The URL can be used to link to this page

3Planning Commission March 29, 2001 Page 2 Chanhassen Estates Staff conducted further research on the entire subdMsion (Chanhassen Estates) where the five twin homes are located. It was discovered that of the 130 lots in this subdivision, only 35 comply with the Single Family Residential (RSF) zoning ordinance minimum lot Size requirement, 95 lots do not (see Attachment 4 for a list of lot sizes). 'The average lot size for Chanhassen Estates is approximately 14,375 square feet. The net density of the entire subdivision is about 3 units per acre. Staff believes that Chanhassen Estates was created as a Planned Unit Development in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Upon further investigation, staff discovered that Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition was initially zoned P-1, Planned Residential Development District under the 1972 zoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 47-BB). The design characteristics of Chanhassen Estates follow the intent of that ordinance as well as the general regulations. The P-1 district encouraged the use of common open spaces adjoining residential buildings as well as a development designed with greater flexibility and creativity. The design of Chanhassen Estates complies with the i 972 P-1 zoning district regulations. The lots are smaller and clustered leaving a large area to the south as open space (Rice Marsh Lake Park). The 1972 zoning map shows this subdivision surrounded by P-2 and P-3 zoning districts. It is believed that at some point the zoning of Chanhassen Estates was changed to R-l, Single Family Residence. Leave Alone Today, Chanhassen Estates is zoned Residential Single Family. The majority of homes within this subdivision are single-family homes, with the exception of the five twin homes, one of which is owned by the applicant. One option is to leave this subdivision as it is: a single-family residential district. Under this option several lots would remain non-conforming and variances would be required to make any changes to those properties. The five twin homes would also remain non-conforming, and in addition would not comply with the comprehensive plan. With regards to the request to subdivide 8004 & 8006 Erie Avenue, staff would still recommend denial. Rezone lots with twin home to R-8 Rezoning the twin home lots to R-8 with variances is an option. The intent of the R-8 district is to provide for single-family detached or attached residential development at a maximum net density of eight units per acre. The net density of the twin home lots is currently 4.7. This area is guided for Residential-Low Density which permits net densities between 1.2 - 4 units per acre. To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, these lots would need to be guided as Residential-Medium Density which permits densities between 4 - 8 units an acre. The minimum lot area for two-family dwellings in an R-8 district is 7,500 square feet per unit, and the minimum lot frontage is 50 feet per dwelling unit. The applicant's proposal would create two lots, one of which would be 6,309 square feet and have a frontage of 40.33 feet, while the other Planning Commission March 29, 2001 Page 3 would be 9,439 square feet and have a frontage of 62.84 feet. Variances from the R-8 lot requirement would be necessary. Rezone lots with twin homes to PUD Rezoning the five lots with existing twin homes to PUD, Planned Unit Development is one option that could alleviate the nonconformities associated with those five lots. This would require a rezoning and a land use amendment. The ordinance requires each PUD to have a minimum of five (5) acres, unless it can be demonstrated that the property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or an intermediate principal arterial. This subdivision is located between three different zoning categories: PUD, Highway and Business, (BH), and Industrial Office Park (IOP), therefore a PUD would be permitted. The rezoning would permit twin homes, and the land use amendment would allow the net density of 5 units per acre to comply with the land use plan. As stated above the net density of the twin home lots is currently 4.7, and would have to be amended to Residential-Medium Density which permits densities between 4 - 8 units an acre so that it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Standards could be developed for the PUD that would require these lots to only be used as sites for twin homes with a zero lot line. The standards would give the city some control over how these lots could be redeveloped in the future. A rezoning would also bring the existing twin homes into conformance with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. A land use amendment to Residential Medium Density would be required so that the lots would' comply with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. A land use amendment would also allow these five lots to comply with the PUD ordinance. Section 20-508(a) states that single-family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium density use by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. The drawback to rezoning only the five twin homes is that there are numerous lots within this subdivision that do not meet ordinance requirements. As stated previously, a majority (95 out of 130) of the lots within Chanhassen Estates are smaller than the required 15,000 square feet and are thus non-conforming. Any exterior changes or additions to the structures on these smaller lots will require a variance. There have been several variance requests in this subdivision, and there is the potential for many more in the future as these homes age. Rezone Chanhassen Estates subdivision to PUD Rezoning the five twin homes to PUD relieves the constraints associated with those lots, but not for the remainder of the subdivision. Staff believes another option would be to rezone the entire Chanhassen Estates subdivision to PUD and approve a land use amendment for the five twin homes to Residential-Medium density. Under the current ordinance the flexibility of a PUD allows for a greater variety of uses. PUD's are intended to encourage the efficient use of land, and open space through mixing of land uses; sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses; development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan; parks and open space; provision of housing affordable to all income groups. Staff believes that Planning Commission March 29, 2001 Page 4 Chanhassen Estates does follow the intent of the cun'ent PUD ordinance as well as that of the 1972 PUD ordinance. Chanhassen Estates is located adjacent to Hidden Valley, a PUD subdivision with similar characteristics. Both have provided a large open space to the south, now park land, both have large lots adjacent to this park with smaller lots located in the interior of the subdivision. Rezoning Chanhassen Estates would in a way be a continuation of an existing PUDi Section 20-506(b) states that the single-family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet. Section 20-506(C) states the minimum lot width at the building setback is ninety (90) feet. Section 20-73(b) states that no variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a nonconforming lot provided that it fronts on a public street or approved private street and provided that the width and area measurements are at least seventy-five percent of the minimum requirements of this chapter. Within Chmzhassen Estates, seven (7) lots are tess than 11,000 square feet, and 62 lots have widths less then 90' at the building setback, however they do have enough room to provide a 60 x 60 building pad. Seventy five percent (75%) of the above minimum requirements are: 8,250 square feet for lot size and 67.5 feet for lot width. Therefore, if this subdivision was rezoned to PUD. the majority of the lots would comply with PUD requirements. Those that do not would become legal .non-conforming lots and would not require variances because of the 75% rule. Legal non-conforming lots are lots that originally complied with the city ordinance, however due to a change in that ordinance no.10nger comply. Lot Size PUD 75% of PUD Requirements Requirements 11,000 sq fi 8,250 sq feet Lot Width 90 fl 67 ft Chanhassen Estates 7 lots under 11,000 sq fl 62 lots under 90 feet width 117 lots above 11,000 sq fi 62 lots have 90 feet width Staff recognizes that there is a conflict within the PUD ordinance. It does not allow for attached dwellings in PUD's that are guided for residential low density. A rezoning with the land use amendment for the five lots with twin homes would be one way to make this subdivision comply with the ordinance. Some lots would become legal non-confmTning, however a PUD would eliminate the need to obtain a variance to rebuild or add an addition provided that the new construction fits within the setbacks. Today, many lots within this subdivision would require a variance from the lot size and width in order to do any type of construction project, and it would be very difficult to prove a hardship. If this subdivision were a PUD these hurdles would be eliminated, yet the city would maintain the intent of the ordinance. Planning Commission March 29, 2001 Page 5 PUD Ordinance Amendment Another option to consider is to change the PUD ordinance itself. Staff has been working on an ordinance amendment to the PUD standards for single-family attached or cluster-home dwelling types. One of the proposed changes includes dropping the minimum lot size requirement and leaving the net density requirements in place on properties guided Residential-Low density. This would allow for a mixing of housing types to be in a development provided that the entire development meets the density requirements. If this ordinance amendment were to be adopted, Chanhassen Estates could be rezoned to PUD and would not require a land use amendment for the five twin home lots, which do not meet the current requirement. Additional standards could be developed that would make all the lots conforrning. Staff Recommendations Staff is recommending option four. It is staff' s belief that it would be in the best interest of the city to pursue option 4, and rezone Chanhassen Estates subdivision to PUD, and provide a land use amendment to the 5 twin homes. Currently, there are at least 101 lots out of 120 in Chanhassen Estates that either do not meet the ordinance requirements or do not comply with the comprehensive plan. Rezoning to PUD with a land use amendment to the twin home lots would eliminate these non-conformities. As a part of the PUD process, standards or conditions could be established to limit future use of the lots . within the subdivision that are consistent with its surroundings. This option would require a separate public hearing, with notice of the hearing 10 days prior. The applicants would have to withdraw their subdivision request and resubmit their application. This could go to the Planning Commission at the same time as the rez0ning. Another alternative is that the applicants could waive their rights to the "60-DAY Rule" (Minn. Stat. 15.99) and their request would be tabled until the rezoning hearing. If option 4 is not pursued, staff recommends option 2, rezone the five twin home lots to R-8 Mixed Medium Density Residential with a land use amendment. This option would bring the existing twin homes into conformance with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. If option 4 and option 2 are not pursued, staff recommends option 1, leave the subdivision (Chanhassen Estates) as is, and as stated in the staff report staff recommends denial of the request to subdivide 8004 & 8006 Erie Avenue. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report and minutes dated March 20, 2001. 2. 1972 Ordinance No 47, Section 14 (P-l) & Amendment 47-BB 3. Subdivision Map 4. List of lot sizes in Chanhassen Estates 5. Section 20-503 PUD District size and location. Planning Commission March 29, 2001 Page 6 6. Section 20-506(b & c) standards and guidelines for single-family detached residential PUDs. 7. Section 20-508(a) standards and guidelines for single-family attached or cluster-home PUDs. 8. Section 20-73(b) Nonconforming lots of Record. g:\plan\jh\projects\site plan & sub\paulsenmemo.doc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2001 Acting Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak and Deb Kind MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney and Rich Slagle - STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Julie Hoium, Planner I; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Senior Planner; and Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director ? Public Present for all items: Name Address Barbara Fransdal Janet & Jerry Paulsen Linda Landsman Mark Uptherap Sandy Beaches Deb Lloyd Steve Berquist 6200 Murray Hill Road 7305 Laredo Drive 7329 Frontier Trail 7207 Frontier Trail Laredo Lane 7302 Laredo Drive Frontier Trail _ PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE LoT 2,-BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN ESTATES 2mt) ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING DUPLEX ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 8004 AND 8006 ERIE AVENUE, ROBERT PAULSEN. Public Present: Name Address Dan Lorinser Jennifer Macfarlane Greg Paulsen Terri Lee and Bob Paulsen 8020 Erie Avenue 3800 Leslee Curve 5766 W. Glen Moor Road 8006 Erie Avenue Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Any questions for staff?. Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I do have 3 questions. Just to tack on a little bit more on the precedence because I think that's an interesting situation, precedence. You say there was one of those other 5 duplexes that was allowed to subdivide. However that one has a garage on both sides so the subdivision ended up having, both had a garage and so the lot was split more in the middle? Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: So the lots are more than 6,000 square feet. They're more like, about how much? Hoium: The resulting ones are one is 7,300 and one is approximately 7,400. Sacchet: Okay, so in the 7,000's. Okay. Now that's one question. The other question, the other precedence where a variance was granted, you say it's the same configurahon basically like the applicants? Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: And you say hoxvever the applicant has that, I mean in that particular case the people that received the variance chose not to exercise it? Hoium: Yes. For unknown reasons they chose not to build. Sacchet: My question then is, since a variance was granted at one point, could they still exercise that variance or is there an expiration on that? Hoium: It's expired. Sacchet: It's expired? Hoium: A one year expiration date. Sacchet: So if these people would want to do a garage they couldn't do it based on that variance that was granted in the past? Hoium: No. Sacchet: Okay, that's significant. Now a very fundamental question. In your recommendation in the staff report your findings are basically based on the zoning. On the current zoning. Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: You don't even bring it to the level of looking at the variance findings? Hoium: No. Sacchet: Can you say something about that? Hoium: I think the reason was, it was dependent on which variances would need. There are so many alternatives, other options. Sacchet: Okay, that answers it. That answers it for my satisfaction. Now, if I may ask a few more questions. Currently what's there is, it's conforming except for use that it's a duplex. Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 Hoium: The use is non-conforming. The lot is conforming. Sacchet: But otherwise in terms of setbacks and everything they're fine? Hoium: Yes. Sacchet' Now if we leave that lot as is, it could potentially be a conforming use at some time in the future. If somebody would replace the duplex with a single family house, it would conform to all the requirements in terms of building pad and size and setbacks and what have you. Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Nov,, on the other hand if we allow this to split, do we have any way to assure it stays 2 units and not all of a sudden becomes 2 separate units? Hoium: They would be legal lots of record. We could possibly add a condition that they would have to be only used as twin homes. However, somebody could come back and say we have a single family lot, we want to build a single falnily home. We have a legal lot of record. Sacchet: Okay, that answers my questions. Thank you. Conrad: Okay. Alison? Blackowiak: No questions right now. Kind: Mr. Chair yes, I do have a question. Is subdivision the only option that allows for a two owner occupied home? Hoium: You lnean for the process to. Kind: Have two separate owners on either side, is subdivision the only way that that could be achieved? I'm thinking, here I'll tell you where I'm going. I'm thinking some sort oftownhome agreement where. Hoium: Condominium or. Kind: Yeah. Is that something that the city gets involved with or is that something the homeowner can do on their own? Hoimn: That would be a private, a way for the applicant, it would be a private process that they would convey that lot's property rights. The city has no regulations over that. I have a copy of Minnesota State Statutes that shows that we cannot prohibit condominium process and I can give you copies of that. Kind: Okay. And then on the comp plan it says that this lot is guided for R-4, and R-4 does allow twin homes. Does it make sense for us to take a look at least at these 5 parcels and add it to our list of properties that we're looking at to bring it into compliance with the Met Council's requirements to have our land use match our zoning and at least have it be R-4 which does allow twin homes? Aanenson: It is consistent with the comprehensive plan as far as the density, so that list that we're doing was between inconsistencies between the land use and the zoning. So it is consistent. The only two we Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 would have would be to rezone it to a PUD which does require out' PUD ordinance says 5 acres. Which my understanding and Julie, in looking at all those houses wouldn't accommodate the 5 acres. So we could still give relief to that if you felt strong about that and come back and rezone it. I'm not sure it's going to solve this immediate problem as far as splitting it and the garage situation. Because again the greater concern is you come back and whoever owns that property now is going to come back and ask for an additional garage so you're maybe setting yourself up for a future. Kind: Rezoning it to R-4 though would allow for twin homes to be there, whereas right now even the fact that there's txvin homes does not comply whereas R-4 at least allows t~vin homes. Aanenson: Correct. Right. But they would still be undersized because of the 10,000 square foot minimum, yeah. Kind: Yeah, instead of 20. Okay. tn the staff report it said that staff was unable to, on page 2, the background paragraph it said staff has been unable to find details as to why these duplexes were allowed in an R-1 district back ',',,'hen they xvere built. And then in the applicant's report, which was nicely done by the xvay, it talks about that when they ',',,ere built twin homes were allowed to be built on the edge development. Were you able to find anything? Hoium: We weren't able to find an5, documentation that would provide that information. That was, we had had discussions, trying to figure out how these xvere built. Possibly the ordinance, this ,,,,,as platted in '71. This duplex.was built in 1977. One of the other duplexes was built before the '72 ordinance. We're thinking maybe possibly as a buffet' between single family and the commercial uses might have been tile reasoning but we don't have documentation. Kind: Do we have other neighborhoods in the city'that have this? Aanenson: The rest of them on Chan View. Just down fi'om city hall here that have duplexes on some of them. Kind: So this would perhaps be setting a precedent for other areas of town as well? If we did a lot split here. Okay. I think that's it Mr. Chair. Conrad: I have nothing to ask staff. Would tile applicant like to make a presentation? Terri Lee Paulsen: My name is Terri Lee Paulsen and I live at 8006 Erie Avenue, and this is my husband Bob. First of all I'd like to thank Julie and Sharmin for your help. When my husband and I first started looking into subdividing our duplex a few months ago we expected it would be a fairly routine process. It wasn't too long however before we realized there was nothing routine about it. Quite simply the 5 duplexes on Erie Avenue should never have been built xvhere they are. Unfortunately little information is available about the...behind the decision. It's really no surprise they don't meet the city's current comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. Actually nothing could be done to our property to make it 100% compliant with today's comprehensive plan and ordinances. But as the city code says one of the purposes of the non-conforming uses division of Chapter 20 on zoning is to "recognize the existence of uses, lots and structures which were lawful when established but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements". And as the division on variances in this same chapter states, "the intent of this provision is not to alloxv proliferation of variances but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre- existing standards exist". Nothing can better sum up our situation we face today. The design of the duplex itself is unusual with two single car garages on one side. We want to continue living on the Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 property we have invested so much of our time and effort in over the last 10 years but we no longer want to be landlords. Therefore we want to subdivide the property, sell one unit and live in the other. To us how this is accomplished really doesn't matter. If we're required to build a garage, we'll do it. If the city would rather see eas. ements, that's fine too. Upon speaking with a real estate attorney we were assured that easements are common solution to this sort of situation. We're extremely flexible given the limitations of the property and have shown we're more than willing to work with the city to get this accomplished. I must point out that what we're proposing to do isn't unheard of. In fact the city of Chanhassen has approved the subdivision of two duplexes in the past, inc!uding one in our neighborhood. The 8016 and 8018 Erie Avenue property was almost the exact same size as our's is now, so variances for lot size and frontage were required. The only real difference is that the design of the duplex has 2 car tuck under garages below each unit. Another duplex at 7611 and 7613 Iroquois was subdivided in 1990. This one too needed variances for lot area and frontage, but you see from that photo that this 7613 property only has a single car garage like our's. And in 1985 the city approved a variance for a neighboring duplex on Erie Avenue to build a garage on the side of their property. One of the solutions we're here pursuing today. Allowing us to build a garage would ensure that one of our two units would conform to the now existing ordinance requiring 2 car garages. If the city allows us to subdivide our property it ~vould be creating 2 affordable single family homes. At a time when affordable housing is at a premium, this just makes good sense. And statistics have shown that property that is owned rather than rented is better maintained. Being owner occupants we're able to keep a better watch over the property, something a new rental owner might not care about. Also, turnover is certainly much less when it is owned. Currently the rental units in the neighborhood seem to go through renters on a yearly basis. If this subdivision isn't approved the city is forever making this rental property. And just to reply to your questions about the townhouse. We consulted an attorney and he thought it was a,very problematic solution and probably not the best choice. We did pursue that. My husband will speak. Bob Paulsen: Hello. I'm Bob Paulsen. We sent out a packet to everybody. Our two main. issues are, one we want to live in Chanhassen. And two, we don't want to be landlords. We've oWned the property for 10 years and I just want to give you an example, I'm not trying to bash renters but in the last year I've had someone run over my inailbox. I found drug paraphernalia on my yard. Beer bottles. Someone burnt, put a cigarette butt out in my new siding. I'm just, the idea of being a landlord has it's pros and cons but no one cares for their property. No one cares for what they're renting. I'm just partly frustrated. Partly nervous but I want to give you a stow that you don't see, you see rental property and there's a flip side that I want to live in a neighborhood where there's a sense of community and I've never had that having renters and I just want to throw that out to everybody so. Other than that I just want to thank everybody for your time. That's all we have. Conrad: Thank you. You made a nice presentation, nice kit. Thanks very much. Is there a motion to open the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Conrad: Anybody would like to make any comments on this issue? Jennifer Macfarlane: Hi. My name is Jennifer Macfarlane and I live at 3800 Leslee Curve, and I've known Bob for several years and he had told me that he was planning on selling half of his duplex. When I heard about this I was really excited. I work in Chaska and it's very hard to find affordable housing in this area. My parents live in Chanhassen and I've been looking probably for about 2 years for a place to buy and it's, the prices are, they're pretty high so when I found out that he was selling off half of it, I figured that was in my price range and something that I could afford. I've been a renter for 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 years and to go with xvhat Bob was saying, it's rental property are, it's, they're not as nice as your own prope~Xy. You knox,,, to have upkeep done on them, a lot of times I'm finding with my landlords it was a little bit harder to get them to do it because it is a rental property. And so to own your own property I think is great and it'.s great for the neighborhood and great for the sense of community. And I also would be excited to have a back yard of my own. And I grew up in this community. I've lived here for about 25 years and I've watched it grow and I xvould like to remain a resident of it. And that is all I have to say. Conrad: Good. Any other comments? Anything else? A motion to close the public hearing. Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Comments. Kind: This is tough. I xvant to figure out a way for them to be able to sell the other unit and right now I am stuck bet~veen encouraging them to do the townhome way, or going with the fact that a precedent has been set. And I am leaning toward the townhome method because the 2 lots are so different in size. One comes very close to meeting our ordinance for the twin homes, for which this propelXy is guided, which is at 10,000 but the other one is 6,000 and I ha:ye big concerns about having a lot of record that is around ' 6,000 square feet. I also don't think that the applicant meets the requirements to subdivide. Conrad: Alison. Blackowiak: Yeah, I agree too. I was struggling for a way to make it work but we as a planning comlnission have fairly strict rules in terms of what we can and can't do and if it doesn't meet our subdMsion requirements then we basically have our hands tied. We cannot go ahead and apprOve something if it doesn't meet these requirements as much as we may like a project or not like a project. We've got guidelines to follow and therefore I have to agree With the staff report that the subject property does not comply with the land use designation and zoning requirements. Conrad: Uli. Sacchet: I believe it's relatively clear case unfortunately from the criteria that we have to look at it. The framework that we have to look at so I agree with Deb and Alison. And I asked about the precedence because I felt well, a precedence have an influence on this of course and I would be very hard pressed to approve those things that were set as precedence and I think that somebody would come with that variance request that has expired, I can't really envision how I could approve it based on the framework under which we have to look at these things. You have done a fantastic job of putting this project together and staff looking at all the different possibilities. It doesn't fit. It doesn't fit and moving forward with some of the problems I've seen in my time on this commission when we have to deal with lots that are 6,000 square feet and people want to put a house on it, it's a nightmare. It's not good and I think in that context especially I have to say I could not approve this and recommend approval of this. Conrad: Anybody feel that there has been a precedence set? In my world it's probably not something that feels comfortable, but if there has been a precedent set, I think we have to look at that. This is one of those cases you know and we play that game all the time, and usually we're looking at the wrong precedent. This is a case where. Kind: It's just down the street. Planning Commission Meeting- March 20, 2001 Conrad: If there is a precedent set, we legally we broke the ordinance if we set the precedent so my question is, do we find this comparable to the precedent? Do we need an attorney to, our city attorney to advise us or are we pretty comfortable this is a unique situation that's different than the other situation? Sacchet: I think fundamentally it is similar, but there is a difference at the same time so maybe consulting the attorney would make sense from that angle. Conrad: Once you make a, this is almost like a speech. Once you make a'variance, it changes the ordinance. It says, that person did it. Anybody else who equals very similar that same situation, YOu've got to allow it and that's what I don't know. I don't know how close we are to the other situation, any other situation there. I'm opening that up for anybody to maybe not make a decision tonight. Maybe have staff come back and tell us with an attorney as far as ifa precedent has been set. It's so close that we should really seriously consider this. That would be my only comment to this case. I think in general it's not comfortable. It's not what we intended for that zone. It's, and we'd be granting more variances that we don't like to do. It's really quite contrary to what we like, how we like to interpret our ordinances. Once you start breaking them, then you have none. Then it's sort of potluck so, my position is that it's probably not what I'd like to do but on the other hand if something has been done before, they have legal right to come in and sue us. And I think we may want to, if you see, if the Planning Commission sees a precedent being set that's close, maybe we look at that. Or staff, you could advise us on that. That's my only comments. Aanenson: We did speak to the c!ty attorney on this. It's a very complex, I've been here 10 yearsi it's the first one I've seen of this come through. 'The other ones were in the mid-80's so there's not a lot of history on reports and what was done and what the rules were in place at that time. I think if you're leaning towards some relief, the best thing to do woUld be to go back and do a PUD and try to_put some standards iii place where the units have to remain attached. We do haVe lots that are 5,000 or 6,000 in _ other PUD's. I think, from my understanding, what the homeowners are looking for is they want their own yard. If you go the condominium, it's common ownership then it goes with both properties. I think that's what I'm hearing is why that doesn't work for them, the condominium. They want their own yard. So even though it's under 5 acres, that's still is a possible relief to go back and examine that. Put conditions in there with the density allocation and the units have to be attached and try to build that. But we did speak to the city attorney on the possible, but the specific question of precedent wasn't asked but we tried to explore all the options. We spent a lot of time trying to find a way that would make, yeah, yeah. Conrad: ...and none of them seemed very good to me. Aanenson: No. I guess that's ~vhat I'm saying, the PUD, going back and rezoning all those units and putting some standards in place so they all kind of are falling, kind of going back to saying was there a precedent so they're all following the same rules. Conrad: But why would we want to do that Kate? Aanenson: Right. Conrad: ...it's like spot zoning. We don't want to spot zone. That's dumb. Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 Aanenson: Except it was ah'eady done. The spot's there. We're trying to give some relief to make it fit with what's happening today. When it was put in place the same rules aren't in place. Com'ad: But how do we benefit? How does the city benefit? Is there more control? Is there, what is the benefit? None to the city. Aanenson: Well you're giving separate ownership instead of a rental. If that's important or not important. And we're not trying to increase the density but allows different ownership. That would be the only thing. If you want ownership change, and people to have the abil'ity to make modifications to the units. That's xvhy we recommended no because we went through this same struggle, but the question wasn't specifically asked and it's my understanding that if there's a lot next door doesn't, each case, you look at on it's own merits. So even though there was one granted in the past, I'm not sure what the criteria was given under that one but you look at each case separately. Sacchet: May I ask a question? Conrad: Really? If we did allow a similar thing, that sets the precedent. It does. Aanenson: I believe on that one too they had the 30 foot, they met the side yard setback. Blackowiak: I was going to say, it wasn't for, it was for a garage variance 15 years ago. Aanenson: It was for a garage setback. They met some of the standards. Blackowiak: Yeah, that was the 80, no I'm talking about to the east of that one. Kind: I think this is the one Ladd's talking about. Blackowiak: Oh, that's got the 2 tuck under garages though. Kind: The only difference with this one is that there would be a cross access agreement. Otherwise it's the same as this. Or similar. The resulting lots are quite a bit different size though. That's my problem with this. So really this precedent doesn't really apply because of that. Sacchet: A question. Kate you say that maybe a PUD could be a solution to anchor in that it has to remain duplex. But in order to make it a PUD all the owners of all 5 duplexes would have to jointly apply for rezoning or I mean, is that even a possibility? That's my question. Aanenson: The city has the right to rezone someone's property. You would hope that they would want to rezone it but you have the right, the City Council has the right as a legislative body to rezone property. Certainly xve would want to hold a meeting first and explain to them. See if there's concurrence but it's opening up a bigger, right. Sacchet: So in other words it is a possibility? A real possibility. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Because in terms of the precedent, the fact that there are 2 precedents, one for subdividing a similar size, irregardless of the, regardless of the garage, and then you have the other precedent of a Planning Commission Meeting- March 20, 2001 variance that was granted for a garage in a similar, even though it wasn't exercised. Still a variance was granted so between those two types of... Conrad: Okay, so what do you ~vant to do? I would entertain a motion. Blackowiak: Yeah, well I will just make one comment too. I think PUD is like overkill in this situation. I mean we're talking about one duplex that we need to deal with and I don't think we need to go and rezone the whole thing. I don't think that that's, why should we be doing.that? I mean you asked the question before, what does the city gain? I mean what do we gain? Conrad: I don't know. I don't know of anything. Blackowiak: Yeah, and my only concern would be, I feel that I really believe that the staff report is well done. I agree with what they say. I concur. My concern again with what you brought up would be, has there been precedent set? Yes or no, so I think that's the issue. So I would say we should table it until xve get a answer to that question and we get the attorney. Aanenson: Can I say one more thing on the PUD. All those lots are non-conforming so what you gain is you fix something that, all those lots are wrong so that was the, we bounced that idea earlier just to say that you fix, because who's to say they're not going to over time come in. That was the reason we suggested that. Conrad: Kate, if we do table this, will you come back and advise us on that because again I don't know what we gain by, again a spot zoning. So who cares? You ~know the intent of that neighborhood is single family. That was the intent, wasn't it? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: I might have even been around. I'm just not sure what ~ve gain by making it a PUD. If we have any more control. Any more anything. Bringing it into conformity, who cares? We've got control at the single family level right now. We did have control. We have the lot sizes we kind of thought we wanted. I don't know but advise us. I think if somebody motions to table this. Blackowiak: Okay, so then I will make a motion that the Planning Commission tables preliminary plat for Subdivision 2001-2 for two single family lots as shown on plans dated February 13,2001 for the reason that we would like the City Attorney's opinion on whether or not precedent has been set in similar cases. Conrad: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Conrad: Any questions? Any comments? Blacko~viak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission tables preliminary plat for Subdivision 2001-2 for two single family lots as shown on plans dated February 13, 2001 for the reason that we would like the City Attorney's opinion on whether or not precedent has been set in similar cases. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. CITY OF PC DATE: 3/20/01 CC DATE: 4/9/01 REVIEW DEADLINE' 5-15-01 CASE #: 2001-2 SUB By: Hoium J STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL' Preliminary Plat to Subdivide .3615 Acres (15.748 square feet) into 2 single family attached lots. LOCATION: APPLICANT: 8004 & 8006 Erie Avenue Lot 2. Block 2. Chmzhassen Estates 2nd Addition Robe~t D. & Ten'i Paulsen 8006 Erie Avenue Cha~assen. MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: 2020 LAND USE PLAN' ACREAGE: RSF, Residential Single Family District Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) .o615 acres DENSITY: 5 Units per Acre Net 5 Units per Ace Gross SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant would like to subdivide a twin home property into 2 single family attached lots v¢ith variances. The resulting lot areas will be 6,309 square feet and 9,439 square feet. The project does not comply with the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within. 500 feet. A development sign has been posted on site. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning ~.rie Ave Paulson Addition March 19, 2001 Page 2 Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. BACKGROUND Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition was platted in 197 l. In February 1972, Chanhassen adopted zoning ordinance number 47. Under that ordinance, Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition was zoned R-1, which permitted residential detached housing. A non-conforming Land Use Map was created for the city in 1975. The map clearly identified two of the existing duplexes on neighboring properties as "uses not allowed in the district." Staff has been unable to find details as to why these duplexes were allowed in an R-1 district. The subject duplex was built in 1977. It is cun'ently zoned RSF. Residential Single'Family. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide .3615 Acres (15,748 square feet) into 2 lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. An existing twin home occupies the site. The RSF district perinits a single family home on 15,000 square foot lots, with an enclosed two car garage. Any subdivision of this lot would require variances for lot size, lot frontage, side yard setbacks, enclosed parking requirements, and possibly lot coverage. View of duplex lookin~ north View of duplex look northeast Paulson Addition March 19, 2001 Page 3 View of side yard at the property line (looking north) The two proposed lots would be 6,309 and 9,439 Square feet3.14 and .21 acres respectively, in lot area. The resulting net density is 5 units per acre. Staff notes that the proposal is not ~onsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides the property for Residential-Loxv Density (1 ~2 - 4.0 units per net acre). The site is located between Erie Avenue and Lake Drive East, south of State Highway 5, north of Rice Marsh Lake, and just west of Chanhassen's eastern boundary: Access: to the site is provided via an existing ~lriveway, off of Erie Avenue, and serves both homes. _. : There are a number of issues associated with this site that are of concern to staff. This lot has an existing nonconforming use. The structure on site is comPrised of a twin home with an attached . two-car garage located on one side. The applicants Own both units, reside in one and rent out the other. They wish to sell one of the units rather than continue to rent it. They also wish to sell a portion of the lot, which requires a subdivision, Their proposal also includes providing an easement for the use of a garage stall, which is located on one side of the site. The applicant wishes to subdivide the lot between the two units, creating a zero lot line setback. Theoretically, this seems like a simple request. The city has approved a few twin home subdivisions, one of which was in the same subdivision as the current request. All the previous requests, located by staff, were approved. The main difference between the previous requests and the current one is the location of the garage and the size of the resulting lots. Staff investigated several options to assist the applicants in their request, however there are issues associated with each of them. These options are as follows. Option 1: This option splits the lot at the center of the duplex and provides an easement to the western unit for access to one garage stall (plans submitted by applicant). Several variances are required. These include variances for lot area, lot frontage, and side yard setbacks. In addition a variance will be needed for enclosed parking spaces as only one enclosed space will be provided per unit and the ordinance requires two per single family dwelling. In essence this subdivision would create two single family dwellings. This subdivision would require the least amount of variances. If a subdivision were approved for this lot staff would recommend a condition be Paulson Addition March 19, 2001 Page 4 added that states the two resulting lots could only be used as a site for a twin home with a zero lot line. Option 2: This option would also split the lot at the center of the duplex, and a single car garage would be constructed sideways (garage entrance would be facing east) in the front yard of the west duplex. The same variances as in option 1 would be needed. In addition, variances for the front yard setback and possibly the lot coverage would be needed. This option does provide separate driveways and garages ~br each unit (A two car garage for the east unit, a 1 car garage for the west unit). A hindrance to this option is that the garage would cover up the front window of the west unit, and the driveway would need to be placed in the remaining portion of the fi'ont yard. Option 3: This option would split the lot at the center of the duplex and add a single car garage to the west side of the structure. The same variances as in option 1 would apply, however an additional variance would be required for the garage to encroach into the side yard setback. This option would provide a covered garage and driveway for each unit. The eastern unit would have a two car garage, and the western unit would have a one car garage. A variance would still be required for the one car garage as two car garages are required by ordinance. (In 1985, a 7 foot side yard setback variance was approved for the construction of a 20' x 12.3' one car garage at 8002 Erie Avenue. Hoxvever, the applicant did not construct the garage as proposed.) Option 4: The fourth option is to split the lot at the center of the duplex and build a garage in the rear yard. As with the previous three options, the same variances apply. In this case, it may be possible to fit a two car garage in the rear yard with additional variances. Variances would be needed for lot coverage, and for the rear yard setback as this is a double frontage lot and a 30 foot rear yard setback is required. Option 5: Option five would be to leave the property as is. This is a lot with an existing nonconforming use. A subdivision of the property xvould intensify the nonconformity. Instead of having a single nonconforn~ing lot, there would be two nonconforming lots that do not meet ordinance requirements. Another issue is the potential that in the future the property oxvners could say they have a right to have two single family homes on the resulting properties. WETLANDS There are no xvetlands on site. Paulson Addition March 19, 2001 Page 5 STREETS The duplex is accessed via Erie Avenue which an existing local street. The right-of-way width is 50 feet. This area was developed in 1971. Access to the duplex will continue to be used the same. GRADING & DRAINAGE There are no grading alterations proposed currently as part of this development. Should the applicant construct an additional garage than the grading issues would be reviewed as part of the building permit application. Storm water improvements were included as part of the development. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Erie Avenue. The existing duplex on the site is currently connected to city sewer and water. Each unit has separate water and sewer services. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP} Based on the proposed developed area of 0.3615 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $315 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $1,075. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $1,390. This fee will be solidified during the review of the final plat. PARK DEDICATION There are no additional units being proposed; therefore, no additional park and trail fees are required. Paulson Addition March 19, 2001 Page 6 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback. Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides 8006(West) 9.439 62.84' 150' 30'/30' 13.7'/0' 8004(East) 6.309 40.33' 172' 30'/30' 16'/0' It should be noted that these tabulations would change if options 2, 3 or 4 were pursued. Additional changes could include a front yard variance, a side yard variance, rear yard variance, or a lot coverage variance. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Canopy coverage calculations for the subdivision are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Required # of trees for reforestation 15,748 SF 13% 25% or 3,937 square feet 2 trees A total of 2 trees are required for reforestation. This will bring the canopy coverage of the property up to the 25% minimum required. Staff recommends that 2 trees be planted on the western lot. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision does not meet the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. Each lot does not meet the required minimum of 15,000 square feet in area and 90 feet of lot frontage. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Paulson Addition March 19, 2001 Page 7 Finding: The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The phySical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. . The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, ston-n drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. . o The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approved. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding.' The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements. . The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: mo Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. Paulson Addition March 19, 2001 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2001-2 for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans dated received February 13,2001, subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements." ATTACHMENTS . 2. 3. 4. 5. Application. Public hearing and property owners list. Memo from Steve Torell dated March 2.2001. Memo fi'om Lori Haak dated March 15, 2001 Preliminary plat dated received February 13,2001. g:\plaff~jh',.projects\site plan & sub',paulsen subdMsion.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ADDRESS: TF~FPHONE (Day time) OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezening Sign Permits Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements ~ I variance '~:~ ~t ¢~' Wetland AlteratiOn Permit ZOning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign PJan Review Notification Sign Site PJan Review* i i i~ Subdivision* ~l ,. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUPISPRNACNAR/WAPIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. ~uilding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2'. X 11" reduced copy of ~ansparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. · PROJECT NAME ('-/~.r LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING ~-~ ~-- REQUESTED ZONING t~..~) ~' PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION YES '~', NO REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to-your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is'to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible' for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Sign. ature of Applicant" ..¢ Signature of Fee Owne,r,/ Application Received on Date Date Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivide One Lot into Two Lots APPLICANT: Robert Paulsen LOCATION: 8004 and 8006 Erie Ave. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public headng about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Robert Paulsen, is requesting preliminary plat to subdivide Lot 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition into two lots with variances for an existing duplex on property zoned RSF and located at 8004 and 8006 Erie Avenue. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public headng is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. Dudng the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Julie at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one Copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 8, 2001. u ~R CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER D~O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUZANNE M SHEPPARD 8010 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICIA M DOLAN 8007 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER _. 690 CITY CENTER'DRPO BOX 147 C HANHA'S~N MN 55317 _ ERIK M & KERRY A SELLMAN 8003 DAKOTA AVE S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER"DlqPO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JACK D CHRISTENSON 15411 VILLAGE WOODS D EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 PATRICIA A HEGSTROM 8005 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SINCLAIR MARKETING INC SINCLAIR OIL CORP-PROP TAX DIV PO BOX 30825 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84130 MCDONALD'S CORP (22-157) PO BOX 66207 CHICAGO IL 60666 RAYMOND & KATHERINE KNIGHT 8077 DAKOTA CiR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD ALLEN JENSEN & RENAE LYNN BRIGGS-JENSEN 8027 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 COOK PROPERTIES-CHANHASSEN L 8640 LYNDALE AVE S BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 LEE & PATRICIA JENSEN 8009 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALLAN J &. KATHIE J NELSON 8025 ERIE AVE - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WALTER E & ANNE T THOMPSON 8000 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 5-5317 MICHAEL D & sARAH J PETERSEN 8010 CHEYEN%TE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT A & DAWN T LUND 8023 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL D KRAINES & JULIE A SONDERUP 8002 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM J & EARLA KRAUS 8008 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RALPH WAYNE LYTLE 8021 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD H & MARILYN M WASSINK 8004 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS M & KRISTIE A KOTSONAS 8001 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS J & SANDRA M KOEPPEN 8009 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN Q & DONNA M SOLBERG 8006 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & JANICE GILDNER 8003 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CLAYTON & MARGARET SODETANI 8005 ERIE AVE CHANHAS SEN MN 55317 ANTHONY E & LISA M BACHMAN 8008 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA K KOENIG 8005 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSO 3820 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT D PAULSEN & .ROGER S & DONNA M PAULSEN 8006 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M WENTZEL 8018 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KPM CORPORATION C/O CRAIG KESSEL 7300 METRO BLVD #560 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 DONALD T SMITH 8012 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL W & MICHELLE LORINSER 8020 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HAROLD H HERRMANN & PRICILLA B HERRMANN 8024 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRADLEY JAY JOHNSON 8026 ERIE AVE S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARTIN E & LORA LEE WADE 8028 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN_ HRA 690 C!_TY-CENTER DI:~O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTH CHURCH 275 EAST LAKE DR PO BOX 388 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JENNY JO PETERSEN 8016 ERIE AVE S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITYOF CHANHASSEN )52.5;3-. ] 900 Ge, eraf ?a' 5;52.93 ~5~9 £,gi, eeri,g Departme,t ~52.~3L9152 B,ildi,g Departme, t Fax Q52.~34'.2524 ~3b Site MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE' Julie Hoium, Planner I Steven Torell, Building Official March 2, 2001 SUB J: Review of Preliminary Plat: Lot 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition Planning Case' 2001-2 Subdivision I have reviewed the proposal to subdivide the above property into two lots, which would establish a property line between the two units of the existing duplex. The following conditions would be required: 1. One-hour fire-resistive construction is required on both sides 0fthe property~ line and must extend from the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing. 2. The units must be structurally independent of one another. 3. Openings in the roof shall not be within five (5) feet of the property line 4. Openings in exterior walls for mechanical equipment shall not be within four (4) feet of the property line. G/safety/st.memos/plarfflot2blk2chanhassenestates2nd CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 CiO' Cente',' Drive ?0 Box 147 Chanhasse,, M/nnesota 55317 Phone 952. 937.1900 Ge, eral £ax 952.935.5.739 Eng/neering Department Fax 952.937.9152 Building Department Fax 952.934.2524 lt3b Site tvu.zt:ci, c/.,a,hasse,.m,.,s MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Julie Hoium, Planner I Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: March 15, 2001 RE: Paulsen Addition SURFACE_ WATER 5~_~NAG-EM$__NT PLANT (S_WMP) The subdivision of this lot is not exempt fi'om the water quality and water quantity com~ection charges imposed by Section 18-63 of ChaN-mssen's City Code. ('Fhe subdivision in which this duplex is located was approved prior to the adoption of the SWMP; tbere!bre, the developer did not pay water quality and water quantity fees at the time of subdivision.) Water QttaliO' Fees Because o.f+~h,. '~ imper-,,qous surface associated with this oevelopment,' - the ,~,ate~. .... ~ ' ' duplex !and use quality fees for tl~q proposed development are basea on rates of $871/'acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 0.3:6 ! 5-acres, the water quality te~" =~ associated with. this project are aooroximatelv_. . . $3 i 5. 14/ater Qo.'a~,.tiff' Fees Th:- SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average ci~Twide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas lbr runoff storage. Medium density residential developments have a connection charge of $2,975 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $1075 for the proposed development. S WMP Credits The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $1,390. This fee will be solidified during the review of the final plat. t RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL Based on the proposed developed area of 0.3615 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $315 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $1,075. The applican! will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and sto~Tn sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $1,390. This fee will be solidified during the review of the final plat. G:',EN G\LORI,ADMiN\PLANN ING',Paulsen Addition.doc limit within which a final development plan of all units within the project shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator for submission to the Planning Com- mission and the Village Council. e. The Village Council may 1.~ ap- prove the preliminary deveiopment plan and application for rezoning. 2) disapprove the preliminary develop- ment plan and application for rezoning stating reasons for the disapproval, or 3! approve the preliminary develop- ment plan and application for rezoning subject to specified modifications and conditions. 5. Firml Development Plan: a. A final development plan shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator to be submitted to the Planning Commis- sion and the Village Council within the time limit specified by the Planning Commission as provided in subsection 4d. above. b. The final development plan shall include the following: !) preliminary plat in accordance with the applicable provisions of Ordinance 33. Chanhassen Subdivision Ordinance. including agreements, provisions, covenants and specifications required for approval of the final development plan. 2~ final building drawings and speci!ications. 3) final site plans including a landscape schedule. 4) engineering plans and re- ports as required bv the Council. 51 any other informatiofi or documents re- quired by the Council for the approval of the final development plan including a planned unit development contract and any bonds, deposits of money or security. c. Approval of the final development plan shall not be granted bv the Village Council unless it finds the ~ollowinl~: 1 ~ the proposed development is not in con- flict with the Comprehensive Village Plan. 21 the proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. 3) the pro- posed uses will not be detrimental to present and future land uses in the sur- rounding area. 42 any exceptions to the 'zoninl~ and subdivision ordinances are justified by the design of the develop- ment. 5) tt~e planned development is of sufficient size. composition and ar- rangement that its construction and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any other unit. 6~ the planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which are pro- posed to serve the development. 7) the planned development will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable en- joyment of neighboring property. Zoning Administrator. 14.06 Revisions and Chan~es. 1. Minor Chances: Minor changes in the placement and height of buildings or structures may be authorized bv the Zoning Administrator if requir6d by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final develop- ment plan was approved. Any such au- thorization shall be in writin~ and filed in the office of the Zoning Administra- tor. 2. Amendments: Changes in uses. any re- arrangement of lots. blocks, or building tracts, any changes relating to common open space areas, and all other changes in the approved final development plan may be made by the Village Council only after a public hearing bv the Plan- ning Commission and the submission of its recommendations thereon to the Vil- lage Council. No amendments may be made in the approved final develop- ment plan unless they are found to be required by changes in conditions which have occurred subsequent to approval of the final development plan. or bv changes in the development poli- cy o2 the Village. All such chan~es shall be filed in.the office of the Zonin~ Ad- ministrator as amendments to the final development plan. 14.07 Annual Review. ' 1. Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall review all Planned Unit Development Districts at least once each year and submit a re- port to the Villa~'e Council on the status of develooment. 2. Village Council Action: If the Village Council finds that development has not occurred within a reasonable time af- ter approval of the final development plan. the Village Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district by removing the Planned District zon- ing. 14.08 Building Design and Construc- tion. 1. Multiple Residence Building: Within a P-1 District. building design and con-' struction for a multiple residence build- ing contamm.~ more than 12 dwelling units, and buildings accessory thereto. shall be governed bv the provismns of Section 8.06 of this o~:dinance. 14.09 Common Open Space. 1. The establishment, use. maintenance and disposition of Common Open Space areas within a P-I District shall be goverened bv the provisions of Section 21 of this ordinance. 14.10 General Regulations. Additional re.eulations in the P-I Plan- ned Residentl31 l)evelopment District are set forth in Section 19. 1~.11 Boundaries of the P-I Planned I. d. The Village Council may 1} ap-~,Residential Development District. The prove the final deveiopment'plan. 2.) g boundarws of the t'-I Planned Residential disapprove the final development plan t°_Development District shall include the statme reasons for the di~pproval, or ,~'--followmg described tracts and parcels bt 3~ approve the t'mal dew, lopment plan(~.,,land: subiect to specified mod~fieat)ons and '/, SECTION 15. P-2 PI.ANNED UNIT conditions. ~ DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. e. lfapproved, the final development 15.01 Objectives. The P-2 Planned plan shall be hied in the bi'lice bt the Unit Development l)tstrlct ts intended to provide a district appropriate for high density residential uses and office build- ings/'or administrative, financial and pro- fessional uses. particularly tn transition: al situations between business or industri- al districts and residential districts. It is further intended that to the extent reasonably possible the P-2 District be characterized by central management. integrated architectural design of build- ings. joint or common use of parking and other similar facilities and a harmonious selection and efficient distribution of ,~q.~ermitted uses within the district. 15.02 Permitted Uses. Within a P-2 Planned Unit Development District, no buildin~ or land shall be used except for the following uses: I. Single family dwellings. 2. Two family dwellings. 3. Townhouses. 4. Multiple dwellings. 5. Administrative offices. 6. Medical. dental, legal and similar pro- fessional offices. 7. Financial institutions. 8. Restaurants. 9. Theaters. not including "drive-in" type. 15.0:1 Accessory Uses. Within a Planned Unit Development District. the followine uses shall be allowed as acces- sory to the oermitted use: 1. Subordinate uses which are elearlv and customarily accessory to the permitted use. 15.04 Procedure for P-2 Planned Unit Development District Zoning. Platting and Development. 1. Zoning:. Platting and Development: a. Procedures tot me zomne, platting. and development of a P-2 District shall bg governed by the provisions o! Sec- tions 14.05 to l.{.07 inclusive of this ordi- nance. 15.05 Building Design and Construc. tion. 1. Multiple Residence Buildings: Within a P-2 District. buildin~ design and con- struction for multiple residence build- ings. and buildings accessory thereto. shall be governed by the prcivisions of Section 8.06 of this ordinance.. 2. Commercial Buildings: Within a P-2 District. butldin~ des~en and construc- tion for all bmldines other than multi- pie residence buildings shall be gov- erned bv the provisions of Section 9.06 of this ordinance. 15.08 Land Use Intensity. 1. Commercial Buildings: With a P-2 Dis- trict not more than 30'; of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings. 15.07 Common Open Space. 1. The establishment, use. maintenance and disposmon of Common Open Space areas within a P-2 D~stnct shall be governed by the provisions of Section 21 of th~s ordinance. 15.08 General Regulations. 1. Additional regulation tn the P-2 Plan- ned Unit Development District are set . forth tn Section 15.09 Boundaries of tl~ P-2 Planned Unit Development Distric//. The bounda..~.~ ties of the P-2 Planned Umt Development Distr~ct shall include the following de- 7. " 7 f' '- qT- CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 47-BB AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10.10 AND SECTION 14.11 OF ORDINANCE NO. 47 "THE CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE" ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 8, 1972 ' THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10.10 of Ordinance No. 47 is hereby further amended by adding the following tract of land described in Exhibit A to those tracts of land emcompassed within the boundaries of the C-2, Commercial District. SECTION 2. Section 14.11 of Ordinance No. 47 is hereby further amended by adding the following tract of land described in Exhibit B to those tracts of land emcompassed within the boundaries of the P-l, Planned Residential Development District. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this 15th day of July , 1985. 'v Th~a~.f Hamil'ton"~'~Mayor Attest: Don Ashworth, City~lerk/blanager (Public hearing held on April 12 and 24, 1985.) Publish in the Carver County on July 24, 1985) EXHIBIT B P-1, Planned Residential Development District Re Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, except the west 353.00 feet of the north 270.00 feet thereof. ALSO That part of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principai Meridian, lylng south of the southerly right of way line of State Highway No. 5 as described In Book "Z" Miscellaneous at .Page 60, recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds, County of Carver, EXCEPT the two following described tracts of land. Said tracts are described as follows: 1. The west 353.00 feet of the south 270.00 feet of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter.of said Section 13. 2. The west 193.00 feet of the north 303.00 feet of the south 573.00 feet of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 13. Which lies southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the east line of the West Half of the Northeast'Quarter of said Section 13, distant 2045.14 feet north of the southeast corner of said West Half of the Northeast Quarter, said east llne having an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 38 minutes 17 seconds East; thence southwesterly 448.95 feet along a non-tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 69 degrees 31 minutes 17 seconds, a radius of 370.0D feet and a chord of 421.91 feet, said chord bears South 35 degrees 15 minutes 39 seconds west; thence South 0 degrees 30 minutes West, tangent to the last described curve, 90.00 feet; thence southwesterly, 421.21 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 60 degrees 20 minutes and a radius of 430.00 feet; 'thence South 60 degrees 40 minutes West, tangent to the last described curve, 533.64 feet; thence southwesterly 245.74 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 31 degrees. 20 minutes and a radlus of 445.70 feet; thence North 88 degrees West, tangent to the last described curve, 164.79 feet to the west line of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of sald Section 13 and sald line ~here terminating. l ~00~ 95 .lei/x] '~pseupaM JsJ:t~d'E~u!uoz StOl IOOJedx~]I I I selelsq uassequeqo ...................................... l-'L ]a]oldxaoJ~ I~$a Chanhassen Estates Lot Sizes (Square Feet) Block 1 Block 3 Lot 1- 13,953. Lot 1- 12,522 Lot 2- 12,144 Lot 3- 11,288 Lot 4- 12,078 Lot 5- 15,954 Lot 6- 16,405 Lot 7- 10,914 Lot 8- 13,656 Lot 9- 11,213 Lot 10- 26,838 Lot 11- 23,667 Lot 12- 14,272 Lot 13- 20,927 Lot 14- 12,773 Lot 15- 24,385 Lot 16- 16,944 Lot 17- 16,146 Lot 18- 16,896 - Lot 19- 1-0,278 Lot 2- 15,870 Lot 3- 12,651 Lot 4- 12,651 Lot 5- 11,126 Lot 6- 11,238 Lot 7- 11,240 Lot 8- 11,040 Lot 9- 12,190 Lot 10- 12,287 Lot 11- 8721 Lot 12- 8686 Lot 13- 8530 Lot 14- 8983 Lot 15- 8983 Block 2 Lot 1- 10,926 Lot 2-1 1,067 Lot 3- 15,451 Lot 4- 13,262 Lot 5- 11,504 Lot 6- 12,455 Lot 7- 11,900 Lot 8- 12,500 Lot 9- 11,405 Lot 10- 11,291 Lot 11- 12,018 Lot 12- 11,983 Lot 13- 12,592 Lot 14- 13,110 Lot 15- 12,038 Lot 16- 11,823 Lot 17- 23,030 Lot 18- 11,486 Lot 19- 11,429 Lot 20- 11,607 Lot 21 - 11,376 Lot 22- 12,182 Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition (Square Feet) Block 1 Lot 1-13,696 Lot 2-14,231 Lot 3-14,107 Lot 4-12,072 Lot 5-12,-953 Lot 6-13,455 Lot 7-16,929 Lot 8-19,037 Lot 9-11,896 Lot 10-12,834 Lot 11-11,769 Lot 12-12,018 Lot 13-12,696 Lot 14-12,754 Lot 15-13,257 Lot 16-13,241 Lot 17-13,238 Lot 18-13,253 Lot 19-13,133 Lot 20-13,248 Lot 21-13,236 ' -Lot 22-12,159 Lot 23-11,544 Lot 24-11,531 Block 2 Lot 1-18,265 Lot 2-16,008 Lot 3-21,250 Lot 4-21,291 Lot 5N-7452 Lot 5S-7396 Lot 6-15,138 Lot 7-12,557 Lot 8-12,553 Lot 9-12,546 Lot 10-12,546 Lot 11-12,559 Lot 12-12,554 Lot 13-14,514 Block 3 Lot 1-14,522 Lot 2-12,200 Lot 3-15,217 Lot 4-13,477 Lot 5-17,247 Lot 6-14,589 Lot 7-20,165' Lot 8-14,564 Lot 9-11,788 Lot 10-12,222 Lot 11-14,370 Lot 12-17,863 Lot 13-11,494 Lot 14-12,703 Lot 15-12,579 Block 4 Lot 1-24,481 2-23,595 3-22,404 4-27,055 5-28,469 6:31,574 7-20,656 8-15,697 9-35,470. 10-22,310 11-16,404 12-11,931 13-12,691 14-15,963 Lot 15-14,853 Block 5 Lot 1-12,864 Lot 2-20,864 Lot 3-12,078 Lot 4-12,240 Lot 5-12,523 Lot Lot' Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot ZONING § 20-505 (2) Where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the comprehensive plan, city may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated oi~ such combination of the designated uses as the city council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this article and the comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91) Sec. 20.503. District size and location. (a) Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five (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 as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will 'be perceived as and will function as an extensi~m 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. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91) Sec. 20-504. Coordination with other zoning regulations. (a) Subdivision review under chapter 18 shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PUD. The plans required under this chapter shall be submitted in addition to or in a form which will satisfy the requirements of chapter 18 for the preliminary and final plat. (b) Site plan review under article II, division 6 of this Code shall be carried out for each non-single-family or duplex principal structure, that is proposed. (c) PUD plans shall be coordinated with and in compliance with provisions of article V, Flood Plain Overlay District; article VI, Wetland Protection, and article VII, Shoreland Overlay District. (Ord..No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91) Sec. 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 and 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 noncompatible land uses and parking areas. Supp. No. 8 1200.3 § 20-505 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (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. (m) Buffer yards. The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty-foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one-hundred-foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shhll be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to. fifty (50) percent. The hpplicant shall have the full burden, of 'demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91; Ord. No. 179, § 3, 11-23-92; Ord. No. 240, § 14, 7:24-95) See. 20-506. Standards and guidelines for single-family detached residential planned unit developments. (a) Intent. The use of planned unit developments for residential purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains the potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements. Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of development, as evidenced by .landscaping, construction quality, provision of public/private open and recreational space, should also be enhanced. . (b) Minimum lo~ size. The single-family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a - ;~minimum of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet (excludin~ identified wetland areas from lot calculations). Average lot sizes for the entire PUD shall maintain a minimum area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes Supp. No. 8 1200.6 ZONING § 20-506 consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of nature features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently ap- proved with.the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a sixty-foot by forty-foot building pad and a twelve-foot by twelve-foot deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, thirty (30) feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. It may include areas with steep terrain or tree cover. -~.(c) Minimum lot width at building setback: Ninety (90) feet. (d) Minimum lot depth: One hundred (100) feet. (e) Minimum setbacl~s: (1) PUD exterior: Thirty (30) feet*. (2) Front yard: Thirty (30) feet. (3) Rear yard: Thirty (30) feet. (4) Side yard: Ten (10) feet. * The thirty-foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained. Accessory buildings and structures-located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of ten (10) feet from property line. (fl Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural feat~tres such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. (g) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over- stow trees and other plantings consistent with the site. A minimum of over-stow trees must be provided in each front yard. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. (2) Exterior landsc'aping and double-fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double-fronted lots. Where necessary to ac- commodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Rear yard. The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least six (6) inches at four (4) feet in height can Supp. No. 5 1200.7 ZONING § 20-508 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 (5) percent; (3) Increases the gross floor area of nonresidential buildings by more than five (5) percent or increases the gross floor area of any individual building by more than ten (10) percent; (4) Deceases the amount of open space by more than five (5) percent or alters it in such a way as to change its original design or intended use; or (5) Creates noncompliance with any special condition a~cached to the approval of the master development plan. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91) Sec. 20-508. Standards and guidelines for single-family attached or cluster-home PUDso .... :~-~ (a) Generally. Single-family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. (b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to.five thousand (5,000) square feet may be allowed. There shall be no minimum lot size; however,_ in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city comprehensive plan, (c) Setback standards/structures and parking: (1) PUD exterior: Fifty (50) feet. (2) Interior public right-of-way: Thirty (30) feet*. (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement.. * The thirty-foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when'it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained. (d) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts-or protected by permanently recorded easements. (e) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land Supp. No. 8 1~00.9 ZONING § 20.73 (d) Full use of a nonconforming land use shall not be resumed if the amount of land or floor area dedicated to the use is lessened or if the intensity of the use is in any manner diminished for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the nonconforming land use was in full operation and shall run continuously thereafter.. Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, the nonconforming land use may be used only in the manner or to the extent used during the preceding twelve (12) months. For the purposes of this section, intensity of use shall be mea- sured by hours of operation, traffic, noise, exterior storage, signs, odors, number of employees, and other factors deemed relevant by the city. (e) Maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures is permitted. Removal or destruc. tion of a nonconforming structure to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its estimated value, excluding land value and as determined by the city, shall terminate the right to con- tinue the nonconforming structure. (f) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the forgoing paragraphs of this section, if approved by the city council a nonconforming land use may be changed to another noncon- forming land use of less intensity if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant has the burden of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses. (g) If a nonconforming land use is superseded or replaced by a permitted use, the non- conforming status of the premises and any rights which arise under the provisions of this section shall terminate. (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2-10-92) Sec. 20.73. Nonconforming lots of record. (a) No_variance shall be required to reconstruct a detached single-family dwelling located on a nonconforming lot of record or which is a nonconforming use if it is destroyed by natural disaster so long as the replacement dwelling has a footprint which is no larger than that of the destroyed structure and is substantially the same size in building height and floor area as the destroyed structure. Reconstruction shall commence within two (2) years of the date of the destruction of the original building and reasonable progress shall be made in completing the project. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the new dwelling and the new structure shall be constructed in compliance with all other city codes and regulations. -~ (b) No variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a nonconforming lot provided that it fronts on a public street or approved private street and provided that the width and area measurements are at lest seventy-five (75) percent of the minimum requirements of this chapter. (c) EXcept as otherwise specifically provided for. detached single-family dwellings, 'there shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, or structural changes of a structure on a nonconforming lot. (d) If two (2) or more COntiguous lots axe in single ownership and if all or part of the lots do not meet the width and area requirements of this chapter for lots in the district, the Supp. No. 4 1165-