506? Or this is a
brand new section isn't it? Why don't we just put a 506 in there that says'
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15, 1991 - Page 44
reserved or something?
' Emmings: Because, is the single family PUD section that we have now called
20 -506?
1 Krauss: Not unless we're real lucky. But I'll change the numbers around.
' Emmings: We don't have a 506 right now.
Batzli: Because 501, well. It's 504.
• Erhart: It's not going to work.
Krauss: Well yes it would. If you just replace, if your motion says
1 delete this one and replace it with Section, where am I?
Batzli: 20 -504.
Erhart: Delete 20 -506 with and add existing.
Krauss: Section 20 -504.
I Olsen: We'll be sure not to repeal that section. The single family kind
of, it's not real separate.
Batzli: Yeah, that's the problem.
Ahrens: Why don't we just identify the standards as guidelines for single
II family detached PUD's? We're reserving that section.
Emmings: Yeah, and not have one. We'll just won't have anything for
I single family until we pass one and let's put in the section heading and
just say, to 20 -507 reserve for single family.
I Ahrens: 506.
Emmings: 506. Reserve for standards and guidelines for single family
detached PUD's. Okay? Is that okay Paul?
I Krauss: Sure.
' Emmings: Alright, do you want to include that in your motion? I'll
include it in the second. Alright. Any more discussion?
I Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of ordinance amendment to Article VIII, Planned Unit Development
District with the following changes: Amending Section 20-S06 to state that
it's being reserved for Single Family Detached Residential. Changing in
1 Section 20- 5O5(b) the word "high" to "higher ". All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
1
1
1
C1TYOF
0,,,,,
,-
CHANHASSEN x
, •
4
I
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN; MINNESOTA 55317
r (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 II
MEMORANDUM
1
TO: Planning Commission 1
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: March 15, 1991 1
SUBJ: Proposed Revisions to Article 8, PUD Development District
II
On March 6th, staff discussed proposed revisions to the PUD
ordinance with the Planning Commission. The discussion was rather II lengthy but focused primarily on utility of the PUD district and
problems that had occurred in the past with Chanhassen's, primarily
residential, experience. The Planning Commission discussed the I
possibility of inviting individuals who were familiar with PUD's to
provide you with background on their use relative to Chanhassen.
Based upon your request, we have invited John Shardlow of Shardlow,
Dahlgren and Uban and Terry Forbord of Lundgren Brothers
I
Construction to discuss the use of PUD's with you.
John Shardlow is familiar to most of the Planning Commissioners due Il
to his representation of some property owners providing their input
into the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Shardlow is a well
respected professional planner who has many years of experience in II representing a variety of clients. He also teaches a course in
Planned Unit Developments and has offered to bring some of that
material for your review. In addition to providing information on
the history of PUD's, examples of their use and a discussion of a
II
model PUD ordinance, I have asked John to discuss the use of PUD's
for industrial and commercial developments. His firm does
considerable design work for these types of projects and he is II uniquely qualified to provide this input. Mr. Shardlow's firm is
also an active participant in the parcel of property located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41.
Lundgren Brothers Construction has an excellent track record of
developing high quality residential developments in our community.
In fact, the Near Mountain subdivision, which they are currently
II
completing, is being developed under PUD standards. Mr. Forbord's
firm is also actively involved in developing subdivision proposals
for the new MUSA area that will be incorporated under the
Comprehensive Plan. He made a brief presentation in this regard at II
1
PUD Ordinance Discussion
March 15, 1991
' Page 2
the October public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan and succeeded
in getting the boundary area of the 1995 Study Area revised as a
result. Mr. Forbord has been with the firm for a number of years
and is also well qualified to discuss the use of PUD's in the
residential context. He is active in a number of groups including
his position as a board member of the Sensible Land Use Coalition.
Staff hopes that the Planning Commission will find this discussion
to be informative. Information you learn from this discussion
should prove to be useful in developing a revised PUD ordinance for
the community. It may also help you to envision the type of
development and the type of guidance the city can employ relative
to new large scale developments along Hwy. 5.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Mecing
March 6, 1991 - Page 24 1
talking about a 100% commercial area and we were doing it PUD. Where did
I go wrong originally? And secondly why, remind me again why Market Square'
is a PUD.
Krauss: Well I think, Tim your perception probably goes back to the fact
that Chanhassen historically has used it more in a residential setting than
we have elsewhere. Now that goes against conventional wisdom because the
reverse is usually true in most communities. In fact arguably, we've had a
lot of problems with residential PUD's and that's why you got into that
because the changes in the PUD ordinance were designed to address the
problems that became evident after development in neighborhoods like
Pheasant Hills took place and you saw that nobody had room for decks and
that sort of thing. I'm sorry, what was the second question?
Erhart: What was the purpose in Market Square? Why was that a PUD and
what did we get out of that?
Krauss: Well I'd like to think that the end result was that we got a
fairly high quality, fairly high level of design architecturally from a '
landscaping standpoint.
Olsen: We got setbacks. It was in the CBD where there is no setbacks.
Krauss: I don't know what the trade off is supposed to be. I mean there
was always, it was an implied. Like I say, conventional wisdome was that
there's supposed to be a trade off but it never said that in the ordinance II
and it never gave you any kind of indication as to what we should expect.
Also the rationale for Market Square in part being a PUD is because the
development was intense enough that they needed the flexibility. They ,
needed to be able -to get around things like the hard surface coverage if
they were going to make the development work. That's fine if you're
getting what, if the City gets what they want out of it. And I think that
one worked out. But it only worked out after literally dozens of meetings
with the developer saying you know, putting our foot down and we're not
going to take this and trying to work out compromises. And as I recall,
the Planning Commission itself was negotiating architectural detailing at II
the very end.
Erhart: Were they negotiating or just imparting our wishes? Is one'of the
complicating things here is that you're trying to make one ordinance cover '
multiple zoning districts?
Krauss: I don't think so. PUD is a generic term. It's a generic, '
administratively functionally it cuts across all the land use categories.
We have some specific standards for single family because of our unique
experience in using it. Having seen some of the end results here with
residential PUD's, I personally wouldn't advocate that we ever do it again.
Not for single family but I think that if we did it again with the single
family, we'd have better guidelines than we did before. 1
Erhart: You don't think we got additional open space?
Krauss: I'm not so sure. Well in Pheasant Hills we did get some outlots II
that were protected but we couldn't have probably protected them anyway.
Planning Commission Mt ..ing
March 6, 1991 - Page 25
Olsen: That was before the.
1 Krauss: Was Lundgren's after?
Olsen: That wasn't a PUD.
Batzli: Was Fox Hollow before or after?
' Olsen: Before. Lake Susan Hills was one of the after ones and we did
definitely get more.
Erhart: It was my impression that the whole negotiation there was that we
got open space out of that.
Krauss: Well again, if the City's getting what is meeting it's
' expectations. Pheasant Hills was designed apparently on the presumption
that it would lower the cost of housing by going with smaller lots. That
clearly didn't happen up there. There are other ways of achieving that.
' There's another type of housing that I talked about briefly in here but I
didn't propose standards for it but I was familiar with it from working
with it in Minnetonka. Is that I found that with several developments over
there, zero lot line or Z type of development. I don't know if you're
familiar with it but they're single family detached homes on very small
lots that share, you know one wall of the house is virtually bn the
property line and the wall of the house adjoing it is virtually on the
' property line and then there's common spaces inbetween. I found that you
had to develop specific standards to deal with that type of development
such as you already did with single fmaily because you have people living
in such close proximity that if somebody sticks their air conditioner
compressor under the other person's bedroom window, you've got a major
problem. Or you want design flexibility in the house but window, you know
one window here shouldn't look into the bathroom over there.
Batzli: In that type of setting, are they physically, are the walls
physically attached or is zero just kind of you're a couple feet apart?
' Krauss: Usually you're a few feet apart.
Emmings: Can you put a portable chemical toilet inbetween?
Krauss: Split the difference.
' Emmings: Just enough room in there.
Krauss: I don't know if we're going to have that here. I've got to assume
that sooner or later somebody's going to propose that. I do have some ways
' of handling it but I didn't feel like muddying up the issues too much at
this point.
Conrad: I've just got some thoughts. I think we're going in some good
directions. We've talked about some of these things in past years and some
of it may be before Paul's time. Maybe Jo Ann and I were the only ones
around but a lot of what happened. A lot of problems occurred when you get
into PUD. We don't have a clue what we're getting. We don't know what
we're giving up value wise. Therefore, we don't understand the negotiation
1
Planning Commission Ming '
March 6, 1991 - Page 26
process. Strictly city negotiating. There aren't concrete performance
standards which a lot of communities have. We're not smart enough here or
haven't put the time in to develop those performance standards. We talk
about them but we don't really know what they are. You reduce density by
x. You will increase or you save a wetland, you will actually increase. It
will give you x percent increase in density. We have a little bit of that II
here but not very much. So it's like we're bordering on something and to
really have good performance standards in one terrific, a whole bunch of
work. Otherwise we're back in the same game of well, is staff negotiating ?,
And I think, I don't want to discourage what Paul is presenting here
because I think anything that helps define more what we're doing is better
but again, I just think for those of you who haven't been around a whole
lot, performance standards can be extremely complex. They're great if
you're smart enough to figure out what they are. Typically you're smart
enough. Don't put enough time into it so you kind of wing it when the
developer comes in. But again, the thing that I need, I don't know that II
some of what we're giving Paul is meaningful. I don't know that taking a
lot from 15,000 square feet down to 12,000 square feet is meanginful. It
might be but I don't know what the developers think about that. We haven't'
seen them flocking in and requesting PUD's because of that. On the other
hand, because I don't know what that, how meaningful that is economically,
I don't know what we can expect from a developer on the other hand. So
again, from a commissioner, from a lay person, you almost have to trust the
staff can figure some of this stuff out. And again, it's a lot of, it's
staff negotiation. In here Paul, I'm just going to wing a few things about
what's here. Under the allowed uses, there was a section called specific II
uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a
development plan. The performance standards. So you have to make those up
every time a development plan comes in?
Krauss: Well you do, but that's part of the flexibility that a PUD gives.
I can give you an example of one that, I was kind of pleased with how it
turned out. The Minnetonka Corporate Center is an industrial office PUD II
that Trammel Crow developed. It's off of 494 and the Crosstown. When we
worked the PUD agreement up for that, it laid out what types of buildings
and what sizes of buildings and the number of stories where going to go on I
individual areas. It delineated all the tree preservation areas. It
delineated where wetlands were going to be preserved. Where wetlands were
going to be created. Where major landscaping features were going to go.
It laid out a whole signage package. We threw out the sign ordinance and
came up with a coordinated sign program. Came up with a coordinated
lighting program. There were general architectural standards that were
approved in there where most of the buildings were going to be glass and II
brick and there was limited use of tip up panels where truck loading was
concealed. Where there'd be common spaces in some of the buildings. And
this is a 15 year development program that was laid out and it was a book
that was developed which was adopted and it was amended from time to time
but that book has essentially guided that development to where it is right
now. Now it's not finished to this day but I think, you look at the
general level of development in there. The standards that have been
adhered to and they're pretty good. That's what I see being adopted when
hopefully, when the development group comes in with 160 acres on TH 5 and
TH 41. That would an ideal spot to go through a procedure like this. What
I would like to avoid like the plague on a site like that is zone the whole
thing IOP. Have it split up into 45 lots and anything that comes over the
Planning Commission Me _ing
March 6, 1991 - Page 27
next 20 years goes. That seems like we're throwing out any kind of control
we can exercise over it. Now you do exercise control over it through your
site plan ordinance and we're trying to get better code requirements in
there. But I think you're a lot better off if you can look at the big
picture on something like that and get those areas preserved that you want
' to get. Get the building massing in the right places and get it all to
work as an overall concept.
Emmings: Now the site that you just mentioned in Minnetonka, was that done
on an ordinance that was similar to what we've got in front of us here now
to review? What were the performance standards in the Minnetonka ordinance
that that was developed under?
' Krauss: That was developed under an earlier version of the Minnetonka
ordinance. I wrote the current version of the Minnetonka ordinance and I
took a lot of that and kind of changed it a little bit but fit it into this
current proposal that you're looking at now. What was in the Minnetonka
ordinance though were basic expectations, even the old ordinance, as to you
know, protecting the exterior of the PUD as to what the City had a right to
' expect. The current version of the ordinance is more explicit. But
Trammel Crow was a good enough developer too that we were able to kind of
work mutually towards this thing and basically the current version of the
Minnetonka ordinance is reflective of my experience working with them on
that and what we had a right to expect.
Emmings: And just for clarifiation for me anybody, to the extent that I've
been involved with PUD's, it was always my understanding that, like you
said in this one introductory paragraph. It was kind of common wisdom in
the city that a development has to earn a PUD zoning but it's not really,
' that expectation isn't written down anywhere. I know that when I was here
through one revision of the PUD ordinance, everybody said if we don't get
something that we want out of this. And it's not preservation of a wetland
because they have to do that anyway. We don't ever, they don't get any
points for that because they have to do it anyhow. They have to really
give us something that we want or we deny it and that didn't work over here
on Lake, was it Lake Susan Hills? The big development that's west of Lake
Susan, what is that?
Olsen: Lake Susan Hills.
' Emmings: Yeah. Because I remember the Planning Commission there felt we
weren't getting anything and we recommended denial and the City Council saw
' it just the other way around. They saw it as a tremendous opportunity to
zone a tract that was over 300 acres and they said it was a PUD so
obviously in the City we haven't had any concurrence or any agreement on
what we're doing here so laying this stuff out I think is real important.
' Conrad: In that case, they thought they were getting a good park and we
didn't think we were getting a good park. Or play area or whatever. There
was just a whole lot of difference of opinion on that and again, it goes
back to we don't have a clue what we're getting. What is the developer
getting value wise for increased density or for something and what are we
getting back? I've never had a handle on that one. And most of the times,
most of the PUD's I feel we're giving up far more than what we're getting
but that's just.
1
Planning Commission Ma _ing 1
March 6, 1991 - Page 28
Emmings: And interesting, in that case too, the threat was if we didn't
see it as a PUD, then they would come in under the subdivision ordinance
and just put in a straight subdivision. And we said, on the Planning
Commission we said fine. We think we've got a good subdivision ordinance. II
Go ahead and do it because we don't think that's what you want but that 'did
scare the City Council.. They didn't want that. '
Conrad: Yeah. And they have known something we didn't know.
Emmings: Right. '
Conrad: Are there cases where we would require a PUD?
Krauss: Well I would like to be in a position to require developments to 1
go PUD because I think we get better product and can work it better. Every
time I try it, the City Attorney tells me I can't do it. You can almost
kind, you can ask somebody to do it. You can be very specific that we're
not going to let one variance go through unless. You can really put
somebody in a position where they wanted it. Also, developers these days
are more savy than they used to be and they realize that PUD's allow 11 phasing. They allow the City to look at different standards for streets.
They allow them more flexibility at building clustering. Maybe more
density than they would normally get. And the better developers are, you II
. know they're typically looking for that.
Conrad: I don't know. I like PUD's. I don't think we offer enough in
exchange in some cases. I'd like to really encourage things like open
spaces and stuff and I'm not sure what we are able to give really does
that. In other words, instead of putting 8 units on a piece of property,
my posture and it's really changed over the years. Instead of the 8, if II
you clustered them in a highrise which takes us to a different zoning
category but you know, double, triple the number. Leave some open space.
In essence what you're doing is preserving some of that lot for open spaces'
or whatever but you're really, you're kind of changing what the zoning.
You know, my philosophy, I'd be putting in a highrise to do that and I
don't know that that's what the current ordinances allow. But
philosophically, there's just some neat trade -offs that you can make but a '
lot of people still love large lots and I think there are reasons to change
that because it preserves some other things out here that are equally as
valid. Couple other questions. I don't want to dominate this but the 5 II
acres sort of bothered me because I don't know if you can have a PUD in 5
acres. You said you've heard that's a standard that other communities have
but I'm just sort of, you can't have a residential. It's though to have a
residential PUD in 5 acres. Maybe you can have some other kind of PUD but
that's a real, I guess that gives us flexibility. The other point I wanted
to add on. I think in this thing Paul you should be saying we would, the
City encourages PUD's and maybe we can't require it but I think wording 1
wise, we want to encourage it and at least my opinion is that we want to
encourage it because we do, we can get some things that we like in that.
But I don't know if you want to word that in there. I do like the density
transfer stuff but I'm not sure again, I'm not sure where that leads us. II
The density transfer there, under the required standards Paul and Jo Ann.
It says density. The increased density, increased transfer for density
may be allowed at the sole discretion of the City...but it doesn't give in 1
that area, do we have to drop back to the density? The increased density
1
Planning Commission ME _ing
March 6, 1991 - Page 29
could possibly go down to 12,000 square feet. Is that where we'd flip back
to the required standards 504? In 505 you said we encourage it but there
' aren't any standards. But then we go back to 504 for residential and is
that what would apply?
Krauss: For single family.
Conrad: For single family? See in that case, I just don't know that we're
going to get much and I help put those standards in.
11 Olsen: We aren't turning developers away as far as single family
developments. When we first meet with them, they'll compare what they can
I get with the PUD versus the straight subdivision and they go straight
subdivision.
Conrad: I guess I'm sort of mumbling but if we want to encourage stuff,
' you've got to be able to hang a carrot out there. So far the carrot's not
big enough. Maybe that's okay. Maybe we shouldn't change it.
I Erhart: What are they looking for? What do they think is reasonable?
10,000 square feet?
11 Emmings: Or more clustered?
Olsen: They all want the single family and they want the small lots.
' Emmings: How small?
•
Olsen: As I was just telling Paul, you know 12,000. That's our minimum
but I don't know how you can go much smaller but some of them like the
11,000 and 10,000. I don't know because what we do is we do take out the
wetlands first of all and we do take out the sloped areas so there goes
some of their net density right there. And then plus we're saying we're
going to take parkland and trails and additional. And when we start taking
all of that away, their density just goes, you know they're left with maybe
50 lots when they might get 52 lots going. It's comparable.
' Conrad: In the PUD that you're proposing, 25% in this draft, 25% of the
original intended zoning can be altered so basically we could move those
units into a multi - family area?
Krauss: Conceiveably yes.
Conrad: And therefore we could get some open space.
Krauss: Sure. I suppose if you had a large enough site and it could be
' designed, you could have some townhomes in some section of it.
Conrad: And you feel comfortable with 25% because it keeps the intent of
the original zoning. The 75 %, that's basically it.
Emmings: Then you wind up again with a situation where they come in and
they lay out a plan and over here they've got, what they want is the 12,000
square foot lots and they get some of those and they've got to leave some
open space and they get some multi - family. They put that in for you and
Planning Commission ME_cing •
March 6, 1991 - Page 30
1
then they build the homes and they never build the multi - family because
there's no market for it. I think we've seen that in Lake Susan Hills.
They were supposed to.have multi - family there and we wanted that and we
haven't seen any and the reason I assume is that there's just no market for
it. We never will see it.
•
Krauss: In Lake Susan Hills though, the sites are still being held for
townhome and high density developments.
Emmings: Yeah. Until they come back and say geez, we just can't sell 1
them. Can we change this and I fully expect that to happen and that was
predicted when they were here with their plan. So that's another problem
with that is we don't have the range in the market out here. When people
come out here to buy, they come out to buy a single family home. It seems
like. At least now.
Krauss: I think that's been the traditional. Well, traditionally
Chanhassen's been a bedroom community but I think we've all seen that
change in the last 5 years. I've had several people making inquiries about
multi - family housing lately which surprises me because there's, since 1985 '
when the tax law changed, there hasn't been much multi- family built
anywhere in the Twin Cities and there's a glut on the market in most
communities. But there are some people looking seriously at it here.
Emmings: Do you think it's because of the jobs that have opened up? It's
people moving out to be closer to their job. 1
Krauss: I think it's because the city's changed and jobs are a big part of
it. We have a lot of people who have children grown up here and then they
have to leave town because there's no place to live.
Conrad: Let me give you a hypothetical case. I really like density
transfer and again it's not anything I've ever seen that would do a whole II
lot here. But let's say we have a 30 acre PUD which under today's
ordinance we get 3 lots per acre or something like that. So really they
could have 90 single family residential lots there. Let's say we wanted to
put those on 45, no on 15 of the acres. So we had 30 acres to begin with.
We want to keep 15 open and we're going to drop. We're going to transfer
the density that they could have had in those 15 over to the other 15. Can
this ordinance handle that situation?
Krauss: Yeah.
Elison: By keeping the other one open?
Conrad: Again I'm just, that seems like something that you'd want to do in
certain circumstances. We're going to move just half the lots and we'll
double the density over here. Well see I don't know that Paul is right
because what we did is we took 15,000 square foot lot and we just took it
down to 7,500 based on what I just said.
Krauss: Well no. The problem is we have separate single family standards.
If you're talking about single family detached housing, you're stuck with ,
the 12,000 square foot minimum. -
1
Planning Commission M. Ang
March 6, 1991 - Page 31
Conrad: So we could only transfer a couple acres worth of density to the.
We could only open up a few acres basically until we got to that 12,000
I square foot minimum. Whatever. So basically density transfer is an
interesting idea. I don't know if we're using it to the point where we can
encourage really some significant benefit. You know, if you open up a
little bit of space, who cares? It might not be that big a deal where if
' you open up 15 acres for some particular reason, it may be a big deal.
I guess what I'm saying is, I've never seen our ordinance able to really
encourage creativity because we havge some restrictions because we, the
' community are saying hey, we value single family so much out here we want
big lots. That's why I moved here, and we're not going to sluff that
standard. So I bring that up. I don't have a solution to that but density
transfer I always•thought was a neat thing to do if we ever figure out how
to do it. Some of the ratios Paul, in your hard surface coverage. Boy,
I guess, and I don't know if they're right or wrong and maybe you robbed
them from some other place but the one thing that's kind of neat that
I always feel I have control over, even in bad situations. Even let's say
in industrial /commercial uses, I think some of the neat things about our
industrial park is that it does have green space. It does, we're set apart
because it's not wall to wall, concrete to concrete, asphalt to asphalt
stuff. I attribute that to one, good planning and some sort of plan. But
two, our requirement for impervious surface ratios that kind of gives some
berms out there. Kind of gives some trees. So when I see them, the hard
surface, I'm not sure how much that's changed and maybe it hasn't changed
at all. I'm just sort of talking here but that adds to the character of
our industrial parks. The greenery in it and as much as I'd like to
' consolidate those parks, I still like the green. I still think we can make
them as pretty as what we've got but I'm not sure I like sacrificing some
of that and so, I sure could be persuaded. You know my intent or where I'm
coming from. I think those are the bulk of my comments on that.
Emmings: Ladd, can you think of any time we've had a PUD here where it's
really given us something? Where it's really worked the way we'd like to
see it work? I can't.
Conrad: I'm having a tough time. There are PUD's where we're getting some
things but as I said. I've never seen a real creative PUD.
Emmings: I haven't either.
' Conrad: And you know, the smaller the property, the less creative you can
be. But I don't think we're really encouraging them either here with what
we give. I don't look at it as a totally what do we get out of this PUD.
I think it's Chanhassen wants this, developer wants this and the developer
can save him some money by clustering utilities and things over here and
Chanhassen can add to it's quality of life by doing some other things. So
' it's a give and take but geez, I get real frustrated by what they're giving
and that's simply because I don't have a clue what we get now in some of
these negotiations. I just don't know and maybe I never will.
Emmings: It's a funny thing because it seems to me like a PUD is an ideal
way to develop any big piece of land. Any big housing development. Any
commercial development or industrial development. I'd like to see it all
done under here but if that's right. The reason I like it is because I
think we get to have a hand in the planning or the design so that we do get
t 1
Planning Commission Me,:cing
March 6, 1991 - Page 32
1
some things we like. Whether it's open space or extra landscaping or
whatever, but it's never happened. So something is screwed up and I don't
know, do you have any idea Paul why it's never. I don't think it's ever
worked here. Lake Susan Hills, we have PUD's but it's just another
subdivision really.
Krauss:' I do think the Market Square is probably the best example, the
closest example of where that could work. If that was developed under the
CBD zoning, anything would have gone on that property. I mean there were 11
no setbacks anyplace. You have the 1 per 40 requirement for trees.
There's no coordination of access. There's no architectural standard that
you really adhere to. On Market Square we felt very comfortable pushing
very hard for better than normal design. Remember we had the whole
argument about the roof lines and they came back and said it's costly and
you were saying, well that's part of the trade off. And we required very
large trees and a large number of them, particularly in the back property II
line and through the parking lot. We developed architectural standards for
the two outlots. So we don't know what's going to go on there but we know
that it's got to be consistent with. '
Emmings: Well why in that case didn't they just say, the heck with you,
we'll just develop it with it CBD zoning?
Olsen: The impervious coverage and there were some things that they
wanted. Parking.
Emmings: Okay. So they couldn't go CBD there? Just come in with '
something that fit.
Krauss: Not and have the same project, no. 1
•
Emmings: Because what you said just makes it sound like we've got holes in
our standards that we require for development in the CBD really. It would II
seem to me that anything that goes into the CBD ought to be done as a PUD.
Maybe.
Krauss: Well the CBD is sort of a frightening district. Now it's not ,
unlike a lot of communities that have a real old downtown where there was
no standard and it's tough to begin a standard in that kind of a context.
But I feel very comfortable that we did a lot better with the PUD over
there than we would have done otherwise. And we got coordination that we
wouldn't have had. I mean we have internal access roads. We had them
build turn lanes. They're moving bus shelters. There's a lot of stuff
that goes in there and it's tough to keep, for an accounting of this stuff.II
I mean there's not a balance sheet that says we gave this. They gave this
because it's an ongoing process. I mean we get something out of them.
They get something out of us. In the meetings before it comes to
the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission you went through that
project 3 times that I was familiar with. Each time there were more
criteria. The City Council did the same thing.
Conrad: But you know a lot more than we do Paul. You've done that.
You've gone through it and you know when we see it on a one shot deal, we II
don't know what's been negotiated really. We're really in the dark.
Planning Commission Mecing
March 6, 1991 - Page 33
•
Krauss: Well one interestin g thing Square with Market S uare too that I think
points out why one aspect of why a PUD is a good thing to have. You're all
11 aware that from time to time over the last 2 years it seemed like Market
Square was going to wither and 'die and go away. It now seems as though
it's really going to happen but I've had from time to time interest in
' splitting up the properties and being just able to develop, parcel things
off and people have come in and said, I've got every right to do this. Or
you know, it's owned by 3 individuals right now. Burdick owns part,
Bloomberg owns part. Burdick will just take his piece and develop it
independently. I'm sitting here saying you can't do that. The whole thing
is zoned PUD. The only thing that could go on it is Market Square and
anything else that you want to do is going to have to go for a rezoning and
we're not going to recommend approval of a rezoning unless there's a
comprehensive plan that we find acceptable. So we haven't gotten Market
Square. in the ground yet but we haven't gotten piecemeal stuff that's a
problem.
Emmings: I thought you had to have unity of ownership before you could
even have a PUD.
Krauss: That's fine. Then the partnership agreement does say they would
do that.
' Emmings: Oh, okay. So there is a partnership between those three on that
property? Okay. Well this could go on fora long time and we've got to
' shorten it up somehow. Annette, have you got anything?
Ellson: Well I like the idea of getting it a little stronger and I was
thinking the same as you Steve. It always seems like we're in such a
reactive mode and I think I say it like every meeting but I really think if
we want to ask something and we think PUD's the answer, then let's go out
with our ideas and talk to people and help because by the time a developer
likes this piece of land, he's already got it in his head and then we're
going in and trying to do whatever. We're so reactive. That's one of the
reasons I feel we don't always see ourselves getting involved because
they've got it all laid out. They had that 100 homes in there or whatever
and if we could say, offer people. You know we're taking a look at density
swapping. Are you interested because we'd like to keep this grove of oak
trees. Here's a couple ideas any developer, let's talk. I don't know. I'm
thinking in terms of something like that but I agree that this is like the
most beneficial zoning we can have. We really could come out with stuff
that we really want and preserve everything that our goals do if we work
with this the right way. I also agree with everybody else saying that so
far nothing too swell has come out of it yet but the potential is there.
So I just think we have to go out and do some of that ourselves and offer
the opportunity to people and the kinds of things that we want to maintain
' and what we're willing to swap for. And you make the good point. Do we
have enough of a carrot to say, throw it all on 7 1 /2...allowed to do that
but we could have such potential. It just seems like you want to take
advantage of it but I like what you've done. It's very difficult to fine
tune it though. I tried to help but I don't know exactly where. So those
are my comments, as inept as they might be.
II Emmings: Should we vote on how inept they are? Brian?
i
Planning Commission Me-,ing
March 6, 1991 - Page 34
Batzli: Paul was right about one thing and that was that there was a lot
in here and I think, as I sift through it, I still I don't think have quite
figured out what we're really trying to do with this even yet. I guess, I r
like parts of it and parts of it I don't understand why it's in here. 1
don't know where Paul got some of these things from, even in the intent
section so I think we need to have a lot more discussion on this and what I
it is we're trying to do. I think it was raised by several commissioners
and that is, we seem to want this but we don't know why we're not getting
anything with our .current ordinance. And if our current ordinance is
vague, by beefing up the intent and demanding more, I don't think we'll get
more in. So I guess I don't understand what we're hoping to achieve by
toughening an ordinance when we're not getting any PUD applications in here
now with a weak ordinance. That's a philosophical, rhetorical question. I�
don't know.
Farmakes: You made the comment that for financial reasons or market
reasons that you're not getting a lot of applications for this?
Krauss: Sure. '
Olsen: Most definitely.
Farmakes: Do you believe that that's going to change or do you think that II
• it's just Chanhassen in general? I mean if the ordinance is weak, you say
there are some people who are inquiring about this?
Krauss: The only thing that we're not getting right now is we're not
getting applications for residential, single family residential PUD's. And
from my standpoint, that's fine because they cause us more trouble than
it's worth. Where I think you're going to be seeing this more and more is II
mixed use residential, commercial and industrial. We've reached the stage
in our growth where I guess for lack of a better word, we've hit the big
time and the kinds of development we're going to be getting out here over
the next 10 years require more sophisticated approach that a PUD can offer.
The industrial park. Chanhassen Industrial Park should have been a PUD.
I'm firmly convinced that as good as it is, we could have done better had '
that ordinance existed at that point in time. Now we have tracts of land
south of the railway tracks. You know, assuming the MUSA line gets
approved. We've got a 90 acre chunk south of there. We've got 160 acre
chunk on TH 5. We've got some commercial development around new TH 101. I
mean there are lots of sites where this is going to come into play. And I
think you really need to change gears for a moment and project forward as
to where this is going to be used in the next decade because I think our
past experience of, in this isn't really going to be very relevant.
Batzli: Do you think we should go in and rezone areas that we want PUD PUD'
right now with the new ordinance in effect and to basically demand that
they be developed PUD?
Krauss: Well that's an option Commissioner Batzli. In fact, I don't like II
to keep referring back to Minnetonka but when we developed the 394
ordinance which is a corridor ordinance, we rezoned everything to PUD up
there and then developed corridor standards that applied in those PUD's. 1
Conrad: That really makes a lot of sense.
1
Planring Commission Muting
March 6, 1991 - Page 35
Ellson: That's not a bad idea all.
Batzli: That would be the only thing that would make sense to me because
otherwise you're going to,•I think get_exactly what we've had in the past
and that's somebody's going to come in. They're going to look at our PUD
' and then they're going to say, well I don't want to give you that much.
I'm just going to develop it to your lower standards that you've got in
your IOP district standards or your BF or your CBD. Whatever else you've
got. I don't see that they'll use this unless we rezone it.
Erhart: Aren't you missing though, you don't get anything because they're
not big enough? A PUD works when you have a large piece of land under
single ownership. Whether you zone an area PUD or not that's not under
single ownership, you're not going to get anything. The key to getting
something is a large parcel of land under single ownership. Isn't that
really the crux of it?
Krauss: That's a lot of it. That's the easiest, that's the best place to
get the most bang for the buck. But those are the same tracts of land.
Those are the tracts of land that we have out there. We do have massive
ownership. I mean the whole TH 5 frontage is probably in 15 property
owners hands. And they've already formed a development consortions.
Ellson: Yeah, I was going to say. Those people were all signing off on
these things.
Erhart: And we if can get them to do a PUD and collectively work together,
it will be great. What is a real thing here, if we want to get some neat
IN
stuff done here, is to focus on encouraging massive developments where you
can go in and look at it from a broad point of view. I'm not sure we can,
this is going to do that much.
1 Conrad: Let's say we zoned the entire TH 5 corridor PUD. Does that
encourage the current owners to consolidate ownership?
Krauss: Not necessarily. What it does do though is give you more design
latitude to require what you think is appropriate.
Emmings: Now we just went through a process for the Comprehensive Plan
where we fussed around specifically laying out zoning.
Conrad: We could have gotten out of all of that Steve by just zoning it
11 PUD and telling the residents that we didn't know what was going to go in
there.
' Batzli: But you can do PUD and it would just have to be developed
underlying in accordance with the comprehenisve plan.
Krauss: Which is land use. And in fact, one of the things that the City
Council did that I informed you about was when they talked about the 137
acres in front of Timberwood. The City Council approved language that
basically left that residential but stated conditions under which non -
11 residential may be considered. One of the requirements was that it be
developed as a coordinated PUD. You know, along with the design standards.
In fact that brings to mind one thing too. John Shardlow in all his
1
Planning Commission M€ cing
March 6, 1991 - Page 36
presentations. Remember John Shardlow wasn't only a planning consultant,
he's a member of a consortion that owns that 160 acres out there. He's
already stated a couple of times that it's their intent to come in with an"
overall development plan. A PUD development plan.
Batzli: For the whole corridor? • 1
Krauss: No. For their 160 acres.
Batzli: Well they had some sort of plan already that they tried to show uI
didn't they?
Krauss: Well yeah. 1
Batzli: Well it was a plan.
Krauss: Yeah. 11
Emmings: Jeff, did you get a chance to finish?
Farmakes: No, I have no further comments. I think it's a good thing.
Ellson: How about you Steve? 1•
Emmings: I guess everybody's, I don't have anything to add really. I
think it's important to do. I don't know how we get from where we are to II
getting a better ordinance that will get something done. And the only
specific thing, while somebody was talking here about open space, I don't
know if any of our ordinances or anything we have ever mentions open space
as something. You know we talk about trees and other things but the PUD
ordinance doesn't mention open space and I think maybe somehow we ought to
specifically reference it. That that's something that we would consider a
asset. Preserving open space is something.
Batzli: That brings a smile to my heart you guys talking about open spaces
in a positive way. I like that.
Emmings: Very Zen. We're into Zen. But how can we get any further down
the trail?
Conrad: The one thing I'd like Paul to say, I'd like Paul to tell us some
things about, to do some criticisms of some of our standards. The 12,000.
He basically left some things in place not wanting to really attack them II
but just sort of an analysis to say, hey do we have enough flexibility?
Density transfer's a neat word but is it really going to be useful? Or do
we have to change something. And maybe there's some other things. Lot II sizes. Is the 25% that he's now putting in to a particular PUD where we
can change it from the original intent, is that enough? I guess I'm just
curious, I'd like him to come back or staff to come back with some
rationale for changing certain of our guidelines. Standards.
Emmings: The other thing too I think, under the intent section, all the
things that are listed there are specific and somehow to me there ought to 1
be some kind of a general statement of intent. A general statement that
we'd like to encourage this kind of development. That we expect somehow to
1
Planning Commission Meting
March 6, 1991 - Page 37
get something and we expect to give something. Maybe it would be a good
idea, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have somebody like John
11 Shardlow or other developers who you know, or have worked with in the past,
come in and tell us what they .want to get from us in order to give us some
of the things that we're interested in getting. Do you think that that
would be useful?
Krauss: I think that kind of dialogue might help. Somebody like Bob
Worthington possibly might be willing to do that. John Shardlow might too.
Emmings: Well maybe you ought to get 2 or 3. Shardlow's obviously got a
specific thing in mind when he talks to us and that detracts from it's
' value to some extent or you've got to be aware of it. But maybe if you can
get somebody who's more neutral.
' Batzli: I'd like to see like the guy from Lundgren, from an RSF
standpoint.
Emmings: Yeah. Those guys know what they're doing. They seem to be very
knowledgeable. I don't know if they ever developed PUD's but. Maybe that
would help us get us to figure out what's going on.
1 Ellson: Yeah, because we don't know what incentive items at this point.
Conrad: And then maybe Paul can also tell us some things about zoning.
' The options of going back and zoning PUD's right now. If that makes sense
or we shouldn't do it or should.
Erhart: You know how you can get open space in residential area? You
increase your minimum lot size and then you offer the 12,000 foot... I
think we've all agreed that 12,000 is getting pretty close to the absolute
minimum. If you really want open space, you increase your average lot size
or your minimum standard lot size in the subdivision to a bigger number
like 20,000 square feet.
Emmings: Then you've got all open space between houses.
1 Erhart: Because when you do that, then the developer's going to come in
and say, gee whiz. Alright now I've got some incentive to go to PUD
because I can save. I can go from 20,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet
and I'm giving you up that density in terms of open space. But the problem
is, we've got our standard lot now so small that the spread between the
12,500 and 15,000 isn't adequate to incentivize a developer to come in and
develop open spaces.
Batzli: I would agree. But I think that's the problem in each one of our
districts. If you looked at it district by district, you could go through
and say, this is why they don't use PUD more.
Erhart: I don't know if anybody's ready to increase our lot size from
15,000.
Batzli: I would be.
1
Planning Commission ME-cing
March 6, 1991 - Page 38
11
Krauss: If the focus is on the single family and I guess I would have
preferred to stay away from that but I think you can actually go with a
smaller lot size in residential PUD's as long as there's a commensurate
requirement that architectural design is known ahead of time and approved
and designed to match. The problems we've had is we let somebody build on
a smaller lot and they put the same, if not a larger house than they were
going to do before. Didn't tell the property owner anything and put this
big patio door over looking the backyard that really is illegal to use
because if you build a deck out there, it's in the neighbor's lot. Those I
things can be, I mean they're design problems. You can go with much
tighter lots. You can almost go down to the zero lot line situation as
long as you lay out the design parameters ahead of time. They're filed
against the property. The owner, the purchaser of the lot understands
them. The developer is obligated to build to that standard and you know
what you're getting ahead of time. It just doesn't work when you give
somebody carte blanche to do whatever they want to do after the lots are I
created and that's the problem we've had.
Conrad: You know why we focus on residential Paul is because usually when II
we look at commercial or industrial, it is one building going in on one
parcel. It's not where you have 20 acres and somebody's coming in to, we
don't see that much of that.
Ellson: That's why he's saying, this is a potential in the future.
Conrad: Paul, he's going to have to educate us in that area because_we
really don't see much of it and we don't know.
Krauss: One other example you might want, if you're tooling past there. If
you want to see a monolithic one building PUD that I think worked real well
is look at the Fingerhut headquarters on 494 and Baker Road. We did that
as a PUD because it encroaches into a single family neighborhood and we
wanted to be able to give assurances to the neighbors that what we saw is II
what we got. We bought a package and we wanted to keep it that way and we
wanted to incorporate high levels of design and a lot of site buffering and
we wanted to make sure that that was permanently required. That somebody 5
years from now couldn't cut down all the trees just because they felt like II
it, which they could do under normal zoning. So that was done as a PUD and
I think if you look at that, you'll see how it's designed to set into there"
with rolling land and wetlands and ponds and trees.
Batzli: But the issue I think we're having problems with, how did you
force them to go PUD rather than develop it some other way? Did they
request a zoning change?
Krauss: We couldn't sell it to the neighborhood unless we did it that way."
Emmings: What was it zoned?
Krauss: There was an office zoning for the older part of the building and II
they owned some lots south of there that still had residential zoning on
them. Even though they were guided for office use in the plan that we had
because we knew that Fingerhut bought it and had sat on it for a number of
years. But we told them that there was no way we could work it through the
neighborhood in good conscience unless they went PUD.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6, 1991 - Page 39
Farmakes: The residential looking building by the water tower, was that
also part of the PUD?
Krauss: No. That's owned by Bob Naegele.
1 Emmings: What's in that building?
Conrad: Yeah, what does he do there?
Krauss: It was supposed to be his restaurant empire which he has since
1 sold off.
Emmings: Is it just offices in there?
' Krauss: It's offices and he fought us. He wanted to build a billboard
into the side that faces the interchange.
Emmings: Okay, we've got to close this off. We're going to be here
forever unless somebody's got some burning issue but I think, unless
somebody's got another idea, let's get some people talking to us about what
this means to them and you can address some of the things that Ladd brought
' up because I think they're important. Whatever they were.
Conrad: I can't remember them myself.
' Emmings: Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings so noted the Minutes of the Planning
II Commission dated February 6, 1991 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Emmings: Let's assume that everybody's read it. Does anybody have any
questions for Paul?
1 Ellson: I have a question on that Teton Lane thing. Just a quick
question. I didn't understand it. I can't remember. I remember I wanted
' that road to go through. I can't remember how it actually got. They don't
have to build it through and now the guy wants to subdivide? I remember
this but I don't remember what City Council ended up passing on that.
You're looking at upgrading that but was it a condition for them?
Krauss: It was conditioned for the developer to acquire easements so that
we could deed the road to us but that it be barricaded so nobody could ever
' use it because the property owners, well the property owners along side
Teton swore that they'd never develop their property and that they didn't
need it and they didn't want the traffic to go through there. So the
Council approved barricading of Teton even though it is a public street
now. Now since that time Donovan split off the corner in a one'acre lot
and he's now talking to a developer about platting out another 10 acres of
it and he owns more land in there. There's another lot that's for sale and
other lots have development potential. The Council was put in a tough
position on that one. I mean here they basically believed people that said
they would never develop property and now, a year and a half later, it's
1 being developed.