7. Zoning Ordinance concerning PUD for residental districts I CITYOF
7.
______.
1
1 111',,---- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739, ,,
vif
IMEMORANDUM R,k. __ _ " a
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ,r. sL. ,
IFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director f01-4-- at;
DATE: June 5, 1991 �'-t�' `'
1 SUBJ: Recommended Modifications to the PUD Ordinance
IIStaff has been working with the Planning Commission on developing
a new PUD ordinance for our community over the past several months.
This has long been a concern of staff's since we believe the
I existing PUD ordinance is extremely inadequate. Fundamentally, it
provides the developer with all of the flexibility usually
associated with the PUD ordinance but is very poor on defining what
1 the city' s expectations are for higher quality development that we
should be receiving in return. The current ordinance contains
virtually no standards that establish minimum criteria against
1 which a PUD is to be reviewed. We also note that it is commonly
accepted by many on the Council and Planning Commission that a PUD
designation must be earned, that in exchange for the flexibility,
the city is to get a better and higher quality development than
I would otherwise be the case. It is interesting to note that this
trade-off is nowhere to be found in the current ordinance. Lastly,
the single family standards in the PUD ordinance do not appear to
1 be working. They were originally adopted to amend the PUD
ordinance due to the approval of several residential PUDs which
served only to cram more homes on smaller lots. There was no
1 trade-off in terms of higher quality, design or open space and the
end result is that there are a larger number of variance requests
that a coming from these subdivisions. However, no one has since
used the new standards and upon further review we found out that
IIthey really were not working very well.
Staff's concerns regarding the PUD ordinance is of more than
1 academic interest. We truly believe that the PUD ordinance
represents the most ideal method for a city to regulate
development, particularly development that occurs on a large scale.
The PUD ordinance is unique in that it gives a good deal of
II
latitude to work out an acceptable design compromise, meeting the
needs of the developer, surrounding property owners and of the
city. This program then becomes part of a development contract
1
I
PUD Ordinance
June 5, 1991
Page 2
that is in essence their zoning on- the property. Nothing else can
be done on this property unless it is rezoned in the future. As
you are probably aware, the City Council has a lot more latitude on
approving or denying rezoning than it does on approving a site plan
on a piece of ground that is already zoned for the use. We further
note that we have a number of large tracts of land in the new MUSA
' area which can be ideally developed with the PUD ordinance. In
fact, we are working with developers on two large 100+ acre
industrial parks that we envision using the PUD ordinance. Against
' this background, we believe that it was necessary to act quickly to
adopt PUD ordinance amendments that would give us the quality of
development that we have a right to expect.
The Planning Commission met to discuss this ordinance on several
occasions. By in large, most of their comments focused on the
section of the ordinance dealing with single family housing. At
their meeting on May 16th, the Planning Commission recommended the
adoption of all sections of the ordinance except those which
pertain directly to single family detached housing. They wished to
continue action on this section to allow for additional discussion.
' The reason we took this action to separate out that part of the
ordinance is to allow the bulk of the PUD ordinance proceed to the
City Council for action so that we will be in a position to deal
' with development that will probably be coming along now that the
MUSA line has been relocated.
' STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of
amendments to Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance amendment.
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1991.
3 . Staff report dated May 6, 1991.
I
1 .
I
11
I
I/
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1
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:
ARTICLE VIII, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1
DIVISION I. GENERALLY
Section 20-501. Intent.
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a
site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district
standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction
phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange
for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality
and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the
use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the
applicants responsibility to demonstrate that the City's
expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following
criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
(1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space
and protection of sensitive environmental features, including
steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic
views.
(2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and
public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and
development of land in larger parcels.
(3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding I
land uses, including both existing and planned. Site
planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the
community.
(4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between
different land uses and along significant corridors within the
city.
I
I
(5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may
be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be
consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail
plan.
(7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if
appropriate within the PUD.
(8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building
designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land
uses.
(9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the
potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads
and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Section 20-502 . Allowed uses.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be
delineated in a development plan.
(a) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which
the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except
that the city may permit up to 25 percent of the gross
floor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for land
uses for which the site is not designated in the
comprehensive plan if the city council finds that such
use is in the best interests of the city and is
consistent with the requirements of this section.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD
shall be delineated in a PUD development plan.
' (b) Where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more
than one land use in the comprehensive plan, city may
require that the PUD include all the land uses so
designated or such combination of the designated uses as
the city council shall deem appropriate to achieve the
purposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
r
•
Section 20-503. District size and location.
(a) Each PUD shall have a minimum area of 5 acres, unless the
applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the
following:
1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of
the surrounding neighborhood such that development as -a
PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of
' importance to the neighborhood or community.
2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-
of-way from property which has been developed previously
I/
as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will
be perceived as and will function as an extension of that
previously approved development. .
3) The property is located in a transitional area between ,
different land use categories or on an intermediate or -
principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan.
Section 20-504 . Coordination with other zoning regulations. I
a) Subdivision review under Chapter 18 shall be carried out
simultaneously with the review of a PUD. The plans required
under this chapter shall be submitted in addition to or in a
form which will satisfy the requirements of Chapter 18 for the
preliminary and final plat. I
b) Site plan review under Article II, Division 6 of this code
shall be carried out for each non-single family or duplex
principal structure, that is proposed.
c) PUD plans shall be coordinated with and in compliance with
provisions of Article V, Flood Plain Overlay District; Article
VI, Wetland Protection, and Article VII, Shoreland Overlay
District.
Section 20-505. Required general standards. ,
a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of
view of all standards and purposes of the comprehensive land
use plan to coordinate between the proposed development the
surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of
buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features
with response to the topography of the area and existing
natural features, the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the
proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green
areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non-compatible
land uses and parking areas.
b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the
city higher quality architectural and site design,
landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees
and buffering for adjoining properties that represent
improvements over normal ordinance standards.
c) Density. An increase/transfer for density may be allowed at
the sole discretion of the city utilizing the following
factors:
1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on gross acreage ,
located within the property lines of the site in
accordance with the land use plan.
2) The area where the density is transferred must be within
the project area and owned by the proponent.
I
3) Density transfer in single family detached area will be
evaluated using the items listed in Section 20-506.
Density transfer eligible for multiple family areas are
' not permitted to be applied to single family areas.
4) In no case shall the overall density of the development
exceed the gross density ranges identified in the
comprehensive plan.
d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction
of projects which are consistent with the city's housing
goals. Incentives may include modification of density and
other standards for developments providing low and moderate
cost housing. Incentives may be approved by the city only
after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to
ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available
to persons of low and moderate income for a specific period of
time.
e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows:
Comprehensive Hard surface
Plan Designation Coverage (%)
Low or medium density 30%
residential
high density residential 50%
office 70%
commercial (neighborhood 70%
or community)
commercial (regional) 70%
industrial 70%
Individual lots within a PUD may exceed these standards as
long as the average meets these standards.
f) The setback for all buildings within a PUD from any abutting
street line shall be 30 feet for local streets and 50 feet
from railroad lines for collector or arterial streets, as
designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case
shall the setback be less than the height of the building up
to a maximum of 100 feet. The setback for all buildings from
exterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be
30 feet except that in no case shall the setback be less than
the height of the building up to a maximum of 100 feet.
Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be
determined by the city based on characteristics of the
specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set
back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD.
I
I/
The setback for parking structures including decks and ramps
shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other
street classifications except that in no case shall the
setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking
structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be 50 feet or
the height of the structure, whichever is greater when
adjacent to residential property; 35 feet when adjacent to 11 non-residential properties. Parking structure setbacks from
internal public or private streets shall be determined by the
city based on characteristics of the specific PUD.
Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single family 1
lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking
setbacks may be required in order to provide effective
screening. The city council shall make a determination
regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant.
Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth
berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features
such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of
uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard
requirements Established by the Comprehensive Plan.
g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or
recorded lot in a PUD.
h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the City, all property
to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership
or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved
master development plan and final site and building plan.
After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without
restriction, however, all parcels will remain subject to the
PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain-
of-title.
i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a
sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by
permanent covenants, established in the PUD Development
Contract.
j ) The requirements contained in Articles XXIII, General
Supplemental Regulations, XXIV, Off-street Parking and
Loading, and XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal. May be
applied by the city as it deems appropriate.
k) The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and
standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and
subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city
ordinances ordinarily governing them. The City Council may
therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and
land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual
specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that
strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not
required to meet the intent of this or to protect the health,
I/
I
11 safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding
area or the city as a whole.
II 1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on
property included within a proposed or approved PUD nor shall
any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the
proposed or approved PUD.
IISection 20-506. Reserved for Single Family Detached Residential.
I Section 20-507. Controls during construction and following
completion.
I a) The use of the land the construction, modification or
alteration of any buildings or structures in a PUD shall be
governed by the final development plan.
I b) After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes
shall be made in the approved final development plan for a PUD
except:
II1) Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of
existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the
city planner if they are consistent with the purposes and
intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this
section may increase the bulk of any building structure
by more than ten (10) percent.
II2) Any building or structure that is totally or
substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in
I compliance with the final development plan unless an
amendment to the final development plan is approved.
3) Changes in uses, any rearrangements of lots, blocks and
IIbuilding tracts, changes in the provisions of common open
spaces, and all other changes to the approved final
development plan may be made only after a public hearing
I conducted by the planning commission and upon final
approval by the city council. Any changes shall be
recorded as amendments to the final development plan.
II -
c) Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be
approved by the city council after review by the planning
commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for
I such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the
original PUD. A major amendment is any amendment which:
II 1) Substantially alters the location of buildings, parking
areas or roads;
II 2) Increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling
units by more than five percent;
3) Increases the gross floor area of non-residential
II
I/
buildings by more than five percent or increases the
gross floor area of any individual building by more than
ten percent;
4) Decreases the amount of open space by more than five 11
percent or alters it in such a way as to change its
original design or intended use; or
5) Creates non-compliance with any special condition
attached to the approval of the master development plan.
Section 2 . This ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its publication according to law.
Passed and adopted by the City Council this day of I
. 1991.
•
ATTEST: ,
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Ma yor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 1
•
I
1
1
r
I
11 Planning Commission Meetinb
May 15 , 1991 - Page 30
r
Emmings : Okay . I like that . It 's easy .
Batzli : Strike my withdrawal .
Emmings : Does anyone else have anything on the bluff line? You have our
blessings here to do whatever . . .
' PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS .
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
' Erhart : Let me ask you this . What other reason why a developer would want
a PUD as opposed to , anything other than a smaller lot? What other reasons
in a residential area? Is the crux?
Olsen: The setbacks .
Erhart : Okay , so then the question would be , let 's say the guy just wanted
different setbacks . So he wanted to go to a PUD but the way this is formed
now , he automatically has got to give up 25% , even though he 's willing to
stick with the 15 ,000 sqaure lots . That 's where I guess in looking at
I this , if you were to use the minimum lot size which you ought to have as a
scale . Like if it 's 9 ,000 , then it 's 25% . If it 's 10 ,000 then it 's 20% .
If it 's 11 ,000 it 's 18% .
IIKrauss : That 's a possibility . If you figure it on the average lot size .
Erhart: Well it seems to me it ought to be done on the average lot size .
I Not use the minimum lot size at all . And you have a scale so that yeah ,
it does allow him to get more total lots as the average gets smaller and in
exchange we get some open land but I don 't think you can just pick a spot
1 and say that 's it .
Ellson: You 're saying as we squish people more , we get more open space?
Erhart : Yeah . And the advantage to the developer is that he gets more
lots and we get more open space but what you can 't do I think is pick one
point and say , if you 're going to come in for a PUD , whatever the reason
I is , you 're going to be on that point . Because then you give up any
creativity at all to adapt to the land itself or what the developer 's
trying to accomplish there .
IIKrauss : Realistically though nobody , I can 't understand why somebody would
come in with 15 ,000 square foot or better 'lots and request a PUD . If the
II sole purpose of their requesting a PUD is to be let off the hook on setback
standards or street widths or something else , then there 's no net gain for
the city .
I Erhart : Okay , so that 's just as unrealistic as the guy coming in with 144
9 ,000 square foot lots? What I 'm saying is there 's going to be someplace
between that spectrum . That particular development or that developer or
I
Planning Commission Meeting
I/
May 15 , 1991 - Page 31
what he 's trying to accomplish in terms of house styles and values of the
houses , that he 's going to pick and what we ought to do is , you want to
nail it down so it doesn 't get to be a . negotiating , totally arbitrary and
let 's put a little table together . It says okay , if your average lot size
is 10 ,000 square feet and the City wants 20% , every size is 11 ,000 square
feet . . .so you allow the developer to kind of , you can still create . We can I
get what we want but he can still create the development that he has in
mind .
Krauss: That might be reasonable . Again , we 're flying a little bit by the I
seat of our pants on this one . Many communities experiences with single
family PUD 's are similar to Chanhassen 's and there 's not, and that I 'm
aware of , there 's not a lot of progressive thought on okay , you 've all been II
burned . How do you then fix an ordinance that doesn't do that? I mean
it 's clear to me the trade off is , some of the trade off involves open
space . What the magic number is I think is an issue . '
Erhart : Yeah . If it 's just open space for the same number of lots ,
there 's no incentive to pay the extra fees and everything . You 're going to
have to give them a little bit of incentive to give us the open space by
actually increasing the number of lots . I don 't think it has to be a lot .
Krauss : We can certainly play with that . 1
Erhart : I know that a guy 's going to come in with the whole place isn 't
going to be 9 ,000 square foot lots . I guess I 'm having a hard time even
envisioning that .
Conrad: Would we still get a Near Mountain development with this? Near
Mountain is a good PUD . I kind of like what this does but I guess I don 't
know what it discourages or if it forces one thing versus another . So
I guess my feeling is that I 'd like to have staff work a couple scenarios
just like this one so we can see what it does encourage . And one would be, II
if it could go back and reconstruct the Near Mountain PUD and see what this
would do to it . Now they have a lot of ponds and, I 'd just like to know if
we could have another development like that or if this would not allow a
Near Mountain .
Krauss: We could certainly check that . I didn't have the time but in
doing this I was , my gut reaction was that Near Mountain should qualify .
If it doesn 't , then something's wrong .
Erhart: Do they get 25% open space?
Olsen: They may have to give more open space .
Krauss: Except that we 've credited , I mean there are ways to credit. 1
We 're not only looking for , this is open gpace that the public can use or
that 's common open space . We 're saying that of your 25% , one quarter of
that can be park . You 're probably going to have to dedicate more than that II
but it could be . One quarter of that can be wetlands but then we 've said
if you 're protecting other natural features . For example Near Mountain has
a lot of forested areas . If we had those forested areas , which may or may II
not be on somebody 's lot , protected by a conservation easement , then that
would be , you could attribute that towards your requirement because we 're
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 1E, , 1991 - Page 32
11
guaranteed that that open space amenity , that natural feature is going to
be preserved in perpetuity .
' Olsen: . . .remember where the outlot , the summit? That was originally
going to be condos and now it 's single family lots . That probably wouldn 't
have been . . .
Krauss: It 's kind of tough adopting that after the fact too because those
' lots were not structure with this sort of ordinance in mind . What you 'd
have to do is go back and make some assumptions which you may be able to do
but I think it 's a useful exercise .
' Conrad: What I don 't want to do is force , you know I don 't want to stiffel
the creativity and I don 't want developers coming in here with all 9 ,000
square foot lots . So Near Mountain had a mixture and that 's kind of what
' we 're trying to look for , plus the open space and I get lost in the
formula . I don 't know what happens . So again , I think some of the
concepts is kind of neat if it works . If it works for multiple sized
developments . Now I don't know how it works from a 10 acre subdivision or
PUD to 1 ,000 acre so I guess it 's a neat concept to pursue .
Erhart : I think you ought to try it with the average because we don 't want
' all 9 ,000 square foot lots . This is what . . . kind of what we 're encouraging
here . Table of different averages and see how that works . I think that
the concept that you 're working on is right on .
Emmings: Maybe you ought to show Terry Forbord your example and get some
feedback from him .
' Krauss: I will . I 'll bump a copy over to Shardlow too .
Emmings : And also ask him if 'the system that Tim isn 't talking about
wouldn 't be , I think that 's kind of . . .
Erhart : I think you actually mentioned it .
IIKrauss: In fact he suggested , when he and I were talking , that was one of
the topics that we thought of .
1 Batzli : Paul , would your zero lot line type things , if it was 4 foot away
from the lot line , would that come under your single family detached?
II Krauss: I intentionally didn 't deal with that and Roger raised it again as
a concern . The most recent ordinance I 've written before this one , I
actually set that up as a separate district .
IIBatzli : Separate from the PUD?
Krauss: Well no , as a PUD but it was separate standards . Single family
II detached lots on typicaly single family homes were treated one way . Zero
lot lines were treated another way . As I read through this ordinance again
tonight though , I think that the reason for that is when you get closer .
' When you 're building on the zero lot line , you have more implications as to
what the architectural design is . How you 're imposing on the adjoining
property owner . How you want to treat common space because there has to be
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 34
r
more common space when it 's that tight . But as •I thought about it , the
ordinance , the way we 've structured it right now , the single family
detached works pretty well because we 've built 'all that architectural stuff II
in there and the language is loose enough that we could allow zero lot
lines under the same set of procedures and standards . I don 't think we
have to change ve-y much to allow that . One thing you may want to consider II
though is some communities have a problem with zero lot line homes being in II
single family neighborhoods . I don 't know that I ascribe to that
philosophy because basically they 're single family homes . They 're just
scrunched to one side . I don 't see us lowering the lot size much . I don 't II
see us lowering the lot size below 9 ,000 ever in the RSF district or in the
low density district . If somebody wants to do a high intensity zero lot
line development , it really in my opinion ought to belong in areas that are II
guided for medium or high density use in the Comp Plan because that 's the
densities you 're dealing with . And I think we can make that
differentiation . It 's not that hard . ,
Batzli : Did Forbord like , did you show him the whole proposed standards?
Krauss: No , we haven 't had a chance to sit down . I just briefed him on
the phone .
Batzli : I was curious what he thought about the foundation plans and
architectural standards . The other elements of this besides the 25% .
Krauss : I don 't know . I suspect he didn 't have a problem with that
because that 's the way they design their project anyway . I mean we 're not
specifically designing for Lundgren Brothers Homes .
Ahrens : Yeah , I was going to say . Terry Forbord , it 's fine to run some
things past thim but we 're not designing our ordinance for him . Especially II
since he 's going to be coming in with probably another PUD . He has some
property in Chanhassen and we don 't want to give him our ordinance and say II
how do you want this to read and what 's the best deal for you and then he
can design it around whatever development he wants to come in with .
Batzli : No , and I wasn 't proposing that . I just thought it was ,
interesting because other developers don't develop to their standards and
while Terry might not have had a problem including certain number of trees
and plantings around the foundation , I 'll bet you a lot of other developers
would . I was just curious .
Krauss: Well I 'll be happy to sit down with him . We can certainly do
that . He 's useful as a gauging point though because on the spectrum of
residential developers , they tend to be a little better than most .
Ellson: Right . If you want to encourage anybody it would be him . .
Krauss: Yeah , and if he has a significant problem with something , it 's
probably note worthy . If he believes he can live with something , it
doesn 't imply that all other developers can live with it but it may mean to II
us so what? That 's the standard of development we want to achieve .
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 35
11
Ahrens: But there are a lot of good developers in town too . You may want
to run it past them .
11
Krauss : We can send it out to a few people who develop in the community
and see what they think .
IIConrad: I had a couple just statements or comments on what we see in front
of us and I think Paul 's going to work some things but just philosophically
II my intent on this ordinance was not to put more density in but to shift it .
If there is more density that 's fine . I guess I was , well if there is more
density , I want to make sure that it 's good quality density . That 's just a
general comment on my part . I 'm interested about the density transfer
IIissue too because I really feel that that 's a viable thing . Again , if
I had my way , if a site is approved for 10 units and we can shift 5 of
those units to the other half of the property and leave the other half
1 open , that 's what I 'm trying to do . So I don 't mind building up the
density . I 'm kind of interested in how the transfer formula works . Using
gross versus net . Is there a conversion factor? We 've always used net
I before in terms of units per acre and now we 're going to use gross so have
we compensated for that changeover in terms of the number of units allowed
per acre?
1 Krauss: There 's no standard factor Ladd because it 's really highly
contingent upon the individual site . How much park are you dealing with?
How much wetland are you dealing with? I think though that the PUD gets at
I that issue in another way . It 's demanding higher quality design . It 's
demanding higher quality landscaping . It 's going to demand some modicum of
additional open space . You know you 're achieving your goals through a
I different mechanism and if the developer happens to get more units out of
it but it looks better overall and is less impacting , I guess that 's a fair
compromise .
I Conrad: But what is the standard? The standard that you set is 1 .7 units
per acre . How did we get there? How did we get to 1 .7?
I Krauss: We developed that in doing the Comprehensive Plan . Basically what
we wanted to do is the Metro Council was telling us that the rule of thumb ,
everyone develops 2 1/2 units an acre . We said well that 's not an
II appropriate assumption here because we are basically a no net loss wetlands
community . Our park dedications are pretty stiff and all this and so we
went back in . Jo Ann and Mark and I and took apart , I don 't know , 12 or 15
plats we 've done over the last 5 years and tried to find what the average
IIdensity is . Now this is standard platting . This is not PUD 's .
Conrad: So average gross density?
IIKrauss : Right .
Conrad: Based on history? And that turned out to be 1 .7?
IIKrauss : Correct .
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 36
Conrad : Okay . Over how many years?
Krauss: I would say it was the plats over the last 5 years probably . S
Olsen : Maybe even 10 .
Conrad: And just a picky point . On page 5 , letter ( g ) . It said , more
than one building may be placed on one platted recorded lot on a PUD . What
does that mean? ,
Krauss: Under standard zoning you 're obligated to have a separate tax
parcel around each building . Within a PUD you 're approving an overall 11 master plan . You 've got a lot of control over exactly what happens .
What 's built where . It becomes less important to us if an industrial
occupant has three buildings on a single tax parcel . You 've exercised all
the control you need .
Conrad: Okay .
Emmings : Does anybody have anything else on this? Any other comments? ,
Batzli : Yeah , I don 't like 9 ,000 feet . I think it 's too small .
Ahrens: You think 9 ,000 is too small?
Emmings : I wonder , what if it said something . Instead of saying you can ,
have single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of
9 ,000 square feet and seeing some developers just licking their lips .
Can 't wait to go in here and make a development of all 9 ,000 foot lots .
What if we just said that some of the lots may be as small as 9 ,000 square
feet .
Erhart : That 's where I think you tie in this average thing . 1
Ellson : But if someone does 9 ,000 and it looks good and transfer and
things like that , I think we have to , we don 't know . ,
Emmings: What were , the lots that we were all remarking about in .
Krauss: Were 9 ,000 square feet . That 's where that number came from . ,
Erhart : Yeah I know but there was only a lot here and there . It wasn 't a
mass of these lots . Were there?
Batzli : Yeah , they 're all on one end .
Ellson: It 's one group of them and they 're very well done . ,
Conrad: There 's probably about 60 . 40 to 60 . Something like that .
Krauss: All of the professional literature says that , don 't take the micro
view of what the property line says . What kind of context is it sitting
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 37
I
in . I mean if you have a 9 ,000 square foot lot" backing up to a protected
forest , it 's going to look a whole lot better than a 15 ,000 square foot lot
in a cornfield .
Ahrens: I think though that we 're worried about implying that we 're going
to give them something that we really have no intention of giving them .
Batzli : I think if somebody comes in here with a bunch of 9 ,000 square
foot lots , we 're all going to be stunned and we 're going to sit here and
say , help us . What can we do to stop this?
Ahrens: I think we 'd better put some language in there just to give us the
right to reject it .
Emmings : Or that we consider PUD 's where some of the lots were as small as
9 ,000 square feet but not less than that . Something but you 've got to make
it a lot more .
' Krauss : But we have that existing PUD that has the average , it doesn 't
work .
•
IEmmings: I don 't understand .
Olsen : Well we have it right now where there 's an average of 13 ,500 and
you can go as low as 12 ,000 . And it has worked where it 's not all 12 ,000
square foot lots but the PUD 's haven 't been successful for other reasons .
Because we still don 't require preservation of open space and creativity
but . . .average doesn 't work .
11 Krauss : Well I think what came across loud and clear though again for
Forbord was that .a deviance of 1 ,500 square feet isn 't enough to induce
anybody to do anything .
Ellson : That 's why we came up with the 9 .
Erhart : . . .gross density . That 's not now what you 're doing .
Conrad : But Paul is changing the formula .
Erhart: No , he 's increasing the gross density . You 're getting more lots
on the original piece of land . So that gives him the incentive then to
preserve some other piece of land .
Krauss : But you 're not going to get more lots if you have a high average
minimum .
Erhart : I 'm not saying whether it should be high or low. You kind pf have
to work it out what it is . The way you hive it now , you 've only picked one
point and it has to be 25% and what . . .
Krauss : Well that 's variable but I thought the intent of this was to get
away from the hard and fast , thou shalt have an average of no less than 13 .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 38
r
Ellson : That 's what. I want to do too . I think .we should leave the 9 ,000
and our intent in here is telling them that we don 't want to see all that
and then you guys are certainly going to see it and the fact that it 's a.
PUD , we have a chance to negotiate . That 's the whole idea behind it but -
we 're putting more fences around them before we 've even seen it . We 're not
even giving them a chance to try to bring something to us . We 're telling I
them right off the bat we just have decided there 's no way you can do it
well and don 't even bother .
Erhart : I guess I 'm a little confused there . You don 't want a formula in II
here now or you do?
Krauss : No , no . We 're talking about two different things . The open space ,
formula I think we need because that 's one of the trade offs we 're getting.
That 's one of the benefits of going with the PUD . The question is what
kind of minimum lot area do you adhere to and from a strictly designed ,
philosophical standpoint , I don 't care if all the lots are 9 ,000 square
feet if everything else is done well .
Erhart : Okay , but what we could do to satisfy I think the concern is to
say yeah , you can have 9 ,000 square foot lots but your average can 't be any
less than .
Ellson: 9 ,000 .
Erhart.: No , no . I
Ellson: That 's what I 'm saying . If he can do a thing of all 9 ,000 square
foot and it looks good . See you 're making an assumption that you 'll never
see a 9 ,000 average that would look good . You 're making a big assumption .
Like he said , if they 're all backed up against this bluff area and things
like that , it might not be that bad .
Erhart : That 's not realistic .
Krauss: It is if 25% of your land has to be in open space .
Erhart : Oh , I see .
Conrad: That could be . I
Ellson: I think you ought to give them a chance to do it and if you don 't
like it , tell them then . ,
Batzli : The problem is , somebody 's going to come in with a plan .
Ellson: That 's when we deal with it . ,
Batzli : Well , it 's going to happen and then we 're going to look at it and
say why in the world did we let them build 9 ,000 . '
Ellson: No , we didn 't let them . We get a chance to look it over .
I
ilPlanning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 39
11
Conrad : We don 't give them the PUD . It 's not what we 're looking for .
IIEllson : You 're not trusting them enough .
Batzli : We 've seen what , never mind . I 'm not convinced that we will look
II at it and know wh-t we 're looking at because every time we look at PUD 's we
sit there and we say , gee . We don 't really get a sense of what they 're
doing and we don 't see this and we don 't see that . We won 't see it . We
II will not see what is actually occurring in the PUD until it 's in and then
it will be too late .
II Krauss : One of the problems we 've had with PUD 's is , and I 've heard the
same thing echoed on the Council , is Ursula 's often going well what are we
getting out of this . We 're supposed to get something . What are we
getting? And I don 't have a good answer normally because our PUD ordinance
IIright now doesn 't demand anything .
Ellson : And we haven 't given an intention of it to anybody until now .
IIKrauss: This ordinance says , if you 're going to want this , you 're going to
have to earn it and here 's how you earn it .
I Ellson: I think because of that intention will ward off the guy who thinks
he ' ll be able to sell us a PUD with a 9 ,000 back to back thing . He 'll go
well I know I 'm not meeting it . I 'm just trying for it . We 've got every
I reason to say forget it . ' I don 't think we should say an average . I think
it could potentially be done . Who am I to say no without seeing it?
11 Erhart : What you 're saying is if the average . . .maybe . It 'd be interesting
to look at .
Krauss: There 's lots of examples to demonstrate it . I have some slides of
II it . I can give you books that show those kinds of plats . What happens
when you bottle up that space . It 's a fairly . . .
IIEllson : It 's not like we 're changing the residential lot size to 9 .
Krauss : Keep in mind too that a PUD is a rezoning and I think it falls
II into that legislative ability of the city . You can be fairly arbitrary on
rezoning and especially when there 's an intent section now that lays out
what your expectations are . If you really feel something doesn 't meet the
standards that you 've adhered to , don 't approve it .
IEllson: That 's the leverage we have .
II Conrad: Do you feel Paul that we have to , my statement was , I 'm not really
trying to pack more in . I 'm just trying to shift it so it 's economically
more viable but basically it 's your gut feel that we really should allow
more density to encourage . Economically we need more units per acre to
IIstimulate the open space?
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 40
Krauss: Well there 's certain trade offs there . I mean Forbord indicated
that that indicates when you cluster you save money on streets . You save
money on utilities . You save money on development costs . You. probably - I
make a more attractive development which- will help you sell it quicker but
I don 't philosophically have a problem if they get 15% more lots and we 've
achieved the open space that we want and we got the better standards , II that 's fine too . They 're still consistent with the Comp Plan . They can 't
exceed the gross density that we have in that .
Batzli : I just , you know my feelings are , I live in a PUD . I don 't even ,
know what size my lot is . We have a big park next to us . I still think
the lots that our houses are on are too small . I 'm the kind of guy , I like
a big yard . Maybe it 's just personal but I 'm in a PUD every day and if you
made the lot sizes 9 ,000 square feet , and I go by those in Lundgren all the
time . I think those are too small . I mean the picture makes them look
really nice but those things are crammed together . They back right up
against the little extension of Town Line Road there . Whatever it 's called II
there .
Ahrens : Pleasant View? } I
EmmIngs : But do the people that live there like them?
Ellson : Is there a market for it? That 's what Terry was saying . You 're II
not that customer but there evidentally is people .
Batzli : They 're tiny lots and I don 't find them attractive personally . Now II
maybe there 's a market for them but I don 't know . I would be hard pressed
to find something that I 'd like , you know if I had a chance to look at it .
If enough landscaping , enough transferring , enough open space to make it
worth while to give them that small of a lot .
Ellson: Well his example was that people wanted a 15 minute mowed lawn and II
things like that .
Batzli : I would buy something else , yeah . If I did it again .
Ahrens : Where are we going on this?
Emmings: Well I guess what I hear is that you 're going to work out some II more examples . Maybe give us a little more concrete idea . Maybe try and
work out a schedule and get some input from some other people to what
you 're doing here and bring it back again . This is a public hearing again .
Did we close it? Do we need to close it? Why is it a public hearing?
Krauss: One thing you may want to consider . There doesn't seem to be a
whole lot of concern or issues any longer with the body of the PUD .
ordinance . It 's the single family section that 's generating the comment .
I 'm growing increasingly concerned that if the Metro Council does what I 'm
hoping they 're going to do in the next week or two , we 're going to need
this pretty quick .
I
1
ilPlanning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 41
11
Emmings: What do you propose Paul? Can you pull that section out and get
the rest going up to the City Council?
IKrauss : Yeah .
IIEmmings: So it 's basically just pulling out 20-506?
Krauss : Yes .
IIEmmings : Now what if somebody came in with asking for a single family
detached PUD?
I Krauss : Well there is an existing single family detached PUD section that
we would not be eliminating until we replace it . You may want to cancel
that because it 's a bad section .
1 Emmings : Right . Couldn 't you do something like this? Could we put in a
new section 20-506 to replace the old one that says that the City 's in the
II process of developing standards and just use that to retract the old one?
And just not have standards but put everybody on notice that standards are
in the process of being developed .
1 Krauss : You know you 'd almost be better protected by leaving the old one
in place since nobody wants to use it anyway . It will kind of hold our
spot for us .
1 Emmings: Okay . Is there a reaction to that? For passing the rest of the
ordinance and just pulling out 20-506?
1 Erhart : I think we should just leave . You 're talking about not making the
change at all then?
IEmmings: No , we pass everything that 's here except Section 20-506 .
Krauss : And we 'll leave the existing single family intact until we can
Ireplace it .
Ellson: So you really think that if it gets approved we 'll have stuff
really quick?
ilKrauss : I don 't know how quick it 's going to be but we 've
got people that
seem to be chomping at the bit . But some of these projects are so large ,
1 they 're going to take a while to get off the ground .
Conrad : So your intent is to vote on the rest of the motion tonight?
IIEmmings: That 's what Paul is proposing .
Batzli : I didn 't feel like we 're that far away on 20-506 . I mean I 'm
I whinning about the square footage but I 'm a sole voice here . I 'm just
trying to see if anybody is . . . If everybody else likes 9 ,000 .
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 42
11
Conrad : No , we 're just looking right now Brian . We don 't know yet and it
may be , yeah I just don 't know so it 's not that I don 't agree with you . I
just don 't know how to handle . I think Paul and Jo Ann have a good , there II
seems to be one simple solution and that 's what they 've presented but I
want to see how that works in a. variety of circumstances . I haven't
disagreed with anything you 've said yet . If we want to pass the rest , then "
I 've got to get back into something on page 3 . Under Section 20-505 ,
Required General Standards . Under Section (b ) . The applicant shall
demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the City high . That 's the word I 'm
questioning . High quality . . .and then the last line says that represents
improvement over normal ordinance standards . So are we saying higher? Is
• the word higher?
Krauss: In that sense that 's what you 're looking at .
Conrad : Maybe that 's just a small thing but I guess I 'd rather see the
word .
Batzli : What about the—word highest?
Conrad : I guess I like the word higher in there . And then I get back down "
to my density transfer . In single family detached , which is what we 're
debating , so I don 't know what that means . I don 't know how that works . III
don 't know how to approve that right now until I see what we 're doing in
single family .
Krauss: Well that wouldn 't be applicable until you passed the new section II
anyway .
Conrad: Until we passed the new section? Okay . I 'm comfortable . I
Emmings : Anybody else want to comment on whether the , what they think
about passing the rest of this except for 20-506? ,
Batzli : Paul on 20-505( f )? Is parking lots and driving lanes shall be set
back 20 feet from all exterior lot lines?
Krauss: Yes .
Batzli : Never mind . I was confused. Do we cover in here or have we
previously covered our recurring problem of somebody putting in a road next
to an existing lot? Do we talk about that at all anywhere in here?
Olsen: We did somewhat address that with the setback . 1
Batzli : In here?
Olsen: No . . .accessory structures and. . . That was something that you could
determine as part of the subdivision of the PUD . You could say no , we
don 't approve . . .application . To determine setback for a road. We found
out it was difficult .
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 43
Krauss : I don 't understand the question .
Olsen: We don 't want to allow a street at the edge of a PUD connected to
somebody else . You know like happened in Vineland .
Batzli : You 've covered it for existing streets but not streets that may be
put in later . Okay .
11 Emmings: I think we need a motion to close the public hearing .
Ahrens moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings : Is there a motion with regards to the ordinance?
' Erhart : I 'll move that we recommend adoption of the PUD ordinance as
outlined in the memo to the Planning Commission , May 6 , 1991 . Is that a
good way to describe it? Do we actually have the ordinance written out in
here?
Conrad: It 's right here .
Erhart : Okay . Alright . The ordinance as stated in Article VIII , Planned
Unit Development District except for Paragraph Section 20-506( e ) which will
be left open with a note that .
' Krauss : Well I think you 'd want to preclude the whole 20-506 .
Erhart : Okay , the whole 20-506 which will include a note that says , what?
Krauss : If you just exclude this one , what will happen is you 'll have a
new PUD ordinance with the old single family section . So you don 't have to
do anything . Just exclude this .
Erhart : Okay , so we 're going to exclude Section 20-506 .
tEmmings : I ' ll second it .
Ahrens: Did you have some changes Ladd?
Batzli : I thought Ladd made some changes .
IErhart: Oh , I 'm sorry . Yeah , Ladd had some changes .
Emmings : He intended to incorporate those . I heard him say that .
IIErhart : Yeah , I said that .
Emmings : And I intended that in my second also .
IIBatzli : Paul , is the old standards for residential 506? Or this is a
brand new section isn 't it? Why don't we just put a 506 in there that says
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 44
reserved or something?
11
Emmings : Because , is the single family PUD section that we have now called "
20-506? -
Krauss: Not unless we 're real lucky . But I 'll change the numbers around .
Emmings : We don 't have a 506 right now .
Batzli : Because 501 , well . It 's 504 . 1
• Erhart : It 's not going to work .
Krauss: Well yes it would . If you just replace , if your motion says
delete this one and replace it with Section , where am I?
Batzli : 20-504 .
Erhart : Delete 20-506 with and add existing .
Krauss : Section 20-504 .
Olsen: We ' ll be sure not to repeal that section . The single family kind ,
of , it 's not real separate .
Batzli : Yeah , that 's the problem .
Ahrens : Why don 't we just identify the standards as guidelines for single
family detached PUD 's? We 're reserving that section .
Emmings : Yeah , and not have one . We ' ll just won 't have anything for
single family until we pass one and let 's put in the section heading and
just say , to 20-507 reserve for single family . I
Ahrens: 506 .
Emmings: 506 . Reserve for standards and guidelines for single family
detached PUD 's . Okay? Is that okay Paul?
Krauss : Sure . 1
Emmings: Alright , do you want to include that in your motion? I 'll
include it in the second . Alright . Any more discussion? I
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of ordinance amendment to Article VIII , Planned Unit Development
District with the following changes: Amending Section 20-506 to state that
it 's being reserved for Single Family Detached Residential . Changing in
Section 20-505(b) the word "high" to "higher" . All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously . ,
I
CITYOF
I
1
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Or_
DATE: May 6, 1991
SUBJ: Proposed Modifications to the PUD Ordinance
' BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
As the Planning Commission is aware, staff has frequently raised
concerns with the City's existing PUD ordinance. We believe that
PUDs represent the optimal mechanism for planning the large tracts
of the city that will be opened to development with the relocated
' MUSA line. However, the current ordinance is extremely deficient
in terms of getting adequate guidance to ensure that the city
obtains a quality development proposal. Furthermore, the city's
' use of the PUD in the past has resulted in less than optimal
development. Individual developers have used the PUD district to
avoid conformance with strict zoning district standards. But the
City has not achieved a commensurately improved quality of
' development in return, even though this was the expectation. This
was particularly evident in single family subdivisions coming in
under the PUD which resulted in a number of problems down the road
1 in terms of variances and other issues. Several months ago, staff
prepared a review of the PUD ordinance outlining areas where we
believed it was deficient and proposed language changes. Later at
your request, we had John Shardlow and Terry Forbord give
presentations outlining their views of the PUD and how its use
might be of benefit to the community. The current draft of the
ordinance reflects discussions from both previous meetings.
11 Changes from the first draft of the ordinance have been bold faced.
Copies of earlier memos, which include our review of the existing
PUD ordinance, are attached. This report will briefly touch on
major changes contained in the present draft.
' 1. The intent section was redrafted to more specifically outline
the City's expectations for development that utilizes the PUD.
The idea of an exchange for improved quality to obtain
enhanced flexibility and possibly lower cost development is
1
1
PUD Ordinance
May 6, 1991
Page 2
specifically outlined. Hopefully, the intent section now
provides more in the way of review standards and gets away
from the mom and apple pie statements that drew earlier
criticiL:n. ,
2 . I have clarified the point that density within a PUD shall be
calculated on gross acreage within the property lines of the
site. This is somewhat different than is used elsewhere in
the community where density is computed after park land,
wetlands and roadways are excluded. Frankly, I have always 11 had a problem with this definition since it prejudices the
case against legitimate use of the property. However, in a
PUD, where we are encouraging the developer to cluster
buildings, I believe use of the existing definitions are
particularly inappropriate. The developer will still be
required to provide park land and protect wetlands and will
also be required to protect other natural features as outlined '
in the intent section.
3 . I have eliminated the floor area ratio table from the
ordinance. Floor area ratios essentially enable the city to
get a handle on the bulk or massiveness of buildings that are
being proposed. In a community such as ours where high rise
buildings are not likely to be seen from some period of time,
these standards may have been unnecessary. I have also
lowered hard surface coverage ratios to keep more in line with
current district standards.
4 . As discussed at previous meetings, the single family PUD
option is now being fully explored. As agreed, minimum lot
sizes will be reduced down to 9,000 square feet. As we
discussed, this should provide ample reason for a developer to
use the PUD while the city should still be able to insure that
high quality development results. The city's expectations for
landscaping and architectural standards are outlined. Lastly,
to encourage clustering in a residential development, there is
a requirement that a minimum of 25% of the gross area of the
PUD be set aside as protected open space. Park dedications I/
and wetlands can each only be used to satisfy up to 25% of
this standard. Thus, the PUD will result in substantially
more space than would result from normal platting. I
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve ordinance ,
amendment to Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District as
attached. ,
11
ARTICLE VIII, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
DIVISION I. GENERALLY
Section 20-501. Intent. -
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a
site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district
standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction
phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange
for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality
and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the
use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the
applicants responsibility to demonstrate that the City's
expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following
criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
(1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space
and protection of sensitive environmental features, including
steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic
views.
(2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and
public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and
development of land in larger parcels.
(3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding
land uses, including both existing and planned. Site
planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the
community.
(4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between
' different land uses and along significant corridors within the
city.
(5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may
be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be
1 consistent with the comprehensive plan and overall trail plan.
(7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if
appropriate within the PUD.
(8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building
designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land
uses.
1
I
•
(9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the
potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads
and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Section 20-502 . Allowed uses.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be
delineated in a development plan.
(a) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which
the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except
that the city may permit up to 25 percent of the gross
floor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for land
uses for which the site is not designated in the
comprehensive plan if the city council finds that such
use is in the best interests of the city and is
consistent with the requirements of this section.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD
shall be delineated in a PUD development plan.
(b) Where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more 1
than one land use in the comprehensive plan, city may
require that the PUD include all the land uses so
designated or such combination of the designated uses as
the city council shall deem appropriate to achieve the
purposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
Section 20-503 . District size and location. 1
(a) Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five net acres, unless
the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the
following:
1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of
the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a
PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of
importance to the neighborhood or community. ,
2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-
of-way from property which has been developed previously
as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will
be perceived as and will function as an extension of that
previously approved development.
3) The property is located in a transitional area between I/
different land use categories or on an intermediate or
principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. ,
1
2
i
1
11
Section 20-504 . Coordination with other zoning regulations.
a) Subdivision review under Chapter 18 shall be carried out
1 simultaneously with the review of a PUD. The plans required
under this chapter shall be submitted in addition to or in a
form which will satisfy the requirements of Chapter 18 for the
' preliminary and final plat.
b) Site plan review under Article II, Division 6 of this code
shall be carried out for each non-single family or duplex
11 principal structure, that is proposed.
c) PUD plans shall be coordinated with and in compliance with
provisions of Article V, Flood Plain Overlay District; Article
VI, Wetland Protection, and Article VII, Shoreland Overlay
District.
Section 20-505. Required general standards.
a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of
11 view of all standards and purposes of the comprehensive land
use plan to coordinate between the proposed development the
surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of
buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features
with response to the topography of the area and existing
natural features, the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the
' proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green
areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non-compatible
land uses and parking areas.
' b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the
city high quality architectural and site design, landscaping,
protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and buffering
for adjoining properties that represent improvements over
normal ordinance standards.
' c) Density. An increase/transfer for density may be allowed at
the sole discretion of the city utilizing the following
factors:
' 1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on gross acreage
located within the property lines of the site in
accordance with the land use plan.
11 2) The area where the density is transferred must be within
the project area and owned by the proponent.
3) Density transfer in single family detached area will be
evaluated using the items, listed in Section 20-506.
Density transfer eligible for multiple family areas are
not permitted to be applied to single family areas.
3
I
4) In no case shall the overall density of the development
exceed the gross density ranges identified in the
comprehensive plan.
d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction I
of projects which are consistent with the city's housing
goals. Incentives may include modification of density and
other standards for developments providing low and moderate
cost housing. Incentives may be approved by the city only
after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to
ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available
to persons of low and moderate income for a specific period of
time.
e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: 1
Comprehensive Hard surface
Plan Designation Coverage (%)
Low or medium density 30%
residential I
high density residential 50%
office 70% 1
commercial (neighborhood 70%
or community) '
commercial (regional) 70%
industrial 70% '
Individual lots within a PUD may exceed these standards as
long as the average meets these standards. I/
f) The setback for all buildings within a PUD from any abutting
street line shall be 30 feet for local streets and 50 feet I
from railroad lines for collector or arterial streets, as
designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case
shall the setback be less than the height of the building up
to a maximum of 100 feet. The setback for all buildings from
exterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be
30 feet except that in no case shall the setback be less than
the height of the building up to a maximum of 100 feet. I/
Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be
determined by the city based on characteristics of the
specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set
I/
back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD:
The setback for parking structures including decks and ramps
shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other
4
I
street classifications except that in no case shall the
setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking
structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be 50 feet or
' the height of the structure, whichever is greater when
adjacent to residential property; 35 feet when adjacent to
non-residential properties. Parking structure setbacks from
internal public or private streets shall be determined by the
city bard on characteristics of the specific PUD.
Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single family
11 lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking
setbacks may be required in order to provide effective
screening. The city council shall make a determination
regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant.
' Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth
berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features
such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of
' uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard
requirements established by the Comprehensive Plan.
1 g) More than one% building may be placed on one platted or
recorded lot in a PUD.
h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the City, all property
' to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership
or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved
master development plan and final site and building plan.
After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without
restriction, however, all parcels will remain subject to the
PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain-
of-title.
i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a
11 sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by
permanent covenants.
' j ) The requirements contained in Articles XXIII, General
Supplemental Regulations, XXIV, Off-street Parking and
Loading, and XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal. May be
applied by the city as it deems appropriate.
' k) The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and
standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and
11 subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city
ordinances ordinarily governing them. The City Council may
therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and
land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual
specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that
strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not
required to meet the intent of this or to protect the heal,
•
5
11
safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding I
area or the city as a whole.
1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on
property included within a proposed or approved PUD nor shall
any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the
proposed or approved PUD.
/-. Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family
Detached PUD's.
a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows 11
lot sizes down to a minimum of 9,000 square feet. The
applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes
consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of
natural features and open space and that lot sizes are
consistent with average building footprints that will be
concurrently approved with the PUD.
b) Minimum Lot Width - 50 feet at right-of-way.
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. ,
d) Minimum Setbacks:
PUD Exterior - 30 feet
Front Yard - 20 feet
Rear Yard - 20 feet
Side Yard - 10 feet
Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or
behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property
line.
e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided I
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/commonly held and maintained tracts or protected by
permanently recorded easements. The Planning Commission and
City Council will make a determination regarding the
suitability of land to be set aside as open space. Open field
areas, area with steep slopes and smiliar land will only be
accepted when land containing natural features described above
is unavailable in the PUD. Where open field areas represent
the only available option, these areas shall be landscaped
and/or reforested according to plans approved by the City.
A minimum of 25% of the gross area of the PUD is to be set
aside in these protected categories. Public park space must
be provided to meet or exceed requirements established by the
City. Park areas may be used to satisfy up to 25% of the
standards. Wetlands and other water bodies protected by City
6
1
1
ordinance and permanent easement can also be used to satisfy
up to 25% of this standard.
' f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall
contain the following:
Ii) 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,
11 railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading
for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block
' retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve
mature trees and the sites natural topography.
' 2) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation
plants shall be established and approved by the City. As
each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be
required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding
the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to
the City.
' 3) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two
over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having
a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can
' be used to satisfy this requirement.
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.
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 covenants should be prepared for City approval.
The primary purpose of this section is to assure the City that
' high quality design will be employed and that home
construction can take place without variances or impact to
adjoining lots. The covenants should include the following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) A prohibition against free standing garages. If an
' attached garage is to be converted to living space. at
some time in the future, the applicant will have to
demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate
a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
7
3) A requirement that applicants for building permits be
required to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to
accommodate a minimum of a 121 x 121 deck without
variances. ,
4) 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. Controls during construction and following I
completion.
a) The use of the land the construction, modification or
alteration of any buildings or structures in a PUD shall be
governed by the final development plan.
b) After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes
shall be made in the approved final development plan for a PUD
except:
1) Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of
existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the
city planner if they are consistent with the purposes and
intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this
section may increase the bulk of any building structure
by more than ten (10) percent.
2) Any building or structure that is totally or
substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in
compliance with the final development plan unless an
amendment to the final development plan is approved.
3) Changes in uses, any rearrangements of lots, blocks and
building tracts, changes in the provisions of common open
•
spaces, and all other changes to the approved final
development plan may be made only after a public hearing
conducted by the planning commission and upon final
approval by the city council. Any changes shall be
recorded as amendments to the final development plan.
c) Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be
approved by the city council after review by the planning
commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for
such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the
original PUD. A major amendment is any amendment which:
1) Substantially alters the location of buildings, parking
areas or roads;
2) Increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling
units by more than five percent;
8
3) Increases the gross floor area of non-residential
buildings by more than five percent or increases the
gross floor area of any individual building by more than
' ten percent;
4) Decreases the amount of open space by more than five
' percent or alters it in such a way as to ,change its
original design or intended use; or
5) Creates non-compliance with any special condition
attached to the approval of the master development plan.
I
Division 2. PROCEDURES
' Section 20-516. Preapplication conference.
Section 20-517. General Concept Plan.
+ ' Section 20-518. Development Stage.
Section 20-519. Final Stage.
1
9
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knot„m (612) 456-9539
Thomas M. Scott Fax (612) 456-9542 I
Gary G. Fuchs
James R. \\alston
Elliott B. Knetsch
May 6, 1991 REF V D '
MAY 08 1991
CITY Ur ldrirUpWTh .SEN
Mr. Paul Krauss
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Draft P.U.D. Ordinance '
Dear Paul:
I have reviewed the draft P.U.D. ordinance and have the '
following comments and suggestions:
1. 20-501(G) should the reference to "comprehensive plan" be
changed to "comprehensive park plan"?
2 . 20-503 (A) . "Net acres" should be defined.
3. 20-505 (I) . The sign restrictions should be in the
development contract not the covenants. The City does not enforce
covenants.
4 . 20-505 (K) . Correct the typo in the last line on page 5.
5. 20-506. Delete the reference to "guidelines".
6. 20-506 (D) . This eliminates the possibility of "0" lot
line projects.
7. 20-506 (G) . Rather than relying on covenants which the
City can't enforce, the requirements should be in the development
contract.
Very truly yours,
CAMPB LL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& F CHS, P.A.
. Roger N. Knutson
RNK:srn
Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 '