4 Buffer Yard RequirementsCIT¥OF
6~0 Cig Center Orive, l'O aox 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739
Engineering Fax 612.937.9152
?ublic Safe9, tax, 612.934.2524
Web www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE:
July 21, 1999
SUB J:
BUffer Yard Requirements, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 95-1
BACKGROUND
In 1995, in response to a proposed twin home development adjacent to an existing
traditional single family detached housing development, the city initiated the
development of a transition screening and buffering landscape ordinance.
Previously, the creation of screening was subjectively applied on a case by case
basis. The objective of the ordinance was to create standards which would lead to
effective buffeting of different land uses which were adjacent to one another.
Additionally, the city wanted to create standards that were quantifiable for both
developers and staff members. As in many of the city's ordinances, preservation
of existing site features, such as topography and vegetation, was encouraged. The
buffer yard ordinance was adopted on April 8, 1996.
DISCUSSION
The buffer yard ordinance is applied in a straightforward manner using the Table
of Buffer Yard Requirement matrix. Along the top of the matrix are the land use
of the proposed development. Along the side of the matrix is the land use of the
adjacent property. Where the row and column intersect is the required buffer
yard standards for the specific development.
Once the required buffer yard was determined the amount of required vegetation
was easily calculated by determining the length of the perimeter to be buffered
and the width of the proposed buffer yard. The narrower the proposed buffer yard
in width, the more planting that would be necessary to achieve the desired
buffering. Additionally, the higher the buffer yard standard, the more plantings
that would be necessary to appropriately screen the adjacent use. The number of
plantings are then calculated by multiplying the length of the buffer yard divided
by 1 O0 by the type of planting. This quantity is then adjusted using the plant unit
multiplier corresponding to the buffer yard width. Finally the total is reduced by
multiplying by 75 percent.
The G~, of Chanhassen. ,q growt3~g community with c[ea~z lakes, quality schools, a charmin~ downtown, thrivine businesses, and beautiful varks. A ereat vlace to live. work. and vlav.
Planning Commission
July 14, 1999
Page 2
An example may help: a mixed used development is proposed adjacent to a low density
development that has a common boundary that is 300 feet long with a 30 foot buffer yard width.
First, in looking at the buffer yard matrix, we determine that the required buffer yard is type C.
Turning to the buffer yard type, we calculate the base number of plantings as follows: 6 canopy
trees (3 x 3 x 0.6), 11 understory trees (3 x 6 x 0.6), and 17 shrubs (3 x 9 x 0.6). We then
multiply each of these base numbers by 0.75 to determine the minimum number of trees for a
required planting of 5 canopy, 9 understory, and 13 shrubs.
Attached are examples of buffer yards that have been approved in the city as well as the cover
memorandum and draft ordinance for the final reading of the buffer yard approval. Additionally,
there are before and after examples of how the buffer yard ordinance would have impacted
various developments. I hope this explains how the ordinance is implemented. If you have any
questions, I will be happy to answer them.
g:\plan\bg\buffer yard discussion.doc
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
NORTHCOTT
OFFICES
PLANT DETAILS: I
Planting Plan
L1
PLANT SCHEDULE: PLANT NOTES:
,ouI 'd/~ .gl~O/
-'i~l~l::l I yH .LN¥"ld
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(6!2) 937-1900 · FAx' (612) 937-5739
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
March 14, 1996
Buffer Yard Ordinance, Final Reading
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
City Council held the first hearing on the propos6d 6~dinance amendment on March 4, 1996.
CoUncil approved the first reading of the ordinate di?cting staff to work with Councilmember
Senn to provide langUage to apportion the amo~t of l~dscaping that would be required of the
development and the amount that abutting prgperty o~rs should provide. Staff has amended
section (f) (2) c., on page 3 of the attached 0~dinance, pr6Yiding a split of 75/25 percent. Staff
has also revised section (f) (2) d., page 3 0fthe ordiance,'~b clarify maintenance responsibility for
fences and section (f) (3), page 4 of the o~:dinace, incorpo~dting the Planning Commission
recommendation eliminating credit for'~'an made features.' '.i~
BACKGROUND
In JUne of 1995, the p~opoS~d buffer Yard ordinance was reviewed and recommended for
approval by the Pl~i~ Co~i~ i In Jg!y, ~5, ~e,:City ~6uncil reviewed the ordinance
and tabled the ite~,~p: pe~ ~f~ ~ ~e. !~!!~!pp~nt ~~i~y,~: ~.~oncerns
expressed regardih~ ~e~O!nance. In the int~rim~:~t'aff~:
representatives from the T~fi:Ci.tie~:~uilders Association to revise th~ 0r~i~¢6':to address
specificareasofcontention. ~:: ~ :',~ : ::: ~:
The major areas of change between the'revi~ed(6rdi~ce 'and the ordinance originally reviewed
by the Planning Commission are the'potential f0~,;~ovidtng some of the buffer yard landscaping
within city right-of-ways on sites with limited area [section (f) (1)] ;"elimination of the four
highest buffering categories (E - H) which included excessive plantings and berms and solid wall
combinations (tab]c); and the addition of exemptions for and consideration of maintaining
significant natural features to meet the buffer yard requirements [section (f) (3)].
Don Ashworth'
March 14, 1996
Page 2
Due to the significant changes in the ordinance, staff believes that the Planning Commission
should review the ordinance.
ANALYSIS
In developing the.ordinance, staff's objective was to create an ordinance that conformed to the
following goals:
1. Buffer yard standards should be calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to
buffer.
The buffer yard standards should provide aesthetic as well as functional planting
requirements for sites and buildings. These plantings should not only provide screening
or transition between adjacent uses, but they should also be designed to add color, natural
growth, a sense of identity, as well as an enhancement to the natural environment.
3. Standards should be understandable, reasonable, and easy to implement.
Buffer yard standards should compliment preservation/forestation and parking lot
screening requirements. Emphasis shall be given to the protection and enhancement of
natural features, rather than replacement.
Buffering should be provided between different intensities and densities of uses.
6. Standards should be comprehensive covering all sorts of development.
o
The ordinance shall provide minimum standards to assure that a baseline level of quality
is achieved.
The ordinance should not unduly limit design flexibility and should allow a good
designer to reflect the demands of the site and the setting in which it is placed.
CURRENT ORDINANCE
Section 18-61 (a) (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required
by the city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined by the
comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intenSive land uses. Required
buffering shall consist ofberms and landscape material consisting ora mix of trees and shrubs
and/or tree preservation areas. Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth and
area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and the home
protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty-five (25) percent over
Don Ashworth
March 14, 1996
Page 3
zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the preliminary and final
plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be
required.
Section 20-1176 (f) Buffering shall be provided between high intenSity and low intensity uses
and between a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required by
the comprehensive plan.
COMMENT: The city's current language requires buffering between different intensities
of uses and a buffer requirement is part of the comprehensive plan. HOwever, there is no defined
standards for either staff or developers to determine what constitutes appropriate and adequate
buffering.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a hearing on February 7, 1996 to review the proposed revisions
to the buffer yard ordinance in response to the City Council direction given on the original
ordinance. The Planning Commission voted unanimouslY to recommend approval of the
proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended the deletion of the following
from section (f) (3) on page 3 of the ordinance: "... or other man-made features such as
stormwater ponds." The Planning Commission did not believe that the separation provided by a
stormwater pond adequately buffers a development and that the required landscaping was
necessary in addition to the pond.
RECOMMENDATION
(Note: Staff has left the ordinance in strike through and bold to show revisions to the ordinance
made since City Council's last review.) .
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a motion approving the revised buffer yard
ordinance shown as Attachment # 1 and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
ATTACHMENT
1. Buffer Yard Ordinance Amendment (revised 3/13/96)
2. Planning Commission Minutes of 2/7/95
3. Examples of Existing and Proposed OrdinanCe on Oak pOnd/Oak Hills, Shenandoah
Ridge, and Richfield Bank & Trust
City Council Minutes of 3/4/96
Revised 4/27/95
Revised 10/10/95
Revised 3/13/96
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL
FOR TRANSITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN USES
PURPOSE AND INTENT
It is the policy of the city to provide buffering between different intensities and densities of land
uses and between developments and public collector and arterial right-of-ways in order to
provide screening from light, noise, and air pollution, to enhance public safety, and to improve
the aesthetics and compatibility of uses. The intent of this ordinance is to provide minimum
standards that are understandable, reasonable, and implementable. The standards must address a
comprehensive range of development opportunities. Standards shall not unduly restrict design
flexibility and they should permit a good designer to reflect the demands of the site in which it is
placed.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1.
ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS, Section 18-61 (a) (5).
Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is amended to read:
(5)
Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision and adjacent to collector and
arterial streets shall be required by the city as specified in section 20-1176 (f').
Section 2.
ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION
1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance,
subsection (b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
Co)
Except for buffer yard requirements specified in section 20-1176 (f) below, this article
does not apply to single-family developments in Al, A2, RR, RSF, and R4 zoning
districts which are regulated by landscaping requirements contained in the subdivision
ordinance (chapter 18).
Section 3.
ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION
1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance,
subsection (f) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
(f)
Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses, between a site
and major streets and highways, and in areas where buffering is required by the
comprehensive plan. Such buffeting shall be located within a required buffer yard. The
buffer yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. The amount of
land and the type and amount of planting specified for each buffer yard required by this
ordinance are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a
land use and a public road. The planting units required of buffer yards have been
calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to "buffer."
(1)
Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending to
the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural
features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Subject
to review and approval by the City Engineering Department, buffer yards that are
compatible with the typical city boulevard planting requirements may be located
within a portion of an existing municpal public collector or artetial tight-of-way.
(2)
To determine the buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels or between a
parcel and a street, the following procedure shall be followed:
Identify the proposed land use of the parcel and the land use of the
adjacent parcel or functional classification of abutting tight-of-way based
on the City of Chanhassen Future Land Use Plan.
Determine the buffer yard required on each boundary, or segment thereof,
of the subject property by referring to the following Table of Buffer yard
Requirements and illustrations which specify the buffer yard required
between adjacent uses or streets.
Co
Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard
and the number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard.
Each illustration depicts the minimum buffer yard required between two
uses or adjacent to a collector or arterial tight-of-way. The plant unit
multiplier is a factor by which the basic number of plant materials required
for a given buffer yard is determined in accordance with the selected width
of the yard. The project developer shall be responsible for providing
75 percent of the required plantings. If abutting property owner(s)
desire to bring the buffering to 100 percent of the required buffer
yard plantings, then the adjacent property owner(s) may install the
remaining 25 percent of the required plantings on their own property.
Whenever a wall, fence, or berm is required within a buffer yard, these are
shown as "structure required" in the buffer yard illustrations. The erection
eo
ADJACENT LAND LL/
USE LD
LL/LD non
MD 11Oll
e
HD non
e
OFF non
e
MIX non
e
COM non
PUB non
e
ACT non
e
PASS non
OFF/IND non
ROAD B
and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the
buffer yard provider (project developer). Mainenanee of the structure
shall be the responsibility of the landowner on whose property the
structure is located.
All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development or
storage of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or
organic material shall be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained free
from junk and debris. Dead or diseased vegetation shall be removed and
replaced with healthy vegetation. The responsibility to maintain, remove
or replace plant materials shall be that of the landowner on whose property
the plant material needing maintenance or replacement is~located.
TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
MD HD OFF MIX COM PUB ACT PASS OFF/
IND
B C C C D B B A D
A B B C D B B A D
A A B C D B B A D
B B A B B B B B B
C C B B B C C C B
C D B B A C C C B
A A B C C A A A C
A B B B C A A A C
A A B B C A A A C
C C B B B C B B B
B B B B B B B B C
The land use abbreviations are as follows:
LL/LD - large lot and low density residential;
MD - medium density residential;
HD - high density residential;
OFF ~ office; Mix - mixed use;
Com- commercial;
Pub - public/semi-public;
Act - active park/open space;
Pass - passive park/open space;
Off/Ind - office/industrial;
Road - collector and arterial road.
(3)
Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting
requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total buffer
yard plant material requirement. Existing natural features such as slopes,
woodlands or wetlands, or man mado f~atures such as stormwater ponds Which
provide physical separation between developments or between a development and
a collector and arterial road may satisfy the buffering function of the required
buffer yard. The plant unit multiplier for the required plantings shall be reduced
proportionally to the increase in the buffer yard width incorporating said features.
(4)
Buffer yards may be used for passive recreation and they may contain a trail
provided that no plant material is eliminated, the total width of the buffer yard is
maintained, and all other regulations of this ordinance are met. Utility easements
may be included within buffer yards provided that the utility requirements and
buffer yard requirements are compatible and canopy trees are not planted within
said easement.
(5)
Where front, side and rear yards are required by this ordinance, buffer yards may
be established within such required yards.
(6)
Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary
deciduous trees in the city's subdivision ordinance.
(7)
Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer trees
in the city's subdivision ordinance.
(8)
In instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year round screening,
the city may designate that all planting be of conifers.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota.
day of
,1996, by the City Council
4
Don Ashworth, City Manager
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
)
5
BUFFERYARD
A
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/lO0'
· ! Conopy Trees
2 Understory Trees
:3 S~ubs
Evergreen Trees/
Conifers
PI~'~t Unit
Multiplier
I00'
.6
.8
..!
!.0 I
BUFFERYARD
B
REQUIRED PLANT IJNITS/IO0'
· 2 Canopy Trees ~1'
4 Understory Trees (~
6 Shrubs 0
Evergreen Trees/ I~
Conifers
!.0
BUFFERYARD
C
REOUIRED PLANT UNITS/lO0'
3 Conopy Trees
6 Understory Trees
9 Shrubs
Evergreen Trees/
Conifers
Pi~t Ur~t
Multiplier
.6
30'
i00'
Sfrucf~e
Recked
.8
.9
Lower fnte'~Ity Use
Hitcher Imt. n..flly Use
BUFFERYARD
D
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/lO0~
.5 Canopy Trees
I0 Understory Trees
· 15 Shrubs
Evergreen Trees/
Conifers
P[~t Unit
.6
f i00'
S tl'l.~tl.r e
.8'
oO ·
1.0
.8
Lower Intensity Use
Hlgha' Intensity Use
.!
FENCES
TYPICAL MINIMUM
SYMBOL HEIGHT MATERIAL OPACITY
Wood Rail
t
48" '
Wood Pickel
95%
Wood Stockade
&I
ONI.LSIX~I
,Ct,,
.\
o /
&!
SOdol:ld
'~/1.~
A~
N¥$ -
~)NIJ. SIX~I
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
o
9o
10.
Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal
structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways.
The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15% of the
wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual
monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the
development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No
backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted.
The maximum size of the flag shall be limited to 80 square feet. In addition, the flag pole location shall
comply with sign placement limitations.
One additional "No Parking-Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the building. In
addition, where "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yello~v. This should
be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire
hydrants.
11. The applicant must provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the
plans must be made before issuing building permits.
12. The applicant shall provide a five foot wide concrete sidexvalk from the sidewalk on Powers Boulevard to
the northwest corner of the parking lots. '
All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF CITY CODE CONCERNING LANDSCAPING, CREATING A
TRANSITION ZONE, FIRST READING. '
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This ordinance resulted from a few development
proposals that came before the City late last year and early this year. The question was how do you transition
between different uses. Staff did some initial investigation in the American Planning Association and found out
that there is no real transition zoning. There's the standard things that you can use in planning such as greater
depth between buildings or stepping down intensities or densities of use. But there's nothing specific on that.
However, we were able to find significant amounts of literature and ordinances on buffering the screening
requirements inbetween different cities. So xve began to put together an ordinance after direction of the
Planning Commission that would address the screening between the different uses. Staff's goal, and I believe
the Planning Commission's goal with the ordinance was to develop an ordinance that was comprehensive in that
it would cover all possible differences between uses. Or different uses that would conceivably be adjacent to
each other. In order to do this we were directed to more the views of the comprehensive plan, which had land
use guides in place rather than our zoning because there are instances where we will have property guided for a
higher intensity of use where the current zoning on it would be agricultural. A second thing we were looking
at is to provide buffering on both sides of the property line, if you will, between the different intensities of uses
because we found out that a lot of times when like residential development comes in adjacent to a higher
intensity of use, they don't put anything there and all the landscaping is required the ne~v intensity of use and so
there's almost an extra exaction required of that development as opposed to other developments. Noxv also in
this ordinance we tried to make something that was easily understandable by developers and so we tried to set
up a form that they could look at and know exactly what, at a minimum the city would require for buffering.
13
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
And finally we want to level the development field for one development standards for cities that they have some
understanding of what the city would require when we specified that there be screening or buffering between
uses. What we would accept at a minimum for that screening. The ordinances provides a matrix, it specifies
the land use. The proposed development across the top of the matrix and the adjacent land on the bottom.
When a developer came in they would look at the top and go down that column to look at the adjacent land use
and that would determine the minimum landscaping requirement. Based on the code, an alpha code they would
be able to look further in the ordinance where there are examples of what was specified by, for instance a buffer
yard B. Within each of the buffer yards there's a required planting units per 100 linear feet of buffer area, and
this would specify the number of canopy trees which are more significant overstory trees. The number of
understory trees which are more the...buffering and then an additional evergreen or conifer designation for the
higher intensities of uses. We brought this before the Planning Commission many times under discussion basis
to try to work out the ordinance. We also requested input from the Builders Association of the Twin Cities and
we mailed this ordinance out to developers in the community and members of the Tree Board. From this we
found out there was a discussion and we believe there are some deficiencies within the ordinance. The first one
is that we don't adequately addreSs significant natural features. That in and of themselves could act as buffering,
such as wetlands located adjacent to a property or significant slopes that are on the perimeter of a property and
staff would like to be able to go back and look at that issue and make some corrections. Secondly we are
concerned that the upper levels of landscaping requirements, the levels A to H may be excessive. We've heard
that they're excessive from both the development community and also from members of the Arboretum, who did
review the ordinance and they thought that was a little heavy on that end. Thirdly, we'd like to clarify the
matrix and just put in a little table across the top. The letters on the top are for the proposed development and
the symbols on the side are for the adjacent land use. I think that makes it a little easier, rather than using the
footnotes. Finally, while the Planning Commission did recommend approval of this ordinance. However, they
did it with a request that the Council look at three, specific items. The first one was should the buffer yard be
included between low density and low density residential development. In this instance between a single family
detached development and a twin home development that may be adjacent to it. The second one, are the costs
associated with this ordinance justified based on the possible benefits. And the third one, they wanted to know
whether or not this was understandable by you all. Staff does support the boulevard planting requirements
because currently we're finding out that we're having a difficult time coming to agreement with developers on
what is acceptable. We've got an over and under on a lot of them and we believe that this would be a good
guide for us to go forward with. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks Bob. Are there any specific questions from the Council at this time?
Councilman Berquist: I've got a couple .... working on this an awful long time. I've got a couple of comments.
I was happy to see this list of goals and really the proposed ordinance, it looked like the majority of the goals
have been achieved except for a couple of items that I considered. Item 3, standards should be understandable,
which I believe that they are in the ordinance. However, I don't necessarily agree that in this case yet they are
reasonable or easily implementable. I think there's some overkill on a few of these. Number 7. The ordinance
should provide a minimum standards, and some of them, the one that struck me. I'm looking at, you look at
buffer yard H. Well that's between commercial and industrial...so obviously that's going to be the greatest
distance and the most heavily planted. But B struck me as an example of one that is, there was a bit of overkill
in comparing it to what kind of mix that you have. Wherever B was on the matrix. So I had a couple of
concerns as to whether or not the ordinance really provided minimums. In a lot of instances it doesn't look like
it could do much more. The comparisons between what the new ordinance would require versus what has
previously been approved. All the examples seem to either require a much greater number of plants or shrubs
14
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
and it just seems like overkill. I understand the reason behind this. Everytime someone comes before us, you
have to re-invent the wheel, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: That was part of the issues in what xvas driving this. Was to make sure that there was a level
playing field and that's consistency and as Bob indicated, there is concurrence, even our reviewing this, that the
upper ends may be excessive.
Councilman Berquist: I think that's true. I understand the need for the clarification and in the present format, I
don't think I could vote for it. I'd like it to be revised to be somewhat more modest.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Do you have any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorfi Comments. I think we all know that it needs some work and we know which
direction it needs work in but I'm going back to what precipitated it and Planning Commission and Council,
there were several plats that came through and there were large numbers of neighbors in here but those instances
where residential versus residential and that's xvhat precipitated this entire discussion. My opinion is, there
should be no buffer requirements between residential neighborhoods. I don't care whether they're R8 and rural.
I think you just divide neighborhoods that way. And I think a lot of that does get taken care of through the
process of negotiation of the site plan. So when Planning Commission asked for direction as to whether, which
path this kind of ordinance, low density versus low density, my opinion is absolutely not. But that being the
background, I think we did come up with a good ordinance in terms of heading in the right direction with
arterial streets and industrial buffering. My question, or my concern is an item, Section 3(2)(d) where we say
the erection and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the higher intensity use. I'm
not entirely sure that that's completely fair. If you have a piece 'of property that is zoned RSF, and right next
door is IOP, the question becomes who should pay for the buffering. Who goes in first or who's going to
benefit from the buffering? Or is it always the higher intensity use? So I think that needs further discussion, in
my. And I would assume that this is just, as with all ordinances, developments that are already in ~vill be
grandfathered. We wouldn't go back and make them change or add more. I think we've learned that xve do
need a little more muscle or negotiating power with an ordinance but as you have stated, this goes a little too
far. And we do need to take into consideration the vegetation. I think it's great that xve sent it out to a number
of parties for their input. I didn't know we took this to the Arboretum. That's a good idea. I don't know how
xve reach the people who come here at the podium and complain. How do we get their opinion? I'm up for any
ideas but I think that we need their input as xvell.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I basically concur xvith just about everything Colleen said. I have a real strong opinion
about whether we should be buffering residential areas from residential areas. It seems to me that at some point
the owner of a house, if he doesn't like his neighbor or she doesn't like their neighbor, they put up trees along
their property line and I don't think that a whole neighborhood needs to bear that burden. I agree with the
boulevard planting. I think that, I definitely think this is on the right track. I like the arterial, the industrial,
like Colleen said. And I think where certain, clearly where, it' the Arboretum says it's excessive, it probably is
and I think we need to take a look at that. You know reading through, of course like everyone else up here, has
been following this and I, you know I read some of these Minutes of the Planning Commission and you know
this stuff about people that are paying $300,000.00 for a home don't want to look at this small house next to
them. Well boy, I really have a problem with comments like that and I'm not going to call to task who said
them and this, that and the other thing but I, boy that's maximum elitism to me and I just, I don't think that's
15
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
xvhat Chanhassen is about. I mean lord knows homes are expensive enough in this city. But I think this is on
the right track. I think we do need to take a look at where it's excessive and I think Colleen raises a real good
point. Who pays? Who is? I mean clearly the industrial use could care less, for the most part I would guess,
if an area is buffered but if they're brunting the cost. I think we need to have some discussion about that. As I
was reading through the purpose and intent, I'm a little curious as to why enhancing Public Safety is in there.
For some reason that just struck me. How is that, and I dare say Scott xvould probably say, what do you mean,
more trees? Criminals can lurk behind those trees. But I'm just curious as to why that's in there at some other
point. And it is also says, to improve the aesthetics and compatibility of uses. Well, some of these aren't
compatible and that's xvhy we're buffering. So I think, in my opinion that would help clear it up. If
compatibility wasn't in there. I think aesthetics, absolutely. But that's me. But it is on the right track but yeah,
I feel, and I knoxv Ladd Conrad on the Planning Commission I think shared that same concern about whether we
should be buffering residential areas from residential areas and I've already stated my opinion on that. But it's, I
think we're on the right track but I think what I'm hearing is there's still some more work to be done. I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I thought about this one quite a bit. Talked to Kate a little bit too about it.' You know I
share a lot of the concerns I already heard as it relates to why is this before us because I mean really the only
complaints we've had on this is effectively single family detached residential to effectively anything else...where
it's at. I don't care whether it's other residential or anything else. We've gotten into kind of I think in a little bit
of a vicious circle here of, like we were here first. And I don't think this is something that we can just simply
put off and say that well, you know geez, you were here first. I guess you were the fortunate and everybody
else should take the responsibility to pay and that sort of thing. As I said, I'm having a real hard time really
looking at the broadness of this and dealing with it in that context because all of a sudden I mean it just, to me
it starts seeming overly complicated, and I mean I really underline that. And overly regulated and really gets
the city I think overly involved in a situation...very often a win/win situation. It's generally going to be a
lose/lose situation. And the more I thought through that it just seemed to me that maybe what we needed here
was not more government regulation but maybe taking a different approach. The current system that's there, I
think is somewhat governed by the marketplace. I know that's going to be a hard, that's going to be a difficult
concept to explain and I think what we need to do is we need to look at fixing it rather thhn revamping it. The
current single family development or single family detached development, one way or another on any buffer lot
discounts those lots. Pure and simple. I've always viewed that myself as positive because it takes people xvho
say like that community, like that neighborhood, like that specific area and gives them an opportunity they
xvouldn't have because they may not be able to in effect afford that full price interior lot or you know, a special
lot or bigger lot or there's lots of ways to look at... So you have in effect these perimeter lots that border other
uses but they're discounted and they're generally fairly deeply discounted. And I think that brings a certain
diversity and I think that's good. I think the place that we've lost track, or place we've made the mistake is we
haven't assured that's being documented because what happens to us is 5 years later everybody's in front of us
saying, ~oh. I never knew that or somebody told me something different or you know, but he said he can't tell
us now, went onto another community and he's not here anymore. But lots of excuses to it but nothing really to
hang our hats on. Which then...And the more I thought about it, it seemed to me if this is a real problem we
were trying to fix, what we really need to do was face the fact that those were in effect transitional lots and they
were discounted. Now what we need to do is to document that fact so nobody forgets. Now the reason those
lots are .discounted is quite simple. They recognize the fact that whoever purchases those lots is probably going
to have Io put in more landscaping than normal, if that's their desire, but again that's their freedom of choice. It
also recognizes the fact that they may be looking out their windoxv at something a little bit different than
another single fanfily detached house. But again, that's their choice when they buy that and that's their choice
16
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
when they take that discount to take that lot. So why not simply set up a mechanism when these plats are
brought in and stuff, to in effect document those transitional lots in a deed, or on a plat, or in some form that
makes it a permanent part of a record so the argument never comes. I mean all it really does effectively is
document what is there and it seems to me we solve the problem. I mean maybe it's overly.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: In theory.
Councilman Senn: Well, I understand that. Maybe it's overly simplistic but where we run into the problem and
where we sit up here gnawing our teeth together is trying to sort through information we have no ability to sort
through because we can't, none of us were there when those conversations occurred. Or knew who's telling
which side of the story is right or whatever. You know I look at what's in here and it's just, you know. I think
that this ordinance, if we go ahead with it, is going to create more questions, more problems as we go down the
road than it's going to solve. I think we're going to have a lot of real problems over who is going to pay and
who's not going to pay. What level are they going to pay and how do you start putting...on those types of
decisions. I think we're going to have to, again I think we're intervening to a level here I don't think we need to
intervene. And in looking at it, I look at it more in a sense of well, maybe the other's xvorth trying first. If
nothing else, if the transition doesn't work, than...easier solution. I don't know. That's basically where I'm at. I
wish I had a better way to explain it. I wish I had an even better solution but I'm sorry, I don't like the one we
have here with the ordinance. I think given the initial impression, I think a lot of good ~vork has gone into it
but I think the direction is there. I'd really like to see us go back and really look more specifically at the
problem rather than the global change to a non-problem in the sense that we're globally trying to change a
whole bunch of things here that there hasn't been a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess, as you indicated, fixing it rather than revamping it. There seems to have been
some given problems that we've had at Council over the past year or better, with concerns of people and some
of those go back to maybe some residential areas. I think that what has been pulled together is not bad. I think
there's a certain amount of direction to provide clarity once those situations occur. I think on some of the things
that we see, such as the streetscape and the natural features and some of those, I think those really have to get
refined. More clarity put into it. And I think that's something we're going to have to look at. But before ~ve
come to that conclusion, I know we have some people in the audience who have come this evening, maybe to
express their opinious and I'd like to open that up at this particular time for anyone who would like to come
forward. If you xvould, just please state your name and your address and who you're representing.
Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, city staff. My name is Dan Herbst. I live at
7640 Crimson Bay Road in Chanhassen. I'm here as a resident of Chanhassen and as a chairperson of a local
and metro public policy committee, which was established basically to work as a positive resource with you in
the future. With County governments and xvith the Metropolitan Council. Our members presently consist of
home builders, developers, subcontractors and in the future we're going to be adding consumer groups and with
some of your concerns to come in and speak on their behalf because the consumer is the one that ultimately
pays for what we do and the decisions you make at this table. We are very fortunate to have had, to have hired
a director for our committee, or Karen Christopherson is here this evening...Mary Zwieg is also here this
evening but our basic purpose is to be a resource to you and to help you go through this specific process. We
understand what you go through because we do the same thing every night. You are highly pressured all the
time by small special groups that may be looking out for their own interest, and some are valid. Some is not.
In most cases they are narrowly focused and they're not looking at the general interest of the city and what you
are tx3'ing to achieve and what your staff is trying to achieve in general. So we've sympathize with what you're
doing here every time...occurred to you on Galpin Boulevard. A situation like that. We have looked at the
17
City Council Meeting - July :24, 1995
ordinance. We've been very, felt very positive that both Kate and Bob came to us with this thing and gave us a
chance to comment. We thank you for that. But we think the ordinance has many undesirable features that
we'd like to have you take a look at. One of them we've already talked about. It is buffering between similar
uses, which we think is probably not the purpose of a buffer ordinance. Between a single family townhouse or
a duplex or a similar area like that. I don't think that's the purpose of a buffering ordinance. Bob also talked
about...pointed out that there are many situations where you have a ravine, where you have a wetland, where
you're going to create a NURP pond. Where you have situations like that where to buffer an area like that
would not even ~vork. It'd take away from what you're trying to achieve. But your ordinance, as it's drafted
today, ~vould require you to buffer around the entire perimeter. You may also have a wooded area that backs up
to your property line, or to your neighbor's property line that may be heavily wooded and this ordinance would
require you to buffer that ~voods. I don't think that's the intent of this ordinance. I think there's a tendency to
wall in neighborhoods ~vith this type of ordinance. You're almost, without exception, ~vhether it's single family
here or multiple or commercial or industrial, I don't think you want to fly over this town in a few years and
have it look like Ireland where they put up all those spike fences and you're going to have all these little fences
around everything to keep so and so's sheep from so and so and the Protestants from the Catholics or whatever
you're trying to do here but, you know I'm making a joke out of this but you are creating kind of a spike fence
ordinance here so to speak. I want you to take a good, hard look at that. I think if someone's on a limited
budget and wants to follow this ordinance to a T, you're going to have single family and single family...all start
looking alike and I don't think that's the purpose of the ordinance. I think you're taking some creativity out of
xvhat happens now. As Councilman Senn talked about the marketplace and what happens to the type of market
that we're trying to create. I have two other members of our committee that's here with us tonight. Daniel Hunt
from Daniel Development. I'd like you to listen to his concerns about cost and also Hans Hagen from Hans
Hagen Homes. Then I'd also like to make myself available to answer any questions you have, so...
Mayor Chmiel: Good.
Dan Hunt: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dan Hunt. I live at 4150 Colfax Avenue So in
Minneapolis.
Mayor Chmiel: You need to, if you'd like to just move that mic up.
Dan Hunt: Everything in this ordinance, I worked out this...We did some analysis of the cost associated with
the different buffers. This is buffer yard F, between the low density residential, office industrial. Both the least
expensive option and the most expensive option. As you can see for 100 feet, it's a significant amount of
money and it has a great impact on the affordability of lots. As xvas said up here, and you'll see an example
later, there are lots in developments that are affectionately known as dog lots. They're not as nice as the rest of
the lots. They may be much nicer than lots in another development or another city, but they're not as nice as
the lots in that particular development. The price of the land a developer pays for the entire land somehow
reflects those lots and the price of those lots when they're sold, the fact that they're lower than the rest of the
development is reflected in that and they do provide an opportunity for people to put more money in their
house, rather than their lot. That's a good portion, if you drive like down 35W in Minneapolis, many people
have more house than they could afford anyone else because they're buying a lot that is cheaper, and that's an
important part of the marketplace. This is buffer yard H. This is between an office industrial land and a low
density residential. As you can see the numbers here are even greater for 100 feet. The most expensive option
which someone would have to take, if they didn't have a lot of land to work with, is $20,000.00 for 100 feet.
That's an astronomical amount of money to put into the buffer. To put into landscaping for a lot of that size
anyway. This paragraph is an example and it's parenthetically a 20 acre office industrial park, 660 feet by 1,320
18
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
feet, .surrounded on 3 sides by low density residential and having 1,320 feet of frontage on a collector arterial
road. The buffer budget ranges from $340,000.00 to $564,000.00 under this ordinance. It equates to $.40 to
$.65 per square foot. Now there's very few instances where you're going to have just a pure industrial park next
to a residential but let's say you have an office park and so the land's a little more valuable for the office
development and they're paying $4.00 a square foot. That's a 10% increase in price for the land for that
development, based on anywhere else. It was encouraging to hear a couple of comments from the Council that
residential land next to each other really doesn't need to be buffered. But I would make the point that even
other uses, don't necessarily need to be buffered. In this example homeowners who live next to undeveloped
land, let's say it's industrial. They buy their home. They accept the cost, the cost of that home reflects the
adjacent zoning. To come back and require the industrial user to buffer their land is unjustly rewarding the
homeowner, because when they came in, as was stated earlier, they knew what the zoning was. If they didn't
knoxv what the zoning was, certainly the adjacent landowners...maybe the developer or the builder, the agents.
They may have called the city and gotten the wrong information but the adjacent landowner is not responsible.
...Number txvo. I grew up in Indiana. That's how they spelled things. If someone comes in wants to purchase a
home next to an adjacent parcel that has been developed with higher density, or intensity use, is stripped of the
opportunity to make that important economic decision. Basically the decision is, how much money they want to
put in their home and they may come into a development, as I stated earlier, and say, yeah. It's not the best lot
in the world and the view's not the greatest but the school system is great. The city is great. We can put
$5,000.00-$10,000.00 more into our house. The ordinance and the buffering requires, takes that decision axvay
from people and to me that is not the route that you want to go. Just in conclusion I would, some of the things
said here, that the market has always taken care of those concerns. You just need to show people when they
buy a lot, somehoxv in the purchase agreement, that they know what is around them and what can potentially
happen. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks.
Councilman Mason: Can I make two comments now, or do you want me to wait?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. No, go ahead.
Councilman Mason: Has staff had any time to look at the figures that were just presented here? I'm curious to
know whether you folks think those are realistic or not.
Bob Generous: We've had that range, yeah.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. I think the second point, or the last point Mr. Hunt made, I think therein
lies one of the problems. Certainly we have time and time again had, and I'm certainly accusing, not accusing
anyone here, but how many people come in and say, well we were told this and it's in reality that. So you
know, it's easy for you to say that, I mean that is one of the problems clearly and I'm sure staff, and I'm inclined
to share that argument would say well, this is one way we can put some of that grief to rest. So that, you know
this is a very complex problem here so I think we all need to be real aware of that.
Hans Hagen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and the staff. Thanks for the opportunity of giving our
viewpoint on the proposed ordinance. I guess in looking at this, the first thing I looked at was saying, what is
the problem. And in redesigning the problem it sounds to me as if there has been some complaint on the part
of citizens saying, I don't like what's next door. 'Otherwise they wouldn't ask for a buffer. And then the
question is, why don't they like what's next door. And were they responsible for knowing it. And if they knew
19
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
it, do they really have a right to complain. Because it all goes back to Councilperson Senn's comment that the
market kind of lets all of this go through. To bring this back down to a more practical issue. Our company
developed Stone Creek, and I don't know if all of you are familiar with Stone Creek or not. That has been very
successful. We've almost doubled what we thought we were going to do in terms of sales and one of the first
things ~ve wrestled with, after we got our first plan turned down, which have been fortunate at the time, was
how to deal with the Galpin Road, and that's what you're dealing with tonight. You're talking about how do we
buffer against something that we perceive as to be unattractive. And as developers we wrestle with that because
either we discount a lot, in which case we get less revenue, or we improve the lot. And that's what you're
talking about in terms of buffering. So we looked at this area and we decided that we could put a pond up front
and we could also, so along Galpin Road we've put in a very large pond and then we put the trail, which was
requested by staff, and we also added some lights and significant landscaping. Now what we did was add an
asset, not only just for those lots because those lots could have been perceived as the least attractive lots in the
neighborhood and now they are some of the most attractive lots. They are premium lots that we charge for and
we are also able to add an asset to every other lot in the community. That's innovation. I don't know how you
can put that into regulation. If you let the free market respond to it, they will do varying degrees of jobs and if
we.do a lousy job next time we come around, I'm sure you'll be a little tougher on us. And if we do a very
good job, you'll probably let us try with our innovative techniques...good job. But if we had.had this ordinance
in Place, I'd venture to say that it may not have turned into Stone Creek. I'm sure it would have been delved
out at some point but this development is adjacent to an industrial property, and to I believe, is that a collector.
Have I got the right classification of Galpin Road. And we're next to a railroad tracks. Yet we have let the
market determine if they like it. There are 37 lots that would have been affected and while it's hard to believe
the numbers that arrive up here, could it be that big of an impact. The impact on Stone Creek, if we would
have put buffers in, it would have affected 37 lots. If in effect we would have lost a percentage of those lots, it
would be easy to say, and we could document this, that it might be as high as a half million dollars of cost
because as soon as you put a buffer in, all of a sudden you still have to meet the minimum square foot in the
ordinance. And you still have to meet the front yard setback and all of a sudden that pushes a lot further axvay
and then might squeeze a number of lots out of the center of the development. So everytime's there an action,
there's an equal and other reaction and I think what it does is close in. The problem is when you add
ordinances like this, and I appreciate what the staff is trying to do. They're trying to improve your city, but it
doesn't always work when you take a broad brush and paint it across everything. You may end up with doing
disservice. Not only on an economic basis, but on a result basis because now you have to consider, you do
have to consider wetlands. You have to consider where you put ponds. You have to consider the landscaping.
You have to consider the forest and you have to consider elevation. So that there may be situations where you
want more of a buffer than is provided in the ordinance, and you lose that right when you categorize them and
say that's what it will be. Or you may not need one and why waste the land. Because if you have elevation
change or trees or whatever it changes, so there are some things that we still have to go back and use our mind
for to come up ~vith the best results and I think that, I've heard comments of the Council which is very
encouraging. This is one more regulation that may end up backfiring and unquestionably it's going to cost a lot
of money and I would say that it's probably in the neighborhood of 15% so that you're talking about, a
developed lot costs these days around $3.00 a square foot. You could 15% very quickly to this ordinance, and
that may not be too bad if it was going to get better results. But it well could get substantially poorer results.
You're getting lots of little matrixes when you put in wetlands and you put in forests and you put in setbacks
and you add all these matrixes until finally you can't get the best job, although that's.., thanks very much. If I
can:answer any questions, I'd be happy to.
Mayor'Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else'?.
20
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Gene Ernst: Mr. Mayor and Council, staff. My name is Gene Ernst. I'm a landscape architect. I office in
Chaska, Minnesota. Basically representing myself after I saw this new proposed ordnance. It was passed onto
me by one of our client's, Lundgren Bros ~vho ~vanted me to look at it. I do want to commend the city for
making an effort...improving some of the standards but I 'know if this particular ordinance is passed, as written,
as a landscape architect working for developers, I'm going to have to implement these requirements. And
looking at the requirements as they are outlined, and then trying to lay it out physically back to a plan, there are
many eases and it's been addressed and people talked about it. I think many of the things that I was going to
talk about have already been mentioned, but physically to put this plant material in some of these cases on the
drawing, would be against what we consider good...praetices. We've gone through different analysis and
actually taken the trees. Initially to plant the trees as specified, because they're smaller but when we design
these plans, we think of mature trees. In many eases we could not pack, in many eases and I have some
examples, we could not get them on those pieces of property. There's just so many plants...pretty much
impossible. So I think you've talked about that tonight in excess and I don't know what the response has been
from other developers but that was primarily what I was going to speak to tonight. More of a physical.
Actually trying to get those plants onto a drawing to bring them to the city for approval. And we would
probably be back here saying, we do not recommend in most, in many of these cases, planting plant material
that dense because in time it'd sort of probably kill itself out. Then you are not going to have a buffer because
where it's all touching and underneath there's not going to be any growth. It's all going to be above and you're
going to...so I appreciate having an opportunity to at least state that simple little issue. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay, anyone else? If not, we'll bring it back to Council one more time. I
think a lot of good points have been brought up in regard to this. Being that I think we have you kno~v, gone
through the process of looking at this and I suggested probably before to look through some of this and maybe
to eliminate some of those given problems as each of these people have brought up. I think we should go back
into the ordinance to see if it can be addressed in a lot of these things that we've done. As I mentioned before,
the streetseape and the natural features and things of that particular nature. But that of course is where I think
maybe we should go with it. I'll throxv it back and get an opinion of Council.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm fine with looking at anything. I'm not married to this thing one way or another.
I'm amazed at how much I learned just by listening. That's probably the extent of my comments.
Councilwoman Doekendorf: Yeah, I really appreciated particularly Mr. Hagen's comments. I hadn't thought of
it in those respects. I still think the ordinance does have merit. It needs work but I think the underlying reason,
underlying purpose does have merit. Particularly when you deal xvith buffering streets. I think that benefits not
only the homeowners but every resident that drives the road. So just to reiterate, it needs some changes
obviously and it should be looked at in terms of residential industrial and residential and streetseape.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Nothing nexv.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Okay I guess you probably have direction to come back with something, and also to
keep the people who are here aware and copies of those sent back to them so they know exactly where we're
21
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
coming from. I appreciate your comments and coming in and sometimes that I agree that we try to overkill.
Maybe we can still address this and make it into an ordinance that will be acceptable. Not only to you but to
the city and address our concerns that Ave have coming before us. So thank you for coming in. Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Do we need a motion to table this then7 It's an ordinance amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, yeah. I think probably we should table it.
Roger Knutson: You don't xvant to consider this the first reading?
Kate Aanenson: That's what I guess I'm asking. You don't ~vant to consider this a first reading?
Mayor Chmiel: No, that's the other point, right?
Roger.'Knutson: It looks like a lot of work's been done so the best thing to do is just a motion to table it and
bring it back and have another draft. Then the next draft will be back to the first reading.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Doekendorf: Second.
Com~cilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table the amendment to Chapte~ 20 of Ci~'
Code Conceming Landscaping, Creating a Transition Zone. All voted in favor and the motion carded.
CHANGE ORDER REQUEST FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT, SOUTH OF
LAKE SUSAN.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Hopefully this item's still fresh in everyone's
memory. The award of contract for this project was brought before you at the last Council meeting on July
10th. At that time staff indicated that the low bid was significantly higher than expected. -In an effort to make
this very much needed project a reality, staff developed some resources program whereby the contract could be
reduced in scope and some of that work could be done by city park maintenance forces to help bring the overall
project cost down to within our budget limitations. As a result, a reduced scope contract xvas awarded to Jay
Brothers Incorporated at the July 10th meeting. During discussions with Jay Brothers over the past two weeks,
it became apparent that there's two primary factors with their significantly high bid of $15.60 a cubic yard for
the excavation. The first was having the contractor be responsible for disposing, disposal and trucking of the
material to a site that they would have to locate. And number two, they were a little uncertain as to the
conditions of the soil out there to be muck, in terms of being able to access it with equipment and having to
take any special measures with a backhoe and drag them in such to do the work. So as such they basically
covered themselves and provided a high bid. During these past two weeks, as a result, staff has again looked
for ways to try and deal with this issue. We've actually come up with a couple of disposal, fill sites if you will,
that:the material can be taken to. In addition, Jay Brothers has been able to do some test digging out on the site
last week and feel more comfortable with the material that is out there, that they need to work with. And as a
result, lhey've proposed and submitted a proposal back to the city to actually complete the original scope of
work :at a reduced bid price for the muck excavation, which is more than 50% lower than their original bid.
The bid now, or the price now is $7.40 a cubic yard, which is basically a reduction of $30,000.00 over the
original low bid. Staff and the park maintenance staff have talked about this a little bit and based on our
22