Loading...
6. Zoning Ordinance regarding parking setbacks and buffer yards . C i C ITYOF cHA.NHAssEN 1 1 1041.4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 _ 1 y am_- MEMORANDUM _ _ I TO: Planning Commission /1/4/5____ FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 64 4-� .. . it /7/y0 II DATE: October 31, 1990 /7-39 SUBJ: Proposed Ordinance Amendments Concerning Parking Setbacks 1 and Buffer Yards II PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The proposed ordinance amendments presented herein are designed to II address two related issues. The first is the establishment of a modified parking setback requirement that stems from recent City Council action concerning proposed amendments to the Redmond site plan. During the review of this plan, the Council conceptually 1 approved modifying city ordinances to allow parking setbacks to be reduced based on a performance zoning approach. Normal parking setbacks along exterior property lines in IOP and commercial 1 districts is established at the building setback line. The Council proposal was to allow this to be reduced down to a minimum of ten feet contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that the goal of providing screening for the parking lot is achieved. The Redmond II site plan accomplished this goal through extensive berming and landscaping. Staff was directed to return to the Planning Commission and City Council with a proposed amendment II to the Zoning Ordinance that would implement this flexibility on a permanent basis. The second matter concerns the establishment of buffer yards in the ordinance. The draft Comprehensive Plan I incorporates a buffer yard concept that is used to provide additional separation between intensive uses and residential areas. On the advice of the City Attorney, we are proposing that this be incorporated into the ordinance to ensure effective enforcement. II Staff took a relatively simple approach in establishing the performance standard for parking setback reduction. The standard II that must be achieved to obtain a 10 ft. setback is that 100% screening must be provided to at least a height of 5 ft. above the adjoining parking lot. Through this standard, the city can be II assured that when parking is allowed within 10 ft. of a public right -of -way, that there will be no direct visibility of most II Planning Commission October 31, 1990 Page 2 vehicles parked in the parking lot. This flexibility is only being proposed on parking setbacks occurring along public rights -of -way and would not apply along internal lot lines nor along lot lines adjacent to residential areas. The ordinance would prohibit the use of fencing to achieve the 100% screening since we believe this ' is an inappropriate way of accomplishing the goal. One could envision a situation where there would be a row of 5 ft. high screen fences 10 ft. back from public right -of -way which would ' create a canyon effect. By eliminating the possibility of using screen fencing, the applicant would be forced to rely on berming and landscaping to achieve the goal. It is proposed that this flexibility be incorporated in the BN, BH, BG, BF and IOP Districts. It is not appropriate to consider this in the CDB District since this district has no real parking setback requirements to begin with. The buffer yard concept as envisioned by the Planning Commission during consideration of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish a ' requirement for additional setbacks where higher intensity industrial office or commercial development interfaces with low density residential. It is envisioned that a 50 ft. buffer yard would be established along public rights -of -way since the public right -of -way itself provides further physical separation and a 100 ft. buffer yard would be required along internal lot lines. In addition, the buffer yard is in essence an additional setback ' requirement and would be figured cumulatively with setbacks normally required in a district. The ordinance requires that the buffer yard be designed to incorporate a mix of berming, landscaping and /or tree preservation to maximize buffering ' potential. It is considered desirable that the new plantings be designed to require a minimum of maintenance, however, maintenance of the buffer consistent with approved plans will be the obligation of the property owner. All obligation for creating the buffer falls on the developer of the higher intensity use. Buffer yards are to be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easements in favor of the city so that we may provide ample assurances to area residents that these areas will be permanently maintained. Since it is impossible to design an ordinance that adequately deals with each site and particular constraints or opportunities afforded by topography and vegetation, it is proposed that the city be allowed to reduce the buffer yard requirements by up to 50% where existing topography and /or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city. The applicant will have the burden of demonstrating compliance with this standard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed ordinance amendments. 11 1 Planning Commission October 31, 1990 Page 3 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission reviewed these ordinance amendments at their meeting of November 7, 1990. They recommended approval of both the ordinance dealing with the parking setbacks and with the creation of buffer yards although each had a minor language change proposed. The first change was that the parking setback ordinance was to be amended to include an intent statement which reads: "The intent of this section is that the City is willing to trade a smaller setback for additional landscaping that is both effective and of high quality aesthetically." There is also a minor language change concerning lower density uses. Staff supports these changes and has incorporated them into the draft ordinance and is recommending that it be adopted accordingly. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the ordinance amendment establishing buffer yards consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There was also modest language revisions that were proposed by the Planning Commission which have also been incorporated into this ordinance as well. Staff is recommending approval of both ordinances and is asking the City Council to give first and second reading at the January 28th meeting. We apologize for the delay of getting this ordinance to the City Council. Frankly, it fell through the cracks in all likelihood due to the rush to get the Comprehensive Plan on line and due to the relatively few number of City Council meetings that were held in November and December. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends approval of amendments to Zoning Ordinance Section Nos. 20 -504, 20 -695, 20 -715, 20 -735, 20 -755, 20 -774 and 20 -815 regarding parking setbacks and buffer yards. 1 1 1 1 11 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING. SECTIONS 20 -695, 20 -715, 20 -735, 20 -755, 20 -774 AND 20 -815 REGARDING PARKING SETBACKS AND BUFFER YARDS The Chanhassen City Council ordains: ' Section 1. A. Section 20- 695(6), Business Neighborhood District; ' Section 20- 715(6), Business Highway District; Section 20- 755(5), Business General District; Section 20- 774(5), Business Fringe District; and Section 20- 815(5), Industrial Office Park District shall be amended by adding the following: e. Parking setbacks along public rights -of -way may be ' reduced to a minimum of 10 feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that 100% screening is provided at least 5 feet ' above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the City is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is ' both` an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use of fencing is not permitted. B. Section 20- 695(8), Business Neighborhood District; Section 20- 715(8), Business Highway District; Section 20- ' 755(7), Business Fringe District; Section 20- 774(7), Business Fringe District; and Section 20- 815(7), Industrial Office Park District shall be amended to add the following: c. 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 1 3. 1 placed on the parcel containing the p p g 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 1 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. C. Section 20 -504, Planned Unit Development Section, shall be amended by adding the following: ' e. Buffer Yards: The City Comprehensive Plan establishess 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 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, 2 1 1 II II landscaping and /or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed II II 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 II be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently U recorded conservation easement running in favor of the City. I 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 II to 50 %. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. 1 Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon it's passage and publication. II ATTEST: Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor II II II II II II II 3 11 Planning Commission Meeting • November 7, 1990 - Page 20 give you a great deal of latitude. Conrad: But it's also the intent statement. You know what we've got to do is be able to do a good job of helping staff or helping neighbors understand what the point is. That's why Steve's introduction of what we're trying to accomplish is very important because what I don't want to. do is lead somebody down the pike and say hey, you might be able to get this. Or it is yours for sure. They have to know the intent for what we're trying to do and when you're controlling smells and stuff like this, it's a bigger deal. I think you all have to put yourself in the position of being next to one and say okay, how would I want to be guarded. How should the City guard me and I think there's ways to do it. I'm not sure II what the words are. There's a motion to table. Is there a second? Batzli: Second. ' Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to table action on Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20- 263(2), Recreational Beachlots to allow portable chemical toilets on recreational beachlots for further study. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: We appreciate you coming in. I said a lot of negative things but!' trying to make sure we get the right thing there. It's not just yours it applies to everybody. , Emmings: We've got time to work on it before next spring too. Conrad: Yeah, but we appreciate you coming in and talking to us and listening to what we have to say and maybe we can call upon you to help us II as we draft something. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20 -695, 20 -715, 20 -735, 20 -755, 20 -774, 20 -795 AND 20 -815 CONCERNING ALL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL" DISTRICTS TO INCREASE FLEXIBILITY IN ESTABLISHING PARKING SETBACKS BY ADOPTING A PERFORMANCE ORIENTED APPROACH TO STANDARDS AND AN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT FOR BUFFER YARDS IN THE IOP DISTRICT. , Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. 1 Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens: The buffer yards you talked about in relationship to the • comprehensive plan, is this what, the 50 foot buffer yard. Is that what we put in? i Krauss: 50 foot along rights - of - ways 100 foot from internal property lines. , Ahrens: I don't have anything. Wildermuth: It looks fine to me. 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 21 ' Batzli: I didn't have anything other than I was envisioning a situation where the public right -of -way was above the parking lot. The higher elevation. - 5o then 5 foot screening doesn't do any good. What's the 1 point? Krauss: If you can't achieve it, you're going to have a 30 foot setback. ' Batzli: You could achieve the 5 foot high screening but you're not doing any good. ' Olsen: At least 5 feet. Krauss: That's true. I would perceive that to be a loophole. ' Ahrens: But if the highway's above a parking lot anyway, 30 feet won't do that much good either. ' Wildermuth: It's almost a moot point. Ahrens: . Yeah. Whether it's 10 or 30, it doesn't make much of a difference. Batzli: Can't you get closer anyway even though you're not screened at ' all? Well, it true that you're not probably worsening the affect of getting closer to the highway. Is that what you mean? Ahrens: Right. Krauss: Also, I wonder where that's going to occur. Unless you're near the TH 5 overpass. ' Batzli: Yeah. Well that's where I was thinking. ' Krauss: If you're that close to right -of -way. Batzli: How about into the industrial office park to the south there along TH 5. Isn't that down lower a little bit there? ' Olsen: Burdick's property? ' Batzli: Yeah. I don't know. I was just envisioning areas where this might occur and do we care if you only have a 5 foot high screen. Krauss: But in exchange, well what you are getting is you're getting a II much more intensively landscaped area. Is the trade -off for that worthwhile? ' Batzli: I guess I was thinking, should we have language that talks about that situation? Do we care? Emmings: Brian, maybe I'm misreading this but to me this says that you can reduce it to 10 feet. Is that the part you're talking about? That first paragraph there? • Batzli: Yeah. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 7, 1990 - Page 22 Emmings: You reduce the setback to 10 feet. If you demonstrate to the 1 satisfaction of the City that 100% screening is provided at least 5 feet above the adjacent parking lot. Those are the words. Now it says, you've got to have at least 5 feet of screening. It doesn't say the stuff has to be 5 feet high. You've got to have 5 feet of screening so it may be that the stuff has to be 10 feet high or whatever. 5o maybe it's not a problem. Batzli: I don't know. I only had 30 seconds to look at it. It wasn't in II my packet but I guess I didn't get the plain meaning out of it the way you understand it but in any event. I was going to ask something else but I can't remember now. Conrad: If it comes to you. Batzli: I'll let you know. Emmings: On the buffer yards it says that we're going to do this where higher intensity uses interface with low density residential neighborhoods." My question is, how about a high intensity use next to a medium density residential neighborhood? , Krauss: The only place this will be employed is where it's so designated on the official comprehensive plan. The only places that occur is on the official comprehensive plan is where you have that interface between IOP II and some commercial and low density residential. Emmings: Okay, that's the only place we've put it now. Would it be better in terms of planning for the future just to say that buffer yards are to be, established in areas where higher intensity uses interface with lower intensity uses? Krauss: That would give you some flexibility to amend the plan to that. Emmings: I think we should do that. ' Ahrens: I like that. Emmings: Then in the next paragraph under C, and this is just minor but II the buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with, and then I'd take out "the" and put in "any other" required setbacks period. It says setbacks outlined above and they II may be above. They may be below. They may be who knows where. Krauss: Oh, actually, well if you had the whole ordinance in front of you,' they do occur above. Emmings: I don't. Okay. Why don't you just say any other required setbacks. Just again, make it easier. Then on the next page, the last paragraph in that same section where right above the big letter C. I had trouble reading this. It says, in instances where existing topography and /or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the City, or where, in II combination with quality site planning this is achieved. What is achieved? Krauss: A buffer satisfactory to the City. 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 23 ' Emmings: I thought you meant there, or where this is achieved through quality site planning. But maybe, and it didn't seem the same to me but I don't know. Is this clear to you? Maybe it's just me. Conrad: That's kind of foggy. Would you think it would be clear if we said or where this is achieved through quality site planning? Krauss: Sure. Emmings: I don't know if that's clear or not. It was clearer to me but I don't know if it's clearer to everybody. Then in (e) down there, again there's that interface with low density residential neighbors. I'd just say Lower density uses. Fourth line down. And then that first indented paragraph again just change, in the third line down just change "the" to "any other" required setbacks period. It's the same change. And then in the very last paragraph above where it says Section 2. That's the same language again and I'd just change it so it says, where this is achieved ' through quality site planning. That's all. Otherwise it seems like a good idea. Conrad: Are sidewalks always on the public right -of -way? Krauss: Yes. ' Conrad: So if there was a sidewalk that had to be in the front yard, then we really couldn't, more than likely we couldn't do this in terms of a performance standard? Krauss: No, you might be able to. You might not get the full benefit of a 20 foot reduction. You might get a 10 foot reduction. ' Conrad: What do you expect these reduced front yard setbacks to look like? Berms? ' Krauss: Heavily landscaped berms. Often times in 10 feet, the only way to achieve that is. ' Conrad: 10 feet is just nothing. Krauss: The only way to do that though is the way that Redmond did it which is come up with a 2:1 or 3:1 slope externally. Tie it into a retaining wall on the back side so the cars park into a retaining wall and then heavily plant on it. You can do a pretty effective job. ' Conrad: But externally we're not talking about timbers are we? Would we allow timbers? Krauss: No, internally. Conrad: Yeah, internally that's okay but externally. Externally we're not talking about superficial. Well is it possible that we could be talking about landscaping timbers on the outside? Krauss: Well it might not be. I mean I can envision a situation where you take like the keystone block that a lot of people are using now and you 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 24 have a meandering stone wall on the outside to give you some height and then you plant on that. That can be very attractive. What I didn't want happening was a fencing but it's a site plan. You have a lot of latitude to pick and choose and tell them how to operate that so. 1 Conrad: So what are we trying to achieve? Are we trying to simply, screen the parking lot? 1 Krauss: You're trying to screen the direct head -on exposure of the cars that would otherwise be intrusive. - Conrad: And have we gained, for sure the applicant who is trying to meet this performance standard, they will gain some property use and the city has gained what? Or maintained what? We have maintained the screening of II the parking lot? Krauss: Or provided it. I mean there are some parking lots where, well w have a 3 foot, what is it 3 foot, 2 foot berm requirement. When you've got a 2 foot berm and tree every 40 feet and a 30 foot setback you meet the ordinance right now. I think in exchange for that latitude you're getting", the ability to demand a much higher quality buffering treatment. Conrad: Is that true? Wildermuth: I think you're still getting an environmental amenity. , Conrad: Picture Redmond and how nice that front yard looked, and I think they're going to do a nice job. I think they're a good. Krauss: We have documentation with Redmond that shows from how we perceived it on the outside, it's not going to change. It's only internally that you'll notice it. Conrad: See I'm not too worried about them. I like what I saw and I like II performance stuff. I think the more performance things. If you have an intent of what you're trying to maintain, then I really like the performance type of standards that we're doing here. Try to challenge and , think of where we'll be beat and won't maintain the appearance and that's why I get a little bit, you know railroad ties kind of, could achieve something but I'm not sure that that's what we're looking for but what we again in this, the intent statement for allowing this is really, it's really not there. Now basically an intent statement here is screening and I don't know that we always put intent statements in everything we do. It seems like that's sort of a formula approach but on the other hand when I see somebody coming down the pike who wants to take advantage of this, I want to say well here's what we're trying to do and right now what we're trying to do is screen the cars and is everybody comfortable with screening the cars. ' Wildermuth: I guess I don't feel in most cases that passionate that they have to be screened. 1 Ahrens: I think on a public right -of -way I don't feel that it's that big a deal either. That they be completely screened. Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 25 ' Wildermuth: I guess that's why I don't have an objection to reducing this to 10 feet. ' Batzli: But see I think the setback serves a purpose in that parking back to open spaces and things. This provides some green even though the cars aren't screened. It provides an area that breaks up the landscape. ' Provides more percentage non - impervious, etc, etc and so in exchange for reducing that, I think we should get something in return. Conrad: Yeah, I agree. I don't know that we're getting back what we're ' giving up. And my perspective has always been in these particular districts, there's some nice. We really do have some nice commercial, industrial areas. It's just really pretty and part of that is because ' we've got that 70/30 standard. Because we work in some grass. We've got some trees and if this makes our industrial park areas look really nice. ' Krauss: We wouldn't be changing that standard at all. We would still maintain that 70/30. Conrad: The 70/30. ' Batzli: But it would be in a different part. What you talked about... Krauss: Frankly that oftentimes allows you to demand a better quality open '= space. A lot of projects come to us and by the time the meet setback standards, they're provided the 30% open space. I think that's not open space. That's just a little grassy strip along the tar. I would much ' rather be able to say, if you've only got the 10 feet here, that 30% chunk of your 5 acre site is going to be a legitimate open area someplace on your property. Redmond by the way, it's kind of a related issue, Redmond meets ' that 70/30 standard which they were required to meet is buying the 1.6 acre wetland from the City. They won't be able to touch the wetland at all. I mean it's going to look exactly the way it does right now, which by the way ' I think we've agreed to a selling price of about $88,000.00. Conrad: And where does the $88,000.00 go? Krauss: That's the $64,000.00 question. Nobody knows. Conrad: The money should go back into wetland improvements and all that ' kind of stuff. I'm sure it's not going there. Wildermuth: General fund. Conrad: Which defeats the intent. Totally defeats the intent. Krauss: We talked about that quite a bit at the Council. We're not losing a wetland though. I mean the original. Conrad: We never were. Krauss: But the original proposal deposited by Redmond and their development group was that they gave us a case in Lakeville where they were going to destroy a wetland and the Army Corps of Engineers allowed them to buy a wetland 30 miles away and improve it in exchange for the loss. I Planning Commission Meeting II November 7, 1990 - Page 26 mean that's a no net loss type approach. We're not losing anything in the II sense. We're gaining $88,000.00. I don't know what the Council's going to do with it. I brought forward suggestions that they use it for that as well but I'm just not certain yet. II Conrad: We understand why they wouldn't but. Batzli: Have we, kind of a related issue, originally Redmond was arguing II that they owned the strip between the frontage road and the highway and that should be included in their percent non- impervious. In a situation 11 like that, have we handled that as far as, would that have been included and that type of thing in their percentage calculations? Krauss: It's covered by right -of -way easements. Now I don't know that well have specific language that prohibits the inclusion of right -of -way covere land in those calculations. Batzli: I know that you guys argued that policy wise and whatever but you, couldn't ever put your finger on anything. Krauss: Well if you're leading up to maybe we should look at inserting II that in the ordinance someplace in that calculation, it may not be a bad idea and I think a blanket statement needs to be made in there that we don't compute that acreage or that area for setback purposes either. II Conrad: We'd better get back on task here. So, the front yard setback in these districts, because some of us don't feel that they're important at II all. I'm trying to figure this out. I'm being a little bit facetious. Your position really is that we're not giving much away so we don't really need to demand much. Wildermuth: Right. And this is valuable property we're talking about in II these business neighborhoods. You know business highway. Business general districts. And reasonably intense use compared to IOP. II Conrad: Yeah. Well IOP is here. This applies to IOP. Wildermuth: The buffer areas do but. 1 Emmings: A does too. Conrad: IOP stimulated it. This applies to everything. II Wildermuth: That's true. So here's what you've got. You can have a II situation. Now staff has control on some of this stuff but we're not giving them any guidance here. It's going to be up to them when an issue comes in. I'm just challenging our thinking of what we want. What the standards are that we're looking for. We literally could have on either II side of Redmond you could have people living within that 30 foot setback. Living with it with green space and then there's the one where because they can meet a performance standard and they can cut it down to 10, have we II maintained the character of what we're trying to maintain with front yard setbacks? With greenery? Have we maintained it with this language? If that's what we're trying to maintain. Whatever we're trying to maintain i these districts with setbacks, have we maintained them? That's the only 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 27 ' thing I'm challenging you all with. Batzli: Provided they can still meet the percent impervious,•I think that ' percentage impervious will, having us not be along the highway is probably actually perhaps more beneficial, even though I like the open space even on the highway. If they've got it someplace else on the lot, hopefully it's ' not toward the most intense use which would be the thoroughfare so. I guess I like the 30 feet but if in fact they can screen it. If we get some berming and things that we wouldn't otherwise get, I'm comfortable ' with it. Conrad: So how do you have better control on? Tell me again, what can you do in these 10 feet that we might shrink down to? We can require plantings ' every x number of feet. Sort of at staff discretion or whatever you feel is appropriate, to fit in to the context of the neighborhood or the particular business park. How do you? Krauss: Well, we're throwing it back into their laps. We're saying if you want to get this flexibility, you've got to demonstrate initially to our satisfaction and to yours and to the Councils that you've achieved the goal ' of 100% opacity 5 feet above it. - Conrad: But the standard really is to screen the cars? ' Krauss: Yeah. And I think quite conceiveably we're going to have commercial developers that aren't going to want that. Well, they might want the flexibility but they're not going to want to exchange it for the ' lack of, or for a parking lot that doesn't look like it's real busy and hustling and bustling like we have a going shopping center here. You know Redmond I think it's very appropriate in an industrial areas where they don't care you know and I think it's going to be physically impossible for some people to accomplish that. It's also going to be costly. ' Batzli: Well they could just put in a 5 foot berm and put a tree every 40 feet. Why would that be costly? Krauss: Because first of all, the only way to do a 5 foot berm and tree every 40 feet is going to be a doubled sided retaining wall and that's $10.00 a foot per side and it gets very expensive. Plus you have the authority I think in a site plan review... Batzli: Okay, so they put it 15 feet back instead of 10 feet. Now what's the difference? You could end up with a 5 foot high berm and a tree every ' 40 feet. Krauss: We don't. We tell people what we want to have to achieve that goal. You have latitude under the site plan review to say that's a real ' darn ugly way of achieving this and we won't accept it unless you revise it so and so. We do that all the time. ' Batzli: Yeah, I don't know that we do it so much as you guys doing it in advance. I mean we don't look at berms usually and say, no you've got to make it a foot higher and put a tree every other. ' Krauss: We do it all the time, yeah. 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 28 Batzli: But it is in the realm of possibility that you could end up with all 5 foot high berm with a tree every 40 feet and they'd be within the Code right? Olsen: Yeah, if it's 100% screened. , Conrad: What more would you want? Batzli: I don't know, a tree every 20 feet. I don't know. Conrad: Okay. I don't want to beat a dead horse here. I don't want to II grind us into the ground. Batzli: It already is. 1 Conrad: Yeah, we did it. I'm not real comfortable but. Emmings:. I like it. 1 Conrad; I know you do. That's why I'm uncomfortable. I like the buffer yards with Steve's additions. Is there a motion? 1 Emmings: Well I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments with the changes that we talked about, or' that I talked about or made. You know what those are don't you? Conrad: We don't but that's okay. No, we do. Is there a second? Wildermuth: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? How are you going to vote Brian? You can't tell" me so we don't have any discussion on that. I can't figure out any other standards that I'd like to put in here. I guess my only concern was wording beyond the effect of screening. I think aesthetics has something ' to do with what we're trying to maintain. Batzli: I think so too but then I think you get into the intent statement that you kind of ran up the flag pole and nobody really swallowed it. 1 Conrad: Nobody really jumped on it, no. Batzli: Because Steve felt comfortable so he had drafted an intent 1 statement. Conrad: There are some on this commission who don't care. Batzli: And there's one that .didn't have the packet in advance so I can't help you. , Emmings: "Why don't we put something in there about, in 1(a) why don't we put something in there about our intent? It's not too late to do that. Conrad: I floated that and nobody. Emmings: But you have a chance that we could amend it. , 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 29 Wildermuth: The motion has been made and seconded. Batzli: But we're discussing it. 1 Emmings: This is a discussion. I can make an amendment if I want to. Anybody can. I can move to amend my own motion. What could we say in there so? So basically what you're saying is, and we don't want them just ' to think of blocking our vision. We also want them to think in terms of what? ' Conrad: Aesthetics. The aesthetics. Emmings: Too late. Conrad: I know. It's tough. Wildermuth: The problem is you can't anticipate every situation that ' you're going to come by... Batzli: I view the intent statement, if in fact there was one, that we're giving up open space and allowing them to do this in exchange for some sort of trade off in additional screening, vegetation, that type of thing. I mean I think that should be the intent. Now how you say that, because really I don't think you can say so that it's aesthetically pleasing. What ' you want though in exchange is. Wildermuth: Additional landscaping. Batzli: Yeah. Wildermuth: And plantings... Batzli: Then...would be required, yeah. ' Emmings: Why can't we say that it's got to be aesthetically acceptable? Why couldn't we say something like you said? Say something like the City is willing to relax it's setback requirements provided that a person can ' show screening which is both effective and aesthetically acceptable to the city? Now I don't know that, it's a little vague but. Batzli: It's darn vague. Emmings: Well, but I don't know that you can't do that because we're giving, the lynch pin it seems to me Brian is your idea that we're giving ' up something and so we get something back. We get to determine whether or not it's good enough. Ahrens: Why don't you just, in A(e) . Is that A(e)? Emmings: Yeah. ' Ahrens: The second to the last sentence, acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Do we just add maybe a couple of words onto that sentence...acceptable screening? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 30 Emmings: But I think contained in the notion that Brian brought up about 1 the fact that the City is relaxing a requirement and intends to get back. Wildermuth: ...quality. , Emmings: Right. Which is both effective and aesthetically. Wildermuth: I don't know if we want to say relax the requirement. Say we're willing to trade off. Emmings: Well okay. Krauss: I wouldn't have a problem with the intent statement as drafted. It is vague. I love vague statements. Our City Attorney hates them. We'll II have a tug of war over that but I think, you know you are trading somethindl and you should have the latitude to be more demanding. Emmings: Right. To me that's totally different than saying a house is a II permitted use but it's got to be a pretty house. That means nothing." Krauss: You can say if you don't like it, go with the 30 foot setback. That's what everybody else has to go with. Emmings:_ Exactly. 1 Conrad: Do we need to word anything? Krauss: I don't know. If we just incorporate Steve's language. If the II motion's amended to do that I think we're okay. Ahrens: What language was that? 1 Conrad: We're not sure. Aesthetically pleasing was in there. Emmings: Except Jim didn't like part of it so maybe we could come up with" something that. Wildermuth: The City's willing to trade off a reduction in the setback or!' what? Emmings: Well, we'll say the intent of this section is that the City is II willing to trade a smaller setback for screening that is both effective an d' of high quality aesthetically? Something like that. Batzli: I would say additional landscaping. 1 Emmings: Yeah. Put that in there too. I'm going to move to amend my own motion with that language. 1 Conrad: Is there a second? Ahrens: Second. 1 Emmings: We've got to vote on that first don't we? The amendment? I/ Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 31 Conrad: Well I'm not sure. Batzli: Unless it's a friendly amendment and the second will accept it. ' Emmings: Okay. I made it myself. I'm not mad at myself. ' Conrad: Okay, I'm going to call a question. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 20 -504, 20 -695, 20 -715, 20 -735, 20 -755, 20 -774, and 20 -815 ' regarding parking setbacks and buffer yards amending the staff report as follows: To include an intent statement which reads, the intent of this section is that the City is willing to trade a smaller setback for ' additional landscaping that is both effective and of high quality aesthetically. And changing the phrases in B(c) and C(e) by deleting the phrase "interface with low density residential neighborhoods" and replacing it with "interface with lower density uses." and changing the sentence, It ' is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above." to read, "It is to be cumulatively calculated with any other required setbacks." Also changing the first sentence in the last paragraph of item B(c) to read as follows, in instances where existing topography and /or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the City, or where quality site planning achieved, ". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. FINAL STUDY REPORT FOR PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES IN THE CITIES OF CHASKA, CHANHASSEN AND EDEN PRAIRIE, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item and Fred Hoisington was 1 present to answer questions. Conrad: Anybody have questions? 1 Emmings: I'm going to confess that I didn't have time to read this and I'm abstaining from any vote. ' Wildermuth: The only comment that I have is when I look at the prototype site plans, it seems as though there could be a little more efficient use of the bus loading area and that seems like that could be accomplished by ' trunkating a corner. Having a special bus lane cutting a corner off as opposed to coming into a parking lot and having a big sweeping area that it turns around in. It would take less parking space for the bus to stop and load. ' Krauss: This is the prototype plan? ' Wildermuth: The prototype plans are in the back. Krauss: Yeah. Well the prototype isn't, they've got a new design that they're basically using for our specific circumstance anyway because it has to be designed to fit that site. Wildermuth: It just seems like coming and trunkating a corner would be a much more efficient way to go.