Emails between Tom Berge and Bob GenerousGenerous, Bob
From:
Tom Berge [thberge @earthlink.net]
Sent:
Monday, April 02, 2012 11:32 AM
To:
Generous, Bob
Cc:
Susan Hoaglund
Subject:
RE: PUD -R
Mr. Generous...
Thanks for your prompt response. We can now assure our residents that the amendment will not
change existing zoning requirements, only clarify the PUD -R standards expected should further
development occur.
Tom Berge
- - - -- Original Message -----
>From: "Generous, Bob" < bgenerous (alci.chanhassen.mn.us>
>Sent: Apr 2, 2012 11:58 AM
>To: Tom Berge <thberge(dearthlink.net>
>Cc: Susan Hoaglund <susanhoaglund55317(@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: PUD -R
>Mr. Berge:
>Thank you for contacting me regarding the Mission Hills PUD amendment.
>You are exactly correct in you analysis of what the proposed change is intended to do.
>Basically, we are trying to codify what is permitted within the development. Because this
is a Planned Unit Development, the PUD ordinance is supposed to include all the regulations
for the project. However, the city relies on many other parts of the City Code to regulate
development and in order for us to clarify that we apply these standards, we must tie the
development to the code. We can do this by adding the language you see in the intent portion
of the ordinance:
>a. Intent
>The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial /mixed density housing
zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating
a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed
underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review
based on the development standards outlined below. Except as modified by the Mission Hills
standards below, the mixed density housing development shall comply with the requirements of
the R -8, Mixed Medium Density District and the single - family detached housing shall comply
with the RSF, Single - Family Residential District. Except as modified by the Mission Hills
standards below, the commercial development shall comply with the Neighborhood Business
District, BN.
>You are also correct that the reference to the BN district is for the open field immediately
adjacent to 101.
>If you have additional questions or need more information, please contact me.
>Bob Generous
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Tom Berge fmailto:thbereeoearthlink.netl
>Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:57 AM
>To: Generous, Bob
>Cc: Susan Hoaglund
>Subject: PUD -R
>Mr. Generous
>I serve on the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association Board and am writing in response to
your recent correspondence to our Board Chair, Susan Hoaglund.
>I am writing to make certain we understand the purpose of the proposed PUD -R amendment.
First, I am not certain of the geographic area covered by the document as I noted it includes
light commercial development. I would assume that would cover any development in the open
field south of 86th street. Second, the amendment does not appear to change current
permitted uses of the space covered by the planned unit development, only clarify specifics
as to lot size, etc. Is this correct?
>Bottom line, does the proposed amendment make any changes in the existing plan and how our
area is zoned other than making clarifications as noted in your cover letter?
>Thank you,
>Tom Berge
P]
Generous, Bob
From:
Tom Berge [thberge @earthlink.net]
Sent:
Monday, April 02, 2012 5:57 AM
To:
Generous, Bob
Cc:
Susan Hoaglund
Subject:
PUD -R
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Mr. Generous
I serve on the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association Board and am writing in response to
your recent correspondence to our Board Chair, Susan Hoaglund.
I am writing to make certain we understand the purpose of the proposed PUD -R amendment.
First, I am not certain of the geographic area covered by the document as I noted it includes
light commercial development. I would assume that would cover any development in the open
field south of 86th street. Second, the amendment does not appear to change current
permitted uses of the space covered by the planned unit development, only clarify specifics
as to lot size, etc. Is this correct?
Bottom line, does the proposed amendment make any changes in the existing plan and how our
area is zoned other than making clarifications as noted in your cover letter?
Thank you,
Tom Berge
1
Generous, Bob
To: Tom Berge
Cc: Susan Hoaglund
Subject: RE: PUD -R
Mr. Berge:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Mission Hills PUD amendment.
You are exactly correct in you analysis of what the proposed change is intended to do.
Basically, we are trying to codify what is permitted within the development. Because this is
a Planned Unit Development, the PUD ordinance is supposed to include all the regulations for
the project. However, the city relies on many other parts of the City Code to regulate
development and in order for us to clarify that we apply these standards, we must tie the
development to the code. We can do this by adding the language you see in the intent portion
of the ordinance:
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial /mixed density housing
zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating
a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed
underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review
based on the development standards outlined below. Except as modified by the Mission Hills
standards below, the mixed density housing development shall comply with the requirements of
the R -8, Mixed Medium Density District and the single - family detached housing shall comply
with the RSF, Single - Family Residential District. Except as modified by the Mission Hills
standards below, the commercial development shall comply with the Neighborhood Business
District, BN.
You are also correct that the reference to the BN district is for the open field immediately
adjacent to 101.
If you have additional questions or need more information, please contact me.
Bob Generous
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tom Berge fmailto:thberge(dearthlink.netl
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:57 AM
To: Generous, Bob
Cc: Susan Hoaglund
Subject: PUD -R
Mr. Generous
I serve on the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association Board and am writing in response to
your recent correspondence to our Board Chair, Susan Hoaglund.
I am writing to make certain we understand the purpose of the proposed PUD -R amendment.
First, I am not certain of the geographic area covered by the document as I noted it includes
light commercial development. I would assume that would cover any development in the open
field south of 86th street. Second, the amendment does not appear to change current
permitted uses of the space covered by the planned unit development, only clarify specifics
as to lot size, etc. Is this correct?
1
Bottom line, does the proposed amendment make any changes in the existing plan and how our
area is zoned other than making clarifications as noted in your cover letter?
Thank you,
Tom Berge
3