13. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Article VIII Concerning PUD Regulations for Residential Districts, first reading CITYOF /3
CHANHASSEN
,0 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
flt1! 6q Ctty gdinTlIs'?
rndorsbd � �t
MEMORANDUM
Rejected
Date, g ` S" 1
' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date submitted t6 Com+nluald19
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director submitw to
DATE: July 15, 1992
SUBJ: Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Establish Residential Planned
Unit Development Districts
As the City Council is aware, staff has been working with the Planning Commission on this
matter for well over a year. A number of the members of the City Council have also been
1 involved in this discussion. While most agree that there generally are benefits for going
through a PUD, there has been a continuing concern about what the city achieves under this
district, as well as the potential impacts of allowing smaller sized lots. These items are
1 discussed at great length in the material provided as back up to this report. I believe, through
a continual process of refinement, the Planning Commission has developed a draft of the
ordinance that meets the goal of providing the best quality of development for the
community. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the PUD
ordinance at their July 1, 1992, meeting.
1 This PUD ordinance tries to address many things. There is no question that in the past the
PUD ordinance for residential developments has been abused. Developers generally promised
to produce lower cost housing but there were no guarantees, and in fact, this generally did not
occur. What happened was that the developer got smaller lots and we would assume higher
profits, and the city got left with problems stemming from inadequate lot sizes and no
' considered subdivision design. There also were no benefits from improved quality and
environmental protection. It must be emphasized that this is not the purpose of the PUD.
The purpose of the PUD is to allow flexibility that achieves higher quality design, improved
environmental protection, residential communities that meet market demand, and also offer
the developer a chance to lower development costs and improve the bottom line. The use of
the PUD zoning also gives the city extra measures of control over a project since it
fundamentally boils down to a contract between the city and the developer. Staff has
prepared a number of reports outlining issues concerning 15,000 square foot lots. We do not
Is
to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1 Don Ashworth
July 15, 1992
Page 2
think there is anything inherently wrong with 15,000 square lots and this will probably
continue to be the typical development in Chanhassen. However, this sort of development
may be inappropriate on environmentally sensitive parcels, and we also believe that it will be
inadequate to handle the change in demographics that are inevitable as the baby boom ages.
' We have also pointed out that Chanhassen's development densities are extraordinarily low.
Not only do we have 15,000 square foot lots, but all wetland acreage, rural public roads, and
park dedications are excluded for development density computations. Again, this provides for
a reasonable lifestyle for many of us, but it also tends to push urban sprawl further out into
the rural areas since a larger volume of land is required to house a similar number of people.
Costs also rise since land is increasing in value and these costs are simply passed along to the
' buyer. The costs are also affected by the fact that a greater amount of roads, storm sewers,
sanitary sewers, school bus miles, police patrols, fire and ambulance services, post office
routes, and other factors are required to serve the same number of homes.
1 The proposed PUD ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission adds the required
flexibility without giving away the store. It does allow a decrease in lot area from 15,000
square feet down to 10,000 square feet but requires substantially improved development as a
result. We believe that is significantly different from the current ordinance as follows:
1. Wetland areas are excluded from lot area calculations. In the past we have seen many
lots, as large as 30,000 square feet, that may be marginally buildable because they are
substantially covered by wetlands. Under this ordinance, every lot must contain at
1 least 10,000 square feet of dry ground.
2. The developer is required to demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x
1 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback or
protected easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard of 30 feet which
cannot be occupied by a wetland. In many cases, this will mandate that lots be larger
1 than 10,000 square feet to meet these requirements.
3. Finally, and most importantly, there is an extensive intent section that serves as a
preface to the PUD ordinance. This section clearly states that there must be a trade-
off between meeting the developer's and city's goals for a given project. It states that
the smaller the average lot size is below 15,000 square feet, the greater the city's
expectations are going to be for a trade -off on improved quality and environmental
protection.
We have a number of developers looking to utilize this ordinance if it becomes available and
staff believes the city would benefit if this is the case. The Planning Commission
1 recommended one change to the ordinance. Line 6 of the intent section is to read:
1
1
1
Don Ashworth 1
July 15, 1992
Page 3 1
"Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and to
offer a range of housing pricing options." 1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Council approve first reading of the PUD ordinance. 1
1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed ordinance.
2. Staff reports and minutes.
1
1
'1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
1 ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
1 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 Planned Unit
Developments.
Intent
1 The use of Planned Unit Developments for residential purposes should result in a
reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains the
potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in
a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same
time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance
requirements. Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and
to offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of development, as evidenced
by landscaping, construction quality, provision of public /private open and recreational space,
should also be enhanced. As average lot sizes are decreased below 15,000 square feet, the city's
expectations will be increased and it will be the developer's responsibility to demonstrate how
the project meets the city's goals .
a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a
minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations).
1 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. 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. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This
area may not be encumbered by the required home /deck pads or by wetland/drainage
easements.
b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet.
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
1 1
1
1
d) Minimum Setbacks:
PUD Exterior - 30 feet.
Front Yard - 20 feet.
Rear Yard - 30 feet
Side Yard - 10 feet.
1
Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a
minimum of 10 feet from property line.
1
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.
fj An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of
over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. 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 site's natural topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be
1
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where
necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required.
3) 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.
4) 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 be
used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to
maximize tree preservation. 1
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 should be prepared
for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high
2 1
1
1
1 quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without
variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following:
1 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) 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) 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.
1 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 designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of
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
1 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
d) 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.
e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
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
1 mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining
3
1
walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural 1
topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be 1
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where
necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required.
3) Foundation and Yard 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.
4) 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 tree preservation.
fj 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 should be prepared 1
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 should include the following: 1
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) 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) 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.
Section 2. Amend Section 20 -505, Required General Standards, by adding the following: 1
(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. 1
4
1
1
1 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 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.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 51
Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1
Batzli: Is there any discussion on this issue?
Erhart: The only discussion is, where's the motion? 1
Batzli: The red tie to Communism are lapping at our shore Tim. Is he
still in jail? That was his line. Would someone like to make a motion? II
Erhart: I move that we amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the
recommendation of the staff report dated June 25, 1992. 1
Batzli: I second. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Erhart: Is the motion clear Paul? Okay.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code, Chapter 20, II
Section 20 -712 eliminating auto service centers as a permitted use in the
BH, Business Highway District. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT '
T TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. 1
Batzli: I don't know that we need a staff report.
Krauss: Yeah, we didn't have a category for really old business. 1
Batzli: Really, really old business. This isn't a public hearing or
anything right? 1
Krauss: Well actually, you've always continued the public hearings.
Batzli: Okay. Well, is there, there's no one here to address us. The
record should reflect that. Is there a motion to close the continued
public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the continued public hearing. All 1
voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Discussion. Does anybody want to say anything other than me?
Erhart: About this thing here?
Batzli: Yeah. I just want to say one thing. That's why I had it carried II
over. Okay, go ahead.
Erhart: I don't understand it. Never have. 1
Batzli: Never will?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' July 1, 1992 - Page 52
Erhart: Maybe not. I don't understand why we have sections (f), (g).
' Essentially those issues in both the cluster home and the single family
homes. I don't understand why we want to deal with boulevard plantings. I
mean the whole idea of PUD's, it opens it up to flexibility and now all of
' a sudden we're jumping in here in section (f). (e), I'm fine. That's one
of the goals. Broad goal is to preserve natural features. Tree stands,
wetlands, ponds, scenic views and all that stuff. And then all of a sudden
(f) , we jump into specifics and by golly, by the time we get to (f)(3) ,
we're down in the foundation plantings. Why do we want to sit here and
define exactly what someone has to provide with the PUD? I don't
understand this.
Batzli: Okay, so you're talking about (f) or didn't you like (g)?
Erhart: Both (f) and (g).
Batzli: Now why didn't you l i k e (g)? Let's talk about (g) .
Erhart: What do we got to get in here and talk about free standing garages
for? We don't on any other ordinance. It has nothing to do with anything.
We don't regulate garages in the city.
Batzli: Where's that in (g)? I'm sorry.
' Krauss: Actually you do.
Erhart: Why does it have to be addressed in a PUD? The PUD says, I
thought the introduction paragraph is excellent. I commend you on that.
Batzli: The intent?
Erhart: Pardon?
Batzli: The intent section?
Erhart: Yeah. I think it's just great and I'll tell you what, you could
cut this whole thing off at, you talk about minimum sizes and that's been
the issue we've always discussed and every time in the past I say why do we
' include all this other stuff and...why do we get into that?
Batzli: Let me defend (g) and then let's talk about (f). (g), you want
1 certain architectural treatment agreement with the City. I mean that's
part of the PUD development plan right? You're not telling them what it is
but they have to at least tell you what they're going to do and follow it
through. I mean these are tight, typically tighter clustered groups of
' houses and if you really cluster them, like you should be doing, although
nobody ever does in this particular ordinance, I think you want an overall
theme or what have you that you know what's going in there. Maybe you want
a tudor mansion against a you know, Mexican kind of villa sitting next to
each other. I don't know. But I think you want an idea of what's going in
there. Garages, it says we may regulate it and guidelines relating to
placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, etc.. When you're on these
smaller lots, and you're right next door to'everybody else, I think that's
reasonable.
i
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 53
II
Erhart: Let me give you an example. Paul came in here with this Stone
Ridge. Stone Creek. Stone Creek and said, we'd really like to make this 41
PUD because what we really want to get in return is one thing and that is
we want larger lots in the wooded areas so we can preserve trees. I never
heard anything that they wanted architectural standards. I never heard II anything that he wanted foundation plantings. Or guidelines recommending
air conditioners. We wanted to preserve trees. And so now all of a sudden
we're jumping into regulations concerning air conditioners, dog kennels, il
storage buildings, foundation plantings and why do we want to get that
specific?
Batzli: This is nothing more than what you'd find in a regulated
development that had covenants. Except basically the PUD, the developer's!'
coming in here and doing some of these things in advance.
Erhart: If we look at this parcel of land and we sit down with a II
developer, and our big concern is dog kennels, then we can make dog kennels
the issue in exchange for giving him smaller lots. I don't understand why"
it has to be in this ordinance. If the issue is tree preservation, then
the issue is tree preservation. Why do we need to delineate it here?
Because we're requiring every guy that comes in here with a PUD now to talk
about dog kennels. That's what you've got here. Am I wrong? If I'm wronll
I'll shut up.
Krauss: Tim, a couple things. Some of the conditions that you mentioned I
are conditions that apply to all other single family development. If it
comes in under a PUD and we don't specifically mention it, it may not be
applied to the PUD. Yeah, you do have the ability to tailor conditions in
the PUD but will you remember to do it every time and will you be
II
consistent? Secondly, the City's gotten burned before on PUD's because
developers have sold the City a bill of goods. Let me have reduced lot
sizes. I'll reduce home costs and make a nice environment.
1
Erhart: Why do we even ask for this?
Krauss: Well, what you can control is you can make sure that, first of
II
all, you've got to explore that the sole reason for doing a PUD. If you're
going to represent that it's going to save environmental features, then
demonstrate it. If you're going to represent that it's going to lower I
housing cost, and if that's a valid thing for the city to consider, then
demonstrate it and commit to it. The problem we had in the past was that
none of those commitments were ever made.
II
Erhart: Then we didn't design the agreement good enough.
Krauss: I think that's real evident. Separate the two issues for a moment'
too. Clustered housing and single family housing. Clustered housing is a
medium density type of housing concept. You would require a site plan
review for it if it came in in the R -12 district. I don't see why you
shouldn't have the same kind of guidelines established if it comes in under
a PUD. When we look at, the tree issue, I must admit having re -read
(f)(4) . (f)(4) , you can tell this is a year old because this is the
II
language that was looked at, remember when we were looking at the tree
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 July 1, 1992 - Page 54
ordinances? That was the current language that was never adopted with
II everything else.
Batzli: Yeah, but I kind of wanted to approve it and kind of sneak it
1 through there and see what they did.
Krauss: I don't have a personal problem with it. The PUD's a two way
I street. I mean the developer may be getting much more attractive lots. He
may be getting a lot more economic flexibility. He may be saving costs for
services. And the question is always, what does the City get?
I Erhart: But, don't you see that on that development, Stone Creek. With
this ordinance, this guy would be required to put 2 trees in every back
yard and he would look at you and say, no way. What you want is a tree
I preservation up on that hill but your ordinance requires that you've got to
put 2 trees in every yard. Why do we want to encumber ourself with that?
Krauss: No. In Stone Creek, all those lots up in the trees, the executive
1
home lots that Hagen was referring to, wouldn't require anything.
Erhart: I'm talking about, this ordinance would require all the other lots
I out in the alfalfa field for the developer to put 2 overstory trees in the
back yard. He has to put foundation plantings in. He'd have to put
exterior landscaping, well that's general anyway. But I don't understand
1 it. Why we want to get ourselves fixed into this rigidity.
Batzli: Why don't you want to make Chanhassen a nice place to live for the
people who move in? Why are you trying to make it a good deal for the
1 developer?
Erhart: It's not a good deal. We don't have to give him the PUD. Up
I until the last minute we just say no. If we have done something wrong in
the past, it's because we didn't negotiate correctly.
II Batzli: Well, we're still not going to negotiate. You and I are going to
see it after it's been negotiated and do you want to give staff a tool to
use? I mean if one of these is, well let's ask. Let me ask this question.
If you go and start negotiating with the developer under this ordinance,
1 can you say well, okay we'll give up the two trees but you've got to give
me another couple acres for the park? Currently the way this is written.
1 Erhart: You're talking a variance now.
Batzli: Well but let's change the language so that you can do it. I want
II to give you something to negotiate with because right now you don't have
anything under this thing.
Krauss: The negotiation process, I mean we're pretty good at doing it. We
I can get a lot out of it and I would prefer, I like having a certain amount
of guidance frankly. I mean if I go into a room saying I can cut a deal on
any part of this project because it's a PUD and try to second guess how the
1 Planning Commission or City Council might react to that deal once it's cut,
I'm not terribly comfortable with that. I mean I like to think I can read
your goals into a project and anticipate the Council's but that's a pretty
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 55 1
hit and miss thing to, and then I have to represent the fact to a developer
that if you cut this deal with me, I will work with you on this project ani
we'll try and get it approved.
Erhart: ...PUD's have a preliminary meeting with the Planning Commission I
to sit down and outline what our goals are. We each contribute and then
you start working on a plan.
Krauss: Well it takes a fair amount, even though at concept stage sounds I
innocuous and inexpensive, it turns out it's not. I mean there's a fair
amount of work required to get it to that point.
Erhart: Particularly if you haven't talked to the Planning Commission and 1
you don't know what they want, it gets real expensive. You can spend a lot
of time in hoping to get what we want.
II
Krauss: Yeah, and I'm not sure how you'd, I mean I sort of scenario in
what you're saying. To come to the Planning Commission without a plan.
Just say I've got this parcel and I want to do it as a PUD. 1
Erhart: Yeah, you've gone out there and here's some neat things and I'm
concerned. We've got these trees and wetlands and park area. It's park 1
deficient or something. And we go out and look at it and we say yeah.
These are our concerns. Then go to the developer and say look it. We'd
like you to do this PUD and here's what, in exchange for some smaller lots,'
here's the things we'd like to get out of this. Then he goes away and
comes up with this plan.
Krauss: But then again, you would be substituting yourselves for my staff II
and you would be trying to cut a deal in anticipating that the Council
would go along with it and that you were negotiating in good faith. Also
if you're concerned about the length of your meetings, wait until you try '
to design a project...
Erhart: Oh, we're not going go design a project. Give broad, essentially.
You're going to come to us and say, these are my concerns and we're going
to either agree or disagree. And then you're going to go and submit a
plan. We're not going to do that. We're going to support you or qualify
it. I don't want to be the guy dominating this discussion. 1
Batzli: Does anyone else have Tim's concerns that (f) and (g) are overly
restrictive in a PUD? Ladd, do you? 1
Conrad: No. Yet I was the one that would have gone for PUD that was
written in about 5 sentences. But the Commissioners elected not to go that
route.
Batzli: Well I think part of why we, keeping this in historical
perspective, I think the reason we didn't was because we were told by the II
Council that we shouldn't do that.
Erhart: I can't remember anymore the whole sequence.
II
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 56
Batzli: They didn't want something that said, you can do anything you
1 want. Here's the density. Don't go below that and we'll take a look at
it, which would have been.your ordinance. Which would have been, I think
it would have been an interesting way to do it but you know, Council didn't
1 want to see that.
Erhart: Is that right Paul? ...they didn't appreciate that point of view.
1 Krauss: You know, I honestly don't remember either except the direction
that I, I mean the Council's kind of gone different directions on this too
but I heard them saying that they want guarantees that they're not going to
be left holding the bag. That if they are to consider lot area
adjustments, which some of them are reluctant to do, that it has to be in a
format that guarantees that these are going to be liveable, developable
1 lots.
Batzli: So I thought we did an okay job with that as our guiding beacon.
I mean I still don't like it. I've beat my concerns to a pulp and I got
one or two people on the Council on a band wagon and then I think they
dropped off somehow so I've given up the ship. Do you have concerns?
Ledvina: I can see Tim's side of the issue. I can see Paul's side of the
issue and this pre -dates me by quite a bit so I really, I'm not really
going to provide any more comment on it.
Farmakes: I'm going to go forward as it is. I don't think there's
anything wrong with even if a developer having some knowledge of what the
expectations are, particularly when you're talking medium density. I can
' understand what Tim's saying but actually if I was to go and design
something, I'd like at least some understanding of what the expectations
were. I think I'm hearing you right, that you believe that this will give
1 them what your expectations are. So I support it.
Batzli: I only have one question and that is, in your intent section,
which I also think you did a very nice job on. I do have one question and
that's, this is whether this is intended to be something that we throw out
to the Met Council. That yes, we do this and we're wonderful and that is
the statement that lot sizes should be mixed to offer a range of housing
pricing options. Within most development that I've seen, PUD's go through,
there's not a real wide range. Just by way of example, something like
Lundgren Bros. where they're going to put you know, *250,000.00 to
1 *350,000.00 houses. Is that what you're intending that, they're not all
one price or are you really seriously saying you should have small lots
here that are *90,000.00 and a $450,000.00 house over there?
1 Krauss: And you're right. That used to be a Metro Council approach. Your
concern's a valid one. It wasn't my intention to be dogmatic and require
that. It applied in the situation again like Hans Hagen wanted to put the
1 more modest priced homes in the field on smaller lots and maximize it but
that was almost a secondary. If you'd care to eliminate that or put in an
and /or type of modifier. Something along those lines, that would be fine.
Batzli: Well before Steve left he told me that he liked that language and
that he's a proponent of that. I mean is anybody else gung ho for this
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 57
type of language in our ordinances? '
Conrad: I want it out.
Batzli: Tim? '
Erhart: I'm opposed to the whole thing.
Batzli: Matt?
Ledvina: No comment. 1
Batzli: Jeff, any comment?
Farmakes: I'm taking a different meaning from you, since you're a lawyer. II
Batzli: Well what's your meaning? Just that there's a narrow range? That
there's a narrow range and that's good enough as long as they're not all II
one price that there has been a range? But see it says lot sizes should bell
mixed to reflect that and to offer a range. And what I don't want to see
is, I don't want to see preservation of the tree stands with 50,000 foot
lots that these guys are going to build T'aj Mahals on and then the 8,000
square foot lots or 10,000 minimum, down in the cornfield and I don't, I
personally find that repulsive that they're, you know that somehow these
people are getting the tree stands and it's not preserved. My idea of a II
PUD is to have a cluster of homes, small lots, and commonly owned wooded
areas and that's not what the people are going to do. They're going to
include it into private lots and the people down at the bottom get the
shaft and the question is, are we looking at our ordinances from a, is it
the common good of the people moving into this particular development?
I've beat it and I think that this almost encourages people to say, yes.
You've told me you want the range so I'm going to put the $450,000.00 house,
up on the hill. Take all the trees. Take all the nice views. Then I'm
going to put these shlocky little things down in the cornfield. These
people have no, they don't get the benefit of the trees, other than I
supposed they can look at them but yet they're moving into the smaller
sized lots and my issue has always been, I'll get off my soapbox in a
minute. That if we have a minimum sized lot, somehow or another, why are
we allowing these people to have a smaller sized lot? Then we should have
the smaller sized lots throughout the city if there's not a good reason to
have the bigger sized lot. And these people haven't gotten anything for,
you know we're supposed to be looking out for general welfare, safety,
whatever but yet we're saying, go ahead. Put these guys on a smaller lot. II
Let them look at the trees because we told them to offer a range of prices.
So I found that kind of disturbing. But I guess it depends on how you '
interpret it.
Farmakes: And that also reflects I think what the market is. Obviously
you're going to have a bigger house, more land, less density, higher price
tag. Most people aren't going to be purchasing that. I guess it will
depend on each individual developer who comes in here and shows what he's.
Batzli: But my only point was that it said, lot sizes should be mixed to II
reflect and to offer, and the issue was whether we wanted to state that it,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 58
I think it should be mixed to reflect the size and environmental
limitations but I think it may be mixed to offer a range of housing pricing
options. I don't know that I want to say the guy has to do that or to
positively encourage that.
' Farmakes: Take the Lundgren development. They had the two corner, they
had about 3 or 4 left over lots once they got done laying out everything
else. They had a couple of little leftover pieces and they stuck those
houses on it and those...swamp. There were reduced sized lots that
happened to be next to houses that fit in better to the overall plan and I
think I know what you're saying but I don't know if it's marketed that way
I though. The PUD would be marketed that way. If they're put down in a
gully and we're up in nirvana up on the hill with the trees, I don't think
it'd be marketed that way.
Batzli: Well I know it won't be marketed that way.
Krauss: There's another aspect though that that gets to. On the less
attractive land, I many times have developers come in and say, you mean you
don't have a 10,000 square foot lot. I can't make, I'll just go PUD and
make every lot 10,000 square feet because then they're all cheap and I can
sell every house for $116,000.00 because that's what I do in Chaska.
Excuse me Chaska. And you know, you'd like to have some basis for saying,
not here you won't. I mean you've got to rationalize your PUD. You may be
entitled to some smaller lot sizes but you're going to have to earn it.
You're going to have to demonstrate why this density's supportable based on
environmental constraints and no, the City does not support a goal of your
allowing uniformity of cheap housing. The goal is to get a mix in there.
Batzli: So you're looking at it from, well. You're telling me you're
looking at it from the alternate end of, they come in, they ask for all
cheap things and you can use this as a leverage to say, we need more
expensive things too.
Krauss: Right. That is a fact of what they do.
' Batzli: Okay. Well I would be happy then to at least say and /or. So you
may have a plug but yet it's softened. Anybody else go along with that? I
11 know what Tim's not going to say.
Conrad:. And /or what? Where are you?
Batzli: And /or to offer a range of housing pricing options. It's in the
intent section. Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the site's
environmental limitations and opportunities and /or to offer a range of
housing pricing options.
Conrad: I'd like to take, I would rather, boy I just can't agree.
Farmakes: Typically Paul, I'm not that familiar only seeing a few PUD's
around here but they seem like they're marketed, there isn't that large of
a disparity of upper end pricing and the lower end pricing. I mean it's
' not huge. We're not talking 4 or 5 times difference. We're talking a 50%
maybe or somewhere in there?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 59 '
Krauss: Yeah. I mean this is ballpark numbers pulled out of a hat but the
Lundgren development probably goes from $165,000.00 - $70,000.00 to 1
$280,000.00 -3.
Farmakes: Yeah, I've just never seen where the pricing shifts as far as II
some of what we're discussing here or we're worried about.
Krauss: But in terms of a monthly mortgage, that's a real substantial
difference in income levels and ability to pay. I don't know. If you want'
to get rid of it, I can always argue the point. It's not hard to do. I
mean this is, there is a class of developers that always throws it out on
the table. This is what I can do someplace else and you always tell them, II
that's not what you can do here. I mean if everybody's more comfortable
eliminating it, I can live with it.
Conrad: And you're talking about the range of housing prices? 1
Krauss: Yeah. See Brian's concern is a valid one because the Metro
Council used to mandate that you put in language that we will provide
housing for the full range of humanity.
Conrad: We had that in the comprehensive plan. 1
Krauss: Right.
Conrad: We were going to do that. Why bundle it into a PUD?
Krauss: Well again, I took the more pragmatic approach. I was trying to
ensure that we didn't get the bottom end of it but I think you've got 1
every, you know in the context of what else is in here, you've got the
rational basis for not allowing that kind of stuff to happen. If somebody
comes in here and says my sole purpose to do this is to get lowered priced ,
lots and they look crummy and, tell them to go away.
Conrad: I don't mind the statement, lot sizes should reflect the sit'e I
environmental limitations and opportunities. I don't need the word mixed
in there but I'd like the lot sizes should reflect in there. If we took
mixed out, then I'm fine with that. I don't know why, I came in here
tonight thinking I was going to not oppose this. 1
Erhart: You know, just a point. I don't want to take a lot of time but
just listening to the discussion. It's convincing that we should be
outlining some broad goals and potential desires for a specific site. But II
there is no way that you can forecast in a rigid document what we would
like to get out of any specific site at any time in the economic situation..
It's ridiculous that we're laying out specifics here.
Batzli: Well, we haven't had an ordinance now for, how long? A year?
Krauss: A year. Year and a half. 1
Batzli: Has any PUD guys come in and said, well since you don't have an '
ordinance I can do whatever I want and let's talk about it?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 60
Krauss: No.
11 Batzli: Have we had any PUD guys come in and ask except for that one that
you laid out?
Krauss: Yeah, lots.
Batzli: And they were discouraged because we didn't have an ordinance?
Krauss: Well you know, the lack of certainty is the developer's worst
nightmare.
' Batzli: So if we have an ordinance that says we want you to come in with a
PUD proposal and we'll take a look at it, are people going to go that way
or not?
Krauss: I doubt it, and this is my gut reaction. We could always ask
developers but the thing that they detest most is coming, they hate coming
before public bodies where people come up with things saying, it's a good
project but it'd be a whole lot better if you knocked off 10 lots. Why?
Well that 10 lots was the profit and those kinds of things scare them to
death. And to just throw it open to a public review where the die is cast
before there's been an opportunity to refine a plan that they're
comfortable with, I think most of them will be very relunctant to do it.
Erhart: But they do have something in concrete. They have a subdivision
ordinance. They can come in with a standard subdivision. That's lock
solid. If they don't want to come before us and do a little batering, they
don't have to. On the other hand, if there's a site and they're sensitive
to some of the things and want to come in and talk about it we have...
ordinnace allowing them to do that and encouraging them to do that and it
maybe lay some broad things that we would think would be appropriate to
discuss such like a mixture of housing and preservation of environment.
Increased park sizes.
Batzli: I think the fundamental difference probably between us is you're
probably comfortable with our subdivision ordinance and I'm not.
Erhart: No. I think we need a PUD. I think we need flexibility. Let's
not write an ordinance that, it give us flexibility but what it really does
is it really actually is more restrictive than our subdivision ordinance.
It gets into more detail about what the guy's going to provide than our
subdivision ordinance.
Conrad: You can look at it Tim from the standpoint there are guidelines.
Erhart: No, they're not. They're absolutes.
Conrad: Well yeah.
Batzli: But we can change two words and make them guidelines.
' Erhart: Then I'm comfortable. These are things that we may want. These
are things that we ought to discuss.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 61 1
Conrad: But the developer would like to know what those guidelines are.
Erhart: Then he should do a subdivision. You can't, by the whole
character of what a PUD is.
Batzli: We haven't gotten any that are that creative. I don't know why, II
I mean I want to see these creative ones but we don't see any. We see
PUD's that are disguised subdivisions and they've gone that way in order to
relax cretain setbacks or to crowd certain homes. The only reason they've '
used our PUD since I've been here, now maybe we're going to get a flood of
them in here after we pass this thing but I wouldn't mortgage the farm on
it. Or bet the farm.
Erhart: I think maybe our goals weren't clear enough at the time Brian.
Maybe our staff wasn't comfortable with negotiating. Maybe a whole bunch II
of things. I don't know. It seems to me if we want something and they can
get something so that they can make a profit at it.
Batzli: Well I never thought I'd be arguing for this thing so you know. '
Conrad: Come on, where is everybody? I was sure you were opposed.
Batzli: I am opposed.
Conrad: Where are you on this? 1
Farmakes: I've already said where I am on this. I'm listening to what
Paul's saying. If negotiations have taken place on their end, at their
level and he's asking for these things, it seems to me these are good
negotiation tools to position where the city, where these expectations are
and this whole thing is a variance so I mean if I'm going to be a designer
and I'm going to go and try and come up with something that I have a
reasonable expectation that if I spend a lot of money doing these drawings
and coming in here and trying to sell this to you, I have a pretty good
expectation by the time I bring it before here, with Paul's recommendation,'
that I'm going to have a pretty good idea that it's going to fly. Or
otherwise I'm not going to do it.
Conrad: So you're generally comfortable and Brian has swung over. 1
Batzli: I haven't swung over. I've just been beaten down. I just want to
move it so that we have an ordinance so that people actually might use it. II
I mean unless we can agree to put something in effect, as Paul said,
they've had a lot of inquiries. Nobody's going to do it. We're only going
to learn. I mean this is either going to be right or it's going to be
wrong. But in the past it's been wrong so we're no worse off. The only II
issue is, can we actually get some PUD's going that we get some
architecturally neat things. Some clustering. I don't think we'll get it
but at least we'll get some ideas flowing through here and we'll see what II
we're going to get. And if we haven't gotten it yet, we have another
opportunity to come back and fix it. But until we get it in place, we
don't even know what we've done wrong. 1
Conrad: And this may be your last shot. You know if you kill the sucker.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 62
Erhart: I can't kill it by myself. Don't look at me like some kind of...
Conrad: It is interesting though because the City Council didn't want what
we wanted. You never jumped on the band wagon when I brought that up. You
were off in the weeds somewhere.
Erhart: Well we were off on this 10,000 thing and this always was, at the
end I'd always throw in, I don't understand this stuff. If you look back
in the Minutes, that's what you'll see.
Batzli: You were confused?
Erhart: No. We spend 90% of our discussion talking about 10,000 foot lots
and densities and that stuff and then, I was always confused and I never
1 understood why we have it this way.
Batzli: I was talking about the Communist hordes, not the 10,000 square
feet but.
Erhart: Let's vote.
Batzli: Yeah, let's have a motion.
Conrad: Well Matt you know the least, so why don't you make the motion.
1 Batzli: He knows the most but he said the least.
Farmakes: Time marches on.
Conrad: Seriously, one quick thought. In minimum lot size, we're
excluding wetland. Do we also exclude steep slope?
Krauss: No.
Conrad: We don't? So steep slope, even though it's unbuildable, just like
a wetland is, counts?
Krauss: Right.
1 Batzli: But it would be subject to all sorts of setbacks from our steep
slope ordinance.
' Krauss: If it's on the bluff line, the bluff line applies.
Batzli: In the designated bluff line areas.
Krauss: Yeah.
Batzli: Otherwise just level the sucker.
Krauss: We went through this kind of discussion, in fact you were involved
' with that. We originally thought of.
Batzli: Do you have a lot of steep slopes on his farm?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 63 '
Krauss: I don't know. But you know, in fact we had Rick Sathre in here
telling us that if we just used percentage of slopes you eliminate, you can,
do it but the way, the way we were thinking about doing it would have
eliminated walkout lots. I mean it got a little bizarre.
Batzli: Do we have a motion?
Conrad: No. '
Batzli: Then is there a motion to table?
Erhart: Table for what purpose? Someone's got to make a motion. 1
Conrad: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the revised PUD ordinance according to the staff report or staff, according'
to the draft printed on May 26th with striking, under the intent section,
in the sixth line down, striking the words, "be mixed to ". That's my
motion. '
Batzli: Okay so you're, just before someone seconds it, just to clarify
it. So you're leaving in the words in the seventh line, and to offer a
range of housing pricing options?
Conrad: Yeah.
Batzli: Okay. Is there a second? 1
Farmakes: I'll second it. '
Batzli: Discussion. You seemingly changed your mind. You didn't like
that language at first. Is there any reasoning or rationale that you want
to share with us? You just don't want me to vote for it either? 1
Erhart: Now that's brilliant strategy.
Batzli: It was excellent Ladd. Quick thinking. '
Conrad: Yeah, quick thinking. No, I thought it through and I'm okay with 1
those words.
Batzli: I mean it doesn't even make sense now. And to offer doesn't go
with, should reflect. Lot sizes to offer a range of housing. I don't
care. If you want to do it that way. Is there any more discussions?
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 for Residential
Planned Unit Developments with the following changes in the Intent Section.
Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site's
environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing
pricing options.
Conrad and Farmakes voted in favor. Batzli and Erhart voted in opposition.
Ledvina abstained. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 2, 1 abstention.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 July 1, 1992 - Page 64
Erhart: So it's defeated. The reason for voting nay is that I think, the
' way it's written, we have an intention to create an ordinance that gives us
greater flexibility than our subdivision ordinance but in fact, the way
it's written, the fact is that it actually provides less flexibility and it
is specifies certain things even beyond the subdivision ordinance. And
what I recommend we do is to re -write the ordinance. Deal with the minimum
lot sizes or deal with density. I think that's fine. I think the intent
statement is great but I think we should be outlining some general things
' that we want and perhaps to find a process for completing a PUD and
concentrate more on the process than trying to make specific things.
Batzli: I'd vote for it then. The only reason I didn't vote for it was
because this thing doesn't, that sentence doesn't make sense anymore and
I don't.
Farmakes: Run it through. I don't think it's a big issue really.
Conrad: That's not a big issue Brian. To vote against it because.
1 Batzli: I'm voting against it for that reason right now.
Erhart: Well why doesn't someone just make another motion?
Batzli: I'd like to see a motion that, if anyone else has another motion.
We can pass it up to the Council. We recommend that they don't approve it
as written as far as I'm concerned at this point.
Conrad: The motion failed but another motion can, make another motion
right now. We're not going to pass it up. Something's got to happen.
Batzli: Yeah I know, so is there another motion?
1 Farmakes: I'll make the motion to alter the line as you have it there.
Batzli: So that it reads, lot sizes should reflect the site's
11 environmental limitations and opportunities. Is there a second? •I second
it. Is there discussion? If it's still 2 to 2 I'm really going to crack
up.
' Conrad: What did you want? Lot sizes.
Batzli: Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and
' opportunities period. So the words, and to offer a range of housing
pricing options is struck. Is there any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 for Residential
Planned Unit Developments with the following changes in the Intent Section.
Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site's
environmental limitations and opportunities.
All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and Ledvina abstained. The
motion carried with a vote of 3 to I with I abstention.
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 65
Ledvina: If I understood the criteria by which this proposal was being
evaluated, I would try to make some determination but I'm so confused as ti
what we're looking at.
Farmakes: We were too. 1
Conrad: But we voted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning 1
Commission meeting dated June 3, 1992 as presented.
OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FORM. 1
Krauss: That one I think we ought to maybe lay over because there's some
questions.
Erhart: Also I think, I haven't talked to Steve about this but I know in
the history...he has strong feelings about people's rights to do things in
their own yards and if somebody wanted to hold this over, I think it'd be 1
just fine.
Farmakes: I'd be curious as to how this fit in with this thing on Monday II
where they talk about the city compensating landowner's for trees on their
property.
Krauss: Oh, you mean the Lucas Decision? 1
Farmakes: The Supreme Court.
Krauss: I don't think anybody really knows yet what the implications are 1
but I had a conversation with Roger about that decision this morning and I
used to get all worked up about these Supreme Court decisions thinking the 1
sky is falling and generally you find it's because somebody screwed up or
did something... I'm not sure they're nearly as pervasive as you might
think at first blush.
Batzli: Where's that thing about this article? One Planner's Reflection
of the Edge City. You write that?
Krauss: Yeah.
Batzli: And it's going in which issue? 1
Krauss: It should be this coming on.
Batzli: Congratulations. You downplayed your work. I liked it. Should
we table this easement? Okay. If nobody's opposed, we'll table that over
to the next meeting.
Erhart: The next meeting is what, the 15th? 1
Krauss: The 15th, yes. 1
Erhart: Why does Council want to meet?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 60
1
3. If noise or dust impacts materialize, the operator shall work with the
' city to positively respond to these issues.
4. Modify the grading plan to eliminate off -site mining /grading that is
' presently illustrated on plan 81. To avoid under- cutting of off -site
slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade
within 100 feet of a property line at any time. When excavations
exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage is required
at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous
conditions in the area.
1 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater
resources. The operator will protect existing on -site wells and will
permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use.
' 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and
inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to
ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be
referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to be based upon the
schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid
on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fee.
1 7. Provide the city with a revised end -use plan consistent with all
conditions of approval.
B. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash
escrow in the amount of $51,000. to guarantee maintenance of erosion
control and site restoration, should he fail to adhere to approved
conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staff's. The
applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand
and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interest to comply with
approved conditions of permit approval and /or with the end -use plan.
Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their
assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is
normal city practive to require this sort of financial guarantee.
Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading
plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end -use plan has been
satisfactorily completed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
1 Ahrens: This is what Brian asked us to table?
Krauss: Yes.
1 Ahrens: Does anyone have a problem with that?
Conrad: No. None at all. I'm just curious about what people think.
1 Emmings: It's time to move it on. That's what I think.
1
P annin Commission Meet'n II 1 g 1 g
June 3, 1992 - Page 61
I
Ahrens: Yeah I do too.
Emmings: What do you think? II
Conrad: I'm curious what you thought.
I
Emmings: No, no. You don't give up that easy. What do you think?
Ahrens: Do we need a motion to table this? No. Okay.
II
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Acting Chair Ahrens noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission dated May 20, 1992 as presented.
1
ONGOING ITEMS.
Krauss: Ongoing items. Apparently, Tim did ask me to get the tree
1
conservation on the agenda. I did have it in your last packet. It was an
oversight, we didn't put it in this one.
Erhart: I won't be at the next meeting. 1
Krauss: Well, let me talk about the next meeting for a moment. We don't I
have a lot of new items coming up for the June 17th meeting. We have one
June 17th and we have July 1st. On behalf of the Planning staff, we would
not be terribly put off by eliminating the June 17th meeting.
Erhart: If it were me, I'd beg you for 4 beachlots on the June 17th I
meeting because I'm not going to be here.
Ahrens: That's fine. There will be a meeting on June 18th though for any I
of you interested in attending the meeting having to do with the golf
course.
Krauss: And the Bluff Creek corridor.
Erhart: Why wouldn't we do the PUD and the tree thing then? 1
Krauss: Well you could but would you want to have a meeting solely for
that and one beachlot? 1
Emmings: Get something done. I don't know.
Krauss: Well a lot of us, I mean I'm going to be here but a lot of you aret
probably, I know Joan you're going to be here the following night for the
golf course, Bluff Creek thing.
Emmings: So we cancel our meeting because she's got two meetings that 1
week?
Ahrens: Yeah.
1
Emmings: Okay. I don't know. Some of this stuff, whatever everybody
wants to do. _
I
1
C ITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: May 26, 1992
SUBJ: Final Ordinance Draft of the Residential Planned Unit Development
District
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
1 As you are aware, staff and the Planning Commission have been working on this item
g g
since last summer. The main issue of contention has continued to be minimum lot size
requirements and whether the city should even offer lot sizes below the normal RSF
District requirement of 15,000 square feet. Throughout these discussions, staff has
consistently maintained that residential PUDs, if properly handled, offer much to not
only the developer, but also to the community and to future residents of the project.
During the time this discussion had taken place, we have seen one or more instances
where a normally platted residential development could have significantly benefited by
the flexibility and improvements that would have been offered under the PUD
guidelines. At the same time, staff continues to recognize that there have been
significant abuses of the PUD in the past, and we would not recommend proceeding with
this item if we did not think that these problems could be resolved. We believe these
improvements have been incorporated into the ordinance. The final draft of the
ordinance does allow minimum lot sizes to be decreased below 15,000 square feet to
10,000 square feet. However, what is significantly different from past practices is the
following:
1. Wetland areas are excluded from lot area calculations so we will never have an
instance where a 10,000 square foot lot is in reality a 6,000 square foot lot after
' the wetland is subtracted. This not only benefits minimum sized lots but also lots
of any size where wetland impacts occur.
2. The developer is being required to demonstrate that each lot is able to
accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into
1
de PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Planning Commission 3
May 26, 1992
Page 2
any required setback or protective easement. Each home must also have a
minimum rear yard of 30 feet.
3. There is an intent section that is a preface to the PUD which clearly states that
there should be a trade -off between meeting the developer's and city's goals for a
given project. The smaller the average lot size is below 15,000 square feet, the
greater the city's expectations are going to be for a trade -off in improved quality
and environmental protection.
The City Council discussed this item at their May 18, 1992, meeting, and although they
did not reach a conclusion, a resolution as outlined above seemed to be consistent with
what some of the individual council members were saying. The Planning Commission
then discussed this item on the Wednesday, May 20, 1992, meeting, and I believe the 1
final draft accurately reflects the direction that staff was given by the Planning
Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION I
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve amendments to Chapter 20, 1
the Zoning Ordinance for Residential Planned Unit Developments.
ATTACHMENTS
III
1. Final draft ordinance.
2. City Council minutes dated May 18, 1992.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated May 20, 1992.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
1 ORDINANCE NO.
I AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
1 The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of the Chanhassen City Code
1 is amended as follows:
Section 20 -506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Detached Residential Planned Unit
1 Developments.
Intent
I The use of Planned Unit Developments for residential purposes should result in a
reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains the
1 potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in
a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same
time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance
I requirements. Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the site's environmental limitations and
opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of
I development, as evidenced by landscaping, construction quality, provision of public /private open
and recreational space, should also be enhanced. As average lot sizes are decreased below 15,000
square feet, the city's expectations will be increased and it will be the developer's responsibility
I to demonstrate how the project meets the city's goals .
a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a
I minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations).
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
I consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the
PUD. 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
I protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This
area may not be encumbered by the required home /deck pads or by wetland/drainage
easements.
I b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet.
1 c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
1 1
1
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
d) Minimum Setbacks: ,
PUD Exterior - 30 feet.
Front Yard - 20 feet.
Rear Yard - 30 feet
Side Yard - 10 feet. 1
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.
f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of
over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. 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 1
required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots.
Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may
be required.
3) 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.
4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over -story trees. 1
Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet
in height can be used to satisfy this requirement 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
2 1
1
requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural
standards 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 should include the following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
P2) 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
I 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) 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.
Section 20 -507. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Attached or Cluster -Home
g Y
PUD's.
a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only y g typ a y be
1 allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of
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
d) 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.
e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
i
1 3
1
1
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front and areas these shall require a mix of
g yard q
over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped
berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and
I
more intensive land uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In
place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block I
retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the
site's natural topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be I
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. I
Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may
be required.
3) Foundation and Yard Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants I
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. ,
4) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey I
should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be
developed to maximize tree preservation.
1
f) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will
provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this
1
requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural
standards 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
I
construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD
Agreement should include the following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. I
2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it 1
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) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage 1
buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining
parcels due to small lot sizes. 1
4 1
r 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 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.
1
1
1
1
1 5
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 20 II
Farmakes: I would support 20. And 3 trees. 1
Batzli: Joan? And 3 trees. Did you hear that?
Ahrens: I don't really see the point between 15 and 20. I'll go with 15. 1
I don't see the point...
Emmings: Well there isn't any. You're not preserving rural character 1
because until water and sewer come, the guy's sitting on 10 acres. After
it comes, they can put in a 15,000 square foot subdivision.
II
Batzli: The only time it's going to happen is if they cluster and use some
sort of community system.
Ahrens: I'm not sure that 20,000 square foot lots• preserve rural II
character.
Batzli: No, but it avoids downtown city square gridlock potentially. Or II
helps.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. 1
Krauss: I don't know if this qualifies as moving right along.
Batzli: Okay, let's move right along and screech to a halt. II
Krauss: As before, we're really not entirely certain where you'd like us II
to go with this. Although I guess I'm getting a better idea. We tried to
give you the information that you requested. We did a survey of a number
of third tier communities. It's in your packet. To the extent they
defined a PUD lot size, residential PUD lot size, we've given you that
II
information. It goes down to some ordinances which don't establish a
minimum lot size for PUD. In fact in Eagan they just said well, the
smallest we'll ever accept is 8,700. I think they pulled that out of a I
hat. But in Eden Prairie it's the same, 13,500. They require on normal
single family lots. On some cities like Bloomington it went from 11,000 to
15,000 if you're on a corner lot. And on but you can see that none of II those communities has the 15,000 square foot standard that we have. Now
whether that has any bearing on the discussion or not I don't know. But
that's the information. Also in your packet, we got a letter from Peter
Olin via Ladd where Peter suggests a rather simple approach is a better onell
for an ordinance. With a strong intent section. I don't disagree with
that. I mean we talked about a different approach of not being too
specific and just establishing what kind of development you want to II achieve. On the other hand, if you're real sensitive to the minimum lot
size criteria, that might be one of the standards you want to put in there.
I also tried to focus a little bit on what exactly is the issue about lot 11
size. The issue seems to be that you can't get a desireable or a normal
home on the lot and I think you can approach that from two perspectives.
You can establish a requirement, and I think it should be universal frankly
because we have equal problems in normal subdivisions, that there be a
minimum buildable area. Well that you demonstrate that you can fit some II
sort of normative home, a reasonably sized deck and a back yard and if you
can't do it, and you may not be able to do it on a 3 acre lot if it's got II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 21
bad topography or wetlands and it's not a legitimate lot. That standard
should apply universally. PUD's, subdivisions, whatever.
Emmings: Can I ask you a question right there? What stops a developer
from coming in and saying, yeah I can put, this house on this lot and I can
put a deck on it and I've got a back yard and then he goes out and he
builds a house that's a whole lot bigger than that and just kind of destros
the ability to put a deck on there because of the size of the house. How
do you get around that?
Krauss: Well I don't know. Then you're in the position of you took the
moral high ground. You demonstrated that it could have been done. If
somebody somewhere made an independent decision to screw it up, that's what
they did.
Emmings: Yeah, then that's their problem.
' Krauss: The other aspect of it is the buildable area approach. I've
worked with ordinances that say that not only do you have a minimum lot
size of x but a certain percentage of it has to be buildable. Has to be
useable. And to get that you eliminate all the easements that conflict,
all the wetlands, the setbacks and if you don't achieve that buildable
area, again a 15,000 square foot lot may not be buildable. I mean we've
' seen some that aren't. Or we've seen 30,000 square foot lots that aren't
buildable. I think that if you establish criteria to meet those two
guidelines, I don't care if you've got 10,000, 15,000 or 30,000 square foot
lots, it's going to be a reality check. It's going to get you lots that
are much more consistently utilizeable without reliance on variances.
Batzli: Define utilizable. A deck, is that utilizable?
Krauss: We actually did in an earlier draft of the ordinance, and I think
it was a 60 x 40 house, a 10 x 12 deck and a 30 foot back yard area.
Emmings: A 60 x 40 house and garage, is that what you're talking about
there?
Batzli: Now we've got a lot of information from the other communities here
and clearly the other communities don't seem to be as uptight with minimums
as I am and I maybe convinced the Commission to be. The question is, of
course as always, where are we going to go from here? My concern was
initially from concerns I had, problems in the PUD's that currently
existed. My understanding of the intent of the PUD was to be creative and
to cluster and to provide open space and I don't know that we got that in
the past. I'm not sure that the new ordinance is going to get that. From
the sounds of it, there's a new proposal in house that basically provides
small clustered homes in a cornfield and then provides larger lots in the
11 wooded area. Now it seems to me that the intent of the PUD would be to
cluster even more tightly either in the cornfield and provide open space in
the trees and preserve all of them or to provide some sort of ballfield or
1 something else in the cornfield. But I'm not sure why clustering homes in
the cornfield, in essence putting them on smaller sized lots than we would
require than the rest of the city and then allowing the developer to charge
a premium into the trees, meets what we really want to get out of the PUD,
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 4, 1992 - Page 22
other than if we want to save some trees. That's the only thing that I call
see that's beneficial to the city and once the developer sells those lots,
the people can do whatever they want to the trees so I'm not sure that
we've gained anything. What I'd like to see, and my only point in getting"
on my high horse on this whole thing has been, how can we be proactive so
that people are encouraged to use the PUD where we get a creative
development and the city wins, the developer wins and the people moving
into the development win. That's what I'm asking. I'm asking for
creativity. I'm asking what is it that turns developers on that we can
give them so that we get an above average development. We save open space
and trees and wetlands and everybody who moves in is happy as well. You
know Ladd suggested last time well let's just put in a density and maybe
that's what we have to do. Maybe we just leave it wide open. Let them
come in. We look at the density. See if we like it and as long as we warll
the people moving in that they're in a PUD development. If you don't
understand what that means, then check with Paul Krauss. Maybe that's what
we do but I don't know that we're being proactive enough to say how are we
going to encourage these people. You know the developers, because it seem
in the past all we've done is we've given the developer a greater
opportunity to charge a premium for some lots and probably not reduce the
price on the homes that are on undersized lots. And I use undersized lots
euphamistically because they're undersized compared to the rest of our
standards. I mean it's not necessarily that they're undersized. They may
be useable. They may be utilizeable. They may be fine to put the house oll
the pad, with the deck, 30 foot back yard but they are undersized compared
with our other standards. I don't know. I mean we've heard a lot of
people. I know you're frustrated. Probably with me but I don't know that"
this is going to work. I don't know that there is a way to make it work.
Krauss: I guess from a staff standpoint, I mean we do from a professional
standpoint feel that these things have utility. But we're not here to
twist your arm and keep coming back with something that's not going to fly.
I mean we've been working on this one since last spring, and the trees are
about to bud out again. I think that from a design standpoint it certainl11
has validity. We're not in the business of manipulating the market. I
mean the only influence we have over a developer is we say, here's our
ordinance. You can either develop that way or you can use this more
creative approach that may make you a little more money but you're going ti
give us what we're looking for too. I mean that's the only carrot and
stick we have in this world. Now Brian talked about a plat, and I
mentioned that I was going to bring a copy of it to you to look at. I've
only got these two blue line prints. I can spread them out up there if yo
like and you can take a look.
Batzli: You guys want to see it? 1
Emmings: Yeah.
Batzli: Okay.
(Paul Krauss presented and explained the subdivision and PUD plan to the II
Planning Commission at this point.)
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 23
Erhart: And what did we get? You say you think we can get open space
where?
Krauss: Well we've got a park, we are getting ultimately. You've got park
dedication here.
Batzli: Do you get that anyway?
' Krauss: What you get though is you draw boxes around these trees.
' Ahrens: Why couldn't you get that...
Krauss: Well ultimately we basically are getting it. Or getting something
close.
Batzli: In the straight subdivision?
' Krauss: Yeah. It looks more like this but I'm convinced that we could
have done a better job had we still had some flexibility. I mean these are
what, these are executive home lots? I don't know what the current
vernacular is but these are going to be more expensive homes up in the
hill. They'll bump up to the homes in Timberwood. If we had some
flexibility on lot area, we could encourage that trend a little bit more.
' Erhart: And those are what, 20,000 square feet?
Krauss: Yeah. And this is completely without any influence.
Ahrens: The developer makes more money off those treed lots too. I mean I
can't believe they would come in and develop in a straight subdivision like
' that, lots that they wouldn't make much money off of.
Krauss: Oh I think that's certainly true but I don't want to sound
patronizing but after doing this for 15 years I've stopped fighting the
1 free market impulse. I mean if we can come up with a scenario where they
make more money but we get something that we would prefer to have out of it
anyway, that's fine with me.
' Ahrens: Right, but if we can get it anyway.
Emmings: I think Joan is saying, wouldn't he do that anyway. Just because
he's going to get more money off of it.
Krauss: Well as I say, this story has a fairly happy ending. We're in the
' process of reviewing these plans and we'll see how, they look fairly good
at first blush.
Batzli: But in general? I mean this example aside, wouldn't this normal
average developer want to put larger houses in a treed area like that in
the hills against a larger subdivision?
Krauss: This developer happens to be a fairly quality, fairly reputable
developer and the answer to your question in this case is yes. But
developers run the gamet and we've had our share of developers who come in
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting II March 4, 1992 - Page 24
here and say the subdivision says this and I'm not giving you once thing II
more. And from a legal standpoint that's an appropriate response.
Farmakes: What about from the legal standpoint if you don't feel that the'
developer's providing for the intent, can you refuse it on that basis
alone?
Krauss: Sure. You can be fairly arbitrary on a rezoning action. II
Farmakes: Let's say that we put black and white figures in here. Let's il
say we put specific figures about minimum square footage and some of the
stuff that we've been talking. We still don't like the plan. Does that
mean that legally the city can say then, we don't think so?
Krauss: I don't know. Maybe we ought to have the City Attorney here to II
answer that specifically but Roger's always told us that we have a great
amount of latitude on a rezoning action, particularly when they have
recourse to do a standard subdivision anyway. I mean we're not taking away'
the use of their property. It clearly has a legitimate use. The developer
is in a position of asking us for something above and beyond and you set
out a district that says we have the expectation that we'll get something II
better than normal. You have that latitude.
Farmakes: Peter Olin's letter in here talks about focusing on intent
rather than the specifics. That being the case, that response from the I
attorney then would be important. He apparently says, he's talking about
taking issues in court here but if they don't meet the intent of the II statement, it seems to be kind of subjective. The intent isn't going to
spelled out like square footage on a lot.
Krauss: No. That's why I indicated that I agreed with Peter's approach
but I think you have to set some bare minimum criteria. And you have to b
specific as to what you want to achieve. Now Peter had some very mom and
apple pie language that sounds pretty. I'm not certain that that alone is l
enough.
Farmakes: I think it's reasonable to give a developer some specifics abou
what you feel the intent is going to be or what can sail through. It woul
seem to me that if you're going to offer a developer at the same time a
specific idea of what he's going to gain from it so that he has the
motivation, as we said before, if there's no motivation for them they're J1
not going to do it. I would leave it up to them to come up with a creativ
way to solve that and I guess I'm not that uncomfortable with the minimums.
I'm not sure about the 10 that we were originally proposing but if we coul
still refuse it by claiming that it doesn't the intent and we've specific
with the intent, I'm not that uncomfortable with it. I'd rather see the
creativity and the burden on them of solving our problems. If they do it, 11
fine. If they don't.
Krauss: We don't want anything close to just opening the door to a blanket
PUD without that intent. If we had a developer who's still working with Al
come in on another property off Audubon Road who builds lower end housing II
in Chaska. That kind of thing and there's a market for that but he came to
us and the first question is well, he threw a plan on the table that had a11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 25
average 10,000 square foot lot size and said well, I'm going to do a PUD.
We said no you're not. Well you just took away 40 lots. Our response was
you never had them in the first place. So that kind of a dialogue happens
' all the time. But if you have something that says well if you want to do a
PUD, here's how you earn one and read the intent section and a couple of
guidelines.
Emmings: Maybe the best thing to do, it would be nice if we had some
examples. Here are examples we've approved in our town that we're proud
of.
Batzli: Do we have any of those? •
Emmings: Well, go take a look. Wouldn't that be a way to show a developer
what we've got in mind?
' Krauss: Yeah, but I think Brian's question is accurate.
Emmings: I don't know. It would be good if we could get one here that we
like so we could say this is the kind of thing.
' Batzli: Well, we may be proud of the Ersbo one when that's up.
Krauss: Except it was different. I mean that one has a 30,000 square foot
lot size.
Batzli: But the effective lot size is much smaller given that most of it's
in the swamp. 1 would favor going with an intent statement and a density.
A warning and basically a statement that indicates that lot sizes below
15,000 will be scrutinized carefully by the City and maybe rejected out of
' hand. Something like that. Basically kind of, it basically puts I think
something further in there that if you go below our minimum, we're going to
look at it carefully and we have the ability to reject it. That way they
' can go below but they're still going to be looking at a density and I'm
more concerned about the people moving into the city in the end result.
That they're somehow put on notice so the developer should be required to
during the sales process put them on notice that they're buying a PUD so
' that they have the opportunity to talk to what they're getting into.
Conrad: The less we put down the more nervous the developer's going to be.
Is that a fair statement Paul?
Krauss: Well, they might...
Conrad: The more specific he sees stuff, the more he knows if we can match
it and helps him in the design stage so the less we put down, is he less
likely to take a crack at it?
Krauss: Until you get a track record of having said yes or no on some.
Emmings: Well it may depend on the developer too.
Conrad: Developers put a lot of money into design.
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 26
Emmings: We just had one come in and we approved a PUD and he not only 1
didn't have any standards, we didn't have anything in our ordinance about
residential PUD's. And he got approved.
Ahrens: You know I don't think we have to be so worried about scaring awa
developers. I really don't. I think that they're going to come in here.
They want the land. They want to develop. I think that if a developer
comes in for this specific piece of property and we said we have a minimum
lot size of 15,000 square feet. He or she says I'm not interested in
developing as a PUD. Then I want to go with the straight subdivision and
we say that's fine but we have these stands of trees that you have to work
around. Wouldn't we end up with just as good a product in the end because
we'd have 15,000 square foot lot minimums?
Krauss: I think it gets to Brian's question from last meeting. Can't you
achieve the same thing without it?
Ahrens: Yeah, I guess I'm not convinced that you can't. 1
Krauss: I tend not to believe that we can. I mean the flexibility to
alter standards gives you tremendous room to innovate. We don't have and
no community has a standard that says you just can't cut down a significant
stand of trees. Now we're trying to develop an ordinance that would
overlay the city that would get at that somehow. But the best way to avoill
cutting a stand of trees is to allow the developer to build that house
someplace else. I mean that's the carrot and the stick. You can mandate
you so much and beyond that you've taken the person's property or you've
damaged the land. If you allow that unit to be transferred to more
appropriate site, everybody comes out better if it's done right.
Emmings: I kind of agree with what Brian said. I'd go for an intent
statement. A density and maybe I first thought it was a bad idea to put i
the warning but I don't mind that the more I think about it. This plan
over here which you're calling a PUD is. '
Batzli: This doesn't look like a PUD to me.
Emmings: No. This is almost no creativity whatsoever over here. And I '
think that's proven by the fact that there's the same number of lots on
each one somehow but still this is a better plan than this one, which as
you say is an overstatement. This is still a better plan. And could this II
plan be approved under our subdivision ordinance?
Krauss: The better one? ,
Emmings: The one he's calling a PUD. It couldn't because of the small
lots. But still this is a better plan than a straight subdivision on that 1
property I think.
Krauss: Yes it is.
Emmings: So this, even though it doesn't show much creativity or as much II
as you'd like to see, if we don't have a PUD ordinance we're going to wind
up with things that are, we wouldn't be able to approve something like this
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 27
which would probably be a better plan. So I think it's important that we
have a PUD alternative. I think it ought to be, I don't think we should
say anything about minimum lot size. Just talk about density. Maybe give
the warning that the smaller the lots get, the harder we're going to look
at them. Especially if they go below 15,000. I think that's a good
approach.
1 Farmakes: Is there enough of an incentive with your experience with
developers between 15 and the 10 that we originally proposed?
1 Krauss: It's a 50% reduction. I mean that's significant.
Farmakes: What I'm saying is there enough of an incentive there. If you
put the warning at 15, is there enough of an incentive there that they feel
if they get 12 or they do 13 that they may have a chance?
Krauss: I honestly don't know Jeff. I mean it sounds reasonable. I guess
we won't know until we try it.
Emmings: But they're talking to you at the same time aren't they? I mean
1 they're getting some direction from you too.
Krauss: Oh sure. I mean this developer frankly, I mean he wanted, he
originally talked about wanting to come before you and exploring it on a
1
concept basis. I think it was after I last brought this up in December I
called him up and said forget it. Again I think he's come up with a pretty
reasonable subdivision but some of this stuff that was nice and kind of
' helped to define that PUD was dropped out. I mean he had boulevard
landscaping. Well, he had a boulevarding of major streets and a couple of
other features and they're not being proposed right now. What we're
getting now is the landscaping along Lyman and Galpin that our new
landscaping ordinance in the subdivision requires and the buffering and
that's about it. It gives the capability to negotiate. There isn't a
whole lot of latitude to do that in a straight subdivision.
Batzli: I've said this facetiously before and I've said it kind of half
seriously and I've said it seriously. I mean I still think that the best
1 way to get them to go PUD, if that's how we want to do it so that we have
greater flexibility to protect some of these natural features, is to raise
our other lot size, and I'll say it one last time before I give up, a
broken and defeated man on this issue. Go ahead.
Erhart: You mean raise our minimum lot size in the city?
Batzli: Yeah.
Erhart: That was my point at the last meeting and nobody talked about it
so I almost wasn't going to bring it up. I think the choices are one,
forget the PUD and stick with what we've got. Or two, if we really believe
that practically every major subdivision that we're going to see has some
' unique characteristics about it that we would like, rather than us try to
dictate what gets done to preserve it. To allow the developer to be
creative in how to preserve some wooded land or some open area or whatever.
The only way that it's going to work, and three. Is that I personally
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 28
believe that 10,000 square foot lots are too small. I think that a 12,500 1
square foot lot for example, perhaps is what we ought to have as what we
would consider a small lot. I've always, on one hand I've always said that
we want to prevent urban sprawl. One of the ways to do it is to allow you"'
average lot size to be small. On the other hand, I've always been a littl
concerned that 15,000 might be a little bit too small for a standard lot.
When you tie all those together it tells me that the only way to do this 11
PUD is to raise the average, our standard lot size here to, I'm going to
say 17,500. I have no magic number but I'm just going to say that number.
You make the increment to motivate him 500 square feet, or 5,000 square
feet allows him to go down to 12,500. And so that gives him the incentive"
It solves the problem of the concern of some of the Council members and I
think myself below 12,500 is a little bit, it's a pretty small lot. The
second thing is that limits the number of lots that can be that small to II
some percent of the lots in that development. At least 10 %. Maybe it's
30 %. I don't know. I didn't look at examples but I think we've got those
two choices. Either we can forget the PUD or the other side is, you're
going to make it work we're going to have to raise our standard lot size sc�
we can offer incentive.
Ahrens: I agree that if we go with smaller lot sizes we should be more II specific. I mean we seem to have a meeting of the minds here between the
staff and the present Planning Commission what we mean when we say there
shouldn't be too many small lots and we'll look closely at them and we're II
giving you a warning that you'd better come in with a proper sized
development. But nobody else is going to understand after we've moved on
to greater things what we meant by that.
Emmings: But the density will prevent you from having too many small lots.
If you have a density for the project of 1.8 or whatever, you don't have to
worry about it do you? '
Conrad: But you could still have some theoretically. I'm comfortable with
that. I always have been. Ever since we started talking about this but
everybody else is worried about minimum lot sizes and I'm not.
Emmings: No, I'm not either.
Erhart: But density is just another way of saying the same thing. I'm
comfortable with density.
Conrad: No. Density will allow you to have a 5,000 square foot lot.
Erhart: No, but you've still got to have minimum lot sizes.
Ahrens: Yeah if you have density, couldn't you still end up with three
huge lots and maybe two little tiny ones?
Conrad: He'd probably not want to do that. But in that situation, that's!'
so obvious we wouldn't even consider that and I think Paul could reflect
that pretty well. 1
Ahrens: But what about?
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 29
1 Conrad: Future generations?
Ahrens: 10 years from now.
Batzli: But see that may be, if they want that, then we should give them
the flexibility. I mean this is a living, breathing statute. Why lock
them in? Maybe that's what they're going to love in 10 years when we've
all moved on. I don't know.
Conrad: Absolutely.
Emmings: I'm not worried about 5,000 square foot lots.
11 Conrad: I'm not either.
Batzli: Does anybody other than Tim and I, would anyone like to see staff
1 taking a look at raising the lot size in our other districts? Ladd?
Conrad: No.
1 Batzli: Steve?
Emmings: I don't know. I haven't really thought about it
Conrad: It's a lousy way to back into a PUD ordinance. If we feel that we
are crammed right now, then we should be looking. You know we don't raise
lot sizes so we can have a creative PUD. If we feel that we're developing
at a too dense a rate right now and people are, our decks are leaning over
each other's property lines, well then let's take a look and let's get the
whole community back in here and start looking at what our zoning and our
lot sizes should be for every category. I can't imagine the city wants to
do that right now. I haven't heard one person, not one person other than
you Brian talk about lot sizes. Really in the last so many years, nobody's
talking.
Emmings: And we spent so much time arriving at the subdivision ordinance
and it seems to be working. It seems to be working okay.
Conrad: I love large lots. That's why I'm out here. It's the only
reason I'm in Chanhassen is because we have some big areas. But I just, at
this point in time this is, if people want smaller lots. Things are
changing to say the smaller. The costs are getting greater. For us
philosophically to say to the developers we now want 17,000 square foot
1 lots, that's a different course for Chanhassen and I don't think we should
do it because of the PUD ordinance. We should do it because we feel as a
community that we want to send a signal to people that this is sort of an
open space community.
Batzli: Well, that's the issue brought up by Olin in his memo and that's
why I guess I'm wondering why you're not talking about it and that is, he
says the suggestion of the PUD is to preserve the physical and social
character of Chanhassen. Well we aren't going to preserve it by putting in
12,000 square foot lots.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 4, 1992 - Page 30
Conrad: Ah, but you can preserve. '
Emmings: Wait a minute. That's not what we're doing.
Batzli: I know. But that's the intent that he's written and no one has
said I disagree or that's not what we're here for. That's just, I thought
it was interesting.
Emmings: But you can't say that anybody's proposing to put in 12,000
square foot lots.
Erhart: Steve, what's your reaction to the plan where you have how many
10,000 square foot lots in that one area?
Krauss: 10? I don't know.
Erhart: Just take a guess. 30? '
Krauss: It's probably more like 40 or 50.
Erhart: And what is your reaction to that? ,
Emmings: I haven't looked at this. My reaction with regard to what?
Erhart: Just seeing forty 10,000 square foot lots all bunched together,
what was your reaction or anybody's reaction to that?
Emmings: It's 40 what on here? The density of this thing is 1.9. It's all
little bit above what a straight subdivision is.
Erhart: But the concept that you could put in forty 10,000 square foot
lots all together in one spot. How does that strike you?
Emmings: Is that what's on here? 1
Erhart: Yeah.
Emmings: I don't know. It doesn't scare me. I mean I wouldn't reject it II
out of hand.
Batzli: Jeff, do you want to look at raising the lot size in the rest of II
the districts or no?
Farmakes: I wouldn't be adverse to do it. I guess I fall back that if II we're going to proceed with the PUD, there has to be an incentive for the
builder or we shouldn't do it period. If we can't come up with an
incentive, I don't think we should waste our time with it. I think that
there's a reason to have a PUD. I think we should pursue that. If it's a
warning, that seems reasonable to me. But there has to be a difference
between 10,000 and 15,000 if that's what we're going to have as our base.
If it's going to be 20,000 and a 15,000 minimum, that's an incentive. I II
think we're just, to quote a phrase that you've had in here 3 times, we're
just beating a dead horse. We're talking about some different issues that
converge at times but I still feel that if you've got it within the 5,000 II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 31
square feet somewhere in there that the builder's going to come in with
something there that he gets, the city gets, and leave it up to him to come
in and show us what it is we're getting. And that's the incentive.
Somewhere in what you're talking about here is that 5,000 square feet. If
it's a difference between15 and 20 or 10 and 15. Leave it up to him to
come in here and say that this is, I'm meeting your requirements of a
percentage for the amount of smaller lots with a cap and I'm meeting your
density requirements. Then we can argue about whether or not he's met our
intent.
1 Batzli: Okay. So you'd like to see, and correct me when I go astray here.
You'd like to see an intent section and a density and potentially a cap on
the percentage or a floor?
Farmakes: I'm not as worried about a cap on there. As long as we can pull
the rug out on the intent statement that he's not meeting it. And I think
that somewhat that warning in there gives them your intent. If it's 15 or
it's 20 or if it's 10, I do agree that the overall size of our lot is
something that's probably a separate issue because that's going to affect
also considerably the difference in land cost to a potential home buyer.
And I think that your, as we raise that up we should look at that very
carefully because the cost of housing in this area is pretty steep and it
leaves out certain groups of, economic groups of people purchasing into a
11 home here. And when we start adding on 20% to the land cost we should look
at that.
Batzli: Joan?
Ahrens: What was the question?
Batzli: The question was, do you want the staff to look at raising the lot
size in Chanhassen? And the second question is, are you comfortable
proceeding on this so we can give some direction to staff so we can finally
move it on? Putting in the density and an intent section.
Ahrens: What's the warning in there?
1 Batzli: Well the warning would be, if they get too small we're going to
look at it very closely. I mean it's basically part of the intent.
Emmings: The smaller they get, the harder we look.
Batzli: Yeah.
t Ahrens: I also worry about pricing people out of the market here. I don't
like that idea either.
Batzli: I don't think we're doing anything other than what.
Ahrens: By raising the minimum lot size.
Batzli: The density puts it at a regular subdivision.
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 4, 1992 - Page 32
Ahrens: However, I'm not opposed to looking at raising the minimum lot
size. I guess I'm not opposed to that but it seems like every time we take
a look at this there's, we throw a new curve into it.
Batzli: I'm not proposing to tie that into the PUD. I say we move the PU
along and if we decide to look at the minimum lot size in the other
districts, we do that but that's not part of what we're doing tonight. 1
Ahrens: So you're saying as a separate issue, let us examine raising the
minimum lot sizes in Chanhassen which I'm not opposed to looking at II something. At that. On the other hand, the other issue that you brought
up of the PUD, I guess I'm still not comfortable with the whole density -
idea. I mean I like the intent statement. I think the warning statement
is okay but I don't know. 1
Batzli: Just kind of a showing of hands here for direction to staff, who
would like to see staff proceed with intent, density and warning? Okay. Gil
for it guys.
Conrad: There you go. It's back to you Paul. What more can we do?
Batzli: What else do you want to know? We're out of time.
Krauss: As far as that goes, that's fine. But you've raised the issue of
raising lot areas. I guess if I could, I'd like to throw my two cents int
it. Our minimum lot size is already substantially greater than most every
community in the Twin Cities with a few exceptions. Those few exceptions
tend to be Minnetonka and Orono and communities of that, or if you're goin
to go out further to Lake Elmo or places that have an intent of staying
hobby farmish or quasi - rural. There is a direct translation between lot
area and cost and it's a significant one. The process is escalating. The
land cost is escalating rapidly. Thirdly, our lot areas are not only one
of the largest lot areas in the Twin Cities but our density is even lower
than it would imply because we've been a no net loss wetlands community and
we've preserved other features. You have a very substantial park
dedication. We're on the outer fringes of both of those. So when we tell
a developer yeah, we have a 15,000 square foot lot size, it actually takes
them a lot more land to get to that 15,000 square foot than it does in most,
other communities. Now the new State wetlands law will tend to equalize
that a little bit but our density, our average density of 1.7 -1.8 units per
acre, 1.9, in that range, is one of the lowest the Metro Council's ever
seen. They had to develop a new standard for us because their usual rules II
of thumb didn't apply in Chanhassen. The last aspect of it is, is we've
got 10 -12 years of utility projects, assessed'utility projects that are
based on a density of 15,000 square feet. All these projects were assessed
on the presumption that there was x number of units on a piece of ground.
If we changed the rules, I think we might owe a lot of people a lot of
money. So I just throw that out for some thought.
Batzli: My personal feeling is by asking staff to look into this and I
think that, I thought I heard the other night at the City Council that at II
least the Mayor and Councilman Wing expressed that 15,000 might be too
small.
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 33
1 Emmings: I didn't hear that.
Batzli: I thought I heard that.
1 Councilman Wing: Pretty loud and clear. One said 20 and one said 18.
1 Batzli: Yeah, so I thought that we had some people at the Council also
interested in taking a look at it. Now the number on this group that wants
to look at it appears to be maybe 3 or 4 and some people are comfortable
with it. Ladd's probably fought through the subdivision ordinance once. He
doesn't want to touch it again and that's fine and he's, I mean he's got a
large lot. He doesn't need to look at it again. Me on the other hand, I'm
still looking for that large lot.
Emmings: Couldn't you buy the lot next door?
1 Batzli: I think I'm going to. Okay. What I'd like to do is at least
with, I don't want a 3 week study on it. What I'd like to know though is
if you do have some information on you know, and I'm sure you've given this
to us before, what are the neighboring community lot sizes and what are the
1 issues. I don't even want them discussed in depth other than so we can
throw it around and see if we want to look at it more. Because I think
we've got at least 2 people on the Council who expressed that they've felt
1 that it may be a little low and I'd like to know what goes into the
decision to make it low or high and if we do change it, are we going to owe
thousands of people so much money we can't even take a look at it at this
' point. So that's what I'd like to see. If other people disagree with me,
speak up.
Emmings: If you decide to go back into the subdivision ordinance to look
at lot size, Ladd and I have a mutual suicide pact.
Conrad: I kill Steve first.
Emmings: We won't be here. I tell you, you think this is hard to do.
This PUD.
Batzli: Are you adverse to at least the staff bringing up the issues of
what are the factors that go into deciding this? I mean obviously you two
don't want to get into it?
1 Emmings: Go into deciding what?
' Batzli: What the minimum lot size is and if you raised it, what would the
issues be that we'd have to look at. What would be the process. I mean
it's clear that you two have no interest in raising it.
Conrad: I have no interest so you do what you like. If there's votes
from, I think Tim would go along with you.
Erhart: Well let me say, I guess after Paul's comments, I guess I wasn't,
it was kind of surprising to me that our's would already be larger. If you
consider average around the western suburbs or any suburbs I guess of the
metropolitan area.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 34
Krau Well again, you will find some that are as big, if not bigger and 11
you try to figure out what's a comparable community and it's always tough
and we can give you, I think you've got some statistics in here.
Erhart: What's Eden Prairie?
Krauss: 13,500.
Erhart: For minimum lot size?
Krauss: We can give you the Victoria's and Chaska. Well I think Chaska
less but I'm not sure of that. We can certainly give that to you. It's
not so hard.
Emmings: Now excuse me but in the materials you gave us tonight, under
PUD lot size survey, it says Eden Prairie 13,500.
Krauss: Yeah, it's the same thing as their. '
Emmings: Same in the subdivision? Oh, okay.
Ahrens: So what the incentive?
Krauss: I don't think there is one in Eden Prairie. 1
Erhart: Well, if that's the case and our two elder commissioners here
don't want to touch it.
Conrad: No, no. Don't use us because...maybe we're out of touch.
Batzli: But I would just like a 15 -20 minute discussion and just some of II
the basic issues that we'd have to look at and...
Conrad: I think Council is interested so I think from your standpoint
Brian it's probably not a bad thing and maybe that's information that
they're going to ask Paul anyway. So your asking staff to generate it is
probably a wise idea. Whether Steve and I are interested in it or not. I
think Dick, Richard cares about it and other Council members do.
Emmings: And we'll participate in the discussion.
Batzli: Let's do that at an upcoming meeting at some time. Put it on our ,
list of things to do. Do you have enough direction on the PUD as to what
the heck we're trying to do now?
Conrad: Let's have Paul replay back what we might be asking him for. One
thing just sort of intrigued me. Aren't there, and I'm a believer in PUD's
and I'm not sure that we're ever going to find a perfect one but Paul you II
never brought us an ordinance that may have come, been generated in an ivy
tower environment out of American Planning Association or whatever. Aren't
there model PUD ordinances?
Batzli: We got one. Didn't that consultant guy give us one? Last summer.
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 35
Krauss: Shardlow? Yeah he did and I don't recall what it had for a lot
size.
Conrad: That would be interesting but I liked what Peter Olin talked about
in terms of a little bit more vague ordinance but if you did what we just
asked you to do, a very strong intent statement and I think you've already
got that from what I recall. We have an intent statement. We have, are we
11 talking net density or are we talking gross density?
Batzli: Net.
Krauss: ...pretty consistent throughout as net.
Conrad: So we're talking net density, okay.
Batzli: That takes out the.
Conrad: That just takes out streets.
Krauss: And wetlands.
Conrad: Does it take out wetlands? Okay. That's good. Will our
comprehensive plan drive the net density? Won't the comprehensive plan
place in the net density that we should be using here?
i Krauss: It does but the comprehensive plan may actually give more latitude
than you want to.
Conrad: As a range out there.
Krauss: It goes 0 to 4 1 believe and 4 is probably higher than you would
11 prefer in these areas.
Ahrens: Do you exclude easements?
i Krauss: No. For what? If it's an easement over a wetland or a roadway,
yeah but otherwise not. If it's a park dedication, I think parks are
actually excluded. That's a question that we had and it's a matter of
interpretation. I mean it's not for this time and place but are parks
excluded from the net buildable? I would argue that they can't be because
we haven't taken possession of the park. 1 mean that's part of the
I dedication process. You have 10 acres of land, you owe us so many acres of
park.
Ahrens: It's the chicken and the egg...
Krauss: Well but it's a double hit to say give us your park and then we'll
figure out your density of what you have entitled to on what's left.
11 Emmings: The park that's up there on this plan, is that part of the 81
acres that's here?
Krauss: Yes.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 36 1
Batzli: That's fair. That's okay that you do that.
Emmings: The only thing I don't like there is it's shoved off on the edge.
Why the hell isn't it in the middle somewhere?
Krauss: Well there's a reason for that. There's a slope with a heavily
forested ravine that's really quite attractive in a natural area going back
in there. They had talked about trying to shoehorn a few lots in there anll
in talking to our parks folks, we figured that it was better to do it this
way.
Batzli: I guess they do have a path back there. 1
Conrad: So Brian, I'm just trying to make sure staff or Paul's going in
the right direction here. At least one that we're all consistent with.
Your comments on the warnings. So we're talking about net density, intent
and then some warning statements. Is that what you said?
Batzli: Yeah. '
Conrad: Saying if you go, now our past PUD ordinance did allow a minimum 11
of 12,500 as a minimum lot size isn't that right Paul and did we restrict
the number of those units?
Krauss: I think there was an average as well. An average minimum. '
Conrad: There was an average in there.
Krauss: And it was like 13,500 so, I believe. ,
Conrad: Yeah.
Krauss: So you were sort of forcing that number up. It got at the issue
different way. 5o your warning is if you go under 15 we're going to look
real hard at what you're doing? i
Batzli: Yeah. I think that just puts it on the table because that's what
we're going to do anyway.
Conrad: But you're not interested in going down to 10.
Batzli: I'll be candid. If Lundgren came in and said they were going to
develop some houses like they did up in Near Mountain and do a good job an
the people knew what they were getting into, I might not have a problem
with it. Those people appear to be happy. The houses don't turn over
every 10 months or anything like that but it's going to be a case by case
basis and I don't even know that the City Council has comfort that we even
want to give developers an opportunity but I say let's float it up there
and let them shoot it down and tell us what they want at this point. Let's
get it up there so they can consider it and I think that it potentially
could be done right. I haven't seen necessarily a small lot development in
this city done right yet but it could be done and I think it's a case of II
the developer coming in and Paul dealing with the developer and basically
we've got to put our trust in the people in the planning department.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 37
11 Conrad: How do you get to small lots Paul? How do you get to higher
density? How do you get to density transfer? How do you get more density
on part of this property and less in another Paul?
Krauss: That's what your intent statement does. And you're basically
clarifying the issue. You're saying there are things on properties that we
find of value and we can list what those are. I mean the list is, mature
stands of trees. Interesting terrain and to the extent that you can
demonstrate that by the use of the PUD that you've accomplished extra
ordinary preservation of these things, then the City will consider or may
consider flexibility in other areas such as lot area.
Conrad: Do you recommend that we have a minimum set out there for
developer purposes given the nature you feel?
' Krauss: I would say that you probably, just as a matter of comfort level I
would think you would. I mean I don't want, I continue to go back to, I
need a bare minimum to tell the developer whether or not that lot that they
proposed is a utilizeable lot. Now if we get at that by saying, I'd
rather, instead of maybe saying not saying 10,000 feet. I like the
approach of saying you'll have a useable lot area that can accommodate a
home. Same thing as you just did with the on site sewer and those lots.
Demonstrate this.
' Batzli: So in addition to what we just told you to do, you would like
something in there that talks about, you have enough, you can demonstrate
that a house and the backyard and a deck can fit on there?
Krauss: Right.
Batzli: That'd be fine with me. That'd be fine with me to include that.
Now the Council may look at it and say, I still hate it. You've got to put
a 13,000 square foot limit in there. That's fine but let's send it up
there and let them do it.
Conrad: But then we really haven't done diddily with our PUD ordinance.
The previous ordinance is probably better.
Krauss: Well the previous ordinance allowed all the transgressions that
occurred.
Conrad: So are we going to net out anything? Are we going to net out
someplace better with this ordinance?
Krauss: I think if an ordinance comes together and it's ultimately
approved along the lines that we're just mentioned, I think that's yeah.
That gives the creativity with the control. If we're going to go back into
the straight jacket that we had originally which doesn't, seems to give a
developer some latitude but doesn't give the City anything, I'd advised you
to just drop it.
Batzli: Any other discussion on this? Go for it Paul.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 38
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning 1
Commission meeting dated February 19, 1992 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: 1
Krauss: I'll skip through that. The only thing of interest I think there
was Commissioner Batzli was at it and Dick was at it, Councilman Wing. We
had a Council goals setting meeting last Saturday? Last Saturday or the
Saturday before. Last Saturday and we discussed a variety of things. The
told me that I couldn't have any more than 30 minutes because last year I
hogged the floor I guess but we did talk a lot about TH 5 corridor in
particular and there is a lot of support for doing it. It's still a mattell
of doing what exactly and how much is it going to cost. One .of the things
we laid on the table is a relatively recent occurrence and it has to do
with the Federal Highway Act. The Federal Transportation Bill stands all II
previous highway funding bills on it's head. Don Ashworth is amazed that
the original highway bills go back to 1956 under the Eisenhower
Administration and really have changed in any significant way since then. II
The new bill basically sets out not only funding for highways but for
transit and pedestrian access and for building bridges and for projects
that seek to tie a community together rather than having a highway split i
apart. That have specifically allocated funds for design amenities.
There's a specific provision in there to build wooden bridges. I mean
there's all kinds of things in there and the highway folks are amazed that
it came down the way it did. Bill Morrish has been talking to me about it '
because he apparently had some input with Moyanhan's committee in
Washington where the bill was drafted. The long and the short of it is,
we'd like to think that we have some potential for making TH 5 a
demonstration project and tapping into those sources of funds. So we're II
going to try and figure out exactly what that entails. MnDot really
doesn't know yet. And put together a package to get going on the work.
Batzli: Do you want to let the other commissioners know what happened on
the TH 5 corridor study as far as the consulting and things like that? Do
you want to touch on that as far as the presentation at the Council meetin
last Monday. A week ago Monday. Whenever it was.
Krauss: Oh, oh, oh. Yeah, well basically I forwarded your recommendation"
and the work that's been done to date and again the Council was very
supportive of doing it but balked or really had some trouble understanding
where we'd come up with the money to finance it. We were directed to
clarify that a little bit. The Mayor asked that I get some more specific
cost estimates. We also were asked to, you know Don Ashworth was asked to
see if there's anyplace in the budget to do that. Don is, for those of yo
who haven't worked with him, he's really a financial wizard. I mean it's
kind of amazing of his ability to pull stuff out of hats. Unfortunately
he's running out of hats and every time the State government looks to give
somebody a knock on the head to make the budget balance, they look to local'
government and we're expecting another pretty good hit shortly. So the
well may be running somewhat dry but again if we use it, if we structure it
that we're tapping into another, working towards tapping into another
source of funds, there may be some way of shaking something loose. One of!'
the things I stressed to the Council is everybody on my staff is anxious to
work on a TH 5 project. It's one of those trend setting projects that are
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 39
1 a heck of a lot of fun and really a professional challenge but I'm going to
be real short handed this summer. Jo Ann, as you can see is only going to
last another 5, 6, 7 weeks if we're lucky and the amount of new development
coming in the door is getting staggering. It's getting frightening.
Emmings: What kind of development?
Krauss: Well 1 ran through a litany of some of it. Some of it you know
of. You know Ryan's obviously going to final plat their's and get going.
Hans Hagen Homes, this one that we talked about here has submitted and is
on, not your next agenda. We don't have anything on your next agenda for
right now but your following agenda. That's for 150 units. The Donovan
property up on Teton where the barricade is. Donovan's the fellow who told
you he'd never subdivide so you didn't have to improve Teton. Well he lost
1 his property in a Sheriff's sale I believe and that's being proposed for 17
units. That's on your agenda. We are coming, the fellow we've been
telling you about for 2 years was trying to put together a proposal for the
11 Assumption Seminary actually has submitted a PUD concept plan and it's
really kind of interesting. I think he's probably going to try to touch
base with all of you just to talk over some of the guidelines they're
working with you and I think they're working towards setting up a bus trip
to their, they have a convention hotel facility they built in Stillwater
and they'd like to show us how that place looks. It's a historic
rennovation and restaurant so if that comes together, if you're willing to
' do that, that's something that's on the horizon. In addition Lundgren is
cranking very hard on bringing in their subdivision north of TH 5. The one
that you saw a year ago in the Comp Plan.
' Emmings: By TH 41?
Krauss: Yes. So we expect to have that shortly. On Rod Gram's property,
they're supposed to be submitting in the next week another plat for about
150 homes. I got a call this afternoon that Rottlund has purchased or has
a purchase option on the Dolejsi property. A 55 acre piece off of Lyman
and TH 101. We also hear that SoftSoap is going to make a decision on a
site in Chanhassen within the next 90 days for 350,000 square foot facility
and the rumors are ripe as to which site Target's actually going to go on.
Batzli: When do we start seeing all the beachlots also?
Emmings: What was that last one?
' Erhart: Yeah, slow down.
Emmings: What was that last one on Target?
Krauss: Target is looking at a number of sites in the city. We've know
this for a while but we don't, I mean Target doesn't talk to us. The
brokers talk to us and they have looked at, sites that they've looked at
are, they looked at the Ward property and apparently that's not going
forward. They looked at the Eckankar site and haven't been successful with
that. They are currently looking at the Burdick piece.
Emmings: They've looked at that before.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 40
Krauss: Well they looked at that before 2 years ago when it looked like '
they could do that in lieu of Market Square. Oh, Market Square closed.
Virtually. No, no, actually the ground breaking is supposed to be on St.
Patrick's Day.
1
Emmings: We can go and buy some virtual groceries at the virtual grocery
store.
Krauss: No, it's as good as a done deal. I mean it is a done deal for all
intensive purposes so that's happening.
Erhart: Where is SoftSoap going?
Krauss: SoftSoap is looking at the Redmond expansion piece that they neve "
built on on that unbuilt section of Lake Drive. By the railway tracks.
They're looking at two, well the Ryan plat that you're aware of and a
potential site on a Ryan plat that really hasn't come together yet by TH 5
They're looking at the land that McGlynn's owns on the corner. And they'ril
looking at that project that Paul Steiner and the Opus Corporation are
looking to do on that 190 acres out by TH 5 and TH 41.
Erhart: What's the Dolejsi?
Krauss: Dolejsi is a 55 acre chunk, well in fact when you go home to your"
house, when you make that last turn.
Erhart: The one that we were talking about?
Krauss: Which one? Well just as you make that final 90 degree turn, it's 11
off to your left. North of Kevin Finger.
Erhart: The one we were talking about the other day. Yeah. So there is II
something going on there?
Krauss: Yeah, but the original developers for that are not, I mean this ill
now, I just forgot their name. Rottlund Homes. It wasn't the original
group. You go into your office and you get a stack of messages and you get
another 150 unit plat. It's kind of mind boggling. There's going to
probably be some difficulty in getting it all done frankly. The difficult
is the city only has so much bonding capacity to finance projects and the
Upper Bluff Creek project alone I think is a 4 or 5 million dollar project"
Erhart: -Oh the sewer and water?
Krauss: So even if we have enough people on tap to pay for these things,
we still have to go into a debt situation to get them going and we already
have one of the highest per capita debts in the Twin Cities. I mean it's
fully financed. I mean it's backed by development that's on the ground butt
it doesn't look great at the moment.
Batzli: When do we start looking at beachlots?
Aanenson: We're shooting for April 15th.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 41
Batzli: So we're going to have all those on our agendas also.
Aanenson: We're going to try and take 2 or 3 a meeting.
Batzli: We're going to be busy. Okay, we don't have anything on our
agenda for next week at all yet? Do we want to have a little vacation,
mini vacation here?
Erhart: We have nothing on the agenda?
I Aanenson: Unless you want to follow up with that comp plan land use
amendment. The one we just tabled tonight.
Erhart: Oh the rural thing.
Krauss: Can we play this by ear for a couple of days? We've got a lot
happening at the same time. If we can give you some structure, I mean get
back to you on some of these things, then I'll talk to Brian and we'll go
ahead. Otherwise we'll let you know.
I/ Batzli: If your time would be better spent working on corridor study
issues, I'm just concerned that we're going to make work for you to get
something on our agenda for next week that's taking away from something
that needs to get more of your attention.
1 Krauss: Well it gets mind boggling all the stuff that's happening right
now. Some of it doesn't involve you directly. It involves me. We're
11 going into construction hopefully in the next few weeks on the senior
center behind that wall. I've been involved with that intimately. As far
as the TH 5 corridor study goes, one of the things we need to do is we need
to, we're getting into some more meetings with MnDot trying to define the
study. We've been working with the school district quite a bit. I was at
the School District meeting on Monday night to try and figure out what
their needs are. They just came back with demographic projections that
projected a 50o increase in school population in a relatively short period
of time and the weird thing is I think they significantly under estimated
what's going to happen. And they're shocked about dealing with what they
think is going to happen. So there's a lot of things swirling around.
Emmings: Is this the Chaska School District you're talking about?
Farmakes: Has there been any discussion for the Middle School?
Krauss: Yeah. That's in fact the case in point. When Ryan was moving
ahead, in fact Ryan did submit plans to us for that area north of
Timberwood. Remember the concept is that it had to be office or walk like
it or look like it and basically of very high quality. One of the
conditions was that the school site had to be locked up. Well that's kind
of our role in the public /private partnership. Well the school originally
told us that that 40 acre site at the corner was plenty big. And now
they're telling us that it doesn't meet their needs and their needs are
11 truly astonishing. They wanted 4 baseball fields, 2 softball fields, 2
football fields, 4 tennis courts.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 42
Ahrens: They're right across the street from a park.
1
Krauss: Well to an extent we want to piggyback city recreational
facilities onto this but we frankly don't understand why a Middle School 11
needs that much. Now we've been told that the State is now mandating
exactly what a school has to be outfitted with. In fact we called the
State and we're getting conflicting information. But they are looking at
bigger site. The School District really doesn't have a handle on what's
happening to it.
Farmakes: I had heard terms used as a high school. Then I heard middle I
school then I heard high school again. I was just wondering in the
interplay between the make -up of that committee. I know it's oriented
towards Chaska. There are more people on that committee that live in
Chaska and I was wondering what that, how that played with the numbers that
they're talking about.
Krauss: The numbers weren't influenced by that. I mean the numbers were II
prepared by Barbara Lukerman who's an old Metro Council and University of
Minnesota.
Farmakes: No, I didn't mean it for that. What I was talking about where 11
obviously the numbers projected are different for a high school than they
are for a middle school. I just heard that flip flopping information abou
high school and then I heard middle school.
Krauss: There is no definitive position. When we did the comp plan, we
worked with a fellow who was then the, not the superintendent but the
administrator for the school district and he had told us that their most II
likely need is for a middle school. And in fact 2 years later we're
finding from the architectural force that the middle school is severely
undersized and inadequate to meet their goals. The high school is equally"
undersized. What we've been told is there's a possibility it could be a
high school. It could be a middle school. The politics of the situation,
if I could speculate on that is that there is a very high potential that
there'd be an extreme amount of relunctance on the part of Chaska to lose
Chaska High School. So even if it makes sense to do it from an operational
physical plan standpoint, and I'm not sure it does at this point, I don't
know that there's a great likelihood that that would happen. But this
group that we're working with is not only doing physical plans. They're
trying to figure out what their program needs are. How they want to break"
down classes. They're in the process of changing athletic conferences to
the Lake Conference and I think they need expanded facilities for that. So
there's a lot going on.
Farmakes: That's obviously something where the two communities are going
to meet, run into each other in that area. I'm just wondering if we're
anticipating that it eventually, if they look that far down the road that II
we have a high school, we have a middle school because right now we're sort
of dealing with that from a rural standpoint where all that education is
centered in one area and we bus everybody from all the communities in. As
we overtake them in population, which it seems to me.
Krauss: We did.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 March 4, 1992 - Page 43
1 Farmakes: I mean even more so. 5,000 say. 10,000. What that will incur
and where we center our educational system within this city.
OPEN DISCUSSION: GROUP HOMES.
Krauss: I don't know what all I can say about it in the interest of being
brief. I think we have, we need to clarify some stuff in our ordinance and
I tried to tell you what our philosphical position is on these things.
That we believe we have an obligation to serve the needs of all our
residents in a fair way but right now you've got a problem waiting to
occur. When one of the primary standards for siting a large group home in
our community is that it has to have a good septic tank, we're missing the
point. Minnetonka, to give credit where it's due. It wasn't me but it was
the woman who's the Planning Director still over there, took some real
innovative steps with these things. Ann Perry worked on a Hennepin County
committee to help move these facilities around and came up with standards
that were really tested under fire in Minnetonka in several situations. One
1 was a group home for troubled teenagers going into an old school. Another
was a shelter for battered women. What I ask you to do is take a look at
the standards in the Minnetonka ordinance. We can adopt something like
that. We can work on something else but I threw that on the table because
I think it does a fairly good job.
Batzli: I liked the standards. It looked to me like it buffered it. It
took into account size and impact on the neighboring properties so I
thought it was a real good, you know use that as a model. I guess that's
what I'd like to see. What does everybody else say?
Ahrens: I think it's well written.
Batzli: Yeah. So do we want staff to draw something like that up? Is
that how we want to use up more of that time with?
Krauss: I'd also tell you too, I want to contact Chuck Gabrielson and get
his input on it. Chuck is the program director of the only real group home
we have in the city right now. I think he's a pretty decent fella who
would give us his comments.
1 Batzli: Straight scoop. Okay.
Farmakes: Can I ask a question, since as I'm not as experienced as some of
the people on here. One of the definitions they had in here was mentally
ill. Is there a definition for that? It's kind of a broad range.
Krauss: I don't know.
Emmings: I'm sure there must be. I'm sure there is. The State has to
have one because they have MI programs and they've got to have a
definition. I don't know what it is though.
Farmakes: And there isn't a definition in here for criminal group home or
people who are coming out of prison.
Emmings: Halfway house?
1
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Planning Commission 1
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: February 27, 1992 1
SUBJ: Continued Discussion - PUD Residential District 1
At the January 15, 1992, meeting, the Commission continued its ongoing discussions of 1
residential PUDs. Essentially, it was agreed that a clean slate needs to be used and staff
was asked to bring in information on other communities' residential PUD standards. In
attached materials, you will find copies of residential PUDs for the cities of Eden Prairie,
Bloomington, Eagan, Burnsville, Maple Grove, Plymouth, Maplewood, and Brooklyn Park.
In these communities, acceptable lot sizes range from a minimum of 8,700 square feet in
Eagan up to 13,500 square feet in Eden Prairie. The only exception to this is a requirement
that corner lots in single family areas in Bloomington be 15,000 square feet (interior lots can
be as small as 11,000 square feet). 1
You will also find a letter from Peter Olin of the Landscape Arboretum in your packet. In
it Peter suggests that a PUD ordinance might better focus on the intent of the district rather
than including specifics concerning lot sizes. I find that I generally agree with him in
principle.
The intent section can clarify a lot of goals aimed at the improved quality of development
that is intended to result. As far as an intent section goes, it may not be a bad first attempt.
However, to suggest that this represents a legally defensible ordinance that provides
sufficient guidance for reviewing future development proposals, is probably somewhat naive. 1
At last Monday's City Council meeting, the idea of minimum lot sizes was discussed briefly
by the Council. The Mayor and Councilman Wing specifically indicated their concerns 1
about decreasing lot sizes. Planning Commission Chair Batzli and Commissioner Emmings
were present during this discussion. Frankly, I think when the question of lot sizes is taken
out of context, it is very understandable that City Council members would raise opposition.
However, I believe that for this question to be considered adequately, the intent of the
PUD ordinance or its goals must clearly be understood, and I do not believe that this was
417
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1 Planning Commission
February 27, 1992
1 Page 2
the case Monday night. Fundamentally, I believe that the matter of intent for the PUD
district has not been adequately explored, at least recently, and deserves some attention.
Additionally, I think we need to focus some discussion on lot size in general. The problems
' related to lot size stem from two distinct causes, both of which can be addressed. The first
cause is that when the lots were created, there was no real analysis or assurance that a
reasonably sized home, deck, and rear yard could be accommodated without a variance.
Often due to setbacks, peculiar lot configurations, and other features, we found that after
the fact it could not. This problem can easily be responded to by making the developer
demonstrate that a reasonably sized home, deck, and rear yard can be accommodated on
1 every lot as a condition of the approval process. The second set of problems stem from our
ordinances focus on gross lot area rather than developable lot area. You can have a 30,000
square foot lot that is highly inadequate for normal single family use if much of it is covered
by drainage easements, wetlands, or is significantly impacted by surrounding roadways. I
really believe that we should be looking at revising not only our PUD standards, but our
subdivision standards to establish minimum developable lot areas for each parcel that is
1 created in our city.
The last item which will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting are two
1 alternative development scenarios prepared by Hans Hagen Homes for a parcel of land
located east of Galpin Boulevard, south of Timberwood, and north of the railroad tracks.
The first sketch plan illustrates a PUD concept that would have an average lot size of 15,000
square feet but a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. In this instance, this flexibility
provided for by the PUD ordinance would be used to locate smaller lots in what is now a
soy bean field and larger lots in a more desirable wooded hilly area with the plat design to
protect as much of the forest as possible. Through the use of larger lots in this more
sensitive area, the streets are further apart and grading requirements and tree loss are
' minimized. The alternative plan as prepared by the applicant, shows a straight 15,000
square foot lot subdivision with its intended impacts. Under these plans, the straight
subdivision option would result in 165 lots, whereas, the PUD concept resulted in 156 lots
and is a much more creative and less intensive proposal.
I believe the juxtaposition of these two plans will be found to be interesting by the Planning
Commission. As is often the case with this sort of scenario, I believe the developer
overstated the impact of the straight subdivision to some extent, however, the design issues
remain valid. I was ultimately able to convince the developer to completely revise his
' concept and produce a standard plat that I believe meets our design goals, while maintaining
or exceeding the 15,000 square foot lot area. This plan is expected to be submitted shortly
for your review.
1
1
1
Planning Commission
February 27, 1992
Page 3 1
SUMMARY 1
As I have indicated on recent memorandums on this subject, staff does not want to be in
a position of beating a dead horse. From a professional standpoint, the Planning Staff
honestly believes that the city would be better off with an intelligently crafted residential
PUD section. We believe that the variety of housing opportunities can be expanded, that
environmental protection design can be improved, and that there is a potential of providing
cost reductions for the home buyer. We further believe that these benefits can be achieved
without the problems that have been attributed to this type of development in the past.
However, if there is simply no support for this concept, I would hope that you would be so
directive.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
1
PUD LOT SIZE SURVEY
CITY LOT SIZE
Eden Prairie 13,500
Bloomington Corner Lot 15,000 S.F. Interior Lot
11,000 S.F.
Eagan Up to staff/ Smallest existing lot
1 8,700 S.F.
Burnsville 30% deficient of 15,000 S.F. which is the
1 standard/ Corner lot 12,000 S.F.Interior
lot 10,000 S.F.
Maple Grove 10,000 S.F.
Plymouth Recommend denial of less than 10,000 S.F./
No minimum
1 Maplewood 10,000 S.F. for all lots/ Corner lots have
frontage of 100 feet/ Interior lots have
frontage of 75 feet
Brooklyn Park 10,800 S.F.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T QTY 0
,0 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: December 31, 1991
SUBJ: Draft Ordinance Changes /Residential Components of the PUD
Ordinance
1 UPDATE
' At the January 15, 1992, meeting, the question of drafting the
section of the PUD ordinance relating to single family developments
was again reviewed. As has been the case in meetings since last
' summer, the most important question being asked is, "Will
Chanhassen allow lots containing less than 15,000 square feet under
any circumstances, and if so, how small should they be allowed to
be, and what standards should be applied ?" In the materials
outlined below, staff indicates a belief that this can be done
effectively and further believes that the proposal has merit, even
has some merit if a minimum 15,000 square foot average lot size
' must be maintained. However, we do not want to beat a dead horse
and while we think this proposal has merit, if it does not have
support by the Planning Commission and City Council, we prefer to
find that out once and for all and be able to put this question to
' rest. At the last meeting, there continued to be a feeling that
small lots have caused us problems in the past and there was some
indication that there was not sufficient support by the Planning
Commission to push this idea further. I related to you
conversations I have had with the Mayor and Councilman Wing
indicating that they were concerned with the proposal to lower lot
area standards and probably would not be able to support it if this
came to the City Council.
Due to the absence of two Planning Commission members who have been
some of the primary people involved in previous discussions of this
ordinance, action on this item was delayed to February 5th. The
premise under which this was done was that each Planning
Commissioner would be allowed no more than five minutes each to lay
out their position and a vote will be taken. I would encourage you
to keep to this self imposed guideline for two reasons. Other
items on the agenda are important and. will take a substantial
t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Draft Residential PUD Ordinance
December 31, 1991
Page 2 1
amount of time and I am not at all certain that further discussions
would prove to be fruitful. In the attached memorandum, I have
repeated materials that were presented to the Planning Commission
at the last meeting, as well as minutes from the two previous
meetings for your review.
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
At a series of meetings over the past year, staff has brought
proposed changes to the PUD ordinance before the Planning
Commission. As you will probably recall, the bulk of the PUD
ordinance which pertains to non - residential development in the
community was adopted last fall and is now in use. The ordinance
is in use as evidenced by Ryan's Chanhassen Business Center PUD.
In fact, we even used the ordinance in a residential context for
Lundgren's Lake Lucy Road project. However, this did not involve
any lots smaller than the 15,000 square foot RSF standard. At that
time, however, because a consensus could not be reached on
standards pertaining to residential PUDs, this section of the
ordinance was not adopted. Staff has been attempting to resolve
outstanding issues for the Planning Commission since that time.
The Planning Commission's primary concerns stem from the use of the
PUD ordinance to allow lots smaller than 15,000 square feet. We
have attempted to present evidence that we believe allows one to
conclude that lots smaller than 15,000 square feet are:
1. Highly buildable.
2. Represent the potential for high quality residential
neighborhoods. Local evidence is Lundgren's Near Mountain
project.
3. Are cost effective. Economic result from lower land cost and
reduced costs for roads and utilities.
4. Can be used to require higher quality, more sensitive
development. In exchange for PUD flexibility and cost
savings, the city can expect more from the developer.
5. Can be handled in such a manner as to avoid the problems that
have occurred in the past with some small lot developments in
the city. Past problems include lots poorly designed to
accommodate homes, expansions and decks within setback areas.
Staff believes this can be addressed by establishing
comprehensive development standards.
Last summer, we believed that we had reached agreement on allowing
lots down to 9,000 square feet under certain circumstances, as long
as there was a mix of lot sizes in the balance of the development.
When this last came before you in September, it was clear that our
belief that a consensus had been reached for 9,000 square foot lots
was in error. This memo and the materials attached herein
represent our most recent attempts to clarify this matter so that
1
1
# Draft Residential PUD Ordinance
December 31, 1991
Page 3
we may move on to other issues. We firmly believe that the PUD
ordinance offers significant advantages to the city as well as the
1 developer and should be used more often in the future.
We are presenting two variations of the ordinance for your review
' and comment. The first is the ordinance that you reviewed at the
September meeting. It is unchanged except that the minimum lot
size has been increased from 9,000 square feet to 10,000 square
' feet. We made this change for two reasons. It seemed more
consistent with the Planning Commission's intent. Secondly, we
recently reviewed a preliminary development concept that used the
same sized lot quite effectively. Staff supported this ordinance
' in the past and we continue to do so believing that this sort of
development can be handled in an effective and sensitive manner.
The second alternative is to allow lots down to the same 10,000
square foot minimum but require that average lot size meet or
exceed the 15,000 square foot minimum provided in the RSF District.
We believe that this approach adds some flexibility, although not
' as much as the first option. However, it does result in average
project densities that are consistent with development elsewhere in
the community. Staff has recently spoken to a potential developer
on land located near the intersection of Galpin and Lyman
Boulevard. On this project, the potential developer, Hans Hagen
Homes, would like to utilize reduced sized lots in the open field
area closest to the public boulevards. They would like to balance
this by using larger sized lots in a forested area located to the
north and west. In these areas, the larger sized lots could
receive a better price on the market and allow for a lot more
sensitivity in tree preservation and to minimize grading. We think
this concept has a tremendous amount of merit even though the
average lot size is still being maintained at better than 15,000
square feet.
Staff is at a loss as to how to pursue this matter further if a
consensus is not reached on one or the other alternatives at the
next meeting. If further analysis is desired, your direction is
requested so that we may further clarify the issue. Staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission select one of the
alternatives for adoption by the City Council.
1
1
1
1
1
* Denotes second alternative * 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: '
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 10,000 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. * Average lot sizes for
the project must meet or exceed 15,000 square feet.* 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. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard of 30
feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required
home /deck pads or by wetland /drainage easements.
b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. 1
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
d) Minimum Setbacks: '
PUD Exterior - 30 feet.
Front Yard - 20 feet.
Rear Yard - 30 feet
Side Yard - 10 feet.
Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or 1
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
1 1
1
1
areas are to be permanently protected as public or private
tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements.
1 f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall
contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these
shall require a mix of over -story trees and other
plantings consistent with the site. 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 site's natural topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped
berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from
' major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses.
Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted
lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping,
additional lot depth may be required.
3) 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.
4) 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
be used to satisfy this requirement 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 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 should include the
following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) 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
1 2
1
1
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) 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.
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 designed for
medium or high density residential uses by the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan.
b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square 1
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
d) 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. 1
e) 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 site's natural topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped
berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from
major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses.
Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted
3
1
lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping,
additional lot depth may be required.
3) Foundation and Yard 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.
4) 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
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 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 should include the
following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) 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) 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.
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.
4
1
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. 1
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
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 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.
1
1
1
5
1
Planning Commission Meeting
s
January 15, 1992 - Page 25
supposed to be 6 slips, now because they had 14 that's okay. Is that what
you're saying? Because these are your neighbors. If you go back to 6
boats to what they're supposed to have, wouldn't that create a problem?
Emmings: You mean they'll burn my house down?
•
David Tester: You live right next to them.
' Emmings: No, I know. Yeah I'm putting all that out of my mind. I'm not
going to sit here, I'm sure my neighbors would hate me if I said I'm not in
that neighborhood technically but I live right next door to a lot of them,
' I know a lot of them and they're going to hate me for saying well back to
1982 level. I have no doubt about that but that's not going to influence
me. But maybe they hate me already for other reasons. Now they -have
another one. Is there any other public comment here on this? Okay...and
I seconded it and just so we're all on the same page because I forgot,
we're doing the version of the ordinance that uses an 1982 baseline. Is
there any discussion on this in light of the public comment? Then I'll
call a question.
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission approval
adopting the ordinance using the baseline document of the size and extent
of the recreational beachlot in the summer of 1982. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Emmings: When will this go to the City Council?
Aanenson: The 10th.
1 Emmings: So if you're interested in this, follow it on up.
' Conrad: I think just as a footnote. When these start coming in and if
they come before us, we should know, and I think there's some common sense
that has to guide what we do but we should have a feeling for how the
current ordinance would deal with a particular situation and I don't know,
which means if under the current ordinance if they have x number of boats
or picnic tables or whatever. I'd like to know that. And probably the
other thing is we should be looking at the site when it comes in. The idea
of the beachlot ordinance is for a lot of things. It's called safety and
protecting the neighbors and some real common sense type stuff. And
sometimes you can have real unsafe situations on big lots and safe
situations on small lots. I think we have to take a look at them and again
' apply some common sense stuff and I think we all hear what you're concerned
with. The people that are part of the association or the beachlot. I
would be fighting for my rights too just like you but I think on our side
we can apply some common sense guidelines that make it work. In some cases
it's not going to turn out totally the way you want but I think we should
be able to reach some pretty good decisions.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS.
Emmings: I'm very disinclined to do this with the absence of Tim and Brian
because they both had a lot of good things to say about this but I don't
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 26
know if they'd have additional things to say. Maybe we're all kind of
talked out on this issue. I don't know.
Ahrens: The PUD, I think so.
Emmings: But Brian and Tim have been particularly interested in this item II
and I don't know what to do. What do you want to do?
Conrad: I wouldn't mind talking a little bit about it and then tabling
Emmings: Okay.
Ahrens: I'd rather talk about it now or table it and talk about it later. II
I mean we've talked about this a lot.
Emmings: And have we gotten anywhere? I go round and round. '
Ahrens: I mean I can talk about this forever tonight and then talk about
it again another night because there are a lot of issues involved...
Conrad: I just have a real quick question basically and it will last
longer. Jeff, you go ahead. I've talked more. '
Farmakes: What basis are we using from the 9,000 to the 10,000? What is
the basis that you picked that figure? '
Krauss: It's highly scientific.
Farmakes: This isn't like 3 trees is it? Because it's more than 2?
Emmings: Because he feels resistence at 9,000.
Farmakes: Is there a financial or glass ceiling or whatever with the '
developer? I need a 60 x 40 base pad and I need this much square footage.
Krauss: To be perfectly honest, Kate and I saw a concept that had been
prepared by somebody who's thinking of proposing what is it a 160 lot
subdivision over off of Gaipin near Lyman and the premise behind that was,
it's in the Volk. Yeah, the Volk Farm where the Cellular telephone tower II
is. And in the open areas he wanted to build a parkway with a number of
cul -de -sacs and in those areas where it's just open field he figured that
he would put in the lowered priced home on the smaller lots and those he II
proposed at 10,000 square feet and when he got up into the forested hills
near Timberwood he came up with 15,000 to 25,000. Well 25,000 to 30,000
square foot lots which fit in quite well with the terrain and the desire to
protect those trees. Because if you plowed in your normal 15,000 square
foot lots on a suburban type pattern, you're going to plow down most of
those trees. I thought the trade off made some sense. It seemed be
from a topological tree preservation standpoint it seemed to be an ideal
candidate to do and that one used 10,000 square foot minimum lots. And thell
average lot size was in excess of 15,000. It seemed to be a reasonable
plan and I said well, I've tried this 3 times before the Planning
Commission. I'll try another time. Now your comments about Commissioner
Batzli and Erhart are accurate. They have been somewhat the leading
1
Planning ommission Meeting
g
January 15, 1992 - Page 27
proponents or opponents of this. I've had some conversations since with
the Mayor and Councilman Wing. I think that they're somewhat, well they
can speak for themselves but they've indicated to me that they're not in
favor of the decreasing lot sizes. We're getting to the point where some
guidance would be nice. We're getting asked the questions a whole lot. If
it's 15,000, it's 15,000. If you have flexibility, we do.
Farmakes: I still have just one question with the basis of understanding
this. If you don't give up some lot size, what is the advantage to the
developer doing this?
Krauss: Well there isn't much. If you don't give up lot sizes you have
what I think is a highly unusual situation which was the Lake Lucy Road/
Lundgren proposal where it made sense to do it as a PUD because
' conventionally configured lots didn't fit because of all the wetlands.
That conventionally configured streets didn't fit because of the wetlands
and the PUD gave us the flexibility to do that. But that average lot size,
granted between useable and non - useable, I think it was 30,000 square feet
' was the lot size and 18,000 to 20,000 square feet was the useable site.
Those are pretty unusual cases. Is that ever likely to happen again, I
don't know. Maybe.
Farmakes: Well I, in that particular development, I guess I thought it was
a nice development except for a couple of lots and those were the smaller
ones. I still, if you were looking at 10,000 or 12,000 square feet, I mean
again it seems an arbitrary number. I haven't seen the development that
you're talking about and I'm having trouble understanding if you had an
attached garage with a pad that size, you'd be looking at about a 40 x 40
house and attached garage wouldn't you?
Krauss: We tried to define that a little bit more here.
' Farmakes: A 60 x 40 building pad is, if you put an attached garage to it,
that doesn't leave you much left for the house.
' Krauss: Well yeah, if you have a 60 x 40 pad. Each house in Chanhassen is
required, well most houses in Chanhassen are required to have a 2 car
garage.
r Farmakes: 20 feet for that and subtract that from.
' Aanenson: What we'd suggest is that you come in with some specific models
but a lot of homes have the punch out garage with the floor space behind.
Krauss: What we tried to come up with was a reasonably sized home pad plus
' a reasonably sized deck plus a reasonably sized unencumbered back yard.
You can't play baseball in it but.
' Ahrens: I think we know that they can do it. I mean they did in Near
Mountain and then we know that they can have decks on houses and we know
that they can have the right sized garage. I don't think that's really an
issue. I think the issue is just what we want.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 28 1
Farmakes: What I was getting to after that would have been what percentag
difference do you see with a house like that next to a house on a 35,000
square foot lot? Percentage wise and pricing.
Krauss: See I don't think pricing is, well I wouldn't sell this to you, i
the past the City's gotten burned and you got burned in the Pheasant Hills
and Foxpath and a couple of others where these things were sold on the
premise. The builder came to you and he said, let me put these things on
9,000 or 10,000 square foot lots and I'll give you cheaper homes. I don't
know if they intentially lied but they weren't cheaper homes. The homes
got bigger as the market allowed it to get bigger and the City had no
protections in there to make sure that the homes could fit and that decks II
could fit and that people had reasonable back yards. It's a pretty tough
situation. I think some of you have gotten calls from Willard on the Board
of Adjustments and it's because he's seen almost monthly he sees the II results of those PUD's. I think you can do it without it. Now what are
the reasons people buy a somewhat smaller sized lot. There's lots of them.
Yeah, maybe they are a little less expensive. Maybe the lot price is
$25,000.00 or $30,000.00 instead of $40,000.00 or $50,000.00. I can't
guarantee it but it's reasonable to think it might be. I know in the case
of the developer we talked to, he clearly intends to make his big ticket
purchases on the nicer lots up on the hill, which makes sense. It lays ou
well. You also have people that don't want lots that are that big. Most
people move out to this area because they have an imagine of what they want
but not everybody wants to mow a third or a half an acre or whatever every
Saturday. They want something a little smaller. Not everybody has 3 kids.
I mean there's a lot of reasons people do a lot of things and we've heard
some people coming to us at Board meetings like you should have protected
me from myself. You should never have let me buy this lot. Well, I have all
little bit of a tough time with that. You buy what you buy because that's
what you think you want. But having said all that, I mean I think the
flexibility from the design standpoint, the ability to save trees. The
ability to work around water features. The ability to lay in streets
nicely. The ability to have some variety is a real big benefit. Can we
develop without that? Sure. You have in the past. You will in the II future. And we're not here to you know, I think there's a valid case to
be made for using PUD's but if there's not a comfort level with it, then
let's move on and work with it the way we have it.
Emmings: And that's the problem. The way I feel like, I'd like to look at
everything as a PUD and none of them as a straight subdivision really
because you feel like you have some flexibility. I don't know if you
really do wind up with any but you feel like you might and at least the
potential is there. That's why in a way I'd just like to say we've got net
density, or densities we want to see depending on the zoning of the
property. Design whatever you want. Just give them a density and say
here, you design whatever you want.
Conrad: That was my question. Why didn't we go with a gross density
versus?
Emmings: If you want to maximize creativity and give them incentive to do
things, the trouble is Ladd I think, and maybe I'm wrong. You can probably
answer this better than I but I'm afraid if that developer does get
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 29
creative and has some 9,000 foot lots, he's going to wind up bringing that
' in and it's not going to get approved because there are some people who
just plain don't like small lots. Even though it preserves a lot of open
space. I don't know that but I think I've had some people call me this
1 week who said just that. I think Brian has argued that, whether he meant
it or not. Whether he was being a Devil's advocate or really meant it.
' Conrad: Well Brian is the advocate of protect me from myself.
Emmings: Well a little bit but he doesn't want a little lot, and I think
there are a lot of people who feel that way. And I wouldn't want to dangle
that out in front of a developer. But if we want PUD's, we've got to offer
them something. We've got to make it attractive to them and I think the
way we do that is by saying you've got a density figure to work against.
We're going to be watching you to see that you preserve things we like and
that you don't destroy the natural topography and everything else. Do your
best and bring it back and take a look.
' Krauss: You could work it that way. I'd still stick in the provisions
though where we mandate that the developer has to demonstrate to your
satisfaction or the Council's satisfaction that every lot that's created,
I bar none, can accommodate a reasonably sized home, deck and a back yard.
When you're talking about some creative developers, I don't know that
that's the right adjective for...
' Emmings: Well wait. What if a guy wants to do zero lot line stuff?
Krauss: Oh well, I think that's a different. This is an animal of a
different color. We cover that in here. Zero lot line homes are certainly
a valid housing concept. They're in demand in a lot of areas.
' Emmings: Or what if you want to do a retirement thing where you have maybe
3 or 4 units that are hooked together on a cul -de -sac with a whole bunch of
open space around it. How do we encourage people to do some things like
that?
Krauss: Well, you can encourage that and the ordinance does provide for
those to go in areas guided for medium density housing. Most communities
have trouble chewing on that kind of a concept. Being allowed to go
anywhere in a single family neighborhood. Even though I fully agree with
you that the density cap is the same, that number of units isn't going to
' increase over the normal style. It looks like a different style of
development and a lot of people object to having that next to their single
family home. So most of the time you find that those zero lot line
developments are segregated somehow. Oftentimes they're in a higher
density area. That's the way it's done in most the communities I know.
Ahrens: I think we should look at creative development. I like PUD's and
1 I think there's all sorts of advantages for cities to look at that but the
only, you know I look at the Lundgren development over in Near Mountain and
if you drive behind it in Pleasant. View, it cooks okay. The houses that
sit on the little lots. But if you drive inside of it to the front of
those houses, it's crowded in there. You just get a feeling of being
crowded in there because the houses aren't small. The houses are nice
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 30
sized and you get on this little curved street and all of a sudden it's
crowded. And there's barely room for cars to park between. If you have, II
I mean in suburbia everybody's has lots of cars. right? Especially when you
have teenagers. There's no room to park even between the houses let alone
on the street. It's really small. It's really tight in there and I think II
we have to think about not only will a house fit on a lot. Well sure. You
can get a house to fit on a lot and some people don't want to have to mow
the lawns and stuff but "how does it look and how is it going to look 20 I
years from now when we have a lot of big houses on little lots? I don't
know. I don't know if aesthetically that's going to be too great and if
it's going to be useable for people who have more than two cars and they
can fit them nicely into their driveway. I mean it is crowded in there. I
don't know if you've ever driven in there but it is. And the houses look
nice now because they're brand new houses. I mean it looks okay now. I
don't know. I don't know how it's going to be. I think I've changed my
position on the small lot size. I didn't think it was a bad idea at first 11
but the more I look at those lots in Lundgren, I'm not sure that it's the
best kind of setup for Chanhassen. I don't think it's so great if you have
a bunch of houses developed in just a little area and then you have a nice II
park 3 blocks away. Is that a better development than having all 15,000
square foot lots?
Emmings: What are you saying? That you think there should be a minimum II
lot size then?
Ahrens: I do. ,
Emmings: And what is your figure?
Ahrens: I think it should be 15,000.
Emmings: Okay. Now if we did that, if we said we want a minimum 15,000
square foot lot size, would there be any incentive except for the odd piec
of property like Lundgren ran into over here. Would there be any incentive
for a developer to us a PUD? Basically he's working in the subdivision
ordinance.
Krauss: A PUD is a rezoning. Cities have a lot of leeway as to what kind
of conditions they apply on a rezoning action. Developers are business
people. They're not going to plat. If the developer brings you a plat
without any variances, you're obligated to approve it. No if's, and's or
but's. You can add some reasonable conditions but you can't be arbitrary
or be creative or whatever words you want to use. The PUD opens the door
to the city saying I want more parkland and I want you not to build where
these hills are. I'd like you not to build where these trees are.
Whatever. 1
Ahrens: You can't say that if a developer comes in and you say, you're
required at 15,000 square foot lots we can't say you can't build on that
crest of that hill and you can't, you have to have so much parkland. We do,
that now.
Krauss: Yeah, but the suburban development pattern is an improvement over II
the grid system that you see in Minneapolis, Not much. I mean it's 1920's
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 31
technology versus 1940's technology. You know curvalinear streets help and
you like to think that when you have a 15,000 square foot lot or better
you're able to save a few trees that you don't have to tear down when the
house gets built but basically it's a very land intensive and often abusive
1 way to develop.
Emmings: This underlines, Brian said facetiously I think. Maybe not.
' Raise your minimum lot size in the subdivision ordinance to a half acre and
then we'll have all PUD's that we can do what we want to. That's not a bad
idea maybe. This is like quitting smoking. You do like 100 times.
Conrad: There's a good article in the planning, whatever the planning
magazine is that we get on this same thing. I don't know if anybody read
it. I guess the forecast is going to, people wanting big lots in the past
1 and the forecast going to smaller lots and how creative PUD's can be
handled.
Emmings: How small is small?
Conrad: I don't know if they really said a number. Yeah, I don't know.
' But it was really appropriate in light of this thing. I've vacilated
because I've always been a large lot proponent but on the other hand, over
the years I've seen less and less advantages to the large lots. If you can
preserve some of the other stuff you get around but we've never been able
' to figure out how to preserve this other stuff. You open up some land,
what are you going to do with it?
Farmakes: Demographics are changing and the market. We're all getting
older.
Emmings: Not all of us.
Farmakes: Well I'm not but you guys are.
Ahrens: But is 15,000 square feet really that big of a lot? I mean we're
not talking about..
Krauss: It's a highly personal choice. I mean you know what you bought
and you know why you moved here and it was a personal decision for you and
your family to decide. I can tell you that from the metro area standpoint,
we've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area. Now Minnetonka,
one of our neighbors, has the largest one but there's not a home built in
Minnetonka today for under $350,000.00.
Emmings: But the reason 15,000 is significant only because that's in the
subdivision ordinance. I mean that's why you can move the numbers around
but they are arbitrary and 15,000 has significance only because that's the
number in the subdivision ordinance.
Ahrens: Right but everyone talks about 15,000 as a large lot.
1 Emmings: No, it's only significant because it's in the subdivision
ordinance. I think that's the only significance of it. Big and small,
that's all relative.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 32
Farmakes: What about 12? I mean I'm still getting back to my original
question when you picked 10 because you saw a development you'd like.
Would 15? 12? Is there a commercial level where it no longer makes sensell
for a developer?
Krauss: I don't know. Maybe in fact there is. If they do their proforma"
and they find out. Any decrease in lot size theoretically allows them to
save on linear street frontage. To save on linear utilities and to
theoretically, if you allow them to and we didn't plan on it but if you
wanted to get more lots in, then they make more money. That's the way thell
developers all see it and we've had people come in the door saying you're
not going to let me cram 10,000 square foot lots on this cornfield with no
amenities. Chaska would let me do it. We've told them to leave because we�
weren't interested in that kind of development. The only context we saw
was getting the higher quality. I don't know what the break point is
though. The presumption that we've had is that the developer may in fact
get some additional lots out of it, especially when you're at the lower en
but everytime we've considered the lower lot sizes it's been with added
conditions like more open space and we're going to protect more of the
trees and we're going to do this and that. So it's always been a trade
off. Developers also don't like to have all their eggs in one basket. You
don't like to have only 15,000 square foot lots to sell. You like to have"
a variety of home sites.
Emmings: The market may change during. That makes sense. I don't see ho
we can, it seems to me we've got to offer them something and if it isn't
lot size, I don't know what it is. Otherwise I think we're wasting our
time. On the other hand, I don't like 10,000 square foot lots.
Farmakes: You don't have to accept it in the development proposal though
right? If you don't like the way it works out in the percentage, then this
is a guide correct?
Krauss: Well, under the PUD you have a great deal of latitude. It just
occurred to me too when you're talking 12,000 square foot, the ordinance up
until the time we start tinkering with it allowed PUD's on 12,000 average II
lot size?
Emmings: No, wasn't it minimum?
Olsen: 13,500.
Emmings: Wasn't that a minimum and they still had to maintain over 15 or II
over average?
Olsen: I think it was like 13,500. '
Krauss: And did anybody, did we determine that nobody used that ? - Or does
that predate Lake Susan Hills? The PUD's that you had in town predated the
imposition of that 13,500 average. I think they did in the later phases
but they predated...
Emmings: Lake Susan Hills was never a PUD. You'll never convince anybody II
who was up here at the time that that was a PUD.
-
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 33
Olsen: And you didn't pass it.
Emmings: Planning Commission didn't. City Council did.
' Conrad: Well it's sure sounding that there's lots of folks that say we
don't like the small lots. We've got two people missing that we know
that's their posture. Joan for sure. Jeff you're sort of bordering.
Farmakes: I think it's a dilemma for me because I think it's a very smart
idea to do this. However, the problem is that if you don't offer them
something to do it, why would they do it? It makes no sense.
Conrad: That was the point of looking at the PUD ordinance. Nobody was
doing it under the past ordinance. It was motivating nobody.
Farmakes: It could be very mutually beneficial though with certain types
of properties. And if you don't give them that smaller lot size, again
they're not going to do it.
Conrad: See I persuaded myself to go along with the 15,000 foot on average
and the 10,000 minimum because the 15 protected what we've been running
11 with and we've been going a pretty good job no matter what. Sometimes
there hasn't been a terrific amount of creativity but overall I think it's
really not bad what's been going up. So the 15 in my mind was to maintain
what we had. And the 10, I think you can still do things in the future at
10,000. It's cramped. It doesn't meet my style. I wouldn't like it but I
think some people would and if that's what they would like and if I
preserve what I'm trying to and that is the openness of Chanhassen, then
I'm not going to get in their way of a small lot. What I was concerned
with before, the way the ordinance is written, is we simply downsized the
lots and I felt that sooner or later becomes a standard. But now that we
have a 15,000 square foot average, that still may not be motivational
enough to the developer. I don't know but it may appease me. That was
when my question came in, why don't we play with overall density versus a
specific because the overall density has been quite nice? And I don't care
how somebody bundles it together.
Farmakes: Have you gotten a response from any of these developers talking
about the 10,000 square feet?
Krauss: We haven't really waved it around.
Ahrens: Having an average lot size, that means that - you could have like 6
huge lots and a whole bunch of little tiny ones right and still meet the?
Krauss: If by little tiny you mean 10,000, yes.
Conrad: But you could solve that problem Joan in the intent statement.
' The intent statement could say that Chanhassen is looking to maintain such
and such a character but would compromise to smaller lots. 5o what you're
doing is telling a developer you're not looking to have 3/4 of the
development and 10,000 square foot lot sizes balanced by 380,000 square
foot. lots. You could communicate what you're looking for upfront in an
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 34
attempt but signal the fact that we could go down in lot sizes to
accommodate.
Farmakes: Aren't you telling them that though with the average lot size.
You've got to be able to figure out how many units to put on that thing.
Doesn't that determine a percentage like this?
Conrad: I'm not sure. It probably does, yeah.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Emmings: ...all these 10,000 square foot lots in one area leaving. ,
Conrad: But you wouldn't have a problem dealing with that if it came to
you because if the intent statement is there, we know what we're looking
for and we all have this grandiose, cluster this over here. Open up this
space over here. We just don't know how to get there so what I want to
make sure is that we're communicating to the developer so he or she has a
concept of where we're going and we're not leading them in the wrong
direction. They come in and say oh, that's not what we're looking for at
all. .
Ahrens: But then we have some people saying, well I kind of like that and II
I kind of like this but that's not really my idea of what it should look
like. I mean you know it's so subjective that way because a developer's
standing there saying well, we still have a 15,000 square foot average lot '
size.
Emmings: But I think Joan, if you'd want to take the subjective element 1
out, you put it on a grid and you squash the creativity. If you want to
maximize creativity but you want to encourage some clustering and leaving
larger tracts of open space, I think you're always going to have the
subjective element to deal with. And I think good developers are going to II
do it right and you're going to know it when you see it.'
Ahrens: True but we're not always going to get good developers. We're ,
going to get anybody who has the money to come in and develop the land.
Emmings: But on a PUD. 1
Krauss: You have a lot of latitude to object. Also two other things.
First of all the intent statement, the way it's worded right now and this II
is language I think we got from you Ladd last time it came up. The intent
statement says that 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 concurrently be approved with the PUD. Jo
Ann also points out that you can put a ceiling on what will be counted.
The size of the lot that will be counted towards the average. You can say
nothing over 20,000 or 25,000 square feet will be counted towards your
average lot size. There's no basis in making a one acre lot.
Farmakes: Is that buildable square footage? 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 35
Krauss: Well we've got stuff in here about that. Now maybe the way, you
know.
Farmakes: But we got into a little bit of the argument with Lundgren on
the issues of the one up on Lake Lucy Road. He had the plot marks going
1 out to the middle of the wetland.
Krauss: Yeah. Your buildable square footage concern's a valid one but
it's not just valid in PUD's. I think we should address that for every lot
in the city. Subdivisions, PUD's or otherwise.
Farmakes: I agree. I agree because it's really deceptive. I mean it may
1 or may not be the intent but when they're coming up and when they did those
graphs and so on, as I said you were looking at lot lines that go down to
the middle of something that no matter if they build it on a PUD or normal
' development, that they could not build on. And it seemed to me like they
were trying to sell that in figuring out what the lot sizes really were.
Which they weren't.
Emmings: Well they were using that two ways. On the one hand they're
saying we're preserving all this open space and on the other hand they're
saying this lot has this many square feet and they're counting some of that
open space and it just seems real contradictory to me.
Krauss: We made Lundgren though break out, the table got quite exacting. I
mean it said this is a 30,000 square foot lot. 20,000 of it's outside the
1 wetland. We figured the average both ways in fact.
Emmings: Yeah. I know you did on that one. And maybe it's okay as long
as that puts everything right up front so there's no deception there.
Farmakes: On the one table I figured but, besides the wetland there's the
1 setback back from the wetland plus.
Krauss: But that's useable back yard area.
Farmakes: Right. That's what I'm saying. But it's useable, how much
useable square footage that lot was really going to be and I figured, just
guesstimating that the one was under 10,000 feet.
Krauss: But that's for the building footprint. But for your kids running
around playing frisbee or whatever. Bar- be -que pit or whatever you want to
do, that's all high dry ground.
Farmakes: Still, anything outside of that you're going to need a variance
for it right?
1 Krauss: To build a structure.
Farmakes: Yeah, air conditioning unit, whatever.
Conrad: That's too bad Brian and Tim weren't here because we'll probably
repeat this same conversation.
1
Planning Commission Meeting j
January 15, 1992 - Page 36
Emmings: We've done it 12 or 15 times haven't we?
Conrad: 1 know.
Ahrens: Are we finished on this?
Conrad: This is going to be close. We do have to wait for them to come
back.
Farmakes: This is still, the latitude that you're saying to reject this odl
reject these plans, do you feel from a practicality standpoint that we can III
basically reject just about anything?
Krauss: Unfortunately Roger was going to be here tonight. He's stuck in II
his driveway. He could answer that question more directly than I, but yes.
You've got a great deal of latitude.
Emmings: We're supposed to listen to a guy who gets stuck in his driveway
Krauss: With a Volvo. 1
Farmakes: If you do get a developer with a lot of integrity and really
does meet the intent of what that's going to be, he can do something really
'nice with that and it could be very beneficial to the community. But the
thing that makes everybody nervous is how small these lots come in. If
small lots and a developer with little or no integrity is, like you said,
you're going to build one 35,000 square foot lot and the rest are all going
to be 10,000.
Krauss: You've got a great deal of latitude on rezoning actions that you
don't have on a subdivision approval.
Emmings: Okay. That's important insurance. That makes me comfortable.
Does anybody else want to beat this dead horse?
Conrad: We should do it.
Emmings: We should do what? 11
Conrad: Table it.
Emmings: I like that. What a decisive person. Alright. Do we need a
motion to table it?
Krauss: No. I'm used to it.
Ahrens: Should we save these so you don't have to reprint all of these
again?
Krauss: No, I'll have to reprint anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: ...Robert's Rules of Order.
Emmings: We don't follow Robert's Rules of Order here. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 37
1 Conrad: It's Emmings' Rules of Order.
•
Emmings: We permanently suspended our rules when I became Chairman.
Krauss: It's probably going to be a month before we bring it back on.
That's because our next meeting we have one action item. 90% of the
meeting's going to be devoted to the TH 5 corridor. I've got Bill Moresch
who Steve knows from the University coming over with his folks to give you •
a presentation on what that task force...that we're looking at in terms of
broad concepts for TH 5. I think this is going to become basically the
Planning Commission's baby from here on out. We need to make some
decisions on how to structure the program. Set some goals for it and get
going on it so that will be our next meeting. The meeting after that looks
like a very heavy agenda. We've got Rosemount is coming in for a large
expansion. We have potentially a PUD, an industrial one. The one in front
of Timberwood. The office park. It's looking like that's coming in.
That's going to be a very complex proposal. Well, that will be next week
so we've got a few things cooking so we'll get this back on as soon as we
can.
Farmakes: I was just wondering if you had heard how Grand Met was being
met by McGlynn is basically the operation in Chanhassen here. How that was
going to affect their operation.
Krauss: I'm not sure. We really need to contact them because they're most
curious about it. They're not going to vacate the facilities. I
understood the article is they bought the facility because it's the most
efficient baking operation in the country. But McGlynn's also has 35 acres
that's been on the market and I'm not sure if that stayed within the
McGlynn family or if Grand Met owns it and if they're going to be more
disposed to sell it now. It's a very important corner visually from TH 5
standpoint.
Emmings: As far as this goes, we could maybe approach it this way. That
folks should just come in. Next time this is on the agenda, just let
people state what their positions are on it in 2 minutes or less and then
have a motion and pass or don't pass something. But we've talked about it
enough. So put it on and then we'll just make sure, we'll sit here with an
alarm clock.
1 Farmakes: Egg timer.
Emmings: An egg timer. That's in Robert's Rules of Order isn't it, an egg
timer? Alright.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
December 4, 1991 were noted by the Chairman as presented.
' CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Emmings: We've got a report from the director that says there's nothing to
report. Except he wants to talk about goals. Then there's this, what's
the map Paul? I mean I recognize it as Chanhassen but what are you showing
us?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 20
Emmings: Ladd.
Conrad: No.
Emmings: Annette. 1
Ellson: No way.
Emmings: Brian.
Batzli: It should go somewhere way down the list.
Emmings: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: Somewhere down the list.
Emmings: Okay, and I'd say no. Why don't you run that straw vote by the
City Council and see if they want us to spend time or if they want you toil
spend time on it. Then we'll go from there.
Willard Johnson: Some gentleman mentioned 2 1/2 acres.
Erhart: That was no gentleman. That was me.
Willard Johnson: ...when we were granting variances to the southern part
of the city there for building...we pushed them to one side of the lot.
Erhart: Not anymore. It used to be that way.
Willard Johnson: We encouraged them to push to one side of the lot becau
some day you're going to develop and can't afford to keep the property.
Well this guy can decide to put another place behind him and then he sell
off the other and it could perpetuate a number of homes. Just a small
development on 2 1/2 acres...so I just thought I'd throw that at you
people. I've seen so much. Thank you.
Emmings: Yeah, thank you.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. 1
Paul Krauss presented the staff report.
Ellson: I have a question. What's an over story tree? 1
Krauss: It's a deciduous tree with a crown on it.
Ellson: Oh! I thought it was big enough to reach the top story of the
house or something.
Krauss: Hopefully it will be.
Erhart: Just throw these terms in once in a while to keep us jumping. 1
Emmings: Yeah. What did we call those trees in our landscape ordinance?
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 21
Krauss: Trees.
i Batzli: Trees from Catagory A?
Erhart: Canopy trees. It used to be canopy trees.
Emmings: I wondered about that.
Krauss: You can call them deciduous. I think we did call them deciduous.
Although there are deciduous trees that are, I mean a birch tree is a
deciduous tree.
1 Ellson: Those little poplars that are narrow and tall and skinny and stuff
wouldn't be considered an over story one.
I Emmings: Alright. I'd like to ask you, in your Section 1 in A and also
again in another place. On page 3 at the bottom there and then in
paragraph D. It says in no instance shall project density exceed
comprehensive plan guidelines. I know the answer to this but I just want
to see if you do. What does that incorporate here? It incorporates
obviously the comprehensive plan guidelines for density but what are we
saying when we say that here?
I Krauss: For example the comprehensive plan designates the low density
designation as 0 to 4 units per acre. Maximum 4 units an acre. If you
I used 9,000 square foot lots, and let me see if my math is 18, you can
theoretically get more homes on a site than, you could have more than 4
units per acre.
Emn•iings: Right, but you're not going to let them do that is what it's
saying here.
l Krauss: Right.
Ellson: Is that the answer you wanted to hear?
1 Emmings: Yeah.
Ellson: You passed.
I Conrad: I don't know. So the plan says 0 to 4 units.
1 Emmings: Is low density.
Conrad: I guess my problem with A, as soon as you say 9,000 square feet,
that's your standard.
Emmings: No. Down to a minimum of.
Conrad: I know.
Ellson: You say we're just going to get a bunch of 9,000's.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 24
Emmings: Because it's scarey. j
0
Conrad: Well yeah but you've got to know how this looks.
Elison: But don't forget, we always get to approve these things. You're 1
thinking once it's written.
Conrad: Well you can change it but boy. But you kind of have a sense foil
what this is going to feel like or look like once it comes in. And on the
other hand, do you want to encourage developers to do this? That's what
our last PUD ordinance didn't do. It was not encouraging. You've got to
give them something to get something that we want, yet most people here
town really aren't crazy about smaller lot sizes. If you went out and
polled, you're going to find very few that want to go down smaller. Very p I
few. You're talking.
Batzli: Then raise our minimum lot size to a half acre. Keep the PUD
15,000 and you're set. You want them to use PUD, everybody will use PUD.
Erhart: Average net lot size, is that net of the open space?
Krauss: Excluding designated wetland.
Erhart: And open space?
Krauss: No. i
Erhart: It includes the open space?
Krauss: Yes. Keep in mind what qualifies as open space here is listed
in E I think.- The idea with the PUD, I mean I went through what was it, i
the Saddlebrook subdivision today. We had people from Moody's Investors 1
Service here today.
Erhart: The guy's got to have 25% open space. How can he possibly get t(I
9,000 square feet?
Krauss: It's not the lot that has it. It's the project.
Erhart: I know but if you've got 100% and 25% of it's open space, you've
got 750 less. If your minimum lot size is 9,000 and you've got to add I
another 25 %, you can't possibly get to an average net lot size of 9,000.
Krauss: Yeah you could. You're assuming that everything's going to be
split up as it is in Saddlebrook in individual lots and there is no public
or private open space in outlot designations or some other non- residentia:.
lot.
Erhart: No, I'm saying you can't get down to 9,000.
Krauss: Sure you could. If you have 100 acres, you can have 49,000 square
foot lots and the rest of it open space.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 25
' Erhart: But I thought you said that open space was included in the
acreage, included in the net. That's net of the open space?
Krauss: No. The open space percentage, maybe we could clarify that. The
' average net lot size is, after we exclude wetlands, what is the average lot
size they're giving us.
Erhart: Oh okay. That's average lot size. Okay. Alright. I was
thinking that was the density figure. Okay.
Krauss: And the open space percentage applies on the entire project area.
Erhart: So then you have 9,000. Why aren't we just taking 6,000 and
putting that in open space which would be 40%?
' Krauss: Well, I approached it differently I guess.
Erhart: You're saying to go to a PUD there's going to be an inefficiency.
That inefficiency is that 15 %. So in fact what we're getting is 9,000
times 1.3 so we're really getting 12,000. If you took then all 9,000
square foot lots, you add the 33% which yeilds 25% open space, then your
average lot size, including the open space, is 12,000 square feet. That's
what you've got.
Krauss: That's if you, so you're going back and you're aggregating the
entire area?
Erhart: Yeah, I'm just trying to see what our average lot size is.
' Krauss: I think another way to get at this same issue and I think the one
that maybe Ladd was leading to, was when you go back into A where we say
11 the cap on this thing is the comp plan. What I'm hearing you say is that
the comp plan cap which, you know the comp plan just talks about density. I
mean if you have a 100 acre tract, you can build Cedar Riverside on there
' and still have the same density. Density that's consistent with that.
Maybe you want to look at lowering the allowable densities in single family
residential PUD's.
1 Erhart: No, but do you understand what I came up with? Brian?
Batzli: No.
1 Erhart: I'm just trying to rationalize the 25 %. If you take 9,000 square
feet and have a whole development and your average lot size was 9,000
' square feet, you'd be required to set aside 25% of the good space. Now
that's 25% of the whole development though isn't it?
Conrad: No.
Erhart: It's 25% of the net.
' Conrad: Of the average lot size.
Emmings: No. 25% of the whole development.
•
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 26
II
Erhart: Of the whole or net? Net of wetlands?
Krauss: Of the whole. II
Erhart: That 25% can mean a lot from one parcel to the next because one
parcel might be 50% wetland yet he has to provide, he gets a few lots and
still has to provide 250 of the whole parcel where the next guy may have
100% developable land and he has to provide 25 %. 1
Emmings: Well wait. It says wetlands and other water bodies protected by
city ordinance and permanent easement. It can also be used to satisfy up
to 25% of the standard. 25% of the 25% if we're looking at the 9,000 lini
Erhart: It gets very complicated.
Krauss: The idea is to crank out additional open space out of this thing 1
Emmings: So we should be winding up with more than the 25 %.
II
Krauss: Well I think you did in the Lundgren /Lake Lucy when you went with
41 %.
Erhart: Yeah but some of that, anyway. II
Conrad: But how do you administer that Paul? You know the PUD comes in
and it's got some 9,000. Some 11,000. Some 12,000. Some 15,000 and how II
do you end up with an overall project open space amount? You've got to
apply a percentage times each parcel.
Ellson: No, the average. II
Krauss: You come in with 100 acres. You've got 33 lots. The average lo
size is 10,000 square feet. You owe us 22.5 acres of open space.
Batzli: So if he doesn't have that built into his lot already when he
comes in. He may have to reduce lots and then that number changes again.
Erhart: I think maybe I can explain what I was trying to get to. Take th-
ideal situation where 100% of the land is developable.
Emmings: No wetlands.
Erhart: No wetlands. The guy just comes in with a bunch of 9,000 square"
foot lots.
Emmings: Only 9,000 square foot lots? 1
Erhart: Only 9,000.
Krauss: The ordinance says you can't. II
Erhart: We can't. Then how can you get to the average? How can you get
the average net lot size to 9,000?
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
g
October 2, 1991 - Page 27
II
Krauss: I supposed it could be thereotically.
1 Elison: It could be one. You never know.
1 Emmings: It can't because on an acre we can only have, what is the comp
plan going to limit it to?
Krauss: Well the comp plan limits you to 4 so on an acre, that's 36.
I Emmings: Thousand out of 45,000 square feet.
II Erhart: You could be a medium density area which allows what, 6 per acre?
Emmings: Let's talk about.
II Erhart: Now you bring up a good point. Can't you get to the average of
9,000?
II Krauss: I don't know. I don't know that you theoretically can.
Erhart: Then why even have this in the table?
II Elison: We had that thing with the church over here and they wanted to put
something in there and it was just one. It's a possibility.
II Erhart: Where does it say you can't get to 9,000. What's the role I'm
missing here?
I Kratuss A requires that you give us a mix of lot sizes so even if you come
in wit 9,000, they're going to have to come in with something else.
II Emmings: They can't just come in with 9,000.
Elison: It says right there. There are a mix of lot sizes.
II Erhart: Which line?
Elison: A. The third line down.
II Erhart: Okay, but we don't really define mix so if they came in with one
9,500 then.
1 Krauss: But you can throw it out. You can do whatever you want to in a
PUD.
I Erhart: Okay, let's assume they are all 9,000 100% developable. Then what
you get is on an average over that 100% developable a 12,000 square
foot average lot size when you add back in the 25% open space. Then the
I question is, does that seem right? That goes back to our old ordinance. I
guess maybe the number where we got that number was the old ordinance
allowed us to go to 12,000 square foot minimum lot size right?
II Krauss: I could lie and say that...
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 28
Erhart: That you figured that all out right?
Krauss: That's a lucky one there. ,
Erhart: Well that's a...does that seem right to us? I don't know.
Emmings: That doesn't talk about roads or anything else. That doesn't I
seem like you're accomplishing any one thing to me. But I don't think
that's what's going on here either.
Erhart: Well what's going on here is you're not going to have 9,000 and
maybe you're going to have 11,000 average but then you're only going to
yeild 20 %. So when you take 11,000 times 1.25 and your average lot size I
now is 13,750 when you add that back in.
Krauss: But I think one point we keep overlooking is the one that you
touched on about the advantages of clustering. In a straight subdivision'
that's all roped off and fenced off into people's backyards. There's no
public good. There was no ability to preserve stands of trees. There's
ability to preserve promontory.. This gives you flexibilty to rope off 22°
of the site or whatever ratio it is and do good things with it. And stil
keep the densities relatively low.
Conrad: But higher overall than what we've been used to.
Ellson: And that's the carrot that you get them to use. We talked about"
it before.
Conrad: So you don't mind Annette, instead of coming in at_2 units per
acre, which has been our standard. You don't mind coming in at 2 1/2 unit
or 3 units per acre?
Ellson: Well number one I'll be able to see it. Although probably not mt
but the idea behind a PUD is they don't tell you I've met everything. Yo
have to take it no matter what we choose which is the problem with.
Conrad: They're going to come in and say I met your standards. r
Ellson: But at the PUD, we're the ones who decide if we like it or not.
We don't have that choice in some other things.
1
Batzli: But then they'll say fine. We'll do it under your regular
ordinance and tough luck. 1
Emmings: Then we say fine.
Ellson: Then we'll say fine. Then we'll get what we wanted possibly
instead but we have a chance to deny it if we think they're trying to rap
the system or use it in a way we don't like it. We get that shot.
Conrad: I tell you Annette. I'll play the record. They'll look at the II
ordinance and say the ordinance allows it and you're within the guidelines
of the ordinance and we'll say go ahead.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 29
E11son: But Paul will be isn't looking at it and he'll say, this isn t what we
want out PUD's. We wanted that nice wetland and that nice view. Why don't
you clear up that space and do whatever. He'll see it first and make that
recommendation.
' Batzli: Let me make a general point here as a person who lives in a PUD.
We're talking about very lofty, fine goals here.
Conrad: It doesn't give you any more credibility.
Batzli: It doesn't but just let me express.
I Conrad: You're an outcast in that group anyway. I've talked to your
neighbors.
Emmings: I don't even want to sit next to him.
Batzli: Let me just express, we have very lofty goals here and we think
I we're doing public good but I think if you wandered into a PUD and asked
the people in the PUD what do you want. They'd look at you and say, I want
bigger lots so I can do the regular stuff that everybody else in the whole,
pardon my french, damn city can do on their lot.
Erhart: What don't you buy a different lot then?
Batzli: Well but they don't know.
E11con: What about the people who say I want a 5 minute front lawn?
Batzli: They don't know. People moving in to these lots are typically,
and I'll gross over generalization and simplification. These lots are
typically cheaper. Maybe Lundgren Bros. builds high priced lots but the
I other people can come in here and they build starter homes on some of these
things. In a lot of cases. They don't know any better. Even somebody
such EIE myself who probably should have known better didn't know any
I better. I didn't realize what the difference between a PUD and a regular
lot size was. They don't recognize the fact. You know you're looking at a
9,000 square foot lot and if that's a corner lot, you've got about 2,000
square feet to do something on and that includes putting your house and
I driveway and everything else on there which leaves barely any room on it at
all. And before you start talking about global good and wonderful open
spaces and everything else, consider that the people that move in don't
I give a rip if there's a park there because they expect a park there whether
they've got a regular lot size or a small lot size. They don't care. They
don't want to hear that well we've got a park for you. They're going to
I say yeah, and you gave me this dinky lot that I can't do anything on and
you should have given me a park anyway. If we keep on saying Chanhassen is
supposed to be good and wonderful, make them put in normal sized lots and
get the park in addition. That's my final and only comment on this. I
I can't believe we're thinking of going down to any 9,000 square foot lots.
Erhart: Do you have 9,000 square foot lots in your PUD Brian?
I Batzli: I don't know how big they are.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 30
Emmings: Just his.
i
Batzli: Just mine. I got the corner lot. I got the corner lot and I'm II
stuck with it. No but seriously. I do think that if we do this, and you
know something's going to happen and I can see it coming down the tracks
like a train just about to run me over here. But I would like to propose!'
that at least we require the developers that are putting these in to tell
people what they're getting. They have to tell them what the square
footage of the lot is and what the setbacks are on the sides of the homes
Give them a sheet. I don't care. Informed consent. I think we should d
that much for some of these people.
Erhart: Let me ask you. Let me clarify what you said. Are you saying wil
should never allow 9,000 square foot lots or an average of 9,000 square
foot lots?
Batzli: I wouldn't allow any. '
Erha) t Any at all.
Conrad: What's your minimum? What lot size would you go down to?
Ellson: He just said the half acre. '
Batzli: Whatever the smallest lot size is in the city now, there's a
reason for that.
Emmings: Yeah, there's a reason.
Batzli: Whatever the reason is that we've chosen that. '
Erhart: Throw a dart at a board.
Batzli: Okay, then we should throw the same dart at the board for the PUI
My recommendation is, if you want control over developments, you increase
the minimum lot size and you put the minimum on that you would otherwise
have expected as the minimum in the PUD. Don't be compromising your
standards to get a little bit of clustering and a park that you should have
gotten anyway. That irritates me.
Emmings: If we did what Brian is proposing and raised this to our
subdivision standards of 15,000 square feet, would we ever see a PUD?
Krauss: You just did. 1
Emmings: Right. That's right. Lundgren Bros. Well maybe Brian's. I w
kind of liking this until Brian.
Erhart: We were sold on the 9,000 square foot lots because we got a few of
then up there in Near Mountain and I.don't know. I guess I haven't
personally gone and looked at them'. You've got a few slides and you can'll
tell much from that but staff seemed to think they were okay.
Ellson: And I really believe that the market is going to... '
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 31
1
Erhart: There's a big difference between having a few 9,000 square foot
lots and having a development where the average lot size is 11,000 square
foot in my mind.
Emmings: But if you say I've got 100 acres and I'm going to put 10 lots,
ten 9,000 square foot lots and leave the rest empty, I take if you have no
objection to that.
Erhart: No, but that's not what you're saying.
Emmings: No, I know it's not but it isn't the lot size. It's the ratio to
open space per lot size. I can see, we all like clustering. At least we
all talk about it. We don't really know what it is but.
Erhart: I'm not sure if you get 100 9,000 square foot lots all together
and then you've got another 25 acres sitting or 50 acres sitting someplace
off to the side.
' Emmings: We'd never approve that though. Now you're painting a picture.
Ellson: A worst case scenario.
Emmings: No, not even a worst case scenario. It can't happen because it
would run afoul of our comprehensive plan and it would run afoul of the
intent that we have in having a PUD ordinance.
1 Batzli: Okay, so make them all 11,000 square feet.
Erhart: I just wonder if we shouldn't delete some of those lines down
there like 9 and 10 and maybe even 11 and give us another, raise our
basement line a little.bit here. In other words, yeah you can have some
9,000 squarc foot lots but don't even think about coming in here with a
9,000 a <vcrege. Maybe we set a 12,000 average. See what. I'm saying? We're
kind of inviting a lot of 9,000 square foot lots the way we have this table
here.
' Conrad: I'd sure try to do.
Emmings: You'd never have an average 9,000 though. We keep coming back
around to that. It can't happen. Only if they came in with only 9,000
square foot lots could you ever have that.
Conrad: So let's take that worst case scenario because we will see it.
Emmings: It isn't possible.
r Conrad: Why not? Okay, let's take it. Let's take the 10,000.
Emmings: Do you agree?
Krauss: I agree that it's not possible.
Conrad: Then we shouldn't have it there.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 32
Krauss: But you know I keep going back to the fact that we had an
ordinance on the books for years that said there's an average lot size of
12,500 square feet. Nobody used it because. '
Conrad: That was a minimum. That was a minimum lot size.
Krauss: No it was an average wasn't it? i
Conrad: No, minimum.
Emmings: That was a minimum.
Conrad: We're talking here now. I get real concerned when we talk avera
versus minimum. I am real comfortable allowing some smaller lot sizes bu
boy that's not the average. That's the average, I really don't want to
compromise the average.
Emmings: But again, maybe we're getting too specific here. Shouldn't we
be saying to people look. Here's our subdivision ordinance. Here's what
you can do. An option you've got is the PUD ordinance. Under the PUD
ordinance you've can do a whole bunch of things. One of the things you ca
do is have lots that are smaller than what is required under the
subdivision ordinance but if you come in under that, expect to have open
space requirements that are going to go up as fast as your lot sizes go
down and don't really expect to have a smaller or a greater gross density.
Batzli: Well you wouldn't be able to have a larger gross density because'
of the comp plan right?
Emmings: Right. Well tell them right up front. Don't expect to get a I
larger gross density. And if you're going to come in below what our
subdivision ordinance allows for lot sizes, then as that goes down, the
open space requirement's going to go up. And don't put the numbers in
there. Then let them figure out how they're going to cluster' and bring u
a plan to look at.
Krauss: So now put in new criteria? '
Emmings: Yeah. Then if they want to go with zero lot line or if they wa
to go with a small lots with detached houses or whatever they want to do,
let them figure that out.
Batzli: We're going to be arbitrary and capricious.
Emmings: Yeah but within the PUD I think you can.
Erhart: It sure helps the process to have some guidelines. '
Ellson: Yeah, I like Paul's thing. Plus people come and go reading this.
Emmings: You don't really like it because you want to erase a lot of
things.
•
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 33
Erhart: I just don't think we should think about less than 12. I don't
know why I'm picking 12. I guess because it's the old number. I would
never think about having average lot size of less than 12,000.
Emmings: But this really stiffles. These charts to me kind of stiffle the
' creativity that you might allow somebody to have. Why not let them figure
it out?
Conrad: Let's just remember. I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth
but that 12,500 minimum didn't encourage anything in our old PUD ordinance.
It did not motivate anybody so I think Paul's putting out a carrot here to
say hey, let's motivate them to do this. I'm just wanting to make sure
that we motivate them but we're not giving away the integrity of the
community. And I can't understand what we are getting. I guess what I'd
like to see is some sketches of what this does. I'd like to see somebody
' lay out how this would be applied and that doesn't mean we hire a designer
but I need to see what this might look like if somebody came in. And we
haven't, you know Tim's point is still on the table. It's still valid.
He's saying to go down to 9,000 square feet, we're giving up 6,000 square
feet below a standard that we've set for a subdivision but we're only
getting 2,250 feet out of it in open space. Is that the lure? Is that
3,500 foot, the developer has a net gain on that one of 3,500 square feet.
Is that what it takes to get a PUD? And then the question is have we
gained anything with that PUD? What have we really gotten. I'm throwing
those things out but I guess I still have a tough time visualizing what
' this formula does for us. I don't want to kick it out yet. I'd rather
have it in there because it might be a good guideline but on the other hand
I want to know what it does before I approve it. I want to know how it,
I've got to see it and feel it and I can't right here.
• Krauss: Well we can sure take a crack at doing that. I guess a couple
things have happened too. I think we're talking about a couple different
goals for the use of the PUD. I think in the Lundgren proposal we saw that
there was a rationale and a benefit to coming to using the PUD ordinance
for a subdivision whose lots averaged 31,000 square feet.
111 Erhart: Hold it there. 31,000 square feet included a lot of water.
Krauss: Yeah. Well and that's why I threw in the language here excluding
' designated wetlands because there was an issue with that in the average lot
size.
' Erhart: Average real lot size is dinky.
Krauss: But that's normal. You look at subdivisions around Chanhassen,
they're all like that.
Bat Yeah, I know. That's what I was saying earlier. I don't like it.
' Krauss: I think one of the things I've been tossing over is maybe we need
a minimum net buildable standard for all lots in the city. I mean you
could have a 100,000 square foot lot if you can't accommodate a 5,000 foot
square foot building area, it's no good. We might want to consider that as
' an ordinance amendment in the bigger picture. I think it's certainly
Planning Commission Meeting II
October 2, 1991 - Page 34
i II
warranted. That's why we started giving you tables and we can't do
anything about it except give it to you but giving you tables now where 1
say here, it's a 18,000 square foot lot. 5,000 square foot of it is
wetlands. In fact it was one of the things you requested in Lundgren but
we're starting to do that in everything.
Farmakes: If you did that though, wouldn't you eliminate about 3 of thosA
lots that they were proposing there?
Krauss: Well again, against what standards Jeff because the lots that all
in there are bigger than we normally get and everywhere you go in
Chanhassen we have wetlands. That's a very common situation.
I
Farmakes: But what Tim said though, a majority of those lots, at least
some of those lots were wetland. Standing water and he made a point when
he was here arguing that you had to look at the lot all the way out to th�
lot point in the middle of the skunk pond which I didn't understand. Why.
Krauss: Because you've done it in every other subdivision in the city.
Batzli: So Paul says develop a new one that says you need at least a
certain minimum area where you can put some building on it or something.
Krauss: And not come back, doesn't say it needs variances because you
can't put a house on it. Now we've tried to do that. We've gone through
in the last couple years and we've tried to figure out what we think a I
buildable size is and tell the builder that that's not legitimate but we
have no guidelines to do it. If it doesn't look right, we try to make them
fix it. But I think it's appropriate to, I mean we can do some research
you like and come back to you but I think an ordinance amendment and it
would apply to any lots created in the RSF, RR or A -2 and PUD have to
contain a minimum buildable area regardless of how big they are.
Farmakes: I think you would avoid what a person is designing that out. I
There would always be 2 or 3 lots and that many homes that you're going to
have to force just as a matter of economics that you're going to try to gen
in there on whatever's left over. When I look at that Lundgren, you can II
almost pick them out with looking at it for 10 minutes as to which ones
were, what they had left over and what they were going to try to make a 1
out of.
Krauss: Yeah I know what you're speaking to but every lot in there has a
legitimate building site to the extent that we know what legitimate
building sites are and we don't have a criteria. I know that the buildin
sites that are on those lots, even though some of them have quite extensive
wetlands, are bigger than we find on a lot of other lots in regular RSF II
subdivisions.
Farmakes: Most of them did. There were a few that seemed to me as far a
useable space were on the bottom end of this list here.
Krauss: They were tighter and will probably require designed home to fit.
So as far as this, I mean I have now become a believer that there's some II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 35
use for PUD's, residential PUD's that don't lower our average lot size at
all.
Erhart: That was the question I had. Why, if a guy has a 15,000 square
foot average, why are we making him set aside any open space? The only
' reason would be if, yeah I mean why?
Conrad: That's true. A subdivision we're penalizing so anything 15,000
and under however I think we should be getting something in return. That's
where we're bending our standards.
Erhart: Yeah, I always thought that we were taking 15,000 square foot
' let's say, this idealized lot and if a guy wanted to make it 9, the city
gets 6 for open space and there's no inefficiency. Right now we've got a
lot of inefficiency.
' Batzli: What's the developer's advantage to doing that rather than they
might have shorter stubs?
Conrad: Clustering utilities.
Erhart: Clustering. Make them more creative. You might want to get rid
' of, like up here we let them use less than the standard setbacks. That was
a major thing for that. I remember that presentation. That was a big deal
that he wanted those houses 20 feet from the street. And so he got that.
' Emmings: Another flexibility.
' Krauss: Well and we're working with Lundgren now on that Johnson - Delache
piece between TH 41 and Galpin. There you're talking 90 or 100 acres. I
don't know what it is and if we look to that.
' Emmings: Would you do it as a PUD?
Krauss: Yeah. Now maybe as a PUD in there, it's big enough that Lundgren
will probably try to market to different prices of homes. Maybe they will
have a bunch of 11,000 square foot lots. Further on where the land gets a
little nicer and more rolling, they may have a bunch of 30,000 square foot
lots. And your average lot size will probably still come out to be better
I than 15,000. At that point you don't look at varying your standard at all.
You maintain your average lot size.
' Emmings: So then you don't get any.
Erhart: So that's why you're saying at 15 we should still take 10 because
there's going to be bigger lots that's going to offset smaller. Okay, now
I understand that.
Batzli: Would all the open space may be on the larger sized lot end of the
development too and then you've clustered, for the sake of clustering the
smaller homes.
I Emmings: Yeah, do we want to do that? Should they have to have open. If
they're going to have 11,000 square foot lots, even though they've got a
•
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 36
bunch of 30,000 to offset it, bring the average to 16 or 17. If they're
going to have those 11's, do you want to have to create open space that I
isn't owned by another lot.
Krauss: Well we said they were willing to accept. Keep in mind when we'r
saying open space, the way this ordinance is structured, that's not socce
fields. I mean if the city wants a park, a percentage of that area can b
used to qualify.
Emmings: What are we talking about when we say open space? '
Krauss: You may be talking about.
Emmings: Places where there aren't houses.
Krauss: Yeah but it could be portions of somebody's lot. On the Lundgre
deal that's going to Council in 2 weeks, the tree preservation areas wher
we've said there's no cutting and we're going to take a conservation
easement, that's all on what will be private property but it's protected
a permanent easement. We said that qualifies.
Emmings: Yeah, and you're going to have that same opportunity on the new.
one because that all butts up against a wetland too on the south side.
Batzli: I just think it's small comfort for a person on an 11,000 square
foot lot to know that a quarter of a mile away they preserved a stand of I
trees on somebody elses private property. Now that person may walk into
that knowing full well what they're purchasing. Maybe they do, maybe they
don't. Maybe as a city we don't care. I'd like to take a little bit moil
paternalistic attitude.
Krauss: I don't know where you want to draw the line. I mean somebody
walks into a Chevy dealer, they don't expect to walk out with an Oldsmobil
you know. Someplace people have to understand what the limitations are.
Clearly in the past.
Batzli: We're looking at the ordinance and we don't understand it. Do yll
expect somebody to come into the city buying a lot and say well, I'm
purchasing a PUD. Explain to me all the rules and regs. Would you have '
the time and effort to explain it.
Emmings: No, but I think Paul is saying if you're buying a lot you ought
to know the size of it.
1
Batzli: I understand that but.
Krauss: Also in the past I think there's been almost total, I mean these'
things haven't been done. Nobody's done a residential PUD here in 5 years.
We still have one building built out but you have a very comprehensive
PUD ordinance now where a lot of things have to be demonstrated and filed'
with property and made clear and we're going the extra step like in the
Lundgren thing where we're requiring monumentation of the wetland setback
areas and things like that. We can do a lot that puts the owner on noticil
Now if the owner chooses not to read anything or not to call, then we have"
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 37
a concern. Now I know the issue Brian that you gave us the letter on the
' deck. Under the ordinance now as this is written, that wouldn't have
happened.
Batzli: Yeah, I understand that. I still have a problem with corner lots,
their ability to be 9,000 square feet and then you're looking at, like I
said, you're looking at 2,000 square feet potentially of space on the lot
other than the setback. I guess I understand buyer beware but after having
' lived in the community now of 100 homes in my little PUD and talking to
most of them and it's their fault. They don't read the local paper. They
don't care. They don't know. They don't want to know but the minute they
want to do something with their property, then suddenly they get into it
and the question is, do you want to protect these people or not. Is the
City getting something and is what the City's getting worth raising the
eyre of a lot of people moving into the community. Maybe they should have
' known better but I guarantee you less than 1% will find out that they're
living on a substandard lot that the City things they got a tree preserved
a quarter of a mile away in exchange for their substandard lot. That's my
' point.
Conrad: Those people are happy to move into a 10,000 square foot lot.
Ellson: Who are we to tell them?
Erhart.: I think if they don't like it they can always sell it and move to
' a bigger lot.
Ellson: They've got the choice going in.
' Erhart: It's not like they don't have options and I realize it's
inefficient.
' Ellson: If something has to be marked off for them or some sort of
notification that a lot of people don't realize they're within the setback
of the wetland and all these other kinds of things and too many come forth
and say oh, I didn't know. That's why I filled it all in. That kind of
thing. They'll ignore that anyway even though they'll still say they never
heard about it. If they want to do it, they're going to do it. And you
having easements on those protected things is mightly strong now versus a
convenant in the past which were worthless in protecting.
Krauss: That happens on 2 acre lots too. I think you're going to have to
' answer the fundamental question, because I'm not sure. Do you want, I mean
I think we've demonstrated that the PUD has some validity beyond allowing
undersized lots. Now you may well want to allow some freedome for
' undersized lots instead of minimum but require that the average is
consistent with other city neighborhoods. Is there a desire to grant
flexibility below the 15,000 square foot average or should we structure
this so that doesn't happen?
l Conrad: When you say average, the 15,000 square foot average. That's the
minimum so I'm not sure what you're saying Paul.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 38
Krauss: What I'm saying is you could 'change this around so that you might
have a 9,000 or a 10,000 or 11,000. Whatever you want to set as the
minimum lot area that you allow in a PUD. That will give a developer
flexibility to put in some smaller lots where those are appropriate. But
require that the average lot size meet or exceed 15,000 square feet.
Erhart: That's our old ordinance.
Krauss: Yeah and before we had the Lundgren thing come down, I wasn't toil
sure that anybody, nobody had used the old ordinance. Now the old
ordinance was a bad deal for everybody. It was a bad deal for the buyers.
It was a bad deal for the city and the city never got what the developers
promised which was more affordable housing. There were no guidelines and '
no standards. But in an area like this Johnson - Delache piece the
flexibility that the PUD may give a developer to take like the open
cornfield area and do the smaller lots and preserve the larger wooded
hilltops for the larger lots and average it out, maybe that's a worthwhil
exchange. I don't know.
Conrad: Let me interrupt you. I know you've got a thought maybe.
Batzli: Which is new.
Conrad: But it's real easy to agree with Tim's comment. I can understan
what Tim is saying because it makes real good mathematical sense. If we
have a 15,000 square foot subdivision minimum, now we're going to break
that rule for a PUD. You can go underneath that down to a minimum lot si
of what we ever agree. Whatever Brian feels comfortable with but then you
take the difference between the 15,000 minimum and what they just went doll
to and you plop that into open space.
Emmings: Not on somebody else's lot.
Conrad: No. See all of a sudden, now I've solved my density. My concer
about increased density for the overall deal because I've allocated that
same 15,000. It's either going to be there in a subdivision or a PUD but'
I've allowed the developer to go down and cluster some utilities and save
some money but the difference is I've taken what he's saved landwise and
I've put it in our little bank over to the side called open space. Now
that one I can visualize and feel comfortable with. But I can't, I still
have a tough time with our formula that we've got because I can't tell
what's going to happen. I don't know if it's, I just don't know. Now
Paul's comment could be, hey that's not going to motivate the developer till
do it and that's a valid. That would be a real valid.
Erhart: Yeah, because I think the incentive is still there because he gell
to put some 9,000 square foot lots.
Conrad: See I would too but I don't know that.
Erhart: I think it's very hard to get the average down below 14,000 or
13,000. I think it's more likely you're going to see the averages above
15,000, even despite the fact that you may have some 9's and 12's in therl
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 39
II Conrad: See the word average bothers me. Again I'm talking about minimum
and going below a minimum. We're not talking about, well.
I Emmings: That is a problem because if your average gets over 15,000, now
there's no requirement to set aside any open space.
1 Erhart: Well that's the question I've got. Now hang on. That's not the
way I read this. I read this as any time you go in a PUD you've got to put
10% open space period. Is that what I'm reading?
I
Krauss: Well, we just changed that to 15,000 square feet or above.
I Erhart: So then anytime you have a PUD you have to put aside 10% open
space. Is that what you're saying? Is that what we want?
I Ellson: No. I want a lot more than that.
Erhart: I mean if a guy comes in at 16,000 or 17,000 square foot, should
we require them to set aside 10 %?
II Krauss: What are you requiring of the individual who does a straight
subdivision?
1 Ellson: You're getting at least.
Krauss: No, unless the city wants a park there which is the 10%, they give
1
nothing.
Erhart: You don't have to have park fees or parks with the PUD?
I Krauss Yes you do.
I Erhart: Maybe I misunderstand your question. If a guy comes in with a PUD
because he wants to have some setbacks, special setbacks for something. Who
knows what but yet his average lot size is 20,000 square feet, we're still
going to make him provide 10% open space? Is that what we want?
I Krauss: I think that's the theory that we're getting to here but you've
got to ask yourselves, what if Orrin Thompson wants to do a 1950
I subdivision here and the city doesn't want a park on the property? He's
not giving you a square inch.
I Batzli: Giving you pretty good fees but you're right, no square inch of
open space.
Erhart: Do a 1950's what?
I Ellson: Cracker box, cracker box.
I Krauss: Yeah, your usual suburban subdivision. Straight subdivision.
Straight platting. Unless the park board says they need park space there,
you don't have a single foot of open space.
II Erhart: No, but they've got to pay a fee.
1
Planning Commission Meeting I
October 2, 1991 - Page 40
. II
Krauss: Right. Well so these people are paying fees too. They're paying
identical fees.
II
Batzli: You know how these problems are solved? We just move the minimum
lot size in RSF to 20,000 square feet. Done deal. Everybody just smirks
when I say that. I don't understand why it's such a sacred cow.
II
Emmings: Well, it isn't.
Conrad: It costs a lot of money. 1
Batzli: People will come in and do PUD's then. If you want PUD's, that'
the way to get them to do PUD's. But we can't even decide what we want t
PUD to be.
Conrad: This is not easy.
II
Ellson: Where do we go from here?
Erhart: I'm still trying to understand why, if a guy comes in with an II
18,000 foot average. The big question is, why might he want a PUD?
Krauss: For the reason we found on the Lundgren proposal is that if you
throw 30 foot front yards and 75 foot rear yards and 50 foot or 60 foot
rights -of -way at them, you have a very difficult time making a legitimate
development out of that thing. He got the flexibility.
II
Erhart: The price you pay then for that is a 10% of it goes to open space.
Krauss: And in his case it's 40% of open space.
1
Batzli: Not under the new formula.
Krauss: No, I haven't applied the formula. Of the 12. something acres o
open space, 8 of it's wetland. So you would give them 2 acres of that.
Batzli: Get 2 acres, yeah. • 1
Emmings: I tell you, well. You guys are always arguing for specifics in
ordinances and I'm always arguing to keep them vague but all the problems '
are created by trying to come up with a formula and I don't know why we
can't just avoid it. I don't know why you would want to.
Ellson: You're saying spell the intent out clear enough. II
Batzli: But if we can't decide on what's fair now, how are we ever going'
to decide the minute a developer walks in unless you have at least an
"acceptable range ". You will be expected to provide within this range for
open space. 10% to 20%.
Emmings: I could go along with that. II
Batzli: Yeah, I could go along with that..
II
II
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 41
Emmings: A statement in a range 1 could live with very easily.
Batzli: The developer will be expected to provide between 10% and 20% open
1 space. End of it.
•
Emmings: Another statement. If you go below 15,000 feet, expect to have a
greater requirement. To the extent you have lots below 15,000 square feet,
expect to have greater requirements for open space.
Krauss: For individual lots or average density below that?
Emmings: See I tend to go to the individual lots.
' Conrad: Individual lots.
Emmings: Because otherwise I don't want to see, you know he's got prime
land over here and he's got 1 acre lots and he's got a whole bunch of
' Jittle houses down here where Brian lives. Those are 10,000 square feet.
Those,people are getting screwed. To me. I agree with Brian. It's no
comfort. There may be a certain market for people who want to live in
those houses.
Krauss: Well but face it. These people probably paid $30,000.00 for the
' lot when the guy up on the hill paid $80,000.00. I mean you're getting
something different for a difference in price.
Emmings: Yeah, I don't know. I guess I don't find comfort in that but
I guess I could be persuaded if there's a market. Maybe there are empty
nesters who want a small place and don't want to spend their time taking
care of a yard. We have people starting out who want to get into a house
' like that.
Batzli: See but most people, and I'll say this and you don't have to give
me sympathy but this is the reason. Most people move in and they expect
the community to have minimum standards. Most people don't understand what
PUD is. They don't understand that what they're getting is below the
minimum community standards in other parts of the city. They don't
understand that.
Conrad: But they know what they're getting.
' Emmings: They know what they're getting.
Batzli: No they don't. Okay they know they're getting a 12,000 square
foot lot. They don't know that the minimum throughout the rest of the
entire city is 15,000.
' Emmings: Why do they care?
Batzli: Well the question is, why should the city relax the standard?
Emmings: To provide that person with something that he wants and can
afford.
i
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 42
Batzli: I don't buy that that house is any cheaper than the 15,000 square"'
foot lot. I don't buy that the PUD is necessarily providing that but
that's just me. I
Emmings: I think that's the reason the person bought it. I mean they're
dissatisfied with their house because they moved into a 12,000 square foot
lot and find out most other people in regular subdivisions have 15,000
square foot lots?
Batzli: No, they are. Well, I don't know how to say this but they move
in. It's a substandard size lot. It's not necessarily, and under this n�
subdivision things are changed a little bit but they still have setbacks
and things applied against them and they don't understand the nuances of
the PUD. That's my only point that they're getting a smaller sized lot a
they're not necessarily gaining any benefits from it and I'm not convince
necessarily that the city got anything so I'm looking at it from a lose
lose perspective. The people that are moving in. They don't understand
that they're going to have a strike against them the minute they try to d
on the lot. The City's really not gaining anything. My question
is, who's getting something other than the developer who had relaxed the
standards to do the development. Now if you can convince me that we're
providing a different housing market and people are getting cheaper house
and that's why we're doing that, then that's a good enough rationale but I
don't know that that's why we're doing it here tonight. '
Emmings: Now presumably a builder won't build a house unless he can sell
it. There's got to be a market or he's not going to sell the house.
Batzli: Right, but the question is, who's winning with this ordinance? Is
the City winning? Are the people moving into the city winning, which is,
you know when we're looking at it I think we have to look at it from two
points of view. Is the City getting something like open space or a park
helping to preserve additional wetlands other than what our ordinance
already does. It does comfort me at all that Lundgren preserved wetlands
that were already preserved. I mean that just really irritated me. That
yeah, we get to count the whole wetlands here as open space. Well you had
to do that anyway. I don't give a rip. You know, so the City doesn't
really win under that scenario. The people if it's a, and again don't fej
sympathy but people moving in I don't think feel they win. So you've got
the people moving in. They're unhappy usually with the city because they •
go to the city. The city says you can't do anything with your lot so
they're unhappy. The city didn't get anything. Who won? The developer.
My question is, let's build an ordinance. Make sure we have an ordinance
where the people moving in win. The City wins and the developer gets a
fair shake and I don't think that's happening under this one.
Emmings: You know one way maybe to avoid this problem of a developer
putting up, having a bunch of big lots in one area and a bunch of little
ones in another area which scares me about this. Would be to put somethi
in here that they're going to have to mix their lots to some extent. And
what are you going to do, set up a formula for that? I don't even know hi'
you do it.
1 Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 43
Conrad: I go back to the overall. Just real simply, I don't have a
problem. Let's take a 100 acre parcel. Based on today's development
pattern, on a 100 acres. Somebody could probably put in 200 units on 100
' acres. I don't have any problem taking those 200 units and putting on half
of the property and leaving the other half open. Taking the minimum lot
size down to 4 units, you know putting it up to 4 units per acre. That's
fine because what I've done there is we've got open space and we've kept
the standard that we've been kind of floating along with. 2 units per
acre, even though comprehensive plan says 0 to 4, practicality has dictated
we're corning in around 2.
Emmings: Or 1.7.
' Conrad: Or 1.7 so that's why I want to be able to get.
Emmings: I think everybody here would agree with that.
1 Conrad: But I'm not sure I know how to get there.
Emmings': Paul won't. He flexed his eyebrows.
Krauss: Nc, I see...45 minutes ago.
Conrad: Well we're missing things.
Emming: But what's the difference between what Ladd's saying and what
we're doing here?
Krauss: Because what we're doing here would allow densities in excess of
what we normally experience.
Emmings: Does anybody want that?
•
' Elison: I think I could be won over if I looked at it.
Erhart: In excess of what?
' Emmings: In excess of the 1.7. What we've historically done with
subdivisions. That's why I asked right off the bat, it says in no instance
shall the project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines. I wonder
1 if we were incorporating that 1.7 right there.
Krauss: No.
Emmings: Well I wonder if we want to.
Krauss: Well you might.
Conrad: That would make me feel comfortable. That one, and Paul mentioned
it before, average consistent with other subdivisions. That one statement
' gives me the leverage to talk to a developer and then I can throw
everything else out. But that one statement gives me something to say, hey
I don't like it because it's not meeting what we've seen in 'the past in the
overall design of the subdivision.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 44
Emmincs: And then could you throw out this open space table? Couldn't yII
get rid of all that?
Krauss: You could, well.
II
Conrad: I'd like to give them a way to.
Emmings: To what? II
Conrad: I'd like to force the open space.
II
Emmings: But if you've got your gross density set. If he wants to
cluster, you're going to wind up with open space. You've set the gross
density for the whole project.
I
Conrad: Yeah. It could still end up looking like a PUD. Or like a
subdivision. End up looking like a subdivision though.
II
Emmings: But then if it is a subdivision, he goes under the subdivision
ordinance. We don't care if he does because we think we have one that's
okay. '
Erhart: You can cluster. You can still cluster and use the 9,000 square
foot lots. Overall density is. 1
Emri ngs: IE 1 .7 .
Erhart: For the low density is one number. Medium density is another
II
number and high density is another number.
Emmings: Right. Here's the framework. You're stuck with.
II
Erhart: That would really serve the same purpose as this.
Emmings: Do what you want. Bring it in and we'll take a look at it. II
Batzli: But they wouldn't have to necessarily provide open space. They il
could just make bigger lots.
Emmings: But if they want that approach Brian, why wouldn't they do a
subdivision? 1
Batzli: No, if they could put a couple 9,000 square foot lots in there and
just put 37,000 and end up with the right density. They wouldn't have II provided any open space that isn't privately owned.
Emmings: Okay, would that bother anybody?
Erhart: That's what you've got here too. I mean this open space is bas
on average.
Batzli: That's right. 1
Erhart: Co you can do the same thing with this.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 45
Batzli: Right. I understand that. Well I don't like that aspect of this
either. I mean that's why I'm viewing this as the developer wins. The
' city loses. The people that move in lose except for the people on the
37,000 square foot lots and they didn't have to move into a PUD anyway if
they didn't want to.
Conrad: I don't perceive it that way.
Ellson: I don't either.
Batzli: I know but I'm just, somebody's got to argue against it because
otherwise this whole commission...
Ellson: Were you here the night they gave that presentation of all the
different ones? There were a lot of win situations there.
Batzli: I gave you Tootsie Pops to soften you up but it didn't work.
Emmings: Order in the court. Jeff, you haven't said anything.
Farmakes: I think it should be 1.7 and I think that that point was made
quite a while ago.
1 Conrad: The rest of us missed it.
Farmakes: It's still going to become quite cloudy whether or not it's in,
it seems to me that the advantage of a PUD is financial anyway. One way or
the other for the developer. Why would a developer develop a piece of
property if it wasn't in their financial interest?
1 Emmings: They wouldn't unless they're stupid.
Farmalkes: Going on that basis, I think if 1.7 is the average size, if
1 that's what it works out to, I think that still gives them the leverage.
That still gives them the leverage to utilize pieces of property. Because
of the terrain, will develop otherwise.
1 Emmings: What would be the gross density on the Lundgren one that we just
went through here?
Krauss: 1.4 units an acre.
Erhart: Why don't we just ask them to go back and look at that. We've
spent a lot of time discussing this. We're obviously not going to pass
anything tonight. Look at that approach versus this approach.
Krauss: Would you like me to get, you only heard from one developer.
There's a lot of them out there who have worked in this community. Should
we get a panel of them together? I mean we can get real assenteric and dig
this thing real deep and come up with an ordinance that makes absolutely no
sense to somebody working out in the field. If they're not going to do it,
we ought to know about it and just drop it.
1
1
Planning Commissi'on Meeting II
October 2, 1991 - Page 46
1 II
Emmings: But wouldn't they want, you know if I'm a developer and I come to
you and I say, how can I develop and you show me a subdivision ordinance.
I say okay, I don't like it. What alternatives do I have? You say okay II
well you can develop it the same density but we can give you lots of
flexibility in your road construction and your setbacks and your ability to
cluster, you can develop your property any way you want to as long as you
don't exceed this number and as long as we like your plan. It makes sens
for the property and we can protect some trees and things like that.
Wouldn't a developer be interested in that?
I
Elison: How's that different than our own?
Emmings: If it was that vague?
1
Krauss: A developer like Lundgren that's fairly perceptive and understands
that and is design oriented, yeah they will. But you've got to realize 1
when you're going through a PUD you're asking a guy to go through a
rezoning which they really wouldn't have to do. It exposes them to any
3 /5ths. They need a super majority to approve the rezoning. They only il
need a simple majority to approve a plat. It's a lot more work for them
come up with all this stuff. I don't know if it's worth it for them.
I honestly don't.
Emmings: Why don't you ask? Rather than getting a panel of them togethe11
why don't you just run the ideas past them some and tell us what they say.
I think. I don't know, what do you think? You're talking about another il
presentation here otherwise?
Krauss: No. You've had the presentation. I think come up with a versio
of this ordinance or leave it the way it is and tell them what other thin
you're thinking about and say the Planning Commission would like to hear
from you. Your reaction to this. I mean clearly if the idea is just to
motivate, is the motivation that we had with the earlier PUD's which was I
crank out more lots. People get less building space. The City gets
absolutely nothing out of it and with a vague promise that it's going to
lower the price of housing when obviously it didn't, who cares. We don't
need to do anything. But I found going through that one with the Lake Lu
Road one, a rather unique experience because it really proved where the P
was completely valid when it didn't in any way encourage undersized lots.
Emmings: Okay. We're going to table this. II
Erhart: There's some other things here though. I've got a question herell
moving right along here. Your computer printed out some double sentences
Did you notice that? Bottom of the page. (e), bottom of page 1. You've
got some repeats of sentences and lines. Okay, then on (f). We go to 1,
boulevard plantings. Is this on top of our new ordinance for landscaping
I mean all of a sudden I'm reading this and all of a sudden we're require .
Krauss: No, it's not on top of it. Your new ordinance for landscaping
applies in subdivisions. It doesn't apply in PUD's.
Erhart: It doesn't apply in PUD's. So we're requiring.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 47
Kraus:: Well I guess maybe it is redundant because you have to come
through with a plat with the PUD.
Emmings: Well shouldn't it apply?
Krauss: Well definitely it should. I put it in here to make sure, I
wasn't double hitting. It was to make sure it applied.
' Erhart: You've got a lot of requirements here. Your rear yard shall
contain at least 2 over story trees. That's not even in our landscaping.
Emmings: Foundation plantings. I don't remember there being requirements
for foundation plantings.
Erhart: Where's this landscaping?
' Krauss: That's new.
Batzli: We talked about this.
Ellson: We talked about this though. I remember.
Batzli: Us PUD dwellers talked about it at, well it was meetings and
meetings ago now but it seems like yesterday. _
Ellson: I remember too a budget or something was going to come out but
yeah, we wanted it to apply to that sort of thing.
Batzli: These were some of the things that we were going to get from
11 havincl a PUD in there. It wasn't going to be a one to one transference of
open space to 15,000 square feet. The kind of a deal like you were saying.
We were talking about amenities in the PUD.
' Emmings: Maybe this section Paul, the overall landscaping plan. Maybe you
ought to incorporate our other landscaping plan and then add anything we're
' going to add like foundation plantings.
Krauss: Yeah, keep in mind too that this was originally drafted in the
spring and we've since gone on and the landscaping stuff has jumped ahead
of this and we've finally got that figured out so there's a lack of
consistency for that.
11 Erhart: I guess the whole thing hits me here is that the whole idea of the
PUD was to allow creativity and now all of a sudden, bam. We're going to
have 2 over story trees in the rear yard and we're going to have boom.
' We're going to have foundation plantings. We're going to have boulevard
plantings. All of a sudden we're getting real specific.
Batzli: But we didn't get any creativity. We haven't got any.
' Erhart: Well we haven't done any. I don't know.
Batzli.: Yeah but nobody wants to do them..
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 48
1
Erhart: I'm just surprised. I was surprised when I read this.
Batzli: I agree. I think it should be creative. I mean I think this
should be win for people who move in. Win for the city. The developer.
should be attractive to them and I don't see that we're doing that yet.
Erhart: And then beyond that. '
Batzli: The only people that ever do them are Lundgren. I mean you know l
and they do it for a different reason.
Erhart: Maybe I missed the meeting on this. I was just really surprised
Gee we get the architectural standards. I don't remember talking about. II
must have missed that meeting. Is that what we said at a meeting we want
architectural standards, and again we don't even, we're talking about lots
here. Wc're not talking about site plans.
Ellson: These are the things that...remernber this exactly. For this
reac•on they could have the street signs could be a tad different and all
these...They were going to get bushes when they moved in. Just a bare
minimum.
Erhart: Let me go on here for a minute. Again, if this goes as a PUD
we're going to put guidelines on placement of air conditioners? Do you s
the contrast of how it jumps from what concept of creativity to all of a
sudden man we're dictating specifics. The whole thing just hit me like
what are we doing?
Kraucc: Yeah, but are we talking about 9,000 square foot lots or are we
talking about 30,000 square foot lots?
Emmings: Right. And we're also talking about maybe some zero lot lines or
some, or even some 5,000 square foot lots. '
Erhart.: But that's in another section which that also confused me. Now
all of a sudden we go to Section 20 -507. Now we're back to the minimum 2
gross area. Am I reading this right? Plus those two pages don't, page 3
doesn't go to page, let's see. Bottom of page 2 does not fit with the top •
of page 3. There's something. There's at least 6 inches at 4 feet in
height can of the PUD, the plan should be developed. There's something II
wrong here. A typo. Am I the only guy who saw this?
Conrad: Yeah, you're the only one. I read it and it sounded right. 1
Erhart: Well anyway, it's confusing to me.
Ellson: Brian's usually the one that finds those. '
Batzli: I didn't get past A.
Erhart: In Section 20 -507 relates to these zero lot line things? Is thall
it?
Krauss: Yes:. ,
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 49
Erhart: Okay. And those you're suggesting that we maintain just this 25%
gross area of the PUD to be set aside in these protected areas. Am I
reading that?
Krauss: Yes. We're talking about fairly intensive...
Erhart: Oh, I understand. Well because the pages didn't meet, maybe I
thought there was an extra page in there. I'm just checking. Okay, I'll
' stop.
Emmings: Are we kind of worn out on this for tonight?
1 Conrad: Yeah.
Emmings: What can we do?
' Ellson: I like his idea. Ask some of the developers.
' Emmings: Do you think you can make anything out of the pages and pages of
comments you're going to have in the Minutes?
Krauss: I can make a lot out of it. The question is, will that bring it
1 to resolution the next time. I still don't understand if there's a desire
to allow individually or collectively lots below 15,000 square feet.
' Emmings: Yeah.
Conrad Yes.
' Emmings: I have no problem with that.
Krauss: Brian you still do?
1 Batzli: I don't if that's average.
' Erhart: If 15's average?
Batzli: Yeah.
1 Emmings: Alright, if I have 100 acres and I'm putting on four 9,000 square
.foot lots, you're against that?
Batzli: That's it? That's all you're doing on 100 acres? What else, the
rest an outlot?
' Emming: My average lot size is 9,000 square feet so I don't think you mean
what you say is what I'm saying.
Batzli: Well that'd be wonderful I suppose if they did that.
Emmings: It's silly obviously but I don't think you mean that you're
against an average of 9,000. Under certain circumstances it could be
alright. It's not what we want. It's not what's going to happen but it's
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 50
not, we shouldn't just throw it out I think. I think we should leave
it up to the developer. I really do. '
Ellson: Yep, I do too. Let us see it. We know what we like when we see
it.
Batzli: But under this current one.
Conrad: But that's unfair to the developer. '
Emmings: No it's not.
Conrad: Yeah it is. If we say we like an average 9,000 square foot lot II
size.
Batzli: He'll bring it in. '
Conrad: Nobody here would really like to see that.
Emmings: Don't say it.
Batzli: If for example they did a single road in. They had a little
cul -de -sac in the middle, which would probably be against our rules becau:l
it'd be over 1,500 feet or something, but they have a little cul -de -sac.
They've got four 9,000 square foot lots and the rest of it is an outlot a
the way around it, would any of us really be that against it?
Emmings: No.
Ellson: Nice secluded little thing. '
- Emmings: That's clustering.
Batzli: That'd be great. But who in the world is going to do that? Well
Lundgren could because each one of those 9,000 square foot lots would be
worth about $100K and they'd just say, well it's all fair. ,
Ellson: The deer farm that's behind here.
Farmakes: Centex did that in Eden Prairie. They call them Village Homes"
Emmings: How did it work out?
Farmakes: Just what you described. They offered a variation in price of
about 25% from the smaller lot single family homes. Basically they're a
retirement house. You wouldn't have to mow more than about 5 feet around
the house.
Ellson: Yeah, and I think that's a viable option...Brian that there are
people that don't want the bigger lot.
Emmings: Sounds great to me. Alright, now you asked a question.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 51
Krauss: I think you're saying that you are willing to consider lots below
1 15,000.
Emmings: We'll consider anything. We'll consider zero lot lines. We'll
consider 5,000. 9,000.
I Krauss: But do you still want to put a ceiling in what you could see?
' Emmings: Yeah.
Erhart: In terms of density?
Krauss: Yeah.
Emmings: That's what I want to do.
Conrad: Yeah.
' Batzli: I would say, if you put density limitations on there, I would also
like to see open space that isn't privately owned. I would like to see
that which I don't think is part of your density scenario.
Emmings: Who owns it? If it's not privately owned, who owns it?
Batzli: Outlot.
' Krauss: But who's going to take care of...?
Emmings: Who's going to take care of it? Who's responsible for it?
Batzli: Well that's never bothered us before. Why are you going to start
now? Do you really think these people in the Lundgren lots are going to be
out there fixing their monuments? Get real. Grow up. Come on.
Earnings: Brian, I want you to put both feet back on the floor. You jumped
' from outlot to monuments somehow and that was quite a leap.
Batzli: That's what they used to do. I mean basically my development has
an outlot with a monument on it that's owned by some guy that lives in Cuba
or something. It's not going to be taken care of. So Lundgren comes in
and says we'll fix that. We'll make it part of this guy's lot and he's got
a covenant to fix the monument. Come on. We've done it in the past. Why
are we worried about it all of a sudden right now?
Emmings: Let's please not talk about monuments. That's a different
problem.
•
Batzli: It's part of their open space.
' Krauss: But if there's a need for public open space, shouldn't that have
been...
11 Emmings That's park. That's got nothing to do with what we're talking
about here. That's separate.
Planning Commission Meeting ,
October 2, 1991 - Page 52
Batzli: Okay, then make all the open space park. Then I'd be happy with
that.
Emmings: And now it's the citizens responsibility to take care of it. Th
we're not going to like that.
Batzli: Why? '
Ellson: What about that same...that was behind the people?
Batzli : - Well all they do is, then don't grow any grass. Put some trees on
it and let it grow.
Krauss: That's not the way it works.
Batzli: Why? '
Krauss: You get demands for totlots. You get demands to cut the weeds.
You get demands to pick up the garbage.
Emmings: Right. No, I don't think we want. If it's not parkland and it
not privately owned in part of the lots, what then?
Conrad: I think it's the Emmings Foundation.
Batzli: Then make it a requirement that there's a neighborhood associatill
and it's owned to all the units in the lots. Commonly owned. Let them
take care of it. But give them a vehicle to take care of it by requiring
the association.
Erhart: I think the problem is when you've got this privately owned wood
area that you're preserving, if it's privately owned the guy can post
things and nobody can walk in it. ,
Batzli: That's right. I mean what's the good of, well open space is good
visually. Preserve it but it would be better I think if it was useable
because they're basically and again you guys don't like this but they're
giving up lot size to get it.
Emmings: They're not. '
Batzli: Well I view it differently because I live in one. You view it as
a detached commissioner not living in one of them. I'm saying this is whll
the people in them view it as, and you can accept it or reject it. You
guys all clearly reject it but that's how they view it.
Emmings: It sounds like a detached retina. '
Conrad: I like the detached chairman.
Ellson: I think another night with the Planning.
Batzli: I'd simmer down by then.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2, 1991 - Page 53
Emmings: Yeah, can we talk about this another night when Brian's not here?
11 Ellson: Yeah, special meeting. Don't let him know.
Emmings: Well. I don't know.
' Conrad: They're really good comments.
Emmings: No, I think we're talking about a lot of important stuff but I
think we've worn ourselves out for tonight.
Batzli: Thanks for making me feel good.
' Emmings: Brian, you're responsible for bringing up all of the most
important things that we talked about. Not let's see. Minutes. Oh, we're
going to table this and you're going to figure out.
' Krauss: Exactly what you said.
' Emmings: Do it. Just do it.
Erhart: This is your commission.
Krauss: Well Steve, isn't this one of the places where you jump in and
volunteer?
' Emmings: I'll rewrite the ordinance tomorrow afternoon.
Conrad: You could make it pretty vague I have a feeling. But I think this
' would be a case where the Planning Director and the Chairman of the
Planning Commission might just get together.
' Emmings: You never did.
Conrad: I know.
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
September 4, 1991 were so noted as presented.
' CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Emmings: Let's see now. Lundgren they put off deciding it. Surface Water
Management. Is there any of these anybody wants to talk about? I'm glad
they're going on the grandfathered recreational beachlots. And you see,
Comrade Farmakes has been appointed to the sign ordinance task force. That
actually exists at this point in time?
Krauss: It will, yes. It does.
' Emmings: They will be starting to meet. That's going to be tough.
Farmakes: New signs are going up I noticed.
' Krauss: Oh, on the building? Yeah, they -are.
1
Planning Commission Meeting '
February 5, 1992 - Page 9
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS.
Emmings: This is old business. I don't know if anybody has come because II
they're interested in this item tonight. Is there anybody here that is
interested in addressing themselves to this issue? Alright. Why don't you
go ahead. '
Conrad: What'd you say?
Emmings: Tim.
1
Erhart: Okay. Page 2 here. Boy, I read your Minutes. I was really glad I
wasn't here last time. I'm still wondering how it was that Brian and I
were so important in this particular thing.
Batzli: I actually came at the start of the meeting and asked them to
postpone it.
Erhart: Oh, you did? Okay. Page 2. Is this Paul or Jo Ann? Paul. Page
2 there on item number 4. It says the rear yard shall contain at least two,
over story trees. Is that consistent with our new landscape ordinance?
Krauss: No, it's not. This has been going on for a good long time and
things have changed in the interim but I think initially there was a
decision that even though we retrenched from that position in the standard
subdivisions, that it would be left this way in a PUD because the
expectation was a PUD gave you higher standards of development anyway.
Erhart: But to me it's, in the first place in the landscaping includes 2
front yard trees and 1 rear yard. Is that what we ended up with? '
Krauss: We left it at.
Olsen: 3 trees. ,
Erhart: 3 trees. Well you know when the object here is to provide
flexibility and then we come in here and detail what they've got to do, it II
seems to be contradictory to what we're trying to do. I just wouldn't go
along with that. I also think some of the other, well. There's a few
things like that where we get into a lot of detail where we're trying to II
spell out exactly what's to be done and I'm not sure we're in line with
what our overall goal is. Do we have a definition statement that defines
what a single family detached and a clustered home is someplace in our
ordinance book?
Krauss: I don't recall off hand.
Erhart: You don't have to look it up now but it's just a question. If
we're going to put that in there, that ought to perhaps be defined. Again
when we get down on page 3, I know we've talked about this one before but, I
that's right I've got 5 minutes. There's a few things going on here
bothering me about it. Okay, let me give you what I feel about the whole
thing. I still think the residential PUD is a good idea but after reading
all the Minutes and talking to some of the Council people and everything, Ill
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 10
think we ought to step back for a minute and decide what our standard city
lot size here in Chanhassen. And I see in your Minutes, your discussion of
' the Minutes Paul you make a statement that you feel that you state, that I
can tell you from the metro area standpoint we've got one of the largest
lot sizes in the metro area. Did you mean our current ordinance of 15,000
square feet?
Krauss: Correct, yes.
' Erhart: Do you really, you'll stand by what you said there? And
Minnetonka is what, 20?
Krauss: Minnetonka is 22.
Erhart: Okay, what's Eden Prairie?
' Krauss: I'd have to go in and look. We gave you a table on this about a
year ago. I don't recall what it was...
' Erhart: Okay, given that you've got two things. One, it doesn't appear to
me that you're going to get this- through Council this way. And secondly is
with the 5 years I've been on here I've heard us talk about is 15,000 the
right size and Ive heard a lot of people come in and -say it's too small
and quite frankly I've always kind of gone along with 15,000 because from a
socioeconomic standpoint small seems good. But you know maybe we ought to,
instead of trying to pounding on this thing, maybe we ought to go back and
look at what our city lot size ought to be because I think it's time to
have that discussion. Secondly, if you're going to have a PUD that
anybody's going to apply for, they're going to have to be incentivised and
you're not going to get, I don't think you're going to get 10,000 square
feet through the City Council. So I think if you're going to have a PUD,
- you're going to have to increase the average size of your lots to something
like 18,000 or 20,000 square feet and then incentivise them with something
1 like 12,000 to 15,000 square feet minimum. Otherwise it's not going to
work...
Emmings: I guess what you're doing now is sort of, this is the problem
we've had all along. Both with the subdivision ordinance and with the PUD
ordinance is almost every time we sit down, someone comes up with a new
' idea and almost everybody changes their idea almost every time we sit down.
Just like it's a thing that keeps slipping around on the table and we can't
put a nail in it. And I don't disagree with you, it's just hard to know
where to go.
' Erhart: Except political reality is, it appears that the City doesn't want
10,000 square foot lots and the Planning Commission wants a PUD ordinance.
The compromise is you increase the city lot size so you can still
incentivise the developers.
Emmings: We always get back to Brian's point. He made it kind of
facetiously. In the subdivision ordinance make minimum lot size half an
acre and then everybody will do a PUD.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 11
Erhart: Now half acre is 22,000 so maybe it's 20,000 or 18,000 or
something but.
Emmings: Maybe you said an acre, I don't know.
Batzli: I said 20,000. 1
Erhart: Oh, because this isn't going to fly I don't think. And yet I
think it's a good idea. To make it work we're going to have to increase
the subdivision. Pardon?
Ahrens: What did you think was a good idea?
Erhart: A PUD. A residential PUD. I don't think we should be this
specific but I think the concept's good and worthwhile.
Krauss: Okay. So as far as what you think we should do as far as taking I
action on this so we don't just keep beating a dead horse here, what do you
think needs to be done?
Erhart: I think we should go back and review our subdivision ordinance an
what the city wants. Only in terms of what our subdivision
ordinance says our minimum lot size is. Without that - you're open.
Emmings: It's not unreasonable, just scarey. Ladd. You don't want to go
back to the subdivision ordinance do you?
Conrad: Well I've been through this and maybe that's not fair to say I
should even reflect an opinion. Yeah, I don't want to do that and I've
been to so many public hearings and maybe that's the problem but I've been II
to so many. We've hit lot sizes which I was always a proponent of larger
lot sizes but it never flew. And at this point in time I'm real
comfortable with how Chanhassen is developing. I don't mind the 15,000. II
Industry says lot sizes are getting smaller. I just couldn't conceive of
us going out and increasing lot sizes right now when I'm real comfortable
with the 15,000. I'm real comfortable with most of the land that's being
developed and I see an industry that says geez, and the public that says
hey I don't know that I want larger lot sizes. And again I say that, you
should know that I started on the Planning Commission one, because I wanted
to maintain some of the character that Chanhassen had and that was larger I
lot sizes. I like that. But I am convinced that lot sizes don't matter
that much. It's zoning for the other things that you like. It's zoning
for the trees and it's zoning for the wetlands and it's zoning for other '
things and it's not lot size. So I don't want to talk lot size at all in
terms of going up. I think it is a dead horse and I don't want to be
there. In terms of this ordinance, we're looking for flexibility in terms
of a carrot. We're looking for a carrot to persuade some developer to put
in a PUD and obviously the past carrots haven't worked. Therefore the best
thing we can do is reduce our lot sizes. I'm not real comfortable with the
way the current ordinance or the proposed ordinance is worded because it I
still could appear to a developer that they could come in and, well I'm
still not sure I'm comfortable with the wording. I don't mind the 15,000
square foot standard. I don't mind going down to 10,000 feet for a certain
portion of the units but I don't know what that portion is. What I don't
' Planning Commiss5 - ln Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 12
want to do is give a developer the idea that really our standard could be
10 when it's really 15. I'm still looking for a larger lot but I don't
mind shifting in a subdivision. I don't mind shifting density to preserve
' something and so far I haven't seen the words yet to make me feel
comfortable with that. I don't mind 10,000 but I don't want to see a
development that has one large lot that has 500,000 square feet of space
1 and then the other 99% of 10,000 square foot, that's not the character that
we're building in Chanhassen. But I don't mind having 10,000 square foot
lots in a development. I'll go back to Lundgren and I've heard some
negative things said about that. It still was a classy way that they put
onto some small lots in a big development. It's a good, they did a good
job. There were some reasons it looked good. It's still small. There's
some people who will buy that and you can make lots look good and houses
look good on small lots. End of sentence. End of thought I guess. I
still like the concept. I don't like the wording. I'm still real
concerned about the overall appearance of this PUD and I think what Paul
could say is, hey. You still have control over it when it comes in and my
only comment to that was yeah, but I want to paint a picture to the
developer before they come in of what is acceptable to me. I don't want to
send a picture off that acceptable is a whole bunch of 10,000 and just a
few of the large lots.
Erhart: I have a quick question for Paul. Did we ever have, or anybody,
did we ever have a minimum lot size for a subdivision of anything other
than 15,000 in the city's history?
' Krauss: I couldn't verify it but I've heard that, in fact I think I've
heard from the Mayor that at one time it used to be something on the order
of 20. I'm not sure when that was.
Emmings: I don't remember that.
Conrad: We tried a 40,000 square foot lot size. A zoning district and it
' just didn't fly.
Emmings: Matt, I don't know if you're familiar.
' Ledvina: I'll pass.
Emmings: This has been raging through here for literally years. Okay.
Batzli: My response to Ladd is that it's not our job to incentivise our
• ordinance so developers give us smaller lots to protect natural features
' that our ordinance should protect anyway. You can't fill in the wetlands
anyway and if they can use the PUD to give us really inky dinky lots, then
it's not being used correctly. If what we're going to do is have an
ordinance to preserve natural features like trees and wetlands, then we
11 should draft it that way and make sure we understand what we're getting
into. That we're going to get small lots and they're going to be able to
count the wetlands in the footage of their lots. And if we want 5,000
square foot lots with 6,000 feet of wetlands, that's fine but then we
should change our ordinance to show that that's what we expect and that's
what we're going to get and when you develop around a wetland, this is the
ordinance you use. I'm not convinced, you know my original thought on PUD,
Planning Commission Meetir- '
February 5, 1992 - Page 13
when I first came here and it still is that we're trying to get people to
be creative and we don't get people who are creative. We're getting things
that they should have had to give us anyway. So we're allowing a reduced II
footage and I don't believe that the people moving into the community are
benefitting at all and I don't believe the people who are in the community
are benefitting at all because they have to preserve the wetlands and they
should have to preserve the trees anyway. So I don't get it. I just don't'
get it. And like I said, if that's what we're going to get, then I think
we should go back and revisit what the objectives are for this ordinance
because what we heard from Lundgren and the other people were, this is howl'
we're going to cluster homes and do this and keep open space. Well we're
not getting any of that. We're getting wetlands. Well we've got a
wetlands ordinance that already protects it. What have we gotten? So I II
don't buy it. You know I live in a PUD. The lot sizes are small and I
think that the kinds of development that we're getting in the PUD'.s are
not, you know Lundgren's come in and they've done some very nice ones.
We've got some other PUD's in the community that aren't as nice as the
Lundgren's ones. And the people who are purchasing those on the smaller
square foot lots are first time homeowners. They're not necessarily the
people that are going to check with the City to see what they're getting II
into and I don't want to be too paternalistic but they're going in.
They're buying a lot that the city has said can be undersized but we're
going to keep the same setbacks and everything else and the question is, I
can use my lot less than everybody else in the city and what have I gotten?'
What has the city done for me? Well they protected a wetland that they had
to protect anyway. Well that's great. It's caused problems for the city.
The people moving in are unhappy in a lot of instances. I don't think it's'
promoted either developments which are unique or clustered or anything.
They're just smaller lots and if that's what we're going to do, then let's
open our eyes and do it but let's not put in here an incentive for people, I
for the developers to come in and put stuff on smaller lots and we get
nothing in return. And .that's kind of how I feel about this, and you
already knew that. Really I'd like to see us look again and I know we've
already done it but we at least need to decide as a group why we're doing
this. If we're going to do it to protect natural features and allow the
developers to do it that way, that's fine but let's all acknowledge that
that's why we're doing it. We're not going to get a cluster of 10 homes
the middle and open fields around. That's not going to happen apparently.
I don't know why but we're not putting the right incentives in it to do
that. If that's what we want, then we have to revisit why the Statute
won't accomplish what our goal is. And so I see us as not having a focused'
goal of what we want. We've got real good language of intent at the start
but maybe it's too broad. Maybe we want this ordinance to do everything
and it can do one or two things. And then let's concentrate on those
things that we really want it to do.
Emmings: It will be kind of interesting when it comes to making a motion II
isn't it. Jeff.
Farmakes: What more is there to say? I guess I'm a little surprised by '
this. As I read this and as it was explained to me because it is
complicated. I didn't see this as a major development tool. I saw this as
a development tool for a unique piece of property. A piece of property
that would be difficult to develop otherwise. There seems to be some
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 14
confusion, and maybe it's from ast history that I'm not familiar with.
P Y
That if you do have a developer that treats this unethically, I can see
where you would deal with some of the problems that you have or some of the
problems that you had in the past with undersized lots. It would seem to
me however that if we are going to do this, that there has to be a reason
1 for the developer to do it and we're just wasting our time here. If you're
going to make it 15,000 square feet and it's already 15,000 square foot
minimum, what's the reason for the developer to do it? There isn't any.
If we don't want smaller lots and we don't want to compromise on the 10,
make it 12 or 13, again the comments I made before is where are these
figures coming from? It's how much less than the minimum is now will they
bite and if we can't live with 120 x 100 foot lot, well that's, we
shouldn't be wasting our time with this. I feel it's unfortunate because
I have seen in other parts of the country and I have seen publications and
so on what I feel are interesting developments that take advantage of PUD.
But as you said, there's no sense in doing it unless we're getting
' something for it and the same holds true for the developer. And so what we
have to figure out as you said, what are our goals here and I can't help
but feel that there are going to be certain lots out there that we're going
to lose out on. In particular the odd lot that's up there that we were
talking about. But the undersized lots proportionately there were, I think
were 3 or 4 out of the total so I don't really feel in that instance that
the developer was being, trying to put something by us. I think that those
were leftover lots that in developing they basically couldn't do anything
else with and they had to try and put them in there to make their bottom
line. But I still am uncomfortable with us wasting our time with this
thing until we have a consensus of what it is we're going to do with it. It
seems the more time goes on it seems the more we are in disagreement on
this thing. And getting the feedback from the Council and so on, there's
' going to have to be some discussion on this minimum lot size or otherwise I
don't see any reason to continue with it.
Ahrens: I don't have a lot more to say. I talked myself out at our last
meeting on this but after listening now to my fellow commissioners, I think
the water is muddier now than it ever has been. I still don't understand
really what everybody wants, and I'm sure you don't at this point. It's
getting worst than getting better. I have a problem, and I think my
position is getting muddier too...but I have a problem developing a PUD
ordinance with a smaller lot size than our subdivision ordinance requires
' just to get people to, just to get developers to develop a PUD if what we
get is not what we wanted. Not what we really wanted anyway and I agree
with Brian when we developed the land in the northern part of Chanhassen,
we got some nice big ponds but that's not to the benefit of the
development. That's to the benefit of the landowners who are lucky enough
to own the larger lots around the pond. It wasn't for the benefit of the
smaller lots and people who live on smaller lots. I'm not sure what that
gave the city and what that gave the whole development except for the
people who happen to live around the pond. I don't particularly want to go
back and change the minimum lot size on your subdivision ordinance. I
' agree that there is a problem having a 15,000 square foot minimum in a PUD
ordinance when that is the minimum lot size of our subdivision ordinance.
And I realize that the trend is toward smaller lots also and I think in
some instances that's good planning also. But unless I can see that we
really are going to get value in a PUD by having smaller lot sizes, I can't
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
February 5, 1992 - Page 15
II
go along with reducing. I'd have to go along with alternative. g g g g l g wi the 1 tive. You
have stated here that the minimum lot size in PUD should be 15,000 square
feet which I don't think is a large lot to begin with. I don't think we'rl'
talking about huge lots here.
Batzli: I think he just said the average has to be 15,000. I don't think II
your alternative was that it was 15,000.
Krauss: Yeah. We gave you two alternatives but the third one is a 10,000 II
minimum. The other is a 10,000 with a 15,000 average. The third
alternative, which is not spoken here is just don't do it. Don't have any
residential PUD's. Except to the extent that we had one like Lundgren
where the average lot size in that was 25,000 square feet and it was a
II
rather unique circumstance.
Ahrens: The Lake Lucy Road project? 1
Emmings: Do you have any more? I think Joan's right. It's getting
muddier the longer we work on it. I agree with Ladd, I've become more and 1
more convinced too that lot size is not, that's not so terribly sacred to
me as it once was the longer I'm here because if the project is done right,
it isn't the size of the lot. It's how the whole thing is conceived and
executed and that's why I don't like this ordinance. 'I don't like writing II
down. If you're trying to maximize the potential for a developer to come
in and be creative in the sense that he looks at a piece of property and
says, the best way to do this piece of property is to preserve the natural
topography. It's to preserve the trees. It's to preserve the wetlands an
dl
all that stuff, which they have to do anyway it's true and then the houses
should fit in this way. I mean that's sort of, we've sort of got, at least
I do, sort of got an idea that we'd like developers to do that. Sort of
. take the land as a given and figure out how it could be developed instead
of just coming in and making it flat and starting over. And I don't know
if that will ever happen but Brian might have a point there that he made II
tonight that if.
Batzli: Might.
II
Emmings: Well yeah. It's unlikely but it's possible. That if our other
ordinances were strong enough, and maybe some ordinances we don't even have
yet were put into place to regulate all the things we care about, maybe we I
don't need a PUD ordinance. Maybe that makes every subdivision a PUD. I
don't know. That might be a whole other way of attacking the problem that
I don't think we've ever talked about. 1
Erhart: Excuse me but I heard you and Brian both say that there's an
ordinance that protects trees and I don't think that's quite exactly II accurate.
•
Emmings: Yeah we've been talking about it. I don't know what's in place.
Erhart: We have an ordinance that disallows clear cutting. We don't have 1
an ordinance that says you have a stand of mature trees and I can save a
II whole lot more by having large lots in those mature trees as compared to
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 16
just having a bunch of 15,000 square foot lots in those mature trees. In
fact I think Brian that's not entirely true that.
11 Batzli: Our mature tree overlay map which will probably be out in the near
future would help.
' Erhart: It would help but you can't project, you will never arbitrarily
write an ordinance that says you can't cut down a tree where you're going
to put a house and a street.
Batzli: True.
Erhart: You're not going to see that so when you have 15,000 square foot
lots and streets to service them, you're going to lose x amount of trees
where if you could raise the lot size in that area, you could save a
significant amount of those trees. I still don't understand why if we are
properly incentivized, why you can't take and maintain gross density and
allow, incentivize the developer to give the public or the people in that
subdivision, that public essentially a public ground and take the ground
11 that he is going to use and make the average lot size smaller. I just
don't understand why that won't work and essentially Brian you keep saying
it won't work and I don't understand that.
Emmings: Alright. We're going to get into a discussion that's going to go
on for 7 hours again here tonight and that's not going to happen because
this is my last act as Chairman. I'm not going to let it happen. But I
' think, I don't care if the lots are small but I care if there's a whole
bunch of small lots or if they don't fit. Somehow it doesn't fit, whatever
that means but I think the way you do that, instead of talking about lot
size is you talk about what you're looking for and you tell them they're
11 not going to be able to go under our traditional gross density. Whatever
area you're in, so you set the density.and then tell them, this is the
upper limit you've got. Show us what you want to do and I think that we've
got enough power, because they have to replat the property, or because they
have to rezone the property to PUD, I'm convinced in my own mind that
we've, you know we're not in a situation where if they come in and meet our
' plan, we have to approve it. Because we have to rezone, we can say no and
feel like we're in pretty solid ground and that way I think we get to help
the developer in a way. Tailor the property and if you set the maximum
' density at what we've traditionally done at 1.8 or whatever number we pick,
or whatever number's in our comprehensive plan, if they want to bring in
small lots, big lots, clustered lots, whatever, but make sure that maybe we
spend more time in the ordinance talking about the kinds of things we're
interested in seeing them do in a general sense and not talk about lot
sizes at all. Lot sizes has gotten to be kind of a sacred cow and I don't
know why it is. That's my view, and we're not going to get any motion of
' here tonight. There's no way. We're all over the map.
Batzli: I'd support you if you put a guideline minimum lot size in there.
Ahrens: I think the reason it's become a sacred cow is people feel that's
the way to preserve the things they want to see in a development. That's
why lot sizes, trees and open space.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 17
Emmings: But if you don't exceed the density that we've traditionally had,
how can you? If the project doesn't exceed that maximum density, how can
you get in trouble? I think that's protects us. '
Erhart: Really you could take this whole PUD thing and make it one
paragraph by saying, the City is open to consider anything you've got.
We'll look at it but keep in mind we don't have to give you a thing.
Emmings: Huh?
Erhart: The whole PUD could be put in one simple sentence. We'll look at
anything and we don't have to approve it. We encourage you to bring in and
let us look at it really. '
Emmings: No. I think you can say a lot more than that Tim. I think you
could say we're interested in preserving the topography. We're interested
in roads that don't go straight and that follow the natural contour of the
land. We're interested in wetlands and ponds and trees. There's a whole
lot of things that I think you could say that would give them some
direction. 1
Erhart: But we certainly don't have to get into all these details that
we've now got in there. 1
Emmings: I think the fewer details you've got the better chance you have
of somebody actually using it. Because this thing sounds just like our II subdivision ordinance. Just another version of the subdivision ordinance
to me. Well, I don't even know. I think this should be turned over to the
new Chairman. I have no idea where we should go with this but we clearly
are all over. 1
Krauss: You know, I'm not opposed. It gets a little frustrating trying to
come up with ideas when you're not sure which way to go. I think there's II
enough merit in this that we can do something with it that I'm willing to
keep working at it. One thing, in the interest of saving time tonight so
we can get onto the other item, you may want to do. You may find it II interesting. We've got one developer right now who's already prepared a
couple different site plans for a piece of land that you're familiar with.
One is based on his ability to put some 10,000 square foot lots in an open
soybean field but go with 20,000 and 25,000 square foot lots on a wooded
hillside and I think it pretty clearly demonstrates some of the merits of
being able to cluster. He's offered to come down here and show you the
stuff or I can show you the stuff if that will help put it into a context.
Alternatively, or concurrently, if there's a couple three that want to sit
down one afternoon or whatever. One morning and knock something out, we'd
be happy to do that too.
Emmings: The trouble with, a small group isn't a bad idea. The trouble II
with a small group is, there's a lot of people up here with, everybody
seems to have kind of a strong opinion about where they want to see this gll
and I don't see where the compromise is. Usually you can kind of see a
path through the middle of the mess but I don't know if I can see it here.
11
•
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 18
Batzli: Have we been given guidance by the City Council that they want a
minimum square footage in there and we can use that?
' Krauss: Well and maybe you do want to send this up and get their opinion.
I know that the Mayor and Councilman Wing have clearly spoken to me in my
office indicating that they're both opposed to lowering lot sizes.
Emmings: Well I wonder if the Minutes, with the statements that we all
made tonight, at least everybody's kind of said what their position is, if
' maybe the City Council should take a look at that and give us some
direction.
Conrad: We don't have any good rationale to send it up to them.
Erhart: But they can give us some direction. Whether we should even
pursue it. Maybe there's no interest in it.
' Ahrens: ...I think they should give us direction.
Emmings: See one approach is minimum lot size it seems like. One approach
is average lot size and one approach would be overall density.
' Farmakes: Doesn't it come down to whether the merits'of the PUD are valid.
Whether or not they believe that they're valid. If they don't, where
they're going to shift off the minimum square footage.
' Emmings: Well yeah. If you don't believe in PUD's, then you just stick
with your subdivision ordinance.
' Farmakes: That seems to be the difference between the 15,000 and the
10,000. Somewhere within there lies the argument.
Batzli: But as Tim said, if we can in fact save more trees and do some
things that aren't in our subdivision, is it worth going to the smaller
square footage to incentivize the developers to do it that way? That's the
issue. At what point. I mean it seems like we started this whole thing
1/ with lowering lot size to give a further incentive to the developer to do
it this way. Apparently we crossed the threshhold of too much incentive
and too small lots. Somewhere I suppose there's a compromise of somebody
' would actually look at it and want to do it but we don't think the lot size
is too small.
Conrad: Well our current ordinance allows the developer to go down to
what, 12?
Krauss: Well, you eliminated that ordinance last summer.
Conrad: Is that gone?
Emmings: Yeah, the 12 is gone.
' Conrad: Did we ever look at other, you here we are looking at a PUD
ordinance as if we're the first community that's thought of it. Did we
look at others Paul?
11
Planning Commission Meeting • II
February 5, 1992 - Page 19
Krauss: I can't recall if we brought it to you. We have a bunch. I coul
certainly do that.
Batzli: We looked at somebody's. We looked at at least one. 1
Conrad: I guess I keep going back. We're struggling to find some
standard, some direction and we don't have any. What Steve has said about!'
gross density, I brought up several times but we've never gone down that
road. For some reason we haven't gone down that road and I don't know why
it is because that seems logical to me. We haven't explored it. We're I
sticking with hard numbers on lot sizes but maybe there's a couple things
that we can do and I'll just suggest them. I still am interested in good
PUD ordinances if somebody says they're good. The other thing is I think,
we probably should sit down and say, like somebody brought up and maybe
it's Brian, of what are our standards? What are we looking for. What are
we trying to get out of this? Going back to Tim, we're trying to preserve
open spaces but when we get the open spaces, who's taking care of the open'
spaces? Yeah. Who gets them and so philosophically we have some good
ideas but we're not taking it anyplace. Maybe that's the case where we sit
down. I'm still uncomfortable sending it up to the City Council because well
don't have any direction.
Emmings: The only thing there Ladd is, at least 2 people here mentioned
that they've been talking to City Council members and Paul did too and they,
obviously have some feelings about it already and maybe we ought to know
that they are. I don't know if, you know it may or may not affect what we
send up to them but maybe if there is a consensus of opinion there already,'
maybe we ought to at least take it into account.
Ahrens: But maybe...
1
Conrad: See, that's my biggest fear. If you don't know what a good PUD
looks like, you sure can kill it real easily.
II
Ahrens: I don't think we can write an ordinance until we know what we're
expecting...
Conrad: Paul just wants the flexibility to negotiate. II
Emmings: No, I think that's what we owe him isn't it? Isn't it really. '
Conrad: Then you can take in particular situations. You can give the long
vistas. You know, how do you quantify long vistas and things like that.
Batzli: If that is our goal, and I would subscribe to that goal, then your
idea of net density is perfect. To do it that way. If all you want is
flexibility.
II
Ahrens: The project...
Batzli: That's right. And then it's all up to these guys.
II
Ahrens: Right.
i
II
' Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 20
Conrad: Chairman, what do you want to do?
Emmings: I don't know where it should go. I really don't. Maybe the
thing to do is at our next meeting just take it back down. to ground zero
and talk about whether we want a PUD ordinance and what the goals of it
ought to be. And then talk about, once we get a list, if we can at least
' agree on that much, maybe between now and then think about the
alternatives. Whether we want to go with that minimum lot size, average
lot size or just density. And also talk a lot about the idea of just
having sort of Brian's notion of having all of our other ordinances, be
happy enough with all of our other ordinances so we don't really care.
However they develop the property, they're going to have to preserve those
things which we're trying to encourage them to protect in this PUD
' ordinance because that seems to me to be the other approach and then just
forget about a PUD. Or have it there as an alternative.
' Conrad: Then you get into standards. You get into stuff that, 2 trees, 3
trees, 80 feet tall.
' Emmings: No. I think we've got to ask if we want to do that at all. I
sure don't. I never like writing ordinances that way but I don't mind in
the subdivision but I don't like it here. So why don't we throw this one
away and start over.
Krauss: Fine with me.
Batzli: Paul, in the meantime if somebody comes in with a RSF kind of a
PUD, what do we do with it?
1 Emmings: We approved one without having an ordinance already.
Krauss: But that didn't involve minimum lot sizes which that is the issue.
I've been telling developers that they're welcome to come bring a concept
before you but I didn't see - a lot of hope in it.
Emmings: Let them read the Minutes of this meeting and they'll just go
' away.
Erhart: Have you would discarded the concept of forming a small
subcommittee to work with staff on the new basis or do you just want to
have them work on it?
Emmings: Well what do people want? I think we ought to try and develop a
list of what we want here.
Conrad: I'd like to see that and I'd also like to see Paul or Jo Ann talk
' to the American Planning Association or whatever and get what they perceive
to be model PUD ordinances.
Krauss: We've got this in- house.
Emmings: Or the University of Minnesota might have something to offer, now
that they've heard the discussion.
1
1