10-2-91 Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CTIANHASSEN PI,ANNING COIIII.{ISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, L99L, 7:30 p.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 590 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLTC ARINGS
OLD BU S INESS
3 Zoning ord j.nance Anendment
standards .
concerning PUD Residential
APPROVAL OF MTNUTES
CTTY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS
OPEN DT CUSS TON
4 Discussion on Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Add Bus Sheltersand Park and Ride Lots.
5. Highway 5 corridor Task Force.
AL'OURNMENT
1. Replat of Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business park sthAddition into two parcels and Site plan Review for theconstruction of a 15,OOO square foot office/warehouse buildingon property zoned IOp and located at the northwest corner oiPark Place and park Road intersectj.on, liIail Source, Inc., R.J. Ryan Construction.
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning accessory dwellings.
NEW BUSINESS
FTLE
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
STAFF REPORT
PC DATE:
CC DATE:
CASE #:
Lo/2/et
LO/25/et
91-9 Site
91-14 SUB
Fz
C)J(LL
E
lrJt
U,
Replat of Iot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Iakes Business park
5th Addition into two parcels and Site plan Review for a15,000 Square Foot Office/Warehouse facility
PROPOSAL:
IOCATION:
APPLICANT:R. J. Ryan Construction
5511 Cedar Ave So.
Minneapolis, lr0'I 55423
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ALTACENT ZONING AND
IAND USE:
IOP, Industrial Office Park
2.63 acres
N-
E-w-
IOP,
roP,
IOP,
IOP,
vacantIndustriaL Bldg
Parking lot
P!,IT
WATER AND SEWER:Availab1e to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Vacant parcel which slopes to the east.
2 OOO LAND US8 PI,AN:
Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business park 5thAdditi.on - 1450 Park Place
Industrial
LAKE ANIT
RD
OULEVAR
6RE'EN PARK)
RSF
UD-
--l tirovc(
\
P
(_
RD
J
!
PARK
I
!
I
IoIi
a
I
*t
\
t-
r*
l axE
ANN
PA
RR R12
€
I
I
pa
a lrJ
roP I
tr ,o.L
!,
/
ll!_
z
a
9a t--:Ll]
!,
I\
at!a
o
-r
I
I
LAKE SUSAN_
t_
D
D
t
F
:':::
Mail Source, Inc,
october 2, l99l
Page 2
PROPOSAL,/SI'UMARY
Tom Ryan of R.J. Ryan construction is proposing to construct a
15rooo square foot office/narehouse building. The proposed intentof this building is to sort mail. office/Warehouse is a pernitted
use in the IoP district. The overaLl site plan is well conceivedincluding, design, type of construction and landscaping. The
applicant has stated that there Day be a possibility of expansionin the future. The subj ect site appears able to accoDmodate such
expansion.
There are several elenents that need to be devel.oped further. The
parking area needs to be expanded or reconfigured to accommodatethe locking dock area. The design for the rooftop equipnent and
trash enclosure needs to be constructed of the sane naterial. as thebuilding. Drawings need to be subnitted for the parking lot lights
and signage plan for staff approval .
The subdivision request is a rnetes and bounds subdivision. The
Planning conrnission does not need to act on the subdivision requestbut staff included the information so that you are aware of the
proposal . Staff is reconmending that the site plan be approved
without variances subj ect to appropriate conditions.
The site is focated on Lot 3, Block 1 in chanhassen Business Park5th Addition. Lot 3 proposed to be divided into two parcelsi
Parcel A consists of 2.653 acres and Parcel B is 1.3 acres. The
BACKGROI,'ND
on october 4, 1-ggg, the Planning Conmission reviewed an applicationfor Site Plan Reviev #89-8 for the Rone Office Building. The City
Council reviewed this same application on october 9, 1989. The
site plan that was approved for the Rone office building showed a
future expansion to the site in the form of a free-standing 17,000
square foot of f ice/warehouse building located to the west. The
building was never constructed.
on septenber 5, l99o, the Planning Cornrnission reviewed an
application for Site Plan Revier, #90-9 for Systems control . The
city council reviewed this site plan on october 24, L991. The
systems controL proposal was rejected at this location, in favor of
another site on Lake Drive East/Hlry. 5.
The latest proposal under consideration will change the status of
the approved site plan for the Rone office Building. As a part of
the consideration for this proposal, cancelLation of the approvedsite Plan #89-9 for the Rone office Building is recornmended.
GENER]AL SITE PI,AN,/ARCHITECTT'RX
Mail Source, Inc.
october 2, l99L
Page 3
developnent is proposed for the lot located on the corner of Park
Place and Park Road. The front of the building faces Park Road.
Parking will be located to the east and north of the building, Thematerials to be used on the building consist nainty of rock faceconcrete block. The building will be accented with glazed block
and one course of painted block. The proposed architecture neetsthe standards of the ordinance. Staff is reconnending that one
course of painted block be changed to glazed b1ock. fn additlon,there are linited vindows shown on the east and uest elevations,facing the public right of way. Staff would reconmend that more
windows be used .on the east and west elevation, to break up theblank wall. Any rooftop equipnent wiLl need to be screened withmaterial consistent with the masonry buitding materials. Sinilarly,
screening of any outdoor storage facilities is required.
PARKING,/ INTERIOR CIRCUL,ATION
The proposed building is divided into three uses for considerationof parking standards. These uses include office, assenbly andlrarehouse. Staff feels that there is poor nunber of parking stallsbut the proposed parking design in inadequate. parking along theeastern edge of the building has a 5 foot change in grade or aslope of 331. The grading plan should be revised to el.ininate thesteep grades. The parking sta11 in the southeastern corner needsto be eliminated because there is insufficient area provided forvehicle turning novements. The loading area on the nbrth side ofthe building interfere with the access to parking spaces. Staffwould reconmend that the parking lot be noved further to the westto provide for better access to the loading docks as well. as theparking spaces. These revisions are illustrated on an attachedsite p1an.
The Engineering Departnent is reconuending that the pavenentsection for the parking lot be consistent with othercomnercial/industrial sites in the city. For the parking areas,auto, 6rr Class II Base lrith 3rr of bituninous. For the drivewayareas, 8rr Class II Base rrith 4rt of bituninous (see Engineering rneno- Attachoent 1).
ACCESS
The proposed site plans shows a curb cut along park place. Thisdriveway approach is 30 feet. The radius of curbing at theentrance should be a minimurn of 20 feet. The nunber of iurb cutsto this lot was an issue for staff during approval of the RoneOffice Buitding and Systems Control site pllns-.- The applicant naybe requesting an additional curb cut along park Road it suctr tinithat they expand their building. In addition, parcel B willrequest a curb cut when this site develops. Staff would recomnendthat a any future curb cuts on park Road serve both parcel A and B.
llail source, fnc.
October 2, L99l
Page 4
I,ANDS CAPING
The landscaping plan meets the required standards of the district.
The proposal shows 10 feet of landscaping along the east side of
the building and 5 feet along the south side. The frontage along
Park Place shor.rs 25 feet and 30 feet along Park Road. A11
disturbed areas in the future expansion area will be reseeded or
sodded.
The applicant has sholrn a ground, low profile monument sign located
in the southeastern corner of the site. A detail draering of the
sign is not shown. This sign cannot exceed 8 feet in height and 80feet in display area. A separate sign peruit is required before
erecting the sign, in addition, a detailed drawing of the sign will
be required.
GRADTNG,/ DRAINAGE
As part of the overall platting process for chanhassen Lakes
Business Park, stonn sewers were designed and constructed to convey
storm runoff fron each individual parcel as they develop.
Therefore, an on-site retention pond is not necessary. The
proposed plan shows extending storn serrer fron the Cityts system.
ihe plans do not indicate the size and type of storm sewer pipe to
be used. The Engineering Departnent is also reconnending the ditch
in Park Place be filled.
Existing ground contours were not provided with the grading plan
subnitted, therefore, the Engineering Departnent is unable to
determine the exact inpact or anount of earthwork anticipated.
They are recornmending that the appticant subuit a new grading PIan
showing both existing and proposed contour lines..
PUBLIC UTILITIES
city serrer and rrater are available on Park Road. According the
Fire Marshal, one hydrant will be required just to the north of the
driveway of Park Place (Attachnent #2).
LIGHTING
Lighting is not shown on the site p1an. only shielded fixtures areaIlowed. Final lighting plans shoqld be provided for staff
approval .
S IGNAGE
l,lail Source, Inc.
October 2, l99l
Page 5
EROSION CONTROL
Plans call for 1!Tre I erosion contro] (silt fences along thesoutherly, easterly and northerly perineters of the site). SinceIre are nearing the end of the growing season, seeding and/orsodding will not be conpleted until next year. Therefore, theEngineering Departnent is reconuending additional erosion controlbe required if deened necessary. All catch basins shall be ringedwith hay bales or silt fences until the bituninous pavingoperations are completed.
CO}IPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT
Building Height
Building Setback
Parking Spaces
Parking Setback
Ordinance
4 Stories
N-10r E-10rs-30t w-10t
41 Spaces
N-N/A E-25rs-25r W-N/A
Proposed
1 story
N-90r E-75r
s-40 r w-210 r
41 Spaces
N-10r E-251
s-25 t W-150 |
Iot coverage 70 t 38 t
Lot Area 1 acre 2.G5 acres
Variances Required none
PARK AND TRATL DEDICATIOTI FEES
The Park and Recreation Departnent is reguiring that park and trailfees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees lre paid at the tineof issuance of building permits.
SUBDIVIS ION
The applicant is reguesting to replat Iot 3 into two parcels of 1.3acres and 2.G5 acres. The applicant must provida the typicalutility easenents of to foot fiont andl 1o fooi side and ,"ii, a.there is an existing stom serrer. The planning conmission does notneed to take action on the netes and bounds request as this will beacted on by the City Councit. The proposed builcting uill beIocated on the 2.65 acre parcel (narcel .U1-.
Irtail source, Inc.
October 2, L99).
Page 6
STAFF RECOUI,IENDATION
Staff reconmends that the Planning Connission adopt the followingnotion:
1
trThe Planning Cornroission reconnends approval of Site plan Review
#91-6 as shown on the site plan dated Septenber L6, 199L, subj ectto the following conditions:
The appLicant nust provide detailed drawings of material to beused for screening rooftop eguiprnent. This naterial nust becompatible to the building naterial. The applicant nust alsosubnit a detailed drawing for the location of the trashenclosure, screened with materials courpatible with thebuilding.
The applicant shaIl subnit a detailed drawing of the proposedsign. A separate sign pernit is required.
The applicant shall provide a revised parking plan consistentsrith staff ts reconnendation.
The applicant will provide detailed drawings of the proposedlighting plan.
Provide 8-612 concrete curb and gutter around parking lots anddriveway. fncrease parking 1ot pavement to standards outlinedin the report and incorporate cityrs typical
industrial,/cornmercial driveway detail. Add catch basins indriveway access to catch runoff before draining into ParkPLace. Fil1 existing ditch along Park P1ace with storn selrer
extension.
Install hay bales around catch basins until the bituninous isinstal led .
8. Seed or sod all disturbed areas.
9. Install fire hydrant north of the driveway on Park Place.
2
3
4
5
6
7
10. Rescind approval for Site Plan #89-9 Rone Office Building.r'
The applicant sha1l subnit a revised grading and utilityplan including size, t)rpe and elevation of storn serrer andobtain and cornply with all conditions of the l{atershedDistrict Pernit.
l,[ail Source, Inc.
october 2, 1991
Page 7
ATTACHI,TENTS
1. Proposed parking layout.2. Ueno fron Engineering Departnent.3. Memo fron Fire ltarshal.4. Meno fron Park and Recreation Departnent.
286.S',:-_+f -1
t
I
t,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l;
tq
I
I
I
,a "l
l.rFi l!P(r-t5 r- ea5'r;3..*
cBI oBBp*e iB--
B--
t'!gs.
/
B
*j
I
I
*
,+
)7I,E
)
, ! r.]f,,
I
P
i
't
I
l
t
o
q
r2B a-
b.
t-lI
J
P
B-,
FtasFi
Eo I
iEi
;E
l2'r 9',g.
E
3
,/n
\ - -5tl
:,1I
I
I
i
)
I
I
Etax
-iDoDJ (
I
I
II
I
ti.
i.
li
l'
?
?
i
i
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PO
\
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (512) 937-5739
CITY OF
CH[NH[SSEN
Engineering r""frn i" i"r, \N\P
UEI{ORANDT,IIT
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II
FROI,!:
DATE:
SURT:
Dave Henpel, Sr.
Septenber 25, L991
Site Plan Review for Uail Source,Easterly Part of Lot 3, Block 1,
Business Park Fifth AdditionFile No. 91-14 LUR
Inc.
chanhassen Lakes
Upon review of the grading and utility plan prepared by LanbertArchitects for l,lail source, Inc., I offer the following conmentsand reconmendations:
Utilities
Municipal sanitary sehrer and water service is available fron park
Road. Individual services have been extended to the property line.
Gradino and Drainaqe
As part of the overall platting process for Chanhassen LakesBusiness Park, storm sewers were designed and constructed to conveystorn runoff fron each individual parcel as they develop. Thus, noon-site retention pond is necessary. The plans propose extendingstorn sewers fron the cityts storn systen to convey runoff fron theparking lot and building. The plans do not indicate the size andtype of storD sever pipe to be used. All storn sewer pipeconstructed within the Cityrs right-of-way or utility and drainageeasenents shall be constructed with reinforced concrete pipe (RCp).Detailed storm seuer calculations were recei.ved tob late toincorporate into this report.
As Park Place was recently upgraded to urban street standards, theexisting ditch along this site for the nost part was fill.ed in.Hor{rever, at the proposed storm sewer connection in park place asnall ditch stil1 renains. It is reconmended that this ditch be
Kate Aanenson
Septenber 25, l99l
Page 2
Parkinq Lots
The parking lots are proposed to be constructed with 4 inches of
Class II gravel and 2 inches of bituninous (2341). The plans show
curb and gutter i horrever, do not specify type (8-512). The plans
should add curbing to be concrete 8-612. Due to the soil
conditions in this City, it is reconrnended that all parking areas(for autos) be constructed with 6 inches of Class II gravel and 3
inches of bituminous (2341). In areas where truck traffic is
anticipated, the pavement should be 8 inches of Class II gravel and4 inches of bituninous (2-inch base and 2-inch wear) consistentwith other cornmercial/industriat sites in the city.
The northerly parking lot configuration will nake it difficult for
trucks backing,/turning into the loading docks at the far westerly
bay, not to nention naking the parking stalls along the west sideinoperative. It is reconmended that the parking stalIs proposed
along the westerly portion of the lot be relocated further to the
r.rest to accommodate truck turning and backing movements into the
loading facility. The easterly parking lot needs to incorporate a
1o-foot turnaround south of the lot for vehicles backing out of the
two end sta1Is.
filled and elirninated when the storn sewer is extended into thesite.
The utility plan also proposes extending a storm sewer lead frou
the existing catch basin located along the northerly property line
approximately in the middLe of the lot. It is reconnended that the
applicant raise the invert elevation to natch flow lines to provide
for uniforn discharge into the existing system or construct a ne\,/
manhole over the existing line further downstream.
The grading plan indicates proposed ground contours i horrever,existing ground contours lrere deleted. Therefore, without this
information it is inpossible to deternine the exact impact or
amount of earthwork anticipated. It is reconmended that theapplicant subnit a new grading plan showing both existing and
proposed contour lines.
The grades proposed for the easterly parking 1ot are very steep,
approxinately 3:1 slopes. slopes this severe make it verydifficult getting in and out of vehicles parked adj acent to the
building not to nention very slippery during inclenent lreather. Itis reconmended that this easterly parking lot be redesigned to
eliminate the very steep grade and resubnitted for staff approval.
Kate Aanenson
Septenber 25, 199L
Page 3
Reconmended Conditions
?he site proposes one driverJay access from park place. It is
recornmended that the site plan incorporate the City's typicalindustrial driveway detail to provide for adequale tuininqradiuses. In the future, if the site expands and requests a curbcut onto Park Road, it is reconmended they share a conmon accessdrive with the adj acent parcel .
Erosion Control
Plans propose encompassing the southerly, easterly and northerlyperineters of the site with qr;le I erosion controL (si1t fence).As-hre are- nearing the end of the growing season, seeding and/orsodding will not be completed yet this year. Therefor;, stafffeels that this type of erosion control nay not be sufficient inholding back the erosion through the spring. The City may reguireadditional erosion control if deened necesiary in the futirre. Al1catch basins shal1 be ringed with hay bales of silt fence until thebituninous paving operations are co'nFletes.
1
2
The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions ofthe Watershed District pernit.
A revised grading and utility plan showing the following:
a. Existing and proposed ground contours.b. Size, type and elevation of storn sewer lines.c. Add catch basins in driveway access to catch runoffbefore draining into park place.d. Expand westerLy parking lot for parking stalls and truckturning novenents.e. Provide 8-512 concrete curb and gutter around parkinglots and driveway.f. Tncrease parking 1ot pavernent design to a nininum of Ginches of Class II gravel with 3 inches of.bituninous.g. Incorporate City'stypical industrial/commercial drivewaydetaiL (attached).h. FilL existing ditch along park place with storn seterextension.i. Install hay bales around catch basi.ns until thebituminous is installed.
Seed or sod all disturbed areas (the Cityrs boulevards nust besodded).
3
j ns/ktn
Kate Aanenson
Septenber 25, 7991
Page 4
Attaehment: Tlpical IndustriaL Driveway Detail
c: Charles folch, City Engineer
lrjFFl(!,
ldJJ
lr,lF
lrJG(,2o(,
zoa
-A
12xoUJ-
I
I
I
I
l*.Nlzti
I
I
I
I
o
.lr,
o(lrjFFf(9
Ld
G,
Jf(9z
EF
I
I
F
g,-
EE
ov,Fu,
EEl- u,
H;et
IIr
U' LI
7eU
I3;
Ebf
6
;rs
EgE
iq;Eg"!ri(D.t. F>923tIJ.;E E{A, f,al
iE EI
trJ lrJ OEEO (JO
=&
z
J
o-
UJ
UJu)
U'g
E.
U'loz
=fF
d)
L
)
@
d),JrG.1 lrl(JFF
3aaD{
.t, EleP63t-)<#
>o--6(a>tr>r.l
33=
=I;3U.
0.('U
@
6(D
l-
I
H
=u-o
rl(9l*l
lr,@
,
_{!t-
+t
a
D
v
P
INDUSTRIAL
DRIVEWAY
CITY OF
CHfiNHTSSEI[
PL^rE No. 5207
ATTATCHMENT NO 1
U)
UJFoz
!lFr
\
u
,
oArE 2-91
CITY OF
CH[!IH[EEEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 9s7-5739
HE{ORANDIJII
TO: Xate Aanenson, Plenner II
FROttl: Mark Littlin, Fire llarshal
DATE: Septenber 25, 1991
SUBJ! Site Plan Approval - llail Source
Conmen t s /r ecommendat i ons :
Install additional fire hydrant, north side of drivenay off
Park Place, and verify size o? D.I.P. xaternain.
cc: Dale Gregory, Fire Chief
1
ttt,PRINTEO ON RECrcLED PAPER
EH[I{H[SEEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. PO. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-s739
UE},TOR,ANDI'!,I
TO: Kate Annenson, Planner II
Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordin.tor TF{FROU:
DATE:septeDber 26, l99L
Uail Source, Planning Case 91-6 Site Plansu&r:
As you have noted, the proposal to construct llail Source on Lot 3,Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition is the thirdtine this lot has been considered for developnent. I rrill presentthis iten to the Park and Recreation Conmission on October 22, L99Lfor consideration. However, in keeping with the schedule of reviewfor this proposal, I am comfortable rnaking the recoDmendation thatthe City Council accept full park ($2,500,/acre) and trail($833.O0/acre) fees from the developer of Mail Source. Thisgreconnendation is consistent with previous reconmendations.
CITY OF
lL
CITY OF PC DATE: Lo/2/91
CC DAIE: LO/28/9L
CASE *:
By:
91-10
olsen:v
STAFF REPORT
Fz
L)
=(LL
{
E
IrJta
Zoning ordinance Amendment Anending Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code Concerning Accessory Dwellings
PROPOSAL:
I,OCATION:
APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ALTACEMT ZONING AND
I,AND USE:N-s-
E-w-
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. :
2OOO I,AND USE PI,AN:
EH[NHISSEtrI
ZoA for Accessory Duellings
October 2, L99L
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On August 26, L99L, the Board of Adjustroents and appeals reviewed
a variance request to allov a second sunner residence to be locatedon property zoned RSF and located on Lots 8, 9 and 10, and aportion of Lot 7, Sunset HiII subdivision. The subj ect parcel
contains an existing sunmer cabin and a neu four bedrooro residenceis being constructed. The cabin is located only a few feet fronthe right-of-way of Dogarood Road. City ordinances aLso providethat there may be only one prinary dwelling per lot and theconstruction of the ne!, home would create a non-conforrningsituation. The applicant received a building pernit for the newdwelling. The building pernit was issued with the condition thatthe existing cabin be maintained only as a storage buitding andthat all power and utilities be disconnected to ensure that itwould not be used for habitation. A notice was al-so placed in thechain of title indicating that the cabin was not to be used as adwelling. Once the hone was constructed, the applicant subnittedan application for a variance to allow the cabin to renain as a
sunner hone for fanily gatherings.
The Board of Adjustnents and appeals reconmended tabling action onthe variance request until the city could develop an ordinance
anendment that rrould a1low for the location of a guest home on aresidential single farnily Iot. The Board indicated to theapplicant that the City would consider such an ordinance change inthe future but did not guarantee that it would be adopted.
SI.I},TI,1ARY
The City Attorney has subnitted an amendment to Chapter 20 whichadds accessory dwelling to the definitions, adds specificrequirements for an accessory dwelling and allows accessorydwellings as a conditional use in the RSF District. An accessorydwelling is proposed to be defined as:
A second dwelling unit on the sane lot as a single fanilydwelling for use by the household enployees, relitives, orsocial guests of the occupant of the nain dwelling.
The specific regnrlations for a conditional use pernit for accessorydwellings are as follows:
1. The floor area of the accessory dwelling may not exceed 50* ofthe floor area of principal dwelling.
2 The accessory dwelling nay not have a separate driveway curbcut.
zoA for Accessory DlreLlings
October 2, L99L
Page 3
3. The accessory drrelling nust have been constructed at least tenyears prior to the construction of the principil dwe1Iing.
Staff sas directed to process the ordinance amendment by the Boardof Adjustnents in reaction to the variance request. It should benoted that staff could not find justification for granting thevariance and was reconnending denial.
Even though the zoning ordinance anendment is fornulated to befairly site specific, staff is not comfortabLe with approving an
ordinance amendnent which rrould a11ou accessory dwellings. Eachyear staff receives severaL requests from lots adj acent to lakes
who have existing accessory structures and rrish to colvert then toa sunmer cabin. There is the potential for such accessory
dwellings to becone rental properties without the city being awareof the situation.
Staff is not in favor of the proposed ordinance arnendment.
RECOI'1}4ENDATION
Staff reconmends the Planning Cornroission recomnend denial of the
zoning ordinance aroendment allowing accessory dhrellings.
ATTACHI'IENTS
1. Board of Adjustnents and Appeals minutes dated August 26,
1991.2. staff report.3. Proposed ordinance anendment.
Board of Adjustnentr and AppealsMinutes of August 26, L99t
Page 3
worlman noved approval of tbe 17 foot variance to a1lou the 3 decksto renain contingent u1lon obtaining a building per:ait and uakingany necessary corrections, deck not to be used untll ftnalinspection is granted, no portion of the deck located within theEetback ls to be e:eanded in the future, no uater orl.ented useaccessory buildings to be located ln the 25 foot Eetback area andalso condition upon the appllcant aEreelng in rrlting to bear aI1responsibility for defending agaJ.nst any iction that-nay be takenby the DNR to contest the varlance. Chniel aeconded the uotlon.Worknan and Chniel voted Ln favor of the uotion and Wataon uasopposed.
The lten wil.l be appealed to the Clty Council on SepteEber 9, 1991.
C. W. FREEMAN FoR A VARfANCE TO ALITOW A SECOND SITilIIER RESTDENCE TOBE IOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND IOCATED OT{ I'TS 8-10 AI{D ,A
PORTTON OF I.oT 7. SI'NSET HTLL. 7{31 DOGWOOD ROAD.
Aanenson gave the staff report.
Acting Chair Watson indicated that ahe had received a letter fronJanet lrl. Quist in support of the actlon tonigbt.
Aanenson indicated that Ehe had received a caII frorn a party thatdid not wish to glve his nane, who lndicated that he trad iignld tUe{.::rp petitlon in favor of this request. Houever, thd callerindicated that he uas not in fact in fivor of lt and ciains to havesigned the petition under sone duress.
The .applicant desclibed his request. IIe Lndicated that heoriginally had four hones and that- the guest houae had been on thesite for 43 years. He stated that lt was ln fanily ownershlp andhe was going to retire with his wife. to the ner h5ne. He slatedthat they needed ttre old cottage Eolely for fanily gatherlngs. Heindicated that this is not tha firEt iuest housd o'n the like anathat a- garage located on the adjacent property bad been ueed in aguest house in the past, although lt no longlr vas Ln use. Ur.Freenan^aclnovledged. that he dld-Eign the buliating perrlt preparedby Btaff uhich contained the condition that the grieit rrousi eitherbe rernoved or nade uninhabit-able- prior to obtairilng a certificateof occupancy.- However, .!e t.npl, tgtl^ that he uas foiced to cign toobtain hiE building pernit. Ha belleved that his septlc "ysit, wasover built and fulIy capable of acconnodattng the €wo uniie.
Martin Jones, a neighbor, testlfied that the cabin uas there eincebefore he noved in the nelghborhoodl ln 1950 and he spoke.in Eupportof keeping it.
worknan questioned about the precedence setting varue if this wereto be approved.
Board of Adjustnents and AppeaIEMinutes of August 26, 1991
Page 4
Krauss lndicated that the precedent of allowinE two hones on a lotcould potentially cause problens el8euhere.
l{ayor Chniel questioned the atreet rlght-of-way for Dogvood vis-a-viB the location of the hoDe. Ee lnqulred as to uhethei or not thecity couLd put a notice ln the chain-of-tlt1e that rould notify anew
- owner that you sould be obligated to Dake the drellinguninhabitable.
city Attorney KnutEon lndlcated that thts vas not possible. If avariance uere to be approved, ttre varlance runE ulLfr ttre property
and therefore rould not ceaae to be valld siuply because prorpert!,ounership .changed hands.. In the future, eontone coula clalieng3the inposition of conditions on the variance and rould probabiyprevail .
The Board decided to tabl.e action on the varlance request anddirected the city Attorney to develop an ordinance auendient thatuould a11ow for the Io_cation of a guest hone on a RSF lot. Theylndicated to the applicant that they yould coneider euch airordinance change in future but did not guarantee that it uould beadopted and that Dtr. freenan uould be obllgated to ablde bywhatever decision is taken ln the future.
Krauss inquired as to hou to adninlster this request since it wasoriginally our intent not to lssue the certificatl of occupancy forthe new hone until the guest house el.ther reDoved or -rendered
uninhabitable.
After some discussion lt was agreed that the Clty Attorney rroulddraft a document to be signed b-y the appllcant uhiCh would oLligatehin to abide by whatever condltions are inposed in the future.
)ITY OF
EHANHISSEN
BOA DATE:
CC DATE:
CASE *:
By:1
4u9.26, 1991
91-11 VARAI-Jaff: v
STAFF REPORT
Fz
L)
=0-L
Varj.ance to Allow firo Principal Buildings to be Erected
on a single Building L.ot and a 28 Foot Variance to the
Reguired 30 Foot Front Yard setback for the Purpose of
Keeping a sunmer cabin
and a portion of Lot 7, Sunset Hills on- 7 43L Dogiwood Road
PROPOSAL:
I'CATION:
APPLICANT:
Lots 8, 9 and 10,
Inke llinnewashta
C. w. and Barbara FreeDan
5808 Crescent Trail
Minneapolis, HN 55436
PRESENT ZONING:RsF, Residential Single Farnily
Approxiroately 102,000 square feetACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ANACENT ZONING AND
I,AND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARA TER. :The site is a riparian lot to Iake
Uinnerrashta. . It contains a residence .under
construction. The sLte is al.so heavily
wooded.
2OOO I.AND USE PI,AN:La e Lot Residential
E
hJ
Ea
N-RSTS.RSF
E - RR and Doguood Road
W - Iake llinnewashta
Not available.
(
LAKE
HITI(EUA'H7A
RD
PUD-R
9
t
I/rrl.a tlrcEtotrvt
0n I
G9'
II
i
STJOE
L
'KE
-\
Lrzadlt
w
A2
a2ro 3tr ! cr
F
s
IB
k
I
Freenan Variance
August 25, L997
Page 2
APPLTCABLE REGUI,ATIONS
Section 2O-9O2, lru1tiple priacipal buildiDgs oD tL€ Barr6 lot statesthat in any single fanily detached residentiaL district, not morethan one principal building shall be perroitted to be erected on asingle building }ot.
BACKGROUND
In !tay, 1991, the City issued a building petait for a lesidence to
be located at 7431 Dogrrood Road. The site originally contained 3cabins. Thro of those cabins have been denoLished. The third
sunmer cabin renains and a ner, 4 bedroom residence is beingconstructed. Staff approved the building pernit for the newresi.dence with the condition that it be recorded in the chain oftitle of the property that the existing structure located on theeasterly portion of Lot 8 (the renaining sunner cabin) not be usedfor habitation. Water and plunbing shall be disconnected prior toissuance of a certificate of occupancy.
The site is conprised of severa). underlying lots which have beenconbined into a single tax parcel. The existing dwelling issetback only 2 feet fron the Doguood Road right-of-way.
Staff would nornally have asked that aII pre-existing dwellings be
renoved as a condition of obtaining the building pernit. Houever,on a similar request elsewhere in the coumunity the owner aakedthat he be allowed to naintain the dwelling as a storagebuilding/playhouse. Staff allowed this to occur but stipuLatedthat all power and utilities be disconnected to ensure that itwould not be used for habitation. I{e also had a notice placed inthe chain of title indicating that the building uas not to be usedas a dwelling. Given this prior experience we decided to offer the
sarne flexibility to this applicant.
Iire understand the applicantrs deslre to offer housing for hisfanily on vacations and outings. We further note that the currentcondition of the aite rrith one neu hone and one old cottage inplace of three cottages, represents an J.nprovenent. Hciwevei, wecannot find a rationale to support the request.
On Auglrst 5, L991, the applicant subnitted a variance applicationrequesting to continue the use of the suDmer cabin.
ANALYSIS
A variance rnay be granted by the Board of Adjustnents and Appealsor City Council only if all of the folloring- criteria are nEt:
Freeman Variance
Aug'ust 26, l99L
Page 3
a
*
b
*
c
*
d.
That the literal enforcenent of this Chapter rrould.cause unduehardship. nundue hardshipr ueans the property cannot be putto reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings,
shape or topography. Reasonable use Lncludes a use made by anajority of conparabLe property within five hundreat (5OO) faetof it. The intent of this provision is not to all.ow aproliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developedneighborhoods pre-existLng standards exist. Variances tlatbl.end with these pre-existing standards without departing fronthen meet this criteria.
staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the subj ectproperty and discovered that there are a nuEber ofstructures that are located within the front yardsetback, except that those Etructures are accessorystructures consisting of garages and sheds. A).Iowing a
sunmer cabin to remaln within the front yard setback willcreate a precedent and wilL depart fron the Etandards setin that neighborhood. Hore inportantly, alloving tuodrrtellings to renain on a single parcel creates a newprecedent of some concern to Etaff.
That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is
based are not applicable, generally, to other property trithinthe same zoning classiflcation.
The request, if approved, willdeviates from the surroundingsubdivision.
create aproperty standardin the
that
sahe
Ihat the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desireto increase the value or income potential of the parcel ofland.
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desireto j.ncrease the value or incone potential oi the parcelof land.
That the alleged difficulty or hardship ls not a self-createdhardship.
* The difficulty or hardship is sel.f-:created. The city hasan obligation to ensure that a lot Is used in a D,nnerconsistent with our codes. The new dvelling, uhich is a{ bedroon hone, neets the criteria.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrinental tothe public rrelfare or inJurious to other land or inprovenentsin the neighborhood in ,hich the parcel of land is located.
e.
freenan Variance
August 26, l99L
Page 4
f.
* Granting of this variance will resuLt in setting aprecedent uithin this neighborhood and introducing newatandards. Furtherroore, the existing septic systencannot accoumodate two units and the Building Officialhas indicated in his attached neno that a new septicdesign be subnitted for approval.
That the proposed'variation sill not irnpair an adequate supplyof light and air to adJacent property or substantiallyincrease the congestion of the public streets, or increaselthe danger of fire, or endanger the public safety orsubstantially dirninish or irnpair property values sithin the
neighborhood.
The applicant has indicated in his letter that he isrequesting to use thts cabin during a linited tine periodduring the sunner Eieason. Ho!'rever, it is very possiblethat a future owner of this residence rrould rent out thecabin and congestion could result on Dog'wood Road,especially since this road is a dead end and substandardin width.
*
The applicant is requesting a variance to locate tuo principalstructures (residential units) on a single building 1o1. TLisrequest violates the Zoning ordinance reguirenents oi section 20-902.
Staff nade the applicant arrare of the city ordinance at the tinethe building permit ras requested. We further attenpted to give asnuch flexibility as possible by not requiring that the dwelling berenoved, only rnade uninhabitable and that provisions be rnade toproperly notify all future ownera of the property.
The 1ot has an existing on-site selrage treatnent system. At thetine the building perait was issued for the construcEion of the newfour bedroon duelling, it was understood that the applicant nouldbe using-the existing on-site selrage treatnent systen.- This systencan handle up to 720 gallors of effluent per day. City Coderequires a 4 bedroom duelling to have a nininun Lt eoo lallon9ap19ity. Assurning that the cabJ.n ( sunner house) is a type IIIdwelling unit which is the least restrictive the iode permlls, anadditional 180 gallons is required. Based upon the abojve, for thetto units to be using the Eame septic systernf a Dound uust be sizedto handle at Least 78O gallons per day.
Based upon the foregoing, staff is recornrnending that the variancesbe denied.
Freeman Variance
August 26. L99L
Page 5
RECOIT{MENDATTON
Staff is recomnending that the Board of AdJ ustnents and Appeals
deny Variance Reguest *91-11 for reasons defined in the report.
ATTACHI.IENTS
l{eno froD Building Official dated Augtust 20, 1991.Letter from applicant.Petition from neighborhood.site plan.
copy of special conditions attached to the buildlng pernit.
1
2
3
4
5
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CITY OF
CH[I'IH[SEEN
individual serege treatnent systeD .design bedwellings es a condition of approval for aol the nes dwelling rill not be pernitted riththe current septic system.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I
FROttl: Steve A. Xirchuan, Bui lding Of f icial Sq.t
DATE: August 20, 19 91
SUBJ: Var i ance r 9l-11 (Freeroan)
Bacleround:
Ana I sis:
Recoppendat i on:
A bui liling perDit ras issued for a ner 4 bedroon drelling ueing theexisting onsite serage tree.tDent systeD. The City hes plins for theexisting systeD. It is a nound; and it rould appear thal it is sizedto handle ?20 gallons o? efflucnt per day. The bui lding peroit rasissued rith the unilerstanding lhat the eristing dreltini(-s) rere tobe removed lrou the septic systeD.
Individual Sewage Tr'eatment Systeu Standards, Chapter ?0g0, rhich ispart of the chanhassen city code, contains the requireuents ior systeusizing. 7080.01?0 states "The minimum dally sewafe flor estiuated forany.dwelling shall provide for at least tvo bedroous. For oultipleresidential units, the estiEated daily serage flor shall consist olthe sun ol the flows ol each individual uuit.,' Based on this, theDound at 7431 Dogrood nust be slzed to handle at leest ?g0 gallons perday. This estiuate is based on the new 4 bedroou dwel l ing 1-SOOgallons), and an essu,pt ion that the existlng drelling is tro bedrooosor less and is a type III dnelIing (180 gallons). fUis is tbe leastrestrictive the code peruits. Based on this the existing systeo istoo smal I .
I recommend a nes
submi tted for both
var i ance. Occupancyboth drvel I ings using
ta,t,PRINTED ON REC\CLED PAPER
VARIANCEREQUEST
rOR FREEMAN PROPERTY ON SUNSETHILL.I.AKE MINNEWASTITA
This propcrty has bccn in thc fa.rrily^lor aboul 50 ycrrs. My witc :nd I havc owncd thc propcrty sincc
-1962. Thc propcrty consists of tols 8, 9 and 10 pius 2g oi lot z on thc cast ,tror" oii -to
Minncrvashta" lctory th'rs rcar thcre urcrc thrri summc c.bi$ oo u" p-p.[ . tio oI thcsc cabioswcrc dcmolishcd to build onc ycar uound house. The lhird "u*., ""bio iiiinr. In ordcr to obtaina building permit wc wcrc rcquired to sign a paper guanstccing that thc rhird nousc wouru aot be usedIor habitation. It is this point for which"*" ;'r.q;dirg
" ""I"rr"..
3:*r:-r:1f b=:
$atherilC, poinr lor ourlamily for more than 40 ycars. The house in questionnas Dccn uscd as a Eucst house for that pcriod ol timc. Thc housc is oot wintcrizcd and in faci is not
:_::th wintc?zinq. All plumbing is uscablc only in 1f,6 5umns1. yfc would lil,c to continuc to usc thcnousc as a placc [or our childrcn ind our grandchildrca to spcnd e fcw wccls ia the gu6mcr. Total
Lumm1 ysage in the past fan ycars has becn no morc thaa ihrcc urccks. we do not urticipatc thatthat will incrcase.
Thc plumbing has cuncntty been disconncctcd as pcr the building permit requ6t.
. JTITION FOR VARIANCE RE.
FREEMAN BESIDENCE - 7li}I DOGWOOD ROAD
The undersigned neighbor ol the C. W. F eeman's at 7lil1 DogMrood Road. Ercelsior. Mn. 55331
suppon$eir request for i \rariance b allowthem b continuo b u3a lheir guest house on [,o18 Sunset
Hills. h has been used br forty years as a guest house. The house is nanerio be us€d lor year
around lMng and ne\rer b be rent€d. h is b be used by members of $e family sudr as drildren end
grardc,lildren..
ADDRESS
lo o
d
off (h
7{tz-
6-u)ooD
ce-./
fltr
/J )e)"".4 I
ISJip
:E
rt
D
Ja
<.)
(t=
-lU
<,=\- ()
\.\AS.-\.€,
=
\J
t-oo
\l]
6
SJ${
1
-"9--.s
!
$
.)
. r,'
0ltfl
,lrl
E{
tJ
\\v
{l
{
E.\
oI
rJ!
}Jr)(l
iit-+J
k
s
Sa
8rdrtr,sS
6
B
e
.tlF\^d'+JOO-sJ+d b O O 0 rr f 6--;!-C(rt'ftrr
$
J,o
v{
\,
.0r
!)
t
\'oI
$
a
g
;I
9).t\
o
X
I
1I
s
I
t','
\f-
I
- -1'
b 'Lrq I
f .r .{Jrrr-cc6e
od
0-
f-,
O\ Ix'l
No
6-
I
I+
00
C
ts,
6g
'{
\
I
t
rtrc
a
s
.lrlt
\
t
L- -\)
rl
ll
6ait n
I
\
rli
t i
I
\
5
<t
tr
\
I
\r
a
l',
t \
\
\
\,\
It
'I ix
Y.
'- -'a\'c"sx
g\l)$
<\
7
rS
\)
4Jo
Ssl
rl tl
I
IJ
s
\$
t't
I
q
t
I
I
I
t
\
I
I
I
\
I
d
$Ll
Y,,gr
$L
..i
D
s7
\r3tL
F,\I;0rll.
CH[I{H[SEEN
NSTI CE TTR. APPLICA}.ITS FER EJILDTNG PEuuITs
FOR NEt' SINGLE FAIILY AND IITPLE( IiO'G ONS1RUCTICN
7+Address I Dar a
The following are reguired by Ci
Permi t approval:
lat-7,brq. tD Block_
S.in>ei 'rtit( o(r L.r. 14 i nr,e-r,srrshto.ty Ordinance and are a cordi tion of Buildirg
l. All disturbed areas mrst be seeded on sodded to prevent erosion.
2. unless already on the site, at lesst one tree oust be planted on privateproperty in the front yard setback of each lot. rhe tree mrst be deci duousat leest 2 t/2" in diameter at the tioe of installation.
3. Erosion control rsust be naintained throughout the eonslruction period anduntil new vegetation is establ ished
4. AII publi6 streets nust be maintained in a ctean cordition.
5. Drainage and gnadinE rus t be cqleted in cql iance rith approved plans.
t. Additional requi reoents relatirg to tree preservation, Iandscapirg drainage,placement and elevation of the hcme and related issues nay be iSsea. rheserequirements are condi tions of approval as granted by the city 6rmcil. Itis your obligation to DAintain erosion control, tree preservaiion, dnainageland condition of public streets dunirg construction ol the hoe.
SPECIAL O,IDITIOJS !1-L ;u ta lfnp t.ha\n ^l Till*n
n
-oho.\be itcoOer-l prt6f +o l5tuArlcg- o ec.
Fai lure to coryly uith these reguirements could result in the lssuance ol a stopwork order. Certi ficates of Occupancy will not be issued until all condi t ionshave been coryl ied with. If the corditions caDnot be Det ptior to reguest irg aO due to weather or other circunstances, linancialthe City must be pnovided prior to release of tbe @. fhe @uDt ol the 8uaren-tee will be established by City staff. Financial guarantees lor seedr/sod andthe tree is $?50.00
I heve
,\r r,,
read th; il,is notice and fully understand its regui reuents.
5- rl-1ri:,1 / ,- ,tl
caDt Signature Date
-t0 -qCity Staff Date
CITY OF
690 COULTER ORIVE . P.O. BOX 147' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 5531 7
(612) 9s7-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
guarantees satisfactory to
CITY OF CITANHASSEN
CARVER AND HEI{NEPIN COT'NTIES, IIINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
III ORDINNNCE IIiEIIDIITC CETPTER 20 OF
TAE CEIIIEISSEX CITY CODE, TEE ZOlrIf,G
oRDTNANCE, CONCERXIXG ICCESSORY Dr:ELLIXGS
T}IE CITY COI'NCTL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSE}{ ORDAINS:
Eectl.oD 1.Section 20-1, of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding the follorring definition:
Accessory Drrel l ing:A second dwelling unit on the sane 1otas a single fanily dwelling for use by the household
employees, relatives, or social guests of the occupant ofthe nain dwelling.
Sectl.oD 2. chapter 20 of the chanhassen city code is
amended by adding Section 20-266 to read as follows:
8ec. 20-166. lccessory DyelllDgs.
The following applies to accessory dwellings:
(1) The floor area of the accessory dnelling may not
exceed fifty percent (50t) of the floor area of theprincipal dwe11ing.
(21 The accessory dwelling nay not have a separate
drivenay curb cut.
(3) The accessory dwellingat least ten (10) years prior toprincipal duel1ing.
must have been constructedthe construction of the
Eection 3. Section 20-6L4 of the Chanhassen cit y code is
amended by adding subparagraph (2) to read as follows:
(2) Accessory dwelling.
SectioD a. This ordinance shall be effective
upon its passage and publication.
08/28/91
innediately
PASSED AND ADOPrED by the Chanhassen City council this _
day of , 1991.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, C1erk/Uanager Donald J. chniel , Itlayor
(Publisheat in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1991. )
CITY OF
EH[NH[EEEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
!{EI,IORANDIJI.{
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
su&f:
Planning Comission
PauI Krauss, Planning Oirector $?
Septenber 26, L99L
Draft Ordinance Changes/Residential Components
PUD ordinance
for the
PROPOSAL/SU}IMARY
On numerous occasions over the past year, we have discussed the PUDordinance. It has resulted in the approval of a PUD ordinance,which is currently on the books, that represents a draraaticdeparture frorn an inprovenent to the original ordinance.
One of the main topics of discussion during the ordinance lras
concerning PUDS for single fanily residential dlrellings. Over thecourse of several neetings and presentations, the planning
Connission had generally agreed that a ninimum lot size of grOOO
square feet vould probably be acceptable and general terns werediscussed. In the interest of expediting approval of the bulk ofthe PUD Ordinance, the Planning Conmission agreed to leave theissue of single farnily residentiat PUDS unresolved and recommendedapproval of the balance of the ordinance which ultinately was theaction taken by the City Council. Our purpose in corning before you
today is to resolve renaining concerns regarding the residential
PUD and hopefully gain the reconmendation of approval so ttrat thistoo can become part of the City Code.
As before, staff continues to reconnend a 91000 square foot minimunlot size. Modifications havei however, been incorporated into theordinance designed to ensure that a PUD does not arrive on your
desk with only 9,000 square foot lots but that there be a mix of1ot sizes provided. Furthernore, the ordinance has been a:nended sothat each applicant nust denonstrate that each lot is able to
accommodate a 50r x 40r building pad plus a 12t x 12r deck withoutintruding into any required setback area or protected easement.Hopefully, these and other standards contained in the ordinancewill reduce or elininate the variance issues that have occurred.
Another natter of concern dealt with Section 20-506(e) concerningthe reservation of open space rrithin a PUD. Initially, staff had
recommended that an across the board reguirement of establishing a25* open space be nandated. Several developers reviewing the
ordinance pointed out that, in their opinion, this was unfair sinceit in effect resulted in a penalty wherein even a PUD that had15,000 square foot lots or larger rrould be required to have thesane open space requirements as a 9, OOO square foot lotsubdivision. Thus, a sliding scale uas reconnended and has beenincorporated into the current Code. Staff continues to support theidea of increased open space requirenents for residential pUDs.
The pronotion of clustered developroent that results is, in ouropi.nion, a fundarnental inprovenent inherent in residential pUDs.
This was exhibited in the current Lundgren proposal to develop thesite on Lake Lucy Road. On this site, which is being developed asa PUD, the 33.3 acre site with 37 single farnily lots results in 8.Gacres of pernanently protected wetland plus 3.8 acres ofpermanently protected tree preservation areas and wetland bufferyards. The resulting subdivision wilt result in the pernanent setaside of 12.4 acres of open space, which is equivalent to 41t ofthe gross area of the site. In addition, clustering of developnentand resultinq lessening of environmental irnpacts is beingacconplished in this project through the reduction of front yard
setbacks that will allow hones clustered rnore tightly to the road
system.
fn another change, staff is proposing Section 20-506(a), which arestandards and guidelines for single family attached or clustered
home PUDs. We feel this nas an issue that tent unanswered with theoriginal discussion which pertained sole1y to single fanilydetached structures. The proposed ordinance would allow theseresidential PUDS to occur only on parcels guided for mediun andhigh density uses by the city Conprehensive p1an. In these cases,urininun lot sizes down to 5,OOO square feet may be al1owed.
The last revision being proposed by staff is basicaLly ahousekeepinq iten. Last year, the city established a buffer yardrequirenent for industrial areas indicated on the ComprehenlivePlan when they share property tines with residentiaL aieas. Thebuffer yard language hras added to the pUD ordinance last year;however, through an editing error on staffis part, it was. deletedaccidently when the new PUD ordinance rras put into ptace this pastspring. Therefore, staff is recornmending that llny Ue added toSection 20-505,. Required ceneraL Standards, in the underlying pUDordinance. This wiLl take care of this error and put the bufferyard section hrhere it belongs in the ordinance.
Residential PUD
October 2, l99L
Page 2
with residential PUDS in the past where these concerns were nottaken into account.
Residential PUD
October 2, l99L
Page 3
RECOMIIIENDATION
Staff recornnends that the Planning Connission approve anendDents toArticle VIII, Planned Unit Development District for the City of
Chanhassen dealing with standards and gruidelines for single fanily
detached PUDS, single farnily attached PUDS, and the establishmentof buffer yards.
ATTACHUENTS
L.
2.
Proposed draft ordinance.
uemo froD PauI Krauss dated June 5, 1991 and ninutes dated ![ay15, 1991.
lleno from PauL Krauss dated l,larch 15, 1991 and ninutes dated
l,Iarch 5 , 19 91 .
3
CITY OF CEANHASSEN
CARVER AND IIENNEPIN COT'NTIES, I,IINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUENDING CIIAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Developnent District ofthe Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows:
Section 20-505. Standards and cuidelines for
Detached R6sidleDtial PUD I s.
Single FaniIy
a) ltlininun Lot Size - The single fanily residential PUD allowsIot sizes down to a mininun of 9,000 square feet. Theapplicant rnust denonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizesconsistent with loca1 terrain conditions, preservation ofnatural features and open space and that lot sizes areconsistent with average building footprints that will beconcurrently approved lrith the PUD. ID ao iDstaDc€ ahallproject density exceed Conpleh€Dsiv€ PIaD gruidellDes. Theapplicant must donoDstrate that oach lot ig able to
accoEDodlate a 50t x l0r bulldiag pad aDat L2. a. L2. d€cksithout latrudiag iDto rDy raquiredt setback arsa or protactive
easeBeDt.
b)Minimun Lot width atright-€f-fa1l.BuilaliDg Setback 90 feet s.#ag
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
d) Minirnuur setbacks:
PUD Exterior -Front
Rear
Side
Y
Ya
Ya
ard
rd
rd
30 feet
20 feet
20 feet
10 feet
e)
Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to orbehind principal structure a nininum of 10 feet fron propertyline.
The applicant nust demonstrate that the flexibility providedby the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural featuressuch as.tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. Theseareas are to be pernanently protected as public orprivate@ tracts or protected bypernanently recorded easements. The Planning Conmission andCity Council wil.I make a deternination regarding thesuitability of land to be set aside as open space. Open fieldareas, area erith steep slopes and sinilar land llill only be
suitability of land to be set aside as open 6pace. Open fieLdareas, area with steep slopes and sinilar land uilL only be
accepted when land containing natural features described aboveis unavailable in the PUD. Where open field areas representthe only available option, these areas shall be landscaped
and/ or reforested according to plans approved by the City. *
Public park space nust beprovided to Deet ol:+xeeed requirenents established by theCity. Park areas r.quirod by the City Day be used to satisfyup to 50t *5* of the standards. Wetlands and other waterbodies protected by City ordinance and permanent easement canalso be used to satisfy up to 25* of this standard.
The followlng table illuatratos EiDiEu! opetrrequirenents:sPace
square
3quar3
squar€
sguare
square
aquare
3guar6
f)
OpeD Space PerceDtage
f6etfeetfeet
faetleetfe6tfaet
An overall landscaping plan
contain the following:is required. The plan shal1
1) Boulevard Plantings - Iocated in front yard areas theseshall require a mix of over-story trees and otherplantings consistent with the site. Landscaped bermsshall be provided to screen the site fron rnajor roadtays,railroads and nore intensive land uses. We).l designedentrance nonument is required. In pl.ace of nass gradingfor building pads and roads, stone or decorative blockretaining rralls shall be enployed as required to preserve
nature trees and the sites natural topography.
2, Foundation Plantings - A nininum budget for foundationplants shaLl be established and approved by the City. As
each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall bereguired to instalL plant materials meeting or exceedingthe required budget prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable tothe city.
3) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least twoover-story trees. Preservation of existing trees havinga diameter of at least 5 inches at 4 feet in height can
15r000
1a r 0o0
13 ,000
12 r 000
11r000
10 r 000
9 r 000
10. o*
12.51
1s.0t
17. st
20.0!t
22.5*2s.ot
2
Averag6 Net Lot al.z8(ercludiag aleslgnatedl yetlaDds)
2) * Prohibition against free standing garages nay berequired by the clty rhen lt is felt that utrattachedgarages yiII be ilifflcult to accouoalat€ du6 to snall lotaiz6s. ff an attached garage is to be converted toliving space at some tirne in the future, the applicantvrilI have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to
accommodate a two car garage rrithout variances to obtaina pernit.
3) * requ*re en€ that a-pl*eantE fer bu*lding -e--arits -e
re$#i red te denenstra
+atniaftees-t
3)Guidelines regulating the placeroent of air conditioners,
dog kennels, storage buildings and other accessory usesthat could potentially inpact adjoining parcels due tosnalI lot sizes.
s)
SectioD 20-507. StaDdards .Dd cuideli!€sIttached or Cluster-EoDe PIrD ! B.
for thgle FaDily
a) 8lngle fanily attached, cluster, sero tot liDe and sinilardwelling types shall oDly be atlonedl oD sites guiated for
D€diun or high deDsity residoDtLal uaes by tha city CbaDbasseD
CompreheDsive PlaD.
l,tinilruD lot sizes. uiliDun lot aizes dor! to Srooo sguarefeet Eay be allored. Eorever, La no case wllI gross deDsity€xceed guidellnes establisbed by the City of CbaahasseDconprehensive Plaa.
b)
8€tback StaadardE,/atructures and parkitrg:
PgD Exterior -Interior Public Right-of-yay -Otber setbacks
50 foet
20 feetEstablishedt by
PUD lgrseEeDt
c)
of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maxinizetree preservation.
Architectural Standards - The applicant should denonstratethat the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural
design and building naterials. While this requirenent is notintended to nininize design flexibility, a set ofarchitectural ataadarals eoyertanits should be prepared for City
approval . The prinary purpose of this section is to assurethe City that high qual,ity design rrill be enployed and that
houe construction can take place vithout variances or inpactto adjoining lots. The PIrD AgraatneDt eovenaiiEs should includethe following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatnents.
3
d)
e)
The applicant nust denonstrate that the flexibility providedby the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural featuressuch as tree stands, retlands, ponds and scenic views. Theseareas are to be pernanently protected as public orprivat tracts or protected bypennanently recorded easenents. A nininum of 25t of the grossarea of the PUD is to be set aside Ln these protectedcategories. The Planning CoDmission and City Council wil.I
make a deternination regarding the suitability of land to beset aside as open space. Open field areas, area rrith steepslopes and sinilar Iand uill only be accepted when landcontaining natural features described above is unavailable inthe PUD. where open field areas represent the only availableoption, these areas shall be landscaped and/or reforestedaccording to pLans approved by the City. tsrri+ianr*of--+s*-of*n thesepro+eete+-ea+egeri€s=- Public park space nust be provided toneet orexeeed requirenents established by the City. park
areas required by the city rnay be used to satisfy up to SO*+5+ of the standards. wetlands and other witei bodiesprotected by city ordinance and permanent easement can also beused to satisfy up to 25t of this standard.
An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shallcontain the fotlowing:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Iocated in front yard areas theseshall . require a mix of over-story trees and otherpLantirgs consistent with the site. Landscaped bernsshall be provided to screen the site fron rnajor roadways,railroads and Dore intensive Land uses. we1l desidledentrance monumen-t is required. In pLace of nass graaingfor building pads and roads, stone or decorative blociretaining t aIIs shal1 be enployed as reguired to preservenature trees and the sites natural topography. -
2t Foundation aDd ylrd plantings - A roininun budget forfoundation plants shall be established and appr6ved bythe City. As each parcel is developed in thi- pUD, thabuilder shall be required to insttlt plant nate;ial.srneeting or exceeding the required hidqet prioi t"issuance of certifica€e of occuplncy or pro.iide iinanciafguarantees acceptab).e to the City.
3' 'lea- Yatid The rear ya-d sha+I eonta+n at +east tuo
eet -tn he*ghE ea;@++enrent.
3) Tree_ preservation ls a prinary goat of the puD. Adetailed tree survey_should be pieplred during the designof the PUD and the plans should be developed io rnaxiniie
4
tree preservation.
f)Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstratethat the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural
design and building naterials. Ilhile this requirement is notintended to nininize design f1exibllity, a set ofarchitectural atandards eereftants should be prepared for City
approval . The prinary purpose of this section is to assurethe City that high quality design wilt be enployed and that
hone construction can take place rrithout variances or inpactto adjoining lots. The PIrD lg,roanoDt ee+enan+s should includethe follorring:
1) standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2') A prohibition against free standing garages. If an
attached garage is to be converted to living space at
sone tirne in the future, the applicant will have to
demonstrate that there is sufficient room to acconmodate
a two car garage without variances to obtain a pernit.
3) * requ+renen€ tshats app++eants foii building perrE*ts be
-^-..i -^r .L^ ,r^-^--}-^}^ .L!-^.L }r-^-^ l - ^.,aa: -: ^-! r^^- .!^
-:ltqa. Eq
var.i+nees-t
3)Guidelines regrulating the placenent of air conditioners,
dog kennels, storage buildings and other accessory usesthat could potentially inpact adjoining parcels due tosnall lot sizes (Iots under 15,000 square feet).
Section 2. Anend section 2o-5o5, Reguired General standards,
by adding the following:
(n) Buffer yards. The city conprehensive PIan establishes a
requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be establishedin areas indicated on the PIan where higher intensity uses
interface uith low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot
buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs al.ong apublic street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required
where the interface occurs on internal lot lines.
The buffer yard is an additional setback requirenent. It is to be
cumulatively calculateit with the required setbacks outlined above.
The fult obligation to provide the buffer yard sha1l 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 conbination of berning,
landscaping and/or tree preservation to roaxi:nize the bufferingpotential. To the extent deened feasible by the City, new
5
plantings shall be designed to require the minimun of naintenance,however, such maintenance as Day be required to naintain
consistency lrith the approved plan, shall be the obligation of theproperty ordner.
Buffer yards shaLl be covered by a pemanently recordedconservation easeuent running in favor of the City.
In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation providebuffering satisfactory to the City, or rhere guality si.te planningis achieved, the City may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to50t. The applicant sha1l have the full burden of denonstrating
compliance with the standards herein.
6
7CITY OF
EIIf,NH[SEEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5iU|9" b!.,v t i..,ro..rol
f,nJc;^t ,/k
I.d
!,TEI,IOR,ANDI'I,I
TO:
rROI!!:
DATE:
SUBT:
RfJEl
Del-rLE ._-a.S3L
"::- i.r .' I '. .Don Ashworth, City llanaqer
Pau]. Krauss, Planning Director
June 5, 1991
rl p,-
b-,o-,? I ._
Reconmended Modifications to the PUD Ordinance
staff has been working uith the Planning coDmission on develoPing
a new PUD ordinance for our conmunity over the Past several months.
This has long been a concern of staffrs since te believe the
existing PUD 6rdinance is extrenely inadequate. zundanentalIy, it
providei the developer with all o-f the ftexibility .usuallyissociated with the PUD ordinance but is very poor on defining what
the cityrs expectations are for higher quality deve-lopment that v'e
should -fe reieiving in return. The current ordinance contains
virtually no stand;rds that establish ninimum criteria against
which a -puO i= to be reviewed. we also note that it is conmonly
accepted by many on the council and Planning Conmission- that. a PUD
aesiinatio-n nusi be earned, that in exchange for the flexibility,
tfre iity is to get a better and higher gual.ity developnent than
would o€herwise Le the case. ft is interesting to note that this
trade-off is nowhere to be found in the current ordinance. Lastly,
the single fanily standards in the PUD ordinance do not appear to
be worliing. They were originally adopted - to amend the PUD
ordinance -due to fhe approval of several residential PUD. thich
served only to cran more houes on srnaller 1ots. There was no
trade-off in terms of higher quality, design or open sPace and the
end result is that thers are a larger number of variance requests
that a coning from these subdivisions. However, no one has since
used the new standards and uPon further review rre found out that
they realty rrere not working very ueII.
staff's concerns regarding the PUD ordinance is of more than
acadernic interest. - We truly believe that the PUD ordinance
represents the most ideal method for a city to regulate
deieloprnent, particularly developrnent that occurs on a large sca1e.
fhe pup ordinance is unique in that it gives a good deal of
latitude to work out an acceptable design cornproruise, neeting the
needs of the developer, surrounding property owners and of the
city. This program then becones part of a development contract
PUD ordinance
June 5, 1991
Page 2
that is in essence their zoning on the property. Nothing else canbe done on this property unless it is rezoned in the future. Asyou are probably aware, the City Council has a lot Dore latitude onapprovinq or denying rezoning than it does on approving a site plan
on a piece of ground that is already zoned for the use. We furthernote that we have a number of large tracts of land in the ne!, IIUSAarea which can be ideally developed with the PUD ordinance. Infact, we are rrorking with developers on two large 1OO+ acreindustrial parks that we envision using the PUD ordinance. Againstthis background, we believe that it was necessary to act quickly toadopt PUD ordinance amendments that rrould give us the guality of
development that we have a right to expect.
?he PLanning Conmission net to discuss this ordinance on several,occasj,ons. By in large, Dost of their connents focused on thesection of the ordinance dealing with single fanily housing. Attheir rneeting on Uay 16th, the Planning Commission reconrnended theadoption of all sections of the ordinance except those whichpertain directly to single fanily detached housing. They wished tocontinue action on this section to allow for additional discussion.
The reason lre took this action to separate out that part of theordinance is to aIlot the bulk of the PUD ordinance proceed to theCity Council for action so that rse will be in a position to dealwith developnent that will probably be coning along now that the
UUSA line has been relocated.
Ordinance anendment.
Planning Conmission minutes dated }lay 15, 1991.Staff report dated Uay 6, 1991.
1
2
3
STAFF RE COUMENDATT ON
staff reconnends that the City Council approve first reading of
anendments to Article VIII, Planned Unit DeveLopnent District.
ATTACH!{ENTS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE N,IENDING CHAPTER 20 OF TIIE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The city council of the city of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Developnent District ofthe Chanhassen City Code i.s amended as foLlows:
ARTTCLE VIII, PINNNED I'NIT DEVEI'P},IENT DISTRIST
DIVISTOII I. GENERAI,LY
Section 20-501. fntent.
P1asit
sta
var
pha
for
the
and
use
app
expcri
nned unit developnents offer enhanced flexibility to develop ae through the relaxation of Dost nornal zoning districtndards. The use of the PUD zoning also allorrs for a greateriety of uses, internal transfers of density, constructionsing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchangethis enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation thatdevelopnent.plan will result in a significantly higher quality
more sensitive proposal than rrould have been the case with theof other, more standard zoning districts. It will be thelicants responsibility to denonstrate that the Cityrsectations are to be realized as evaluated against the followingteria :
Planned unit developuents are to encourage the following:
(1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open spaceand protection of sensitive environmental features, includingsteep slopes, Dature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and sceniiviews .
(2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space andpublic facilities through nixing of land uses and assenbly anddeveloprnent of land in larger parcels.
(3) High quality of design and design corpatible uith surroundingland .uses, including both existing and planned. Sit;planning, landscaping and building architectuie should reflecthigher quality design than is found elsewhere in thecoromunity.
(4) Sensitive developnent in transitional areas located betrreendifferent land uses and along significant corridors within thecity.
CITY OF CHANIIASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, }ITNNESOTA
(s)
(6)
Developnent rrhich is consistent with the colnprehensive pl.an.
Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may
be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be
consistent rrith the conprehensive park plan and overall trail
p1an.
(7) Provision of housing affordable to alL income groups if
appropriate vithin the PUD.
(8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building
designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land
uses.
(9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce thepotential for traffic conflicts. Inprovements to area roads
and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Section 2O-5O2. Allowed uses.
Specific uses and perforDance standards for each PUD shall bedelineated in a developnent plan.
(a) Each PUD sha11 only be used for the use or uses for whichthe site is designated in the cornprehensive pl.an, exceptthat the city nay pernit up to 25 percent of the grossfloor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for landuses for which the site is not designated in the
coraprehensive plan if the city council finds that suchuse is in the best interests of the city and isconsistent with the requirements of this section.specific uses and perfornance standards for each pUD
shall be delineated in a PUD developnent p1an.
(b) Where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for uorethan one land use in the conprehensive plan, city nayrequire that the PUD include alL the land uses sodesignated or such conbination of the designated uses asthe city council sha1l deen appropriate to achieve thepurposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive p1an.
Section 20-503. District size and location.
(a) Each PUD shall have a minLmum area of 5 acres, unless theapplicant can denonstrate the exietence of one of thefol lowing :
1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or ofthe surrounding neighborhood such that development as.a
PUD rrill conserve a physical or topographic feature ofinportance to the neighborhood or cornnunity.
2l The property is directly adj acent to or across a right-of-way fron property uhich has been developed previously
as a PUD or planned unit residential developnent and uillbe perceived as and lri1l function as an extensj.on of thatpreviously approved developDent
3) The property is located in a transitional area betlreendifferent land use categories or on an internediate orprincipal arterial as defined in the conprehensive p).an.
Section 20-504. Coordination with other zoning regulations.
a) Subdivision review under Chapter 18 shall be carried outsj.multaneously with the review of a pUD. The plans requiredunder this chapter.shall be subDitted in addition to oi in aforn which niIl satisfy the requirenents of Chapter 18 for theprelininary and final p1at.
b) Site plan review under Article II, Division 6 of this codeshalL be carried out for each non-single fanily or duplexprincipal structure, that is proposed.
c)
c)
PUD plans shaLl be coordinated uith and in conpliance withprovisions of Article V, Flood Plain Overlay District; ArticlevI, wetland Protection, and Article VII, Shoreland OverlayDistrict.
section 20-505. Reguired general standards.
a) Tle city shall consider the proposed pUD fron the point ofview of all standards and purposes of the comprehenslve landuse plan to coordinate betrreen the proposed development thesurrounding use. The city shalL consider the location ofbuildings, cornpatibility, parking areas and other featureswith response to the topography of the area and existingnatural features, the efficiency, adeguacy and safety of theproposed layout of streetst the adequacy and location of greenareasi the adequacy, location and screening of non-conpatibleland uses and parking areas.
b) The applicant sball denonstrate that the pUD plan offers thegity hi-gher guality architectural and site design,landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and nature trtes
?nd buffering for adJoining properties that representinprovenents over nor:mal, ordinance atandards.
Density. An increase/transfer for density Day be all.owed atthe sole discretion of the city utilizing the followingfactors :
1) Density withln a PUD shall be calcul.ated on grosi acreagelocated within the property lines of ine site inaccordance with the land use plan.
2t The area where the denslty is transferred must be withinthe project area and owned by the proponent.
3)Density transfer in single fanily detached area will be
evaLuated using the iterns listed in Section 2o-506.
Density transfer eligible for Dultiple fanily areas arenot pernitted to be applied to single fanily areas.
4) In no case shall the overall density of the developnentexceed the gross denslty ranges identified in the
con prehensive p1an.
The city nay utilize incentives to encourage the constructionof projects which are consistent rrith the cityis housinggoals. Incentives nay include nodification of density andother standards for developroents providing low and moderatecost housing. Incentives Day be approved by the city onlyafter the developer and city have entered into an agreenent to
ensure that the lol, and noderate cost unlts remain availableto persons of 1ov and noderate incone for a specific period oftine.
d)
f)
Comprehensive
Plan Designation
Low or medium density
res idential
high density residential
office
conmercial (neighborhoodor conmunity)
cornmercial (regional)
industrial
Hard turface
Coveraqe (*)
30t
50t
7ot
70t
7o*
7ot
Individual lots within a PUD nay exceed these Btandards aslong as the average Deet6 these standards.
The setback for all buildings yithin a Pt D froD any abuttingstreet line shall be 30 feet for local streets and SO feetfrorn railroad ll.nes for collector or arterial Etreets, asdesignated in the conprehenslve plan, except that in no casesha1l the setback be less than the height of the building upto a rnaxinum of 100 feet. The setback for all buildings ironexterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street sttall be30 feet except that in no case shall. the setback be less thanthe height of the building up to a maximun of 1oo feet.Building setbacks from internal public streets shall bedeternined by the city based on characteristics of thespecific PUD. Parking lots and drivlng lanes shall be setback at least 20 feet fron aII exterior lot lines of a pUD.
e) Hard surface coverage 6hall be linited as follows:
Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single fanily -lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking
setbacks nay be required in order to provide effectivescreening. The city council 6ha11 nake a determinationregarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant.
Screening roay include the use of natural topography or earthberrning, existing and proposed plantings and other featuressuch as roadways and rretlands which provide separation ofuses. PUD|s nust be developed in conpliance wlth buffer yard
requirernents established by the Conprehensive P1an.
The setback for parking structures including decks and ranpsshall be 35 feet from loca1 streets and 50 feet fron all otherstreet cLassifications except that in no case shall thesetback be less than the height of the structure. parking
structure setbacks froD external Lot lines shall be 50 feet orthe height of the structure, whichever is greater whenadjacent to residential property, 35 feet uhen adj acent tonon-residential properties. Parking rtructure setbacks frominternal public or private streets shall be deterrlned by thecity based on characteristics of the specific PUD.
uore than one building nay be pJ.aced onrecorded lot in a PUD.
one platted or
At the tine PUD approval is sought fron the City, all propertyto be included within a PUD shaI1 be under unified ownershipor control or subject to such lega1 restrictions or covenantsas may be necessary to ensure conpliance with the approvedmaster developnent plan and final site and building plan.After approval , parcels nay be sold to other parties withoutrestriction, bowever, all parcels will rernain subject to the
PUD developnent contract that uill be recorded in each chain-of-tit1e.
Signs shaI1 be restricted to those which are perroitted in asign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated bypermanent covenants, established ln the PUD Developnentcontract.
s)
h)
i)
i)
k)
The requiranents contained in Articles XXIII, ceneralSupplemental Regulations, XXIV, Off-street parking andIoading, and XXV, Iandscaping and Tree Removal. Uay beapplied by the clty as Lt deens appropriate.
The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications andstandards for streets, utilities, public facilities andsubdivisions nay be subject to nodification fron the cityordj^nances ordinarily governing then. The City Council rnaytherefore approve streets, utillties, public facllities andland subdivisions which are not in conpliance rrith usualspecifications or ordinance reguirenents if it finds thatstrict adherence to such standards or requireroents is notrequired to neet the intent of this or to protect the health,
1)
safety or uelfare of the residents of the PUD, the surroundingarea or the city as a whole.
No building or other pernit shall be issued for any work onproperty included uithin a prbposed or approved PUD nor sha11any uork occur unless auch uork is in conpliance with .the
proposed or approved PUD.
Section 20-506. Reserved for Single Fanily Detached Residential.
section 2O-5o7. controls during construction and followingcompletion.
a) The. use of the land the construction, nodification oraLteration of any buildings or structures Ln a pUD sha1l begoverned by the final developnent pIan.
b) After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changessha1l be rnade in the approved final development plan for a pUD
except:
1) Any ninor extensions, alterations or nodifications ofexisting buildings or structures nay be authorized by thecity p).anner if they are consistent vith the purposes andintent of the final plan. No change authorized by thissection nay increase the bulk of any building structureby nore thln ten (10) percent.
Any bui-Iding or structure that is totallysubstantially- destroyed nay be reconstructed ontyconpliance with the final devel.opnent plan unles-sahendrlent to the final developnent plan is approved.
orin
an
2',)
c)
3) Changes in uses, any rearrangeDents of lots, blocks andbuilding tracts, changes in the provisions of connon openspaces, and all other changes to the approved finaldevelopnent plan nay be Eade only after a public hearingconducted by the planning coumission and upon finaiapprova] by the city council. Any changes shall. berecorded as aDendnents to the final developnent plan.
Major anendments to an approved Easter developuent plan Day beapproved by the city.council after revieu by thl planningconnission. The notification and public hearing proce-dure foisuch amendment shall be the EaDe as for appiovat of theoriginal PUD. A najor amendment is any anenduLnt shich:
1) Substantially alters the Location of buildings, par\ingareas or roads i
2) Increases or decreases the nunber of resldential dweltingunits by nore than five percent;
3) Increases the gross floor area of non-residential
buildings by nore than five percent or increases thegross floor area of any individual building by nore thanten percent i
4)Decreases the amount of open spacepercent or alters lt ln such a uayoriginal design or intended usei or
by nore than fiveas to change its
5)Creates non-conpliance sith any special condition
attached to the approval of the naster developnent p1an.
Section 2. This ordinance shalI be in fuII force andeffect from and after its publication' according to law.
Passed and adopted by the city council this _ day of. 1991.
ATTEST:
Don Ashrrorth, City Uanager Donald J. Chmiel, Uayor
(Published in the chanhassen Villager on
Planning Commission
May 15, 1991 - Page
Meet i ng
30
I like that. It's easy.
my r.rithdraural.
anyone else have anything on the bluff line? You have ourto do whatever. . .
Emm i ngs :
BatzIi:
Emm i ngs :
blessi ngs
Okay.
Str i ke
Ooes
her e
PauI Krauss presented the staff report on.this item. Chairman EmmingscalIed the public hearing to order.
Erhart: Let me ask you this. t"lhat other reason why a developer would wanta PUO as opposed to, anything other than a smaller lot? tJhat other reasonsin a residentiaL area? Is the crux?
OIsen: The setbacks -
Erhart: Okay, so then the question would be, Iet's say the guy just uranteddifferent setbacks. so he wanted to go to a PUo but the t"ray this is formednow, he automatically has got to give up 25?, even though he's willing tostick with the 15,OOO sqaure lots. That,s urhere I guess in looking atthis, if you Nere to use the minimum lot size r.rhich you ought to have as ascale. Like if it's.9,OOO, then it's 252. If it,s 10,OOO then it,s 2O". -If it's 11,OOO it's 182.
Krauss: That's a possibility. If you figure it on the average Iot size.
Erhart: t^Jell it seems to me it ought to be done on the average IotNot use the minimum Lot size at all. And you have a scale so thatit does allou him to get more total lots as the average gets smallerexchange we get some open land but I don't think you can just pick aand say that's it.
slze.
yeah,
and in
sPot
Krausss Realistically though nobody, r can't understand uhy somebody would
come in with 15,OOO square foot or better Iots and request a pUO. If thesole purpose of their requesting a PUD is to be let off the hook on setbackstandards or street widths or somelhing else, then there,s no net gain forthe city.
Erhart: Okay, so that's just as unrealistic as the guy coming in with 144
9,OOO square foot lots? tlhat I,m saying is there's going to be someplacebetHeen that spectrum. That particular development or that developer or
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE Ai,IEND},IENT TO Ai{END ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPT,IENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL OISTRICTS.
Ellson: You're saying as we squish peopl.e more, we get more open space?
Erhare: Yeah. And the advantage to the developer is that he gets morelots and He get more open space but what you can't do I think is pick onepoint and say, if you're going to come in for a pUO, Uhatever the reasonis, you're going to be on that point. Because then you give up anycreativity at aII to adapt to the land itself or what the developer'strying to accomplish there.
r.,hat he's trying to accomplish in terms of house styles and values of thehouses, that he's going to pick and what ue ought to do is, you uant tonail it dourn so it doesn't get to be a negotiating, totally arbitrary andlet's put a little table together. It says okay, if your average Iot sizeis 10,OOO square feet and the City Fants 2OZ, every size is 11,OOO squarefeet...so you allow the developer to kind of. you can still create. tle canget u,hat Ne h,ant but he can sti.l.I create the development that he has in
mind.
Krauss: That might be reasonable. Again, we're flyins a Iittle bit by theseat of our pants on this one. llany communities experiences with singlefamily PUD's are similar to Chanhassen's and there's not, and that I'm
aware of, there's not a lot of progressive Lhought on okay, you've aII beenburned. How do you then fix an ordinance that doesn't do that? f meanit's clear to me the trade off is, some of Lhe trade off involves openspace. t,,hat the magic number is I think is an issue.
Erhart: Yeah. If it's just open space for the same number of lots,there's no incentive to pay the extra fees and everything. You're going to
have to give them a Iittle bit of incentive to give us the open space byactually increasing the number of lots. I don't think it has to be a lot.
Krauss: We can certainly play with that.
Erhart: f knour that a guy's going to come in with the whole place
going to be 9,OoO square foot Iots. I guess I'm having a hard time
envisioning that.
isn't
even
Conrad: t^lou]d we still get a Near Mounta.in development with this? Near
Hountain is a good PUD. I kind of Iike r"lhat this does buL I guess I don't
know what it discourages or if it forces one thing versus another. So
I guess my feeling is that I'd like to have staff r.ror k a couple scenariosjust Iike this one so we can see what it does encourage. And one would be,
if it could go back and reconstruct the Near Mountain PUD and see Hhat this
would do to it. Now they have a ]ot of ponds and, I'd just like to know if
ue could have another development like that or if this would not allor., a
Near Mountai n.
Erhart: Do they geL 257. open space?
Olsen: They may have to give more open space.
Planning commission Meet i ng
May 15, 7997 - Page 31
Krauss: tle could certainly check that. I didn't have the time but in
doing this I was, my gut reaction uas that Near Mountain should qualify-
If it doesn't , then something's ..,rong.
Krauss: Except that we've credited, I mean there are ways to credit-
l^le're not only looking for , this is open space that the public can use orthat's common open space. tle're saying that of your 252, one quarter of
that can be park. You're probably going to have to dedicate more than thatbut it could be. One quarter of that can be uetlands but then we've said
if you're protecting other natura] features. For example Near l{ountain has -a lot of forested areas. If we had those forested areas, which may or may
not be on somebody's loL, protected by a conservation easemeRt' then that
would be, you could atLribute that toh,ards your requirement because tle're
Planni ng Commission
May 15, 199! - Page
I.'leet i ng
Olsen: ...remember where the outlot, the summit? That r^ras originallygoing to be condos and now it's single family lots. That probably wouldn't
have been . . .
Krauss: It's kind of tough adopting that after the fact too because thoseIots b,ere not structure with this sorL of ordinance in mind. tthat you'd
have to do is 9o back and make some assumptions which you may be able to dobut I think it's a useful exercise.
Conrad: Nhat I don't uant to do is force, you know I don't want to stiffelthe creativity and I don't want developers coming in here uith aII 9,OOOsquare foot lots. So Near l,lountain had a mixture and that's kind of whatwe're trying to look for, plus the open space and I get Iost in theformula. I don't know what happens. So again, I think some of theconcepts is kind of neat if it r.rorks. If it works for multiple sizeddeveJ.opments. Now r don't know hor"r it wor ks from a 10 acre subdivision orPUD to 1,OO0 acre so I guess it's a neat concept to pursue.
Erhart: r think you ought to try it with the average because we don't L,antaII 9,OOO square foot lots. This is uhat...kind of what He,re encouraginghere. Table of different averages and see how that works. I think thatthe concept that you're uorking on is right on.
Emmi ngs: Maybe you ought
feedback from him.
to show Terry Forbord your example and get some
Krauss; I will. I'Il bump a copy over to Shardlow too.
if the system that Tim isn'! talking aboutkind of. . .
Erhart: I think you actually mentioned it.
when he and I ruere talkins, that was one of
Emm i ngs :
wouldn't
BatzIi:
from the
And also ask himbe, I thi nk that's
Krauss: In fact he suggested,the topics that we Lhought of.
Paul, would your zero lot line type things,Iot Iine, would that come under your single if it was 4 foot awayfamily detached?
Krauss: I intentionally didn't deal uith that anda concern. The most recent ordinance I've writtenactually set that up as a separate di.strict.
Roger raised itbefore this one,
agaLn as
I
Batzli: Separate from the PUD?
guaranteed that that open space amenity, that natural feature is going tobe preserved in perpetui!y.
Krauss: t",ell no, es a PUD but it was separate standards. Single familydetached Iots on typicaly single family homes were treated one way. Zerolot rines uJere treated another way. As r read through Lhis ordinance againtonight though, I think that the reason for that is r.lhen you get closer.
l.Jhen vou're building on the zero lot }ine, vou have more implications as towhaL lhe architectural design is. Hor.r you,re imposing on the adjoiningproperty owner. How you !.rant to treat common space because there has to be
Planning Commission
May 15, f99f - Page
Heet i n9
34
more common space when it's that tight. But as'I thought about it, theordinance, the way we've structured it right nou,, the single family
detached urorks pretty well because we've built'all that architectural stuffin there and the language is loose enough that we could allow zero lotIines under the same set of procedures and standards. I don't think we
have to change very much to allow that. One thing you may want to considerthough is some communities have a problem with zero ]ot line homes being insingle family neighborhoods. I don't know that I ascribe to thatphilosophy because basically they're single family homes. They're just
scrunched to one side. I don't see us lowering the lot size much. I don't
see us lowering the lot size below 9,OOO ever in the RSF district or in the
low density district. If somebody wants to do a high intensity zero lotIine development, it realIy in my opinion ought to belong in areas that are
guided for medium or high density use in the Comp Plan because that's the
densities you're dealing with- And I think we can make that
differentiation. It's not that hard.
Batzli: Did Forbord like, did you show him
sit
the whole proposed standards?
down. I just briefed him onKrauss: No, ure haven't had a chance tothe phone.
Batzli: f was curious what he thought about the foundation Plans and
architectural standards. The other elements of this besides the 25?.
Krauss: I don't know. f suspect he didn't have a probl.em with that
because that's the lJay they design their project anyway. I mean ue're not
specifically designing for Lundgren Brothers Homes.
Ahrens: Yeah, I was going to say. Teryy Forbord, it's fine to run some
things past thim but we're not designing our ordinance for him. Especially
since he's going to be coming in Hith probably another PUD. He has someproperty in Chanhassen and we don't ..rant to giye him our ordinance and say
hor., do you want this to read and what's the best deal for you and then he
can design it around whatever development he wants to come in with.
Krauss: Yeah, and if he has a significant Problem with something, it'sprobably noLe !.rorthy. If he believes he can Iive with something, it
doesn't imply that all other devel.opers can live ulith it but it may mean to
us so what? That's the sLandard of develoPment r.Ie want to achieve.
Batzli: No, and I uasn't proposing thaL. I just thought it ulas
interesting because other developers don't develoP to their standards and
while Terry might not have had a problem including certain number of trees
and plantings around Lhe foundation, I'Il bet you a lot of othei develoPers
would. I Has just curious
Kreuss: tlell I'Il be happy to sit down uith him. l.le can certainly do
that. He's useful as a gauging point though because on the spectrum of
residential developers, they tend to be a little better than most.
EIIson: Risht. If you hlant to encourage anybody iL uould be him. -
PIanning Comm ission
May 15, f99l - Page
l'4eet i nS
35
Ahrens: But there are a
to run it past them.
lot of good developers in town too. You may !.lant
Krauss: llle can send it out to a few people who develop in the community
and see what they think.
Conrad: I had a couple just statements or comments on what ure see in frontof us and I think Paul's 9oin9 to work some things but just philosophically
my intent on this ordinance lras not to put more density in but to shift it.If there is more density that's fine. I guess I Has, weII if there is moredensity, I h,ant to make sure that it's good quality density. That's just ageneral comment on my part. I'm interested about the density transferissue too because I really feel that that's a viable thing. Again, ifI had my way, if a sile is approved for 10 units and u,e can shift 5 ofthose units to the other half of the property and leave the other halfopen, that's what I'm trying to do. So I don't mind buildins up thedensity. I'm kind of interested in how the transfer formula works. Usinggross versus net. Is there a conversion factor? tle've always used netbefore in terms of units per acre and nou we're going to use gross so. have
we compensated for that changeover in terms of the number of units allowedper acr e?
Krauss: There's no standard factor Ladd because it,s really highlycontingent upon the individual site. How much park are you dealing with?
Ho.., much wetland are you dealing with? I think though that the pUD gets atthat issue in another way. It's demanding higher quality design. It's
demanding higher qualitv landscaping. rt's going to demand some modicum ofadditional open space. You knoul you're achieving your goals through adifferent mechanism and if the developer happens to get more units out ofit but it ]ooks belter overall and is less impacting, I guess that,s a faircompromise.
Conrad: But what is the standard? The standard that you set is 1.7 unitsper acre. HoN did we get there? How did we get to 1.7?
Krauss: Lle developed that in doing the comprehensive pIan. Basically uhatu,e t,anted to do is the Hetro councir was terling us that the rule of thumb,everyone develops 2 1/2 uniLs an acre. l.Je said nell that,s not anappropriate assumption here because h,e are basically a no net loss wetlandscommunity. Our park dedications are pretty stiff and alI this and so uewent back in. Jo Ann and l,tar k and I and took apart, I don't knour, 12 or 15plats h,e've done over the Iast 5 years and tried Lo find r,rhat the averagedensity is. Now this is standard platting. This is not pUD's.
Conr ad :
Kr auss :
Conrad:
Krauss:
So average gross
Right.
Based on history?
Correct -
density?
And that turned out to be t.7?
Planning Commission
May 15, 799f - Pase
Heet i ng
Conrad: Okay. Over how many years?
Krauss: I r.rould say it uas the plats over the Iast 5 years probably.
Olsen: Maybe even 10.
Conrad: And just a picky point. On page S, Ietter (s)
than one building may be placed on one platted recorded
does that mean?
It said, mor elot on a PUD. tlhat
Krauss: Under standard zoning you're obligated to have a separate taxparcel around each building. tlithin a PUD you're approving an overall
master plan. You've got a lot of control over exactly r.rhat happens.
tJhat's built uhere. It becomes Iess important to us if an industrial
occupant has three buildings on a single tax parcel - You've exercised aI1the control you need.
Conrad: O kay ,
ha ve
Iike
Emmi ngs: Does a nybody anything else on this? Any other comments?
I think it's too small.Batzl i: Yeah, I don't 9,OOO feet.
Emmings: f wonder, what if it said something. Instead of saying you can
have sing]e family residential PUD allor.,s lot sizes down to a minimum of
9,OOO square feet and seeing some developers just Iicking their lips.
Can't wait to 9o in here and make a development of all 9,OOO foot lots.
Uhat if ue just said that some of the lots may be as small as 9,OOO square
f eet .
Erhart: That's brhere I think you tie in this average thing.
Ellson: But if someone does 9,OOO and it lookS good and transfer and
things like that, I think we have to, we don't know.
Emmings: t,hat Here, the lots that we were aII remarking about in.
Krauss: l.Jere 9,ooo square fcet. That's where that number came from.
Erhart: Yeah f knour but there uas only a lot here and there. It wasn't a
mass of these lots. trere there?
Eatzli: Yeah, they're all on one end.
Ellson: It's one group of them and they're very weII done.
Conrad: There's probably about 60. 40 to 60. Something Iike that.
Krauss: AIl of the professional literature says that, don't take the micro
view of what Lhe property line says - tlhat kind of context is it sitting
Ahrens: You think 9,OOO is too sma}I?
PIanning Commission
May 15, 7997 - Page
Meet i ng
37
Ahrens: I think though that
to give them something that 're worried about implying that h,e're going
really have no intention of giving them.
square
here and
we
we
Batzli: I think if somebody comes in here with a bunch of 9,OOOfoot lots, we're all going to be stunned and ue're going to sitsay, help us. l.Jha! can we do to stop this?
Ahrens: I think we'd better put
r ight to reject it.some language in there just to give us the
Emmi ngs: Or that
9,OOO square feet
it a lot more.
we consider PUD 'sbut not less than
some of the lots were
Something but you've as smal I asgoL to ma ke
wher e
that .
Krauss:
work.
But $e have that existing PUD that has the average, it doesn't
Emmi ngs: I don't understand.
Krauss: tJelI I think what came across loud
Forbord was that .a deviance of 1,5OO square
anybody to do anything.
and clear though again forfeet isn't enough to induce
Er hart: ...gross density. That's not nou, r.rhat you're doing.
formula .Conred: But PauI is changing the
Erhart: No, he's increasing the gross density. You're getting
on the original piece of land. So that gives him the incentivepreserve some other piece of Land.
Krauss: But you're not going
mi nimum .
to get more lots if you have a high average
'm not saying whether it shouLd beout what it is. The uay you haveit has to be 25? and what...
mor e
then
I ots
to
Iou. You kind of haveyou've only picked one
Erhart:to !^ro r kpoint an
Iit
d
high orit now,
Krauss : t^le I I
away from the
that's variable but
hard and fast , thou
I thousht theshalt have an
intent of this uras
average of no less
to get
than 13.
in" I mean if you have a 9,OOO square foot Iot backing up to a protected
forest, it's going to Iook a whole Iot better than a 15,OOO square foot lotin a cornfield.
Olsen: t^tell we have it right now uhere there's an average of 13,5OO andyou can go as )ow as 12,OOO. And it has worked where it's not aII 12,OOO
square foot lots but the PUO'S haven't been successful for other reasons.
Because we still don't require preservation of open space and creativity
but . . .average doesn't urork.
EIIson: That's why we came up with the 9.
PIanning Comm ission
May 15, l99l - Page
Heeti ng
38
Ellson: That's what I want to do too. I think r^re should leave the 9,OOO
and our intent in here is telling them that we don't uJant to see all thatand then you guys are certainly going to see it and the fact that it,s a
PUD, we have a chance to negotiate. That's the whole idea behind it buture're putting more fences around them before we've even seen it. t.le're noteven giving them a chance to try to bring something to us, t,le're telling
them right off the bat uJe just have decided there's no way you can do iturell and don't even bother.
Erhart: f guess I'm a litt]e confused there. you don't r.rant a formula inhere now or you do?
Krauss: No, no. l.,e're talking about two different things. The open spaceformula I think we need because that's one of the trade offs we're getting.That's one of the benefits of going with the PUD. The question is whatkind of minimum lot area do you adhere to and from a strictly designed,philosophical standpoint, f don't care if all the lots are 9,OOO squarefeet if everything else is done welI.
EIlson: 9,OOO.
EIIson; That's what I'm saying. If he can do a thing of all 9,OOO squarefoot and it looks good. See you're making an assumption that you'II neversee a 9,OOO average that would look good. You're making a big assumption.Like he said, if they're all backed up against this bluff area and thingsIike that, it might not be that bad.
Erhart: That's not real istic.
Krauss: It is if 252 of your land has to be in open space.
Erhart: Oh, I see.
Conrad: That could be.
ElIson:Iike it
Batzli:
EI Ison:
Batzl i :
say ur hy
I think you ought to give them a chance to do it and if you don'ttell them then.
The problem is, somebody's goinE to come in with a plan.
That's ulhen ue deal r.rith it.
trell, it's going to happen and then we're going to look at it andin the world did we let them build 9,OOO.
No, bre didn't let them. l.le get a chance to look it ovcr-El Ison:
Erhart; Okay, but what we could do to satisfy I think the concern.is tosay yeah, you can have 9,OOO square foot loLs but your average can,t be anyless than.
Erhart: No, no.
PIanni ng Commission
May 15, 1991 - Page
Meet i ng
39
Conrad: We don't give them the PUD. It's not wfat we're Iooking for.
EIIson; You're not trusting them enough.
Krauss: One of the problems we've had with PUD's is, and I've heard the
same thing echoed on the Council, is Ursula's often going well what are wegetting out of this. t,e're supposed to get something. tlhat are wegetting? And I don't have a good ansr.,er normally because our pUO ordinanceright now doesn't demand anything.
EIIson: And we haven't given an intention of
Krauss: This ordinance says, if you're going
have to earn it and here's how you earn it-
it to anybody
to want this,
until now.
you're going to
EIlson: I think because of that intention will ward off the guy who thinkshe'II be able to sell us a PUD with a 9,OOO back to back thins. He,lI gowell I know f'm not meeting it. I'm just trying for it. l.le've got everyreason to say forget it. I don't think r^re should say an average. I thinkit could potentially be done. hlho am I to say no r.rithout seeing it?
Erhart: t^,hat you're saying is if the average. . .maybe -to Look at.It'd be i nter est i ng
Krauss: There's lots of examples to demonstrate it. I have some slides ofit. I can give you books that show those kinds of plats. Hhat happens
when you bottle up that space. It's a fairly...
ElIson: It's not Iike we're changins the residential lot size to 9
Krauss:into that
r ez oni ng
what your
standar ds
Keep in mind too that a PUD is a rezoning and I think it fallslegislative ability of the city. You can be fairly arbitrary onand especi.ally when there's an intent section now that Iays outexpectations are. If you realIy feel something doesn't meet thetha! you've adhered to, don't approve it.
EIIson: That's the leverage ule have.
Conrad: Do you feel PauI that we have to, my statement was, I'm not reallytrying to pack more in. I'm just trying to shift it so it's economicallymore viable but basically it's your gut feel that we really should allow
more density to encourage. Economically we need more units per acre tostimulate the open space?
Batz]i; We've seen ulhat, never mind. I'm not convinced that ure will lookat it and know what we're looking at because every time we look at PUD's wesit there and we say, gee. lfe don't real]y get a sense of what they're
doing and ue don't see this and we don't see that. tle uon't see it. t,ewill not see what is actually occurring in the PUD until it's in and thenit uiLI be too Iate.
PIanni n9 Commission
May 15, 1991 - Page
Meet i ng
40
Krauss: tJeII there's certain trade offs there. I mean Forbord indicaledthat that- indicates when you cluster you save money on streets. you save
money on utilities. You save money on development costs - you probably
make a more attractive deveLopment which r.liII help you selI it quicker bu€I don't philosophically have a problem if they get 15? more lots and we'veachieved the open space that we t,ant and u,e got the better standards,that's fine too. They're still consistent t,ith the Comp Plan. They can't
exceed the gross density that we have in that.
Batzli: I just, you know my feelings are, I live in a PUD. I don,t evenknou trhat size my lot is. t^te have a big park next to us. I still thinkthe lots that our houses are on are too small. I,m the kind of guy, I likea big yard. Maybe it's just personal but I'rn in a PUD every day and if you
made the lot sizes 9,OOO square feet, and I90 by those in Lundgren aII thetime. I think those are too small. I mean the picture makes them lookrea.Ily nice but those things are crammed together. They back right upagainst the liLtle extension of Town Line Road there. tlhatever it's called
there,
Ahrens: Pleasant Vieu?
Emmings: But do the people that live there like them?
EIIson: Is there a market for it? That's what Terry was saying. You'renot that customer but there evidentally is people.
Batzli: They're tiny lots and I don't find them attractive personally. Now
maybe there's a market for them but I don't know. I would be hard pressed
to find something that I'd like, you knor if I had a chance to Iook at it.If enough landscaping, enough transferring, enough open space to make it
worth while to give them that small of a lot.
EIlson: l,JeI I his examplethings Iike that.was that people wanted a 15 minute mowed lawn and -
Krauss; One thing you may uant to consider. There doesn't seem to be e
whole lot of concern or issues any longer with the body of the PUDordinance. It's the single family section' that's generating the comment.f'm growing increasingly concerned that if the Metro Council does what I'm
hoping they're going to do in lhe next week or two, He're going to need
Lhis pretty quick.
Batzli: I uould buy something else, yeah. If I did it again.
Ahrens r l^lhere are uJe going on this?
Emmings: WeII I guess what I hear is that you're going to work out some
more examples. Haybe give us a little more concrete idea. l.laybe try and
work out a schedule and get some i.nput from some other people to whatyou're doing here and bring it back again. This is a public hearing again. -
Did we close it? Do we need to close it? lJhy is it a public hearing?
you Pr oPoseto the City
Paul? Can you puII that section out and get
Counci I?
basically just pulLing out 20-506?
if somebody came in with asking for a single family
Emmi ngs :
the r est
Krauss:
Emmi ngs :
t^,hat dogoing up
Yeah.
So it's
Krauss: Yes .
Emmi ngs: Nor.r what
detached PUo?
Krauss: tJeIl there is an existing single familywe would not be eliminating until ue replace it.that because it's a bad section.
detac hed
You may
PUD section that
want to ca nce I
Emmings: RighL. Couldn't you do somethinS like this? Couldnew section 2O-aO6 to replace the old one that says that theProcess of developing standards and just use that to relractAnd just not have standards but put everybody on notice thatin the process of being developed.
Ne put in aCity's in thethe old one?standards are
Krauss:
in place
sPot for
Emm i ngs :
ordinance
You know you'd almost be better protected by leaving the old onesince nobody u,ants to use it anyway. It wiII kind of hold ourus.
Okay. Is there a reaction to that?and just pul I j.ng out 20-506?
For passing the rest of the
Erhart: I thi nk Ne
change at all then?
should just leave. you,re talking about not making the
Emm i ngs: No ,
Kr auss :
rePLace
Andir.
Ne pass everything that's here
we'Il Ieave the existing single
Section 2O-5O5.
intact until we can
except
f ami !.y
El lson: So you
really cu ic k?
really think that if it gets approved we'II have stuff
Krauss:
seem to
they're
I don't know how cuick it's
be chompi.ng at the bit. Butgoing to take a while to get
going to be but hre've got people that
some of these projects are so large,off the ground.
Conrad: So your intent is to vote on the rest of the motion tonight?
Emmings: That's what paul is proposing.
Batzli: I didn't feel like ue're that far awaywhinning about the square footage but I,m a soletrying to see if anybody is... If everybody else
on 20-506. Ivoice here.Iikes 9,OOO.
mean I',mI'm just
Planni ng Commission Heet i ng
Hay 15, 7991 - Pase 41
Planning Commission
May 15, 1991 - Page
Meet i ng
Conrad: No, we're just ]ooking right now Brian. !.,1e don't know yet and itmay be, yeah I just don't know so it's not that I don't agree with you. Ijust don't know how to handle. I think PauI and Jo Ann have a good, there -seems to be one simple solution and that's whaL they've presented but Iwant to see how that r^rorks in a variety of cj.rcumsiances. I haven,t
disagreed with anything you've said yet. If ue want to pass the rest, then -I've got to get back into something on page 3. Under SecLion 2O-5O5,
Required General Standards. Under Section (b). The applicant shall
demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the City high. That's the word I'mquestioning. High quality...and then the Iast line says that represents
improvement over normal. ordinance standards. So are we saying higher? Is
Lhe uord higher?
'Krauss: In that sense that 's what you 're
just a small thi ng
Iooking at.
Conrad: Haybe
word.
that's but I guess I'd rather see the
Batz] i : l,Jhat about the'a,ord hishest?
Conrad: I guess I like the t"rord higher in there. And then I get back down
to my density transfer. In single family detached, which is what ure're
debating, so I don't know urhat that means. I don't know hotl that Horks. I-
don't know how to approve that right now until f see what ure're doing in
singIe family.
Krauss: Nelt that wouldn't be applicable until you Passed the new section
anyHay
conrad: Until we passed the new section? Okay.f 'm comfortable.
the , whaL Lhey thinkEmmings: Anybody
about passi ng the
Batzli:
back 20
else want to
rest of t his
comment on whether
except for 2O-5O5?
PauI on 20-505( f )? Is parking IoLs and driving lanes shall be seL
feet from all exterior lot lines?
Krauss: Yes .
Batzli: Never mind. I was confused. Do bre cover in here or have h,e
previously covered our recurring problem of somebody putting in a road next
to an existing lot? Do we talk about that at aII anywhere in here?
Olsen: tle did somewhat address that urith the setback.
Batzl i : In here?
olsen: No...accessory structures and... That was someLhing that you could
determine as part of the subdivision of the PUO. You could say no' ure
don't approve...application. To determine setback for a road. tle found
out it was difficult.
Planning Commissiontlay 15, 1991 - Page
l,,leet i n9
43
Krauss: I don't understand lhe question.
a street atOlsen: t.Je don't t.rant to
somebody else. You know
alloh,Iike the edge of a PUD connected to
Vinelandhappened in
Batzli: You've coveredpuL in laier . Okay.
it for existing streets but not streets that may be
Emmings: I think ule need a motion to close the public hearing-
Ahrens noved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. all voted infavor and the motion carried. The public hearing ras closed.
Emmings: Is there a motion ulith regards to the ordinance?
Erhart:
out I i ned
good r.ray
here?
I'll move that we recommend adopti.on of the pUD ordinance asin the memo to the Planning Commission, May 6, 1991. Is that ato describe it? Do Ne actually have the ordinance written out in
Conrad: It's right here.
Erhart: okay. ALright. The ordinance as stated in Article vrll, pl.nnedUnit Developmen! DisLrict except for paragraph Section 20-506( e ) which willbe left open uith a note that.
Krauss; LtelI I think you,d want to preclude the whole 20-506.
Erhart: okav, the uhole 2o-so6 which will include a note that says, what?
Krau.s: If you just exclude this one, what wiII happen is you,ll have aneur PU!, ordinance with the old single family section. so you don't have todo anything. Just exclude this.
Erhart: Okay, so He're going to exclude Section 20-506.
Emmings: I'lI second it.
Ahrens: Did you have some changes Ladd?
Batzli: I thought Ladd made some changes.
Erhart: oh, I'm sorry. yeah, Ladd had some changes.
Emmings: He intended to incorporate those. I heard hi.m say that.
Erhart; Yeah, I said that.
Emmings: And I intended thaL in my second also.
Batzli: Paul, is the old standards for residential 5O5? Or this is abrand new section isn't it? t^lhy don't r.le just put a so6 in Lhere that says
Planni ng Commission
May 15, 1991 - Page
Heet i ng
44
r eserved or something?
Because, is the single family PUD section that we have now calledEmm i nss :
20-506?
Krauss: Not unless we're real Iucky. But I'II change the numbers around.
Emmings: t,le don't have a 5O5 right not.l.
Because 5O1, uJell . It's 5O4.
It's not going to r,,ork.
tlell yes it would. If you just replace,
this one and replace it wiLh Section, uJhere
20-504.
DeIete 2O-5O5 with and add exisLing.
Section 20-5O4 -
Batzl i :
Erhart:
Krauss:
de Iete
Batzli:
Erhart:
Krauss:
Olsen:
if your motion says
am I?
of , it's
Batzli:
tle'Il be sure not to repeal that section. The single family kind
not real separaLe.
Yeah, that's the problem.
Ahrens: Nhy don't tre just identify the standards as guidelines for single
family detached PUD's? [.Je're reserving that section-
Emmi ngs: Yeah , andsingle fami ly unliljust say , Lo 2O-5O7
not have
bre Pass
r eser ve
one. t^le'lI just uon't have anything for
one and let's put in the section heading and
for single fami ly .
Ahrens: 506 ,
Emm i ngs :
detached
506.
PUD ,S .
Reser ve
O kay?
KrauSS: Sure -
Emmings: Alright, do you e,ant to include Lhat in your motion? I'II
include it in the second. Alright. Any more discussion?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
apprbval of ordinance amendment to Article VIII, Planned Unit Devel-oPment
District with the following changes: Amending section 20-506 to state that
it's being reserved for Single FamiIy Detached Residential- Changing in
Section 2o-5o5(b) the word 'hieh' to 'higher'- AII voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously -
for standards and guidelines for sing]e family
Is that okay PauI?
\
CITY OF
EH[NH[SEEN
14EMORANDUM
TO:
FROU:
DATE:
SUBJ:
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN; MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
Planning Corornission
PauI Krauss, Planning Dl.rector
Uarch 15, 1991
Proposed Revisions to Article 8, PUD Developnent District
on llarch 6th, staff discussed proposed revisions to the PUD
ordinance with the Planning Cornrnission. The discussion was rather
lengthy but focused prinarily on utility of the PUD district and
problems that had occurred in the past with Chanhassenrs, primarilyresidential, experi.ence. The Planning Conmisslon discussed thepossibility of inviting individuals who were faniliar with PUDrs toprovide you with background on their use relative to Chanhassen.
Based upon your request, we have invited John Shardlo!, of ShardLow,Dahlgren and Uban and Terry Forbord of Lundgren Brothers
Construction to discuss the use of PUD'S with you.
John Shardlow is faniliar to rnost of the Planning Conrnissioners dueto his representation of some property owners providing their inputinto the Comprehensive Plan process. !1r. Shardlow is a well
respected professional planner who has nany years of experience in
representing a variety of clients. He also teaches a course in
Planned Unit Developments and has offered to bring sone of thatnaterial for your review. In addition to providing information onthe history of PUDts, examples of their use and a discussion of a
nodel PUD ordinance, I have asked John to discuss the use of PUD'Sfor industrial and commercial deveLopnents. His firn does
considerable design work for these types of projects and he isuniguely qualified to provide this input. IIr. shardlowrs firro is
also an active participant in the parcel of property located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of H$ry. 5 and Hwy. 41.
Lundgren Brothers Construction has an excellent track record of
developing high quality residential developnents in our community.In fact, the Near Mountain subdivision, which they are currently
completing, is being developed under PUD standards. Mr. Forbord'sfirrn is also actively involved in developing subdivision proposalsfor the nev, MUSA area that will be incorporated under the
Comprehensive PLan. He made a brief presentati-on in this regard at
PUD Ordinance Discussion
March 15, 1991
Page 2
the October public hearing on the Conprehensive Plan and succeededin getting the boundary area of the 1995 Study Area revised as aresult. ltIr. Forbord has been with the firm for a nunber of years
and is also rre1l qualified to discuss the use of puDts in theresidential context. He is active in a number of groups includinghis position as a board nember of the Sensible Land Use CoaLition.
Staff hopes that the Planning Conmission will find this di.scussionto be informative. Infornation you learn fron this discussionshould prove to be useful in developing a revised pUD ordinance forthe conrnunity. It nay also help you to envision the type ofdevelopnent and the type of guidance the city can enploy relativeto new Large scale developnents along Hwy. 5.
PIanni ng
March 6,
Commission Me.cing
1991 - Page 24
Krauss: tle]I I think, Tim your perception probably goes back to the factthat Chanhassen historically has used it more in a residential setting than
we have elsewhere. Now that goes asainst conventional wisdom because the
reverse is usually true in most communities. In fact arguably, we've had alot of problems with residential PUD's and that's why you got into that
because the changes in the PUD ordinance were designed to address theproblems that became evident after development in neighborhoods Iike
Pheasant Hills took place and you saw that nobody had room for decks andthat sort of thing. I'm sorry, what was the second question?
Erhart: What was the purpose
whaL did u,e get out of that?
in Harket Square? tlhy u,as that a PUD and
Krauss: t^lell I'd like Lo think that the end result was that u,e got afairly high quality, fairly high level of design architecturally from aIandscaping standpoi nt .
Olsen: t^ie got setbacks. It uas in the CBD where there is no setbacks.
Krauss: I don't know what the trade off is supposed to be. I mean there
uras always, it was an implied. Like I say, conventional uisdome r.las thatthere's supposed to be a trade off but it never said that in the ordinanceand it never gave you any kind of indication as to h,hat we should expect.AIso the rationale for Harke! Square in part being a PUD is because the
development was intense enough that they needed the flexibility. They
needed to be able. to get around things like the hard surface coverage ifthey were going to make the development work. That's fine if you're
settins what, if the City gets what they u,ant out of it. And I think thatone u,orked out. But it only worked out after literally dozens of meetingst^tith the developer saying you knour, putting our foot down and we're notgoing to take this and trying to work out compromises. And as I recall.,the Planning Commission itself was negotia!ing architectural detailing atthe very end.
Erhart: Nere they negotiating or just imparting our wishes? Is one.of thecomplicaLing things here is that you're trying to make one ordinance covermultiple zoning distr icts?
Krauss: I don't think so. PUD is a generic term. It's a generic,administratively functionally it cuts across aII the land use calegories.
l,Je have some specific standards for single family because of our uniqueexperience in using it. Having seen some of the end results here withresidential PUD'F, I personally wouldn't advocate that He ever do it again.Not for single family but I think that if we did it again uith the singlefamily, r^re'd have better guidelines than we did before.
Erhart: You don't think we got additional open space?
Krauss: f 'm not so
that were protected t",eII in Pheasant Hills ue did eet some outlotscouldn't have probably protected them anyway.
sure.but we
talking about a 1OOZ commercial area and we were doing it PUD. tJhere did
I go wrong originaLly? And secondly why, remind me again uhy Market Square
is a PUD.
Planning
Harch 6,
Commission I'le -in91991 - Page 25
OIsen:
Kr euss :
olsen:
Batzl i :
That
l^,as
That
l",as
ulas before the.
Lundgren's after?
uasn't a PUD. ,
Fox Hollon before or
just got some thoughts. I think we're going in some good
tle've talked about some of these things in past years and some-before Paul.'s time. Haybe Jo Ann and I were the only oheslot of uhat happened- A lot of problems occurred uhen you get
don't have a clue what we're getting. tJe don't know what
up value uise. Therefore, we don't understand the negotiation
after ?
Olsen: Before. La kedefinitely get more.
Susan HiIIs was one of the afLer ones and we did
Erhart: It was my impression that the whole negotiation there ulas that r.legot open space out of that,
Batzli: In that type of setting, are they physically, are the wallsphysically attached or is zero just kind of you're a couple feet apart?
Krauss: Usually you're a fea feet apart.
Krauss: SpIit the difference.
Emmings: Just enoush room in there.
Krauss: I don't know if we're going to have that here. I've got to assumethat sooner or later somebody's 9oin9 to propose that. I do have some waysof handling it but I didn't feel like muddying up the issues too much atthis point.
Conrad: I 'vedirections .of it may be
around but a
i nto PUD . l.,e
we're g ivi ng
Krauss: l.lel] again, if the City's getting what is meeting it'sexpectations. Pheasant HiIIs was designed apparently on the presumption
that it would lourer the cost of housing by going with smaller Iots. Thatclearly didn't happen up there. There are other uays of achieving that.
There's another type of housing that I talked about briefly in here but Ididn't propose standards for it but I was familiar uith it from working -with it in Minnetonka. Is that I found that with several developments over
there, zero Iot line or Z Lype of development. I don't knour if you're
familiar with it but they're single family detached homes on very smalI
Iots that share, you knou one t^rall of the house is virtually bn theproperty line and the rall of the house adjoing it is virtually on theproperty line and then there's common spaces inbetween. I found that you
had to develop specific standards to deal uith that type of development
such as you already did with single fmaily because you have people Iiving
in such close proximity that if somebody sticks their air conditioner
compressor under the other person's bedroom window, you've got a majorproblem. Or you want design flexibility in the house but uindow, you know
one window here shouldn't look into the bathroom over there.
Emmings: Can you put a portable chemical toilet inbetu,een?
Planning
March 6,
Commission Me -ingt99I - Page 26
process. Strictly city negotiating. There aren't concrete performance
standards r^rhich a lot of communities have. [^le're not smart enough here orhaven't put the time in to develop those performance standards. t^le talk
about them but we don't really know Hhat they are. You reduce density byx. You will increase or you save a vretland, you will actually increase. Itwill give you x percent increase in density. l.le have a little bit of that
here but not very much. So it's like we're bordering on something and toreally have good performance standards in one terrific, a whole bunch ofwork. otherwise we're back in the same game of well, is staff negotiating?
And I think, I don't urant to discourage what PauI is presenting here
because I think anything that helps define more ulhat we're doing is betterbut again, I just think for those of you who haven't been around a uholeIot, performance standards can be extremely complex. They're great ifyou're smart enough to figure out r.hat they are. Typically you're smartenough. Don't put enough time into it so you kind of wing it when the
developer comes in. But again, the thing that I need, I don't knoe that
some of uhat we're giving PauI is meaningful . I don't know that taking alot from 15,OOO square feet down Lo 12,OOo square feet is meanginful. Itmight be but I don't know what the developers think about that. tje haven't
seen them flocking in and requesting PUD's because of that. On the otherhand, because I don't knour r.rhat that, how meaningful that is economically,I don't know what we can expect from a developer on the other hand. Soagain, from a commissioner, from a lay person, you almost have to trust thestaff can figure some of this stuff out. And again, it's a lot of, it'sstaff negotiation. In here Paul , I'm just going to wing a fer.r things aboutr.rhat's here. Under the allowed uses, there was a section called specificuses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a -
devel.opment plan. The performance standards. So you have to make those upevery time a development plan comes in?
Krauss: Uell. you do, but that's part of Lhe flexibility that a PUD gives.
I can give you an example of one that, I was kind of pleased urith hou itturned out. The Hinnetonka Corporate Center is an industriaL office pUD
tha! Trammel Crow developed. It's off of 494 and the Crosstown. Uhen we
worked the PUD agreement up for that, it laid out what types of buildingsand what sizes of buildings and the number of stories where going to go onindividuaL areas. It delineated all the tree preservation areas. Itdelineated where wetlands were going to be preserved. tlhere wetlands weregoing to be created. l^lhere major landscaplng features were going to go.It Iaid out a .,lhole signage package. l.te threw out the sisn ordinance and
came up with a coordinated sign program. Came up Hith a coordinatedlighting program. There h,ere general architectural standards that wereapproved in there where most of the buildings were going to be glass andbrick and there was limited use of tip up panels Hhere truck loading wasconcealed. t^lhere there'd be common spaces in some of the buildings. Andthis is a 15 year development program that was laid out and it was a bookLhat was developed which was adopted and it was amended from time to timebut that book has essentially guided that development to where it is rightnow. Now it's not finished to this day but I think, you look at thegeneral level of development in there. The standards that have beenadhered to and they're pretty good. That's r.,hat I see being adopted whenhopefully,.uhen the development group comes in h,ith 160 acres on TH 5 and
TH 41. That would an ideal spot to go through a procedure Iike this. UhatI uould Iike to avoid like the plasue on a site ]ike that is zone the r^rholethins IOP. Have it split up into 45 lots and anything that comes over the
Planni n9
f'1arch 6,
Commission l''le -ingf997 - Page 27
next 20 years goes. That seems Iike we're throwing out any kind of control
He can exercise over it. Nor.l you do exercise control over it through your
site plan ordinance and we're trying to get better code requirements in
there. But I think you're a lot better off if you can look at the bigpicture on something Iike that and get those areas preserved that you Hant
to get. Ge! the building massing in the right places and get it aII to
wor k as an overall concept
Krauss: That Nas developed urder an earlier version of the Hinnetonka
ordinance. f Hrote the current version of the f'linnetonka ordinance and f
took a lot of that and kind of changed it a little bit but fit it into this
current proposal lhat you're looking at now. What was in the Hinnetonka
ordinance though Nere basic exPectations' even the old ordinance, as to you
know, protecting the exterior of the PUD as to trhaL the City had a right to
expect. The current version of the ordinance is more explicit. But
Trammel Crow was a good enough develoPer too that we were able to kind of
work mutually towards this thing and basically the current version of the
l.,tinnetonka ordinance is reflective of my experience working ulith them on
that and what we had a right to expect
Emmings: And just for clarifiation for me anybody, to the extent that I've
been involved with PUD's, it was always my understanding that, ]ike vou
said in this one introductory ParagraPh. It uas kind of common ulisdom in
the city that a development has to earn a PUD zoning but it's not reallv,
that expectation isn't uritten down anywhere, I know that ulhen f tlas here
through one revision of the PUD ordinance, everybody said if we don't get
something that we ulant out of this. And it's not Preservation of a r,Jetlanc
because they have to do that anyh,ay. tJe don't ever, they don't get any
points for that because they have to do it anyhow. Thev have to reallv
give us something that Ne want or we deny it and that didn't work over here
on Lake, was it Lake Susan Hills? fhe bis develoPment that's west of Lake
Susan, what is that?
Olsen: Lake Susan HiIIs.
Emmings: Yeah. Because I remember the Planning Commission there felt we
uleren't getting anything and we recommended denial and Uhe City Council sau
it just the other way around. They saw it as a tremendous oPPortunity to
zone a tract that uras over 3OO acres and they said it r.las a PUD so
obviously in the city rde haven't had any concurrence or any agreement on
what we're doing here so laying this stuff out I think is real imPortant.
conrad: In that case, they thought they Here getting a good park and we
didn't Lhink we u,ere getting a good Park. Or play area or Ehatever. There
!.ras jus! a whole lot of difference of opinion on that and again, it goes
back to we don't have a clue what t,e're getting. t,lhat is the develoPergetting value wise for increased density or for something and t,hat are ure
getting back? I've never had a handle on that one. And most of the times,
most of the PUD's I feet we're giving uP far more than what we're getting
but that's just.
Emmings: Now the site that you just mentioned in Minnetonka, .was that done
on an ordinance that was similar to t.that oe've got in front of us here now -to review? tlhat were the performance standards in the Hinnetonka ordinance
that that uas developed under?
Planning
March 5,
Commission Mt -ing799L - Page 28
Emmings: And interesting, in that case too, the threat was if we didn't
see it as a PUD, then they uould come in under the subdivision ordinance
and just put in a straight subdivision. And we said, on the Planning
Commission we said fine. tle Lhink we've got a good subdivision ordinance.
Go ahead and do it because u,e don't think that's what you hrant but that didscare the City Council. They didn't want that.
Conrad: Yeah. And they have knoun something we didn't know.
Emmings: Right .
Conrad: Are there cases where we would require a PUD?
Krauss: ttell I would Iike to be in a position to require developmenLs togo PUD because I think we get better product and can r^ror k it better. Everytime I try it, the City Attorney telLs me I can't do it. You can almostkind, you can ask somebody to do it. You can be very specific that we'renot going to let one variance go through unless. You can real.Iy put
somebody in a position where they wanted it, Also, developers these daysare more savy than they used to be and they realize that PUD's allowphasing. They aIIow the City Lo look at different standards for streets.
They allor^r them more flexibility at buildins clustering. Haybe moredensily than they would normal.Iy get. And the better developers are, you
knoh, they're typically looking for that.
Conrad: I don't knotr. I like PUD's. I don't think r.re offer enough inexchange in some cases. I'd like to really encourage things like openspaces and stuff and I'm not sure r.lhat we are able to give really doesthat. In other words, instead of puttins 8 units on a piece of property,
my posture and it's reall.y changed over the years. Instead of the 8, ifyou clustered them in a hishrise which takes us to a different zoningcategory but you know, double, triple the number. Leave some open space.In essence what you're doing is preserving some of that Iot for open spacesor whatever but ),ou're really, you're kind of changing r.rhat the zoning.You know, my philosophy, I'd be putting in a highrise to do Lhat and Idon't know that that's what the current ordinances aIlow. ButphilosophicaLly, there's just some neat trade-offs that you can make but alot of people still ]ove large lots and I think there are reasons to changethat because it preserves some other things out here that are equally asvalid. Couple other questions. I don,t u,ant to dominate this but the 5acres sort of bothered me because I don't know if you can have a pUD in 5acres. You said you've heard that's a standard that other communities havebut I'm just sort of, you can't have a residential. It's though to have aresidential PUD in 5 acres. Maybe you can have some other kind of pUD butthat's a real, I guess that gives us flexibility. The other point I Eantedto add on. I think in this thing Paul you should be saying we would, theCit)r encourages PUD's and maybe ule can't require it but I think wordingwise, we r.,a nt to encourage it and at least my opinion is that we Hant toencourage it because we do, ue can get soqre things that we li.ke in tfiat.But I don't know if you want to word that in there. I do like the densitytransfer stuff but I'm not sure again, I'm not sure where that leads us.
The density transfer there. under the required standards PauI and Jo Ann.It says density. The increased density, increased transfer for density
may be allowed at the sole discretion of the City...but it doesn't give inthat area, do ue have to drop back to the density? The increased density
Planning
March 6,
Commission I'te -in91991 - Page 29
could possibly go down to 12,OOO square feet. Is that where we'd flip backto the required standards 5O4? In 5OS you said lre encourage it but therearen't any standards. But then we go back to 5O4 for residential and isthat what would appIY?
Conrad: For single family? See in that case, I just don't know that we'regoing to get much and I help put those standards in.
Olsen: t,e aren't turning developers ab,ay as far as single family
deveLopments. l.lhen ue first meet ulith them, they'I] compare urhat they canget uith the PUD versus the straight subdivision and they 9o straight
subdivision.
Conrad: I guess I'm sort of mumbling but if we r.rant to encourage stuff,you've got to be able to hang a carrot out there. So far the carrot's not
big enough. Maybe that's okay. Maybe we shouldn't change it.
are theyfeet?Iooking for? l^lhat do they think is reasonable?
Emmi ngs: or more clustered?
olsen: They all want the single family and they r.rant the small lots.
Emmings: How smaII?
olsen: As I r,ras just telling PauI , you know 12,ooo. That's our minimum
but I don't knou how you can 9o much smaller but some of them like the
11,OOo and 1o,ooo. I don't knoul because what we do is we do take out the
wetlands firsL of aII and we do take out the sloped areas so there goes
some of their net density right there. And then Plus we're saying we're
9oin9 to take parkland and trails and additional. And when h,e start taking-
aII of that away, their density just goes, you know they're left with maybe
50 loLs when they might get 52 lots going, It's comparable.
Erhart: What
1O,OOO square
conrad: In the PUD that you're proposing, 25* in this draft,originaL intended zoning can be altered so basically ule couldunits into a multi-family area?
25? of the
move those
Krauss:
conrad:
Conceiveably yes.
And therefore we could get some open space.
Krauss: Sure. I suppose if you had a large enough site and it could be
designed, you could have some Lownhomes in some section of it.
Conrad: And you feel comfortable with 25? because iL
the original zoning. The 752, LhaL 's basically it.keeps the intent of
Emmings: Then you wind up again with a situation where they come in
they lay out a plan and over here they've got, rohat they h,ant is the
square foot lots and they get some of those and they've got to leave
open space and they get some multi-family. They put that in for you
Krauss: For single fami Iy.
and
12 , OOO
some
and
PIanning
Harch 6,
Commission Me -;ing
1997 - Page 30
In Lake Susan Hills though, the sites are still being he).d for
and high density developments.
then they build the homes and they never build the multi-family because
there's no market for it. I think we've seen that in Lake Susan Hills.
They were supposed to, have multi-family there and we wanted that and ue
haven't seen any and the reason I assume is that there's just no market forit. t,e never r.ri11 see it.
Krauss:
townhome
Emmings: Yeah. Until they come back and say geez, we just can't sellthem. Can u,e change this and I fully expect that to happen and that waspredicted when they were here with their plan. So that's another problemwith that is we don't have the range in the market ouL here. Uhen people
come out here to buy, they come out to buy a single family home. It seemsLike. At least now.
Krauss: I think that's been the traditional tJelt, traditionallyChanhassen's been a bedroom community but I think we've all seen thatchange in the last 5 years. I've had several people making inquiriesmulti-family housing lately urhich surprises me because there's, sincewhen the tax 1aw changed, there hasn't been much multi-family builtanywhere in the Twin Cities and there,s a glut on the market in mostcommunities. But there are some people looking seriously at it here.
Emmings: Do you think it's because of the jobs that have opened up?people moving out to be closer to their job.
abou t
1985
It's
Krauss: I think it's because the city,s changed andit. [^le have a ]ot of people who have children grown
have to Leave touln because there's no place to live.
jobs are a big part ofup here and then they
Conrad: Let me give you a hypothetical case. I really like densitytransfer and again it's not anything ve ever seen that would do a wholelot here. But let's say we have a 30 acre pUD which under today'sordinance we get 3lots per acre or somethins like that. So really theycould have 9o single family residential lots there. Let's say b,e eJanted toput Lhose on 45, no on 15 of the acres. so tre had 30 acres to begin Hith.tJe want to keep 15 open and we're going to drop. l.le're going to transferthe density that they could have had in those 15 over to the oLher 15. Canthis ordinance handle that situation?
Krauss: Yeah.
Ellson: By keeping the other one open?
conrad: Again lm just, that seems rike something that you'd want to do incertain circumstances. 1.,e're going to move just harf the rots and r.re'IIdouble lhe density over here. tlell see I don't know that paul is rightbecause brhat He did is we took 15,ooo square foot lot and we just took itdown to 7,5OO based on wha! I just said.
Krauss: l.lelI no. The problem is we have separate single famiry standards.If you're talking about single family detached housing, you 're stuck withthe 12,OOO square foot minimum.
Planning
March 5,
Commission |.ft -ing!99! - Page 31
Conrad: So we could only transfer a couple acres worth of den
tJe could only open up a few acres basically until we got to th
square foot minimum. l.,hatever. So basically density transfer
interesting idea. I don't know if ue're using it to the point
encourage really some significant benefit. You know, if you o
Iittle bit of space, who cares? It might not be that bis a de
you open up 15 acres for some particular reason, it may be a b
I guess urhat I'm saying is, I've never seen our ordinance able
encourage creativity because we havge some restrictions becaus
community are saying hey, r.re value single family so much out h
bis lots. That's r.rhy I moved here, and h,e're not going to slu
standard. So I bring that up. I don't have a soluLion to tha
transfer I always .thought was a neat thing to do if we ever fi
to do it. Some of the ratios PauI, in your hard surface cover
I guess, and I don't know if they're right or Nrong and maybe
them from some other Place but the one thing that's kind of ne
I always feel I have control over, even in bad situations. Ev
in industrial/commercial uses, I think some of the neat things
industrial park is that it does have green sPace. It does ' we
because it's not walL to waII, concrete to concrete ' asPhalt t
stuff. I attribute that to one, good Planning and some sort o
tr,lo, our requirement for imPervious surface ratios that kind o
berms out'there. Kind of gives some Lrees. So when I see the
surface, I'm not sure how much that's changed and maybe it hae
at all. I'm iust sort of talking here but that adds to the ch
our industriai parks. The greenerv in it and as much as I'd I
conso].idate those Parks, I still Iike the green. I still thin
them as pretty as what ue've got but I'm not sure I like sacri
of that and so, I sure could be Persuaded. You know my intent
coming from. i tf,inf those are the bulk of mv comments on tha
a
P
a
L
e
e
ft
I
a
v
a
e
off
m
f
t
n
a
].
k
ity to the .t 12,OOO
is an
where ure can-
en uP aI where if
s dea]
to real Iy
we, the
re we want
f thatbut density
ure out how
9e. Boy,
ou robbed
t thatn let 's say -about our
re set apart
aspha I tplan. But -
gives some
, the hard
't changedracter of
ke to
we can ma ke-
icing some
or where I'm
ideal -Anvallr_
do get
Emmings: Ladd, can You think of
really given us something? l,Jhere
see it work? I can't.
any time we've had a PUD here where it's
it's really worked the wav we'd like to
conrad: I'm having a tough
things but as I said. I've
time.
never
There
seen a
are PUD's where i{e're getting some
real creative PUD.
Emmings: I haven't either.
Conrad: And you knoul , Lhe smaller the ProPerty, the Iess creative you can -
be. But I don,t think we're really encouraging them either here with what
we give. I don't look at it as a totally what do we get out of this PUD.
I think it's Chanhassen uants this, develoPer Nants this and the developer -can save him some money by clustering utilities and things over here and
chanhassen can add to it's quality of life by doing some other things. so
it's a give and take but geez, ! get real frustrated by r.rhat they're giving-
and thai's simply because I don't have a clue uhat t"re get nou in some of
these negotiations. I iust don't know and maybe I never r'lill.
Emmi ngs: It's a funny
h,ay to develop any big
commercial develoPment
done under here but if
think ure get to have a
thing because it seems to me like a PUD is an
piece of Iand. Any big housing development.
or industrial develoPment. I'd Iike to see it
that's right. The reason I like it is because
hand in the planning or the design so that t^te
Planning
March 5,
Commission Me-cingf99l - Page 32
some things we like. l,Jhether it's open space or extra landscaping
whatever, but it's never happened. So something is screwed up and
know, do you have any idea PauI why it's never. I don't think it'suorked here. Lake Susan HiIIs, ue have PUD's but it's just anothersubdivision really.
orI don't
ever
Krauss: I do think the t'larket Square is probably the best example, theclosest example of where that courd work. rf that was deveroped under thecBD zoning' anvthing would have gone on that property. r mean there wereno setbacks anyplace. You have the l per 40 requirement for trees.There's no coordination of access. There's no architectural standard thatyou reall.v adhere Lo. on Harket square ure felt very comfortable pushingvery hard for better than normal. design. Remember we had the wholeargument about the roof rines and they came back and said it,s costry andyou were saving' werl that's part of the trade off. And we required veryIarge trees and a large number of them, particularly in the back propertyline and through the parking lot. l^le developed arci'ritectural standards iorthe two outlots. so h,e don't know what's going to go on there buL ure knowthat it's got to be consistent with.
Emmings: WeII why in that case didn'L theywe'II just develop it with it CBD zoning?
just say, the heck ulith you,
Olsen: The impervious
wanted . Par ki ng .
coverage and there u.lere some things that they
Emmings: Okay. So
something that f it.they couldn't 90 CBD there? Just come in uith
Krauss: Not and have the same project, no.
Emmings: Because what you said just makes it sound likeour standards that we require for development in the CBDseem to me that anything that goes into the CBD ought toMaybe .
we've got holes inreally. It would
be done as a PUD.
Krauss: trell the cBD is sort of a frightening district. Nor., it's notunlike a lot of communities that have a real ord downtown *h"." there wasno standard and it's tough to begin a standard in that kind of a context.But I feel very comfortable thaL we did a lot betLer with the pUD overthere than we wourd have done otherwise. And we got coordination that xewouldn't have had. r mean we have internal ac"esi roads. Ue had thembuild turn lanes. Thev're moving bus shelters. There's a rot of stuffthat goes in there and it's tough to keep, for an accounting of this stuff _r mean there's not a balance sheet that says b.le gave this. They gave thisbecause it's an ongoing process. r mean we get something out of them.Thev get something out of us. rn the meetinls before ii-comes tothe Planning commission, the planning commisiion you went ihroush thatproject 3 times that r was familiar with. Each time there b,ere morecriteria. The City Council did the same thing.
conrad: But you know a lot more than we do paul , you've done that.You've gone through it and you know uhen we see it on a one shot deal , uedon't know what's been negotiated really. r.Je're really in the dark.
PIanning
March 6,
Commission He.cing
1997 - Page 33
Krauss:
do that.
That's fine. Then the partnership agreement does say they would
Emmings: oh, okay. So there is a PartnershiP between
prop"ityu okav. tlell this could go on for a long time
shorten' it up somehow. Annelte, have you got anything?
Ellson: t,ell I like the idea of geLting it a little stronger and I was
thinking the same as you Steve- it always seems Iike u'e're in such a
i"i.tir" mode and I tiinf< i say it like everv meeting but. I reallv think if-
h.|e want to ask something and ue think PUD's the answer, then let's go out
*ith our ideas and tait<-to people and help because by. thq time a develoPer
fii.u-[ni= piece of ]and, he's already got it in his head and then ure're
eoing in and trying io do whatever. Lle,re so reactive. That's one of the
i."=6n" r feel we don't always see ourselves getting involved because
tf,.i;". got it aff fiia out. They had that 1OO homes in Lhere or whatever
and if we could =.y,-oifrr peopl.e. You know we're taking a 1ook at density-
.,rippine. Are you interested because we'd like to keeP this grove of oak
trees. Here's a couple ideas any develoPer, ]et's talk. I. don't know. I'm
i6iniing in terms of' something like that but I agree that this is like the -
,o=t o"n.ricial zoning we can have. tle really could cone out with stuff
init ,ru really want aia preserve everything that our goals do if ue r,lork
with this the right way. I also agree with everybody else saying that so
i.i notr'ins too iuell i'r. = co.. out of it yet but the Potential is there.
s" I jr"i ihink ," have to go out and do some of that ourselves and offer
in" oiportunity to people .r,d th" kinds .of Lhings that we Eant to mainLain
"na "'r,.t h.le're willing to suap for. And you make the good-point. Do we
have enough of a carrJt !o say, thro* it all on 7 l/2...allowed to do that
but we "orld h.rr. such potential . It iust seems l^ike you h,ant to take
alrant"ge of it but I like Hhat you've done. It's very difficult to fine
tune it though. I t;ied to help but I don't knour exactlv where' So those
are my commenLs, as inePt as the)' might be'
Emmings: Should we vote on hoh, inept they are? Brian?
those three on
and we've got
that
Lo
Krauss: t^Jell one interesting thing urith Market Square too that I think
points out r.,hy one aspect of why a PUD is a good thing to have. You're aII
aware that from time to time over the last 2 years it seemed like Har ket
Square was goi.ng to wither and Uie and go away - It noll seems as though
it's really 9oin9 to haPPen but I've had from time to time interest in
splitting up the properties and being iust able to develop, Parcel things
off and people have come in and said, I've got every right to do this. Or
you know, it's owned by 3 individuals right notr. Burdick owns Part,
Bloomberg owns part. Burdick wilL iust take his Piece and develop it
independintly. I'm sitting here saiing you can't do that. The whole thing-
is zoned PUD. The only thing that could 9o on it is Harket sguare and
anything else that you u,ant to do is going to have to 9o for a rezoning and
ule're not going to recommend aPProval of a rezoning unless there's a -
comprehensirr. pl"n that tre find acceptable. So ue haven't gotten MarkeL
square. in the ground yet but we haven't gotten Piecemeal stuff that's a
problem
Emmings: I thought you had to have unity of ownershiP before you could
even have a PUo.
PIanni n9
i,lar c h 6,
Commission Me--ing
!997 - Page 34
Batzli: PauI was right about one thing and that was that there r.ras a ]otin here and I think, as I sift through it, I still I don't think have quite
figured out what we're really trying to do r.lith this even yet. I guess, IIike parts of it and parts of it I don't understand why it's in here. Idon't know where Paul got some of these things from, even in the intentsection so I think we need to have a lot more discussion on this and r,lhatit is we're trying to do. I think it was raised by several commissioners
and that is, we seem to want this but we don't know why we're not getting
anything with our current ordinance. And if our current ordinance isvague, by beefing up the intent and demanding more, I don't think we,II get
more in. So I guess I don't understand what we're hoping to achieve bytoughening an ordinance when we're not getting any PUD applications in here
now with a weak ordinance. That's a philosophical , rhetorical question. Idon't know.
Farma kes: You made
reasons that you 'r e
comme ntgett i n9
Krauss: Sure.
Olsen: Most definitely .
Farmakes: Do you believe that that's going to change or do you think thatit's just Chanhassen in general? I mean if the ordinance is weak, you saythere are some people who are inquiring about this?
Krauss: The only thing that we're noL getting right now is we're notgetting applications for residential , single famiry residential puD's. Andfrom my standpoint, that's fine because they cause us more trouble thanit's worth. tJhere r think you're 9oin9 to be seeing this more and more ismixed use residential , commercial and industriar. l.,e've reached the stagein our groulth where I guess for Iack of a better word, we've hit the bistime and the kinds of development we,re going to be getting out here ovirthe next 10 vears require more sophisticated approach that a puD can offer.T.he industrial park. Chanhassen Industrial park should have been a pUD -I'm fi.rmly convinced that as good as it is, ue could have done better hadthat ordinance existed at that point in time. Now ue have tracts of Iandsouth of the railuray tracks. You know, assuming the HUSA line eetsapproved. tre've got a 90 acre chunk south of there. tre've got 160 acrechunk on TH 5. tle've got some commerciaL development around new TH 1O1 . I
mean there are lots of sites where this is 9oin9 to come into play. And Ithink you really need to change gears for a moment and project forward asLo where this is going to be used in the next decade because I think ourpast experience of, in this isn't really going to be very reLevanL.
Batzli: Oo you think we should 9o in and rezone areas that ule wanL pUD pUD
right now with the new ordinance in effect and to basically demand thatthey be developed PUD?
the
not
that fora Iot of financial reasons or mar ketapplications for this?
Krauss3 tJell that's an option Commi.ssioner Batzli. In fact, I don't ).iketo keep referring back to Minnetonka but when r.re developed the 394ordinance which is a corridor ordinance, ue rezoned everything to pUD upthere and then developed corridor standards that applied in those pUD,s.
Conrad: That really makes a lot of sense.
PI a nni n9
March 6,
Commission He-cin9t99t - Page 35
E]lson: That's not a bad idea -at aII.
Batzli: That would be the only thins that would make sense to me because
otherwise you're going to, I think get exactly what we've had in the past
and that's somebody's going to come in. They're going to look at our PUD
and then they're going to say, uell I don't want to give you that much.
I'm jusl going to develop it to your lower standards that you've got in
your IoP district sLandards or your BF or your CBD. tlhatever else you've
got, I don't see that they'lI use this unless tre rezone it.
Erhart: Aren't you missing though, you don't get anything because thev're
not big enough? A PUD h,orks when you have a .large Piece of Iand under
single ownership. tlhether you zone an area PUD or not lhat's not under
sing]e ownership, you're not going to get anything. The key to getting
something is a large parcel of land under single ounershiP - Isn't that
really the crux of it?
Krauss: That's a lot of it. That's the easiest, that's the best Place
set the most bang for the buck. But those are the same tracts of land.
Those are the tracts of ]and that we have out there. tle do have massive
ownership. I mean the whole TH 5 frontage is Probably in 15 ProPertv
owners hands. And they've already formed a develoPment consortions.
Lo
El lson: Yeah
these things.
Emm i ngs :
where we
I uras 9oin9 to say. Those PeoPle were aII signing off on
Erhart: And we if can get them to do a PUD and collectivelv brork together,-
it will be sreat. t^lhat is a real thing here, if ue want to ge! some neat
stuff done here, is to focus on encouraging massive develoPments u,here you
can 90 in and Iook at it from a broad point of view. I'n not sure we cahr <
this is soing to do that much.
conrad: Let's say we zoned the entire TH 5 corridor PUD. Does thaL
encourage the current owners to consolidate ownershiP?
Krauss3 Not necessarily. Hhat it does do lhoush is give you more design
latitude to require b,hat you think is aPProPriate
Nor^l u,e just went through a Process for the ComPrehensive PIan
fussed around specifically laying out zoning.
conrad:
PUD and
Lhere.
t^,le could have gotten out of all of that Steve
telling the residents that tre didn't know uhat
by just zoning it
was going to go in
Balzli: But you can do PUD and it would just have to be developed
underlying in accordance wiLh the comPrehenisve PIan.
Krauss: Uhich is land use. And in fact, one of the things that the city
council did that I informed you about uas ulhen they talked about the 137
acres in front of Timberwood. The City Council apProved ]anguage that
basically Ieft that residential but sLated conditions under uhich non-
residential may be considered. One of the requirements r.ras that it be
developed as a coordinated PUD. You knour, along with the design standards.-
In fact that brings to mind one thing too. John Shardlotr in all his
presentations. Remember John Shardlow wasn't only a pJ.anning consultant,he's a member of a consortion that ob,ns that 160 acres out there. He'salready stated a couple of times that it's their intent to come in with anoverall development plan. A PUD development plan.
Batzli: For the urhole corridor?
160 acres.
some sort of plan already that they tried to show us
their
yeah.
it was a plan.
Krauss: No.
Batzli: l.,el Ididn't they?
Krauss : hlel I
Batzli: well
Krauss: Yeah.
For
t hey had
Emmings: Jeff, did you get a chance to finish?
Farmakes: No, r have no further comments. r think it's a good thing.
Ellson: HoN about you Steve?
Emmings: I guess everybody,s, I don't have anything to add really. Ithink it's important to do. I don't knour how re gei from where u,e are togetting a better ordinance that uiII get something done. And the onlyspecific thing, while somebody was talking here about open space, r don'tknow if anv of our ordinances or anything we have ever mentions open spaceas something. You know we talk about trees and other things but the pi.loordinance doesn't mention open space and r think maybe somihow He ought. tospecificallv reference it. That that's something that ure would "on=id., inasset. Preserving open space is something.
Batzli: That brings a smile to my heart you guys talking about open spacesin a positive way. I Iike that.
Emmings: Veyy Zen. l.le'rethe trai I?into Zen. But how can we get any further dor.rn
conrad: The one thins |d like paul to say, r'd ]ike paul to tell us somethings about, to do some criticisms of some of our standiids. The 12,ooo.He basically left some things in place not eranting to really attack thembut just sort of an analvsis to say, hey do ule have "nough ilexibility:Densitv transfer's a neat h,ord but is it really going to be usefur? or doure have !o change something. And maybe there's iome other things. Lotsizes. rs the 252 that he's noh, putting in to a particular pUD r.rhere wecan change it from the originar intenL, is that enough? r guess m justcurious, r'd Like him to come back or staff to come uact wiin sorerationale for changing certain of our guidelines. StandaiJs.
Emminss: The other thing too r think, under the intent section, arr thethings that are risted there are specific and somehon to me there ought tobe some kind of a general statement of intent. A general statement thature'd like to encourage this kind of deveropment. ir,at ure expect somehow to
PIanni ng Commission l.1e-c ing
March 6, f99l - Page 36
PIanning
March 6,
Commission Me-cin9f99f - Page 37
get something and u,e expect to give something. Maybe it would be a good
idea, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have somebody like John
Shardlow or other developers who you know, or have worked urith in the past,-
come in and teII us what they uant to get from us in order to give us some
of the things that we're interested in getting. Do you think that that
uou ld be usefu I ?
Krauss: I think that kind of dialogue might help. Somebodv like Bob
worthington possibly might be willins to do that. John Shardlott might too.
Emmings: t^lell maybe you ought to get 2 or.3. Shardlow's obviouslv got a
specific thing in mind when he talks to us and lhat detracts from it's
value to some extent or you've got to be aware of it. But maybe if you can-
get somebody urho's more neutral .
BatzIi: r'd
standpoi nt .
like to see like the guy from Lundgren, from an RSF
Emmings: Yeah. Those guys know what they're doing.
knowledgeable. I don't knour if they ever developed
would help us get us to figure out what's going on.
They seem
PUD's but.
to be
Ma ybe
ver y
that
about zoni ng.
that makes sense
EIIson: Yeah, because we don't know what incentive items at .this point.
Conrad: And then maybe Paul can also tell
The opiions of going back and zoning PUo's
or we shoul.dn't do it or should.
us some thi ngsright now. If
Erhart: You know how you can get
increase your minimum lot size and
think we've aII agreed that 12'OOO
minimum. If you really want oPen
or your minimum standard lot size
I i ke 2O,OOO square feet .
oPen space in residential area? You
then you offer the 12,OOO foot.. - I
is getting pretty close to the absolute
space, you increase your average I'ot size
in the subdivision to a bigger number
Emmings: Then you've got all oPen sPace between houses.
Erhart: Because Nhen you do that, then the developer's going to come in
and say, gee r.rhiz. Alrisht now I've got some incentive to go to PUD
because I can save. I can go from 2o,ooo square feet to 12 'OOO square feet-
and I,m giving you up that density in terms of oPen sPace. Bu! the Problem-
is, we've got our standard lot now so small that the sPread betuleen the
12,500 and 15,OOO isn't adequate to incentivize a develoPer to come in and
develop open spaces
Batzli: I r.rould agree. But I think that's the problem in each one of our
districts. If you looked at it dislrict by district, you could go through -and say, this is why they don't use PUD more.
Erhart: I don't knor,r if anybody's ready to increase our lot size from
15 , OOO -
Batzl i : I would be.
PI ann i ng
March 6,
Commission l.,le- c i ng
7991 - Page 38
Krauss: If the focus is on the single family and I guess I would havepreferred to stay away from that but I think you can actually go with asmaller lot size in residential PUD's as long as there's a commensurate
requirement that architectural design is knoun ahead of time and approvedand designed to match. The problems we've had is we let somebody build ona smaller lot and they put the same, if not a larger house than they weregoing to do before. Didn't teII the property owner anything and put thisbig patio door over looking the backyard that really is illegal to usebecause if you build a deck out there, it's in the neighbor's lot. Thosethings can be, I mean they're design problems. you can 90 uith muchtighter lots. You can almost go down to the zero lot ]ine situation aslong as you lay out the design parameters ahead of time. They're filedagainst the property. The owner, the purchaser of the lot understandsthem. The deveroper is obligated to buird to that standard and you knowurhat you're getting ahead of time. It just doesn't work when you give
somebodv carte blanche to do whatever they urant to do after the lots arecreated and that's the problem we've had._
Conrad: You know why ue focus on residentialwe look at commercial or industrial, it is oneparcel . It's not uhere you have 20 acres anddon't see that much of that.
PauI is because usually ulhenbuildins goin9 in on onesomebody's coming in to, we
EIIson: That's t^rhy he's saying, this is a potential in the
Conrad: Paul, he's going to have to educate usreally don't see much of it and we don,! knotr.
in that ar ea
Batzli: But the issue I think we're having problems with,force them to 9o PUO rather than develop it some other uay?request a zoning change?
future.
because - we
Krauss: One other example you might want, if you're tooling past there. Ifvou Nant to see a monolithic one building PUD that I think worked real urellis look at the Fingerhut headquarters on 494 and Baker Road. Ue did thatas a PUo because it encroaches into a single family neighborhood and wewanted to be able to give assurances to the neighbors that what xe sau iswhat ure got, t^,e bought a package and we wanted to keep it that way and ueh,anted to incorporate high Levels of design and a lot of site buffering andure wanted lo make sure that thaL was permanently required. That somebJdy 5years from nou courdn't cut down all the trees just because they fert li'keit, which thev could do under normal zoning. sa that ulas done as a puD andI think if you ]ook at that, you'll see how it,s designed to set into thereuith roll.ing land and uetlands and ponds and trees.
how did you
Did they
Krauss: Ne courdn't serr it to the neighborhood unless we did it that uay.
Emmi ngs: What t^ras it zoned?
Krauss: There uras an office zoning for the order part of the building andthev owned some lots south of there that stiII had residential zoning onthem- Even though thev u,ere guided for office use in the plan that we hadbecause ue knew Lhat Fingerhut bought it and had sat on it for a number ofyears. But h,e told them that there was no Eay bre could work it through theneighborhood in good conscience unless they went pUO.
PIanning
Harch 5,
Commission Meet i ng
7997 - Page 39
Far ma kes :
also part
Krauss:
Emmi ngs :
Conrad:Yeah, what does he do there?
Krauss: It was supposed to be his restaurant empire which he has since
sol.d off .
Emmings: Is it just offices in there?
Kr auss :
into the
The residential looking buildins by the water tower, was thatof the PUD?
No. That's owned by Bob Naegele.
t^lhat's in that buildins?
It's offices and he fought us- He Hanted to build a billboard
side that faces the interchange,
Emmings: Okay, we've got to close this off. tle're going to be here
forever un.].ess somebody's got some burning issue but I think, unless
somebody's got anoLher idea, IeL's get some PeoPle talking to us about what
this means to them and you can address some of the things that Ladd brought
up because I think they're imPortant. tlhatever they ulere.
Conrad: I can't remember them myself.
Emm i ngs :Okay.
OF HINUTES:APPROVAL Chairman Emmings so noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission dated Februayy 6, 1991 as Presented.
CITY COUNC IL UPDATE:
Emmings: Let's assume that everybody's read it. Does anybody have any
questions for Paul?
EIIson: I have a question on that Teton Lane thing. Just a quick
question. I didn't understand it. I can't remember. I remember I Hanted
Lhat road to go through. I can't remember how it actually got. They don't
have to build it Lhrough and now the guv wants to subdivide? I remember
this but I don't remember what City Council ended uP Passing on that.
You're looking at upgrading that but was it a condition for them?
Krauss: It r.,as conditioned for the develoPer to acquire easements so that
we could deed the road to us but that it be barricaded so nobodv could ever
use it because the property owners, well the ProPerty owners along side
Teton su,ore that they'd never develoP their ProPerty and that they didn't
need it and they didn't urant the traffic to 9o through there. So the
Council approved barricading of Teton even though it is a Public street
now, Now since that time Donovan sPlit off the corner in a one acre lot
and he's now talking to a develoPer about platting out. another 10 acres of
it and he owns more land in there. There's another lot that's for sale and
other Iots have development potential. The Council uas PuL in a tough
position on that one. I mean here they basically believed people that said-
they r.rould never develoP ProPerty and nott, a year and a half Iater, it's
being developed.
CHAT{HASSEN PLA}O{ING COII}IISSIOT{
REGULAR }IEETING
SEPTEHBER 1, L99I
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:SO p.m
rEHBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Steve
iEItBERS ABSENT :Annette ElIson, Joan Ahrens and
Emmings and
Brian Batzl i
Jo Ann Olsen,
-Jaff , Planner
Jeff Farmakes
Seni or
I; and Oave
STAFF PRESENT: paul Krauss, planning Director;Planner; Kathy Aanenson, planner IIr Sharmin AI
HempeI , Sr - Engineering Technician
PUBLIC HEARING:
T
Public Prcaent:
Name A ress
Ronald & Linda Landi n
l.les & Car oI Du nsmor eXaren Hassel,latt Thi I1OrIin Schafer
KyIe Colvi n
l.lar k Laaser
Doug Bar i ns ky
Don tlh i te
Cheryl Hobbs
71O l.lest 96th Str€et
73O tlest 96th Street
630 Llest 96th Street
961O Meadowlark LaneCarver County Assessor
7O1 trest 96th Street
aO37 Erie Avenue
8731 Audubon
a85O Audubon
8850 Sunset Trai I
Kathy Aanenson presented an update of the staff report on this item fromthe Iast meeting. Chairman Emmings called the pubiic-f,e"ring to order.
t'les Dunsmore: r.res Dunsmore over on l.|est 95th street, r guess r u,asn,taware of this even going on untir last r.reek. l.re got " n"ii"" on it. oursis one of them that .uas added, uest 96th street- r was wondering why itwas added when nobody that's affected on our str€et even r€quested it?
Emmings: This was motivated by the pranning commission. Thet,a us uphere. l.then we were doing the comprehensi ve-pl an .nJ-".;""'Uten doing someother things, it seemed to us that the RR classification, that the ruralsubdivisions fit better in the RR crassification than they Jid in th" e-ecrassification and so we asked the pranning steff to come'torwaro with aproposal to make that change. .
l.les Dunsmore: l.lel I our neighborhood is an oldThere's no development going on in there. Anypeople are concerned with, beds and breakfast,nurseries and stuff have nothing to do with itforesee that coming into our neighborhood.
Emmings: Do you see this adversely affecting your neighborhood in an),. r.,ay?
one. It's well establ ished .of these things that you
cemeteries and wholesaleand I guess I can't ever
Planning Commissi.on tleet i ng
September 4, 1991 - Page 2
l.les Dunsmore: tterl it does. r rook to this. r see no benefit. The onlything there's a disbeneflt to us by the fact that now ure,ve got to get a
CUP if tre h,ant to do some agricultural buildings. l.le've got horses.Several people on our street have horses or uhatever and I can see it inthe long run too maybe if some of the people, and I know there's a few onthe street that are Iooking to retirc in the next 10 years or so and maybesell. That whole neighborhood is Iike a little hobby farm neighborhood.That's rdhat attracts people out there. They like a few acres. If all of asudden this is 9oin9 to put a binder on us uhere we can't have the horsesor you can't have the pole barn or Hhatover, that could roally affect ourmarket value down the road. And it's going to cost us xhat? 375.OO if wewant to apply for a CUP and right nor.r we don't even need that. I thinkit's t75.OO and then you wait on it but I can't see any benefit and I'vegot the neighbors here that signed a petition that r.re are in favor. That
rte do not want it.
Emmings: Alrisht. Have you presented that petition to the City?
l.les Dunsmore: No. I xent to the Jeurissen neighborhood too and I believethat's just George and then Chuck and Sandy. It's just two houses andthey're on the end of our street. I've got the signatures and stuff here.
tres Dunsmore: But I guess I Hant to make that feeling cl€ar here that
nobody in our neighborhood that I've talked that's 9oin9 to be effected bythis is interested in doing it. tle like it the uay it ls and everythins isworking. t,e'd like to leave it that uay. Now I understand xhere al] these
other neighborhoods are there's a lot of development going on and you've
got to make rules and regulations and stuff now but thcre's nothing on ourstreet anymore to be developed. There's maybe one lot right there on
TH 1o1 . I guess if they put a cemetery in, that's fine. That's quiet Eithmc. I've got no complaints.
t,les Dunsmorri: I guess that's the main point I $ant to make here is
are a well established neighborhood. The oldest one around there I
and ue are not interested in being chaneed. tle'd like to leave itagricultural. Thank you,
that we
thi nk
Emmings: A couple points that he brought
change in the zoning wouldn't affect that
As far as having horses, thethat correct?
uP-
Is
Aanenson: Continual use?
Emmings: Yeah. They could continue to have horses but if they wanted tobuild a structure, an accessory structure like a pole barn, like he said to
have the horses in, then they would need to come in for a permit for that
now under RR urhere they don't have to under A-2. He's right about that
r i sht?
Emmings: Sure, why don't you give them to PauI .
Emmings: Here comes our quorum.
Olsen: Agricultural. buildinss...if they oant more horses, they uould haveto come in. rf thev uant to expand over the number of horses that they,vegot r.lhich h,as one of their concerns.
Emmings: Okay. The Uest 96th neighborhood has brought in a petitionsaying thev don't uant this change. Alright, is there anybody erse herewho uants to be heard on this?
Don l.rhite: yes, Don l.thite, 8B5o Audubon Road. I heat my home with a heatpump system that uses uell water and it's a pump and dump arrangement uherethe discharged water frows out into the creek but goes across thc lower cndof the property. r know in some more recent zoning that type of system hasbeen excluded and Id just like some clarification to make sure that thatexisting system uould still be permltted under the proposed chanses.
Krauss: There is no city ordinances or regulations thrt Im awere thatspecificallv deal with that. Now the DNR is regulating those things thesedays. If you're pumping over a certain amount of gatlons, you need somesort of a trithdrawal permit from them and they.re gettine'nuch morerestrictive on that. But we did not regulate that to thi best of myknouledge and we,re not proposing to chinge that at all.
Don white: Okay, thank you.
Hatt rhill: Hv name is Matt rhill. r'm from 9510 Meadowrark Lane. That'sin Rilev Lakes Headows. ue have horses and ne went throueh a lot oftrouble and expense to get that okayed hrith the city and i 9r".= r uouldn'tb,ant to add any restrictions to having horses in that rural area. you knourif the property were to change hands, if new people would Iike to bringhorses in for that kind of reason. r knou that there,= oiher issues inthe rezoning that have bfought this up but just from that siandpoint dreal'Iy Iike to see horses not restricted anymore than they are. l.re havenever had a problem with any of the neighbors. None of tire other neighborsin our neighborhood have horses and ne iry to be proactive about it and askthcm to make sure that they're happy uith the ,ray'reii" fe"ping them andstuff like that. And everyone's real happy. sometimes their iids are dounthere and stuff like that - r really think it,s a compatibie use and rdon't think vou should have to get a permlt and have t" a;i; a chance onthat - r guess if r were trying to selr it to aomeone and ihey knew thatthere r.ras a conditional use permit, mayb€ that might not be so clear. Theymight move on to another property. So thank you.
Cheryl Hobbs: I,m Cheryl Hobbs and I live on Sunset Trail uhich is CountryHills and r have three questions. First of all, countri iirr" is about 4houses on sunset rrair. llould you be rezoning just one "ia" ", one portionof that street?
Planning Commission Meet i n9
September 4, 799L - Page 3
Emmings: I don't
Krauss: Jo Ann,Iays out.
know the answer -
you're probably most familiar with how the neighborhood
Olsen: Country Oa ks?
Planning Commission t(eeLi ng
September 4, 7991 - Page 4
Krauss: country HilIs.
Cheryl Hobbs: It's a deadend atreet and there are-
Emmings: Do r.le have an overhead here of this?
Olscn: Is that the one off of Audubon?
Cheryl Hobbs: off of Lyman.
Olsen: llhere it's just a street that goes streight uP?
Cheryl Hobbs: Yes.
Emmings: Could you point that out on thc maP 9o we're sure, we're sure we
know uhat you're talking about -
Olsen: I think it was our intcntion to do all of the, both sides of the
street .
Cheryl Hobbs: The actual part that r.ras subdivided and lhich is called
country Hills is like 3 or 4 houses
Olsen: It's on the west side.,
Cheryl Hobbs: And the other neiEhbors didn't get a notice of this so I
figured the reason was because they weren't Part of it which ncans half of
the street uhere the homes that rere there the past 15 years would be zoned
one uay and then another section uould be zoned anothrr uay.
Emmings: Apparently we don't knor.r but that's aomething ue Probably should
look at. Your's is the newer of thc sides?
Cheryl Hobbs: Right. This uould be the Portion that uas subdivided.
Enmings: tlould you happen to know the name of the subdivision that crcated -
the lots on the other side of the strcot?
Chcryl Hobbs: It probably didn't have a name. tt'8 Just.
olsen: Isn't ther€ just llke ons lot?
Cheryl Hobbs: No- Therc r.tould be 2 or 3 homes.
Olsen: On the cast side?
Cheryl Hobbs3 Yes. And then my other question- Yeah I think would be
important to me if you knew what vou uere subdividing or changing. And
then my other question is, I'm coming in here with a feeling that I uould
rather that you didn't make this change bscause it seems to fte that it's
taking ar.ray a lot
like to ask you wh
control over what
as a landowner to
ur options of uhat you can do lith your land. I'd
nefits there uould be outside of mavbe having more
neighbor puts up. tlhat benefits would it have to me
it rezoned?
of yoat be
your
have
Planning Commission
September 4, t99L -
|.'leet i ng
Page 5
Emmings: I don't knou. Do you uant to ansu,er that?
Aanenson: l.tell we talked about that last time too. The mobile homes.C€meteries- The pole barns. Those issues. Uholesale nurseries.
Cheryl Hobbs: But I mean me as a landowner. If I didn'tneighbor put up. l,Jhy would I xant it to be changed?
Emmings: Then there probably isn't.
conrad: Yeah, then there,s no benefiL.your neighbor puts up and that's what ainteested in this zoning change, they,rethey have some control over what goes inthem nervous. Right now they don,t havelogi.c of shifting the zoning is there.
care what my
The idea is you do care about r.rhatlot of the other areas that arepositive about it because thennext to them. That,s what makesthat control and that,s r.lhy the
Cheryl Hobbs: Okay. tlell I gucss the, you know my feeling is this area isrural and we don't have a problem. l.le're insulated. Ue hive plenty oftrees and vegetation and r don't see that xe have this probrem in tirisavea. l'1v third question is, if this has anythinE to do uith the HUSA rinenow being moved, which we are not included in, and if ue're Iooking downthe rosd to having sewer and r",ater someday and being abre to subdividepart. You know make 2 or 3 building spaces, how does this affect it?l.lhich way would we be better? To have it as agricultural or?
Aanenson: The same minimum lot size, 2 1/2 acres so.
Krauss: r'm not sure that it matters. rf you wcre going to subdivide yourproperty when sewer and ulater becomes avairable, you havi to rezone itagain to RSF which is our single familv districi irsewhere in thecommunity.
Emmings: Regardless of which zoning you have.
Krauss: Regardless uhether it's A-2 or RR. The onry probrem could be,again if one of these uses that peopre rere concern"it iritn, mineralextraction or the cemetery or mobile homes or rhatever uas located onadjoining propert),/, then it would probabry make your properiy somehrhat moredifficult to develop and sell. But I don,t know uhetirer' tha[. ,s apossibility or not. r.re can't sit here and telr you these things aredefinitely going to happen if r.re don,t do ihis tinigtri .
- - ft ere ;s just achance rhat it wirr. As far es this beins tied into the truia rini, r thinkLhe Planning commission's request actualli predated tlrJ ruia' rrne ;ovinJ-btquite a bit. rt had nothing to do h,ith that. rt uras "irpii that ue hadthese basicallv rural subdivisions sitting out th6re ana ile'have some ofthem that ere zoned RR end some ar6 zoned agriculturar and they allow somedifferent things and it tras just a desire to have that corrected.
Cheryl Hobbs: Okay, thank you.
Emmings: Thank you.
PIanning Commission
September 4, 7991 -
lleet i n9
Page 6
Har k Laaser: My name is l,lark Laaser . l.,e currently live in Chan Estates
but. I've recently purchased a lot on Sunridge Court and our intention in
buying that piece of land uras to eventuall)z build a stable there for
horses. I need a, I'm just asking a point of clarification. l.lhat does the
change in status mean in terms of having horses? I'm a fairl'y new resident -to the area and I'm totally naive to these classifications.
Aanensons You need a conditional use permit for horses.
l,lark Laaser: And a conditional use permit means exactly uhat?
Krauss: A conditional use permit, it's not a guarantee. It'8 not a sure
fire thing that you'II eet it. It basicallv oPens it up for public
comment. There are some standards against phich conditional use Pcrmits
requests are weighed. Does it impact other ProPerties? Is it something
that's consistent with the neighborhood? Those sorts of things. A public
hearing is held and neighbors are notified and their concerns are taken
into account. And based upon that, we make a recommendation to the
Planning Commission. They vote on a recommendation at the city Council and -it 's ultimately their calI.
Mark Laaser: As to whether or not to allow PeoPIe like us to build a barn
and have horses and that kind of thins?
Krauss: Yes.
l,1ark Laaser: tlell is
already our n the land,
there a grandfather provision to this such that if ue
even though ue haven't erected a barn yet.
l,lar k Laa6er: If r,re tether a horse on the ProPerty nolJ?
Krauss: You can tether one.
l,lar k Laaser: So in other words pe'd have to go through that wholc Processif this change, because I'm assuning that our Parcel on Sunridge court
there is included in this srouP of 10.
Krauss: Is that the north parcel?
Mark Laaser: l.lell I can show you here on the map that t have in mlu hand.
Aanenson: I think Sunridge is,yeah.
okay.Mark Laaser: It is included?it then on that basis.
Alrieht, thanks. I pould object to
Erhart: In the RR district, is there any maximum size to a building that
can be erected for use as a horse stabLe?
Krauss: As an
how much yard accessory buildins therers a size Iimitation I believe as to -
area you can occuPy.
Krauss: No, the grandfathering applies if the building hras uP and in use.
it would certainly apply in that case.
Planning Commission l.lee! i ng
September 4, t99L - Page 7
olsen: It's 302 of the rear yard.
Erhart: Is there any difference between A-2 and RR in that regard?
Olsen: No. In all the other residential districts we swithced it sothere's a maximum of 1,OOO square feet but in the RR and agriculturaldistrict it's just 3Ot of the rear yard.
Erhart: So if you get the pernit you essentially could build anagricultural buildins. There's no restriction on that.
Krauss: Risht. Therc is another tr.,ist that we should point out and it'snot specificallv rerated to lhe zoning ordinance but rathcr than buildinscode. You can build an agricultural building in an agriculturar rrea anJyou don't even need a buil.dine permit for it. stat6 raw exempts them fromgetting a building permit requirements. Now I would assume that myinterpretation of it is that, if you,re going to get a CUp approved, youwould also th6n need a building permit in the RR district.
Emmings: rs there anvbodv erse uho wants to address this? rs theremotion to close the public hearing?
Conrad noved, Erhart sccondcd to closc the public hcaring- AII votedfavor and thc notion carried. Thc public hearing ras clised.
Emmings: Tim, have you got any comments on this?
a
1n
Erhart: I guess I don't understand, there,s a list of 9 things here. If Iowned a 2 L/2 acre, S acre lot. If I owned a 2l/2 or S acre lot, there,s9 things here that r u,ouldn't want occurring next to me. r thought that'suhat we were trying to accomplish here because ue have had our share ofthese here. I mean we've had, weII I'll just take some examples.commercial transmission touer that we just approved out in an A-2 area. Uehad people in here from Timberwood complaining about that and that was 3./4of a mile away.
Krauss: There was alsoobjected to that.testimony from Sunridge Court rcsidents that they
Erhart: hlhich is even further awa)4. you had problcms with the neighborsat Northwest Nursery complaining about their operation across the sireetand they've got a small lot. Electrical substation. Do we have anyminimum sizes on a lot for these electrical substations. rf somebody couldbuy an existing 5 acre rot and come in and put in an eiectiical substati;;;is that true?
Krauss: I suppose that's theoretically correct-
Erhart: So this lot that,s apparently, according to Ues, uhich isavailable on the end of l.lest 96th Street could be an electrical substationas long as it's zoned A-2.Krauss: Correct.
Planning Commission Heeting
September 4, L991 - Page 8
Erhart: It could be a golf driving range. Cliff Simon's got enough land
there that you could make a golf driving range. So I guess I'm really
surprised that there's some negative reaction to h,hat seems to be iust a
proposal to enhance the protection offered to People in lot sizes under 10
acres in general if you look throuEh the whole grouP including Hesse Farms. -on the other hand, the existing stable users really have no Problems unless
they want to expand at which tine they could come in and ask the neighbors
Lo come in and comment which seems to be there and Pav o75.OO. Given that
you don't expand your stable cveryday, I'm not sure that's such a burden.
So again I'm a little surprised at the negative reaction on it. There's no
Iimit to the size of buildine they can build. Onlv Iimite
neighbors might obiect to- I gu€ss if it was really out o
they'd object but if it's in an area with hobby farms' I d
they'd object so much. I guess I still tond to believe th
dbyfpI
on 'tatu
rhat the
ace I suPPose -know uhy
e're offer ing
a lot of protection here and I'm not 8ure. I guess I'm sPeaking to l.,est
96th Street. I think ue agreed at the Iast meetins, aII the rest of them
were approved so I guess I'm still inclined to Proceed with it. I think
the problem with tlest 96th Str€et is you've got one side of the road is
hobby farms and the other side is smaller lots without horses so it's kind
of the same situation as chervl... I guess I'm inclined to Proceed with
it. It seems to me it offers protection l|lith very little adverse imPact onir.
Emmings: Okay. Ladd?
Conrad: I guess I echo Tim's comments. It seemed like the thins that
homeowners there uould Iike buL they don't. Do ue have any rationale for
kickine the !.Jest 96th grouP out of this zoning change? Is therc anv logic
for the zoning change not aPPlying to them? I haven't come uP t'lith it-
Emmings: The only one I thought of is that it's aII built up- There's
only one empty lot so the Potential is probablv less but still it could
happen with these other uses to come in thcre.
CaroI Dunsmore:
hear you.
Excuse me. Could you sPeak into the microphone. l.le can't
Emmi ngs:
rationa Ie
I'm not saying anything imPortant anyhray. All I said is the only
that.
Carol Dunsmore: It's very imPortant to us.
Emmings: The only rationale I could think of for excluding tlest 96th
Street is it's essentially built up and of course that doesn't stoP
somebody from buying one of the places tha! are there. Tearing it dor.r n and
putting in some of these uses that mavbe the neighborhood' that Lre thought
maybe the neighborhood uould like to have some control over. But that's
the only rationale I could think of that urould make it different because I
think rnost of the ones {.re're dealing with are Places uhere there ar€ some
houses but there's still a lot of emPty lots. A lot of emPty large lots.
Conrad: I'm stuck on this one because r.le've got most ProPerties that we're
talking about subdivisions would like this. tle deal r.rith neighborhoods alI
the Lime, every 2 ereeks r.re deal with neighbo.rhoods talking to us about uh),
Planning Commission Heet i n9
September 4, 7991 - Page 9
are you letting that into our neighborhood. That's literally 4 hours everytlednesday night ue listen to that. This seems like some protection that Itrould like if I t.lere there. And I can understand the nervousness of
somebody saying hey, conditional use permits for a stable is not aguarantee and I understand that. I would be nervous too. I wouldn't likeif I had a stable, I wouldn't like that taken aua)r. So I gucss my decisionis whether to kill the whole thing right nor., or to go along with it, Iguess the uishes of the rest of the neighborhood. I'd be interested inurhat the rest of the, I sish there lrere more planning Commissioners heretonisht to srday me because I think it,s a tough issue-
Emmings: Do you went to try and swap Ladd Jeff?
Conrad: Yeah, sway me Jeff.
Farmakes: Hoh, many of the listingresidents were notified in total?
Krauss: It }Jas quite extcnsive.Iist up.
here that we have 1 thru 10, how many
Oo you have a tally on that?
It took quite a rlhil.e to nake the mailing
Conrad: Hundreds?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Farmakes: And of
hobby farm area?
Emmings: l^lhat is that?
150. 200 _
that group, how many uould you feel that rcrs in the
Krauss: That's kind of fuzzv though. That's oftentimes you're getting asubjective question as to uhat the owner perceives their property is andhow thev use it. Arguablv some of the folks in Timberwood might' berievethey have a hobbv farm because they have 5 acres and a big tomato patch.think some of the individuals on 96th street have probabli tend to moreb,hat you think is a hobby farm.
I
Krauss: f don't have a number for you but most of the lots 8re in the LakeRiley Hills or something like that uhich is, there xas a uhole sleul ofthese subdivisions that came in 1985 and 1982 for the most part trying toget a jump on the change of the City Code down to l per 10 acres zoning.All those are what I would classify as, including Timberwood, as a moretraditional rural subdivision and not a hobby farm area. That,s most ofthe Iots.
Farmakes: That's what I'm trying to do-rhat's on here.I'm trying to 96t an idea of
Farmakes: The next question that r have is, we talked a bit about taxesbefore or about getting a response. Did you get a direct response onthat? I read something in here but.Krauss: tle'v6 got bett€r than a dlrect response. Ue have the man himself.orlin Schafer, the carver county Assessor is here tonight and cln directlyanswer your questions.
Planning Commission tleeti n9
September 4, l99f - Page 10
Farmakes: That's correct.
Orlin Schafer: That's your basic
influences value and consequently
question . trlhether or not zoni ng
taxes.
Farmakes: The
regards to.
previous hearing that's what most of the questions uere in
Orlin Schafer: Right. It's similar in circumstances to the HUSA line
change. The fact that the line changed didn't change values to theproperty. Use dictates value of property. If you now have in these areas, -if you now have 10 acres or mor€, you can qualify for the agricultural
classes as we see agricultural .
Emmings: So it r.,as the agricultural classes, Green acres, rrhat's commonly
referred to as Green Acres?
Orlin Schafer: Right. Or just outright uithout the Green Acres Protection -you can have agricultural . Agricultural use and tre apPraise it and
ultimately tax it in that light. By the same token we have PeoPle within
the context of the city that are in a commercial zone that now have
agricultural cl.ass by our office on their propert),. because the use is still -
agricultural. They're maintaining a cropping Procedure. That is a truck
farming type of operation and due to the income generated and so forth, the
use of the property, it dictates that it cualifies for agricultural use and -ue continue to carry it that gJay on the book. And aPPraise it and assess
it that way. Property right across the street does not carrv that and is
assessed extremely hieh in comparison. So looking at the zoning strictl)z
from a tax perspective or the imPact it would have on my office and our
outlook on the future values of that property, up front I would say there'd
be no impact. Somewhere dou,n the line someone in these areas is going to
u,ant to subdivide. It happens. It's nice to have the idea that you're
isolated. That your a hobby farm or that )rou're rural and that you'Il
aluays be that way but that very rarely remains the case. Somewhere along
the Iine economic pressures or whatever it aright be changes that and PeoPle -request subdivisions. If you really don't have the zoning and thoseprotections that you're eluding Eo earlier in Place rt that time, you're
opening up a whole can of worms and then we have some negative imPacts as
ue view property. Not demeaning mobile home courts or manufactured housing
situations. If one of those would be constructed in an area, the
surrounding property is definitely impacted by it and that could be very
much of a negative impact. And so those are the things that you're
Iooking at. tle really don't car6 how you rezone th6 property, we look at
the use of the property, So if you leave it A-2 and move a mobile home
court or something in there or a recreation facility of some kind into that -and impact the adjoining properties' h,e r.rill Iook at the imPact it has just
as if a manufacturing plant uas built in the middle of a residential area
and you made a conditional use permit. Granted it or something and thatplant had an adverse affect on the residential area around that. l.le
comPensate those people for that act on your Part. So we react to the
Emmings: Let's make sure we understand Nhat question's being asked. l.le're
uondering is there 9oin9 to be a change. Is there a tax consequence
associated with a change from A-2 to RR for the people uho live in these?
Planning Commission t,leet i n9
September 4, 1991 - Page 11
conditions as they exist. Not as ure anticipate Lhem to be.
Emmings: Right. And that's because you're oritentation is to the value ofthe property and not to the zoning classification?
OrIin Schafer: That's corrcct. And if property is properly zoned, and ifyou do not put unreasonabl.e restrictions on this rural res cLass, thereshould be no impact whatsoever on these. small tract ohrnors. r question theability to build an agricultural building of an)z size Hithout somerestrictions. I don't see that anywhere else in the township. I r.roulduonder whv vou uould r.rant to allow it here. Even if it ulere a stable orwhatever. I think you do have to have some control over structures,whether they're agricultu.ral or uhatever regardless of uhere they're beingbuirt. You have to have road setbacks. you have to have all those thinssthat conform to anv other zoning c.lass. And unless you're rearly rimitingthese people, r would see no adverse impact at all due to the fact that iichanges fron A-2 to RR. If a tract owner out there, and r.le do have acoupre because rve been contacted by them. rf they're in en agricurturalpursuit aL the present Linre, and ue have them classed a9 and they get thebeneflts of the ag calculation. The ultimate calculations. They cancontinue to receive that. tle have no problem r.rith that. I,ve advisedevervone that's asked me about it or questioned it to apply for the GreenAcres classification to protect their incerest in the a9 classification.As ure see it ' it has nothing to do with the zoning because if you l.,,anted tochange that to non-ag use, their Green Acres orould be meaningless becausethey'd be not conforming to zoning law. But if zoning uould allow anagricultural use in a residentiar area, r would see no probrem uith it.Thev are entitled to the Green Acres classification if Lhey can qualify.Anything else?
Conrad: Did Don HaIIa call you just last week?
Orlin Schafer: He Has one of those people that called, yes.
conrad: And last hreek, or two *eeks ago he made an issue that he wasdeprived of his Green Acres status. I thought he did didn,t he? He hadsome issue.
Olsen: Dave HaIIa.
Emmings: That h,asn't Don. That was Dave.
Conrad: That uas Dave.
Orlin Schafer: There are some other impacts in that situation because theyhave a rather large tract that they've subdivided and there are some other.That's an individual situation that really I don't know how zoning wouldimpact it one u,ay or the other because they,ve chosen to do what they did.l.le reacted to L,hat they did. And a coupre of their lots were changed invalue simply because they had chosen to improve them. I mean that,snormal, That would happen regardless of uhat they were zoned. So thosekinds of Lhings. For the most part they still qualify for creen Acres.Risht.
Planning Commission t,leet i ng
September 4, 1991 - Page 12
Emmings: Okay, thank you OrIin.
Farmakes: The last thing I'd like to say on this is you made the statement
I believe that you uranted the freedom to do uhat you wanted on your
property that you have now before this zoninE is changed. And you also
mentioned that you have a next door neighbor who's looking to retire soon
and may h,ant to subdivide his property and that restricts him and might
affect the value of his land. Is that the statement that you nade?
l.les Dunsmore: No, Not subdivide- Just sell his place period as it standsright noH.
Farmakes: I thought )zou said subdivide. The thing that worries me about
this is it doesn't lake a person r.rho can read into a crystal ball to look
and see that an urban city is just over the horizon coming towards you.
I guess what ue're trying to do here is plan ahead for that. It certainly
gives the city some basis to plan and develop orderly rather than to deal
on a crisis basis. tlhen somebody puts in something to your next door
neighbor that you just can't live xith and you comi into the city and you
look for some justice to be done. l.lhat you consider to be an okay use is
not necessarily what your neighbor thinks is an okay use. And because
several of you are fortunaLe enough to have several acres between you ' trhat -your neighbor does across the way ma)rbe doesn't concern you very much but
at some point in time that city is going to come uP over the horizon there-
You're not far away from it and it seems to me that based on the amount of
people that have been notified here, it's hard for me to say that those
people shouldn't be afforded that Protection because of the amount of
people that are here tonight and have based a legitimate concern about
theiruseagesfortheir]and.HorseSandsoon.Icanunderstandthat
It's one of the reasons ue moved out here.
l.Jes Dunsmore: Can I say one more thing?
Conrad: You would have the right to do it.
tles Dunsmore: I could do that?
Emmlngs: Is that a permitted usc?
Farmakes: Sure.
l.les Dunsmore: I know what you're saying here is you're trying to give usthis protection. There's nobody here says ue uant it. tle all sav r.re don't
uant it. Including the people that signed that. Everybod)r knows what this
is. The City is not going to surround us unless they can fill in lakes
behind us and next to Tim and bulldoze out TH 1o1 and Pioneer Trail.
They're not going to encroach... l.le knon tho Prot€ction j,ou're tryi.ng togive and you're doing it for neighborhoods that were started in 1944 on uP. -t^le're back in the 6o's in our neighborhood and there lsn't going to be anv
more development there. And I can't believe right now that the City wouldlet me put a cemetery on my place if I r..anted to. oo you thlnk that'd be
okay if I go out there and start a cemetery or a mobile home Park? Or do
you think the city might step in and stop me right now.
Planning commission t'leet i ng
September 4, 1991 - Page 13
Krauss: ft's a conditional or interim use so there uould have to be apublic hear i n9
Emmings: Even in the A-2?
t,es Dunsmore: So they could stop me right noh, without changing. They
already are protecting me right now urithout changing m), zoning so I reallycan't do what I want right now in agricultural or residential . I can'tbelieve somebody'd let me put a cemetery or wholesal€ nursery uithout
coming before the City Council or Planning Commission or somebody to try
and stop me. l.laybe they uould stop it but nhat ec're doing is the peoplethat are here that signed that petition Bay thank you for the protcction
but we don't Hant it . tJe urnt to stay ag .
Cheryl Hobbs: Could I say something too?I appreciate the protcction.
First of aII, nhat h,as your name?Emmings: Naybe you'd teII us your name -
tles Dunsmore: l.res Dunsmore. l.rest 96th.
Emmings: And your 's ma'am.
Cheryl Hobbs: Cheryl Hobbs. ilaybe rre aie more concerned with our freedomthan our protection. The freedom to do uhat le nant.
Resident: Can I interject one thing?
Emmings: No, I think this is getting a little out of hand. l.te closed thepublic hearing. Haybe hrhat He'll do is finish the comments up h€re and ifthere are people uho've got some further comments, maybe ne'Il let you comeback up.
Farmakes: I think I've said my comments. I still think that thisgood thing. Perhaps lre can review that issue on tcity wants to look at that and the homeouners. If
subdivided in the future. We don't know
urban kind of situation and it seems to 0t
these subdivisions belong in a residentia
he 95th Street.they're on the f
's not in my back
Iked about, we de
Putxt
ere
that
isIf
ar
YalI
ne
xh
e
k
a
the
end
ard .
withissues of land aII the time here and freedorns to use your land. Ifin, to use a hypothetical issuc. If somebody urants to put in pigs
door to you or a nuclear {aste dump, you have to draw a line as to
frcedom ends as far as land use goes because na aII live next to onanother. Some of us live farther auray than others but I don't thinif this designation is changed that it really ls going to be that
of the land useage as far as the size of acres. itBut I stiLl don't think that the issues that h,e ta
butetlc
restrictive on your freedoms.
Emmings: For my point of view, I was looking at thi6 primarily as right
now ure've got, ure're a community that's movlng from kind of a ruralcharacter where we've got the northern half is rapidly becoming very urban
and the southern half ule've got sort of more of a rural character but we'vegot these housing developments springing up in there r.,ith large lots. l.lhenyou look at that trend, there's Iarge lots now- Those lots may bethe trend is towards a morehat housing developments like
ategory rather than an
Planning Commission
September 4, 7991 -
Heet i ng
Page 14
agricultural one. If somebody wants to come in as the last lot in a ruralsubdivision r.lith large loLs and they uant a stable in there and none of the -
neighbors r^rant it, they probably won't get it but I think ure brant to be
sure that they come in and ue give those neighbors something to say about
it. I know if I were in a rural subdivision and my neighbor wanted a -stable, I wouldn't uanL it but that's jusL me. On the other hand I guess,
so I think this is a reasonable thing to do. The only thing that makes me
uncomfortable is in the 96th Street case, I'm not cornfortable saying you
need this protection if you're out there saying you don't want it. To some
extent. t^,e hear that a lot of times. lle didn't ask you for this. tlhy areyou doing this to us? tle do have to think in a little broader terms thanjust r.rhat you desire but I think that it may be a situation uhere if
everybody in the subdivision doesn't lrant it, ma)rbe they ought to be able
to opt out. Haybe we could have a provision in there that says if they canget everybody to sign something saying they don't r.,ant to be RR' leave them -A-2. I don't think that's likely to happen.
Emmings: Yeah, okay. Now you've heard our comments and there are a couple
hands going up back here that lranted some comments. If you'd make them
br ief .
l.latt Thill: l.latt Thill, l,leadowlar k Lane. i,lr. Dunsmore was talking about
some of the older neighborhoods that may not have a Probl6m. I think some
of the newer neighborhoods may not either because they have rcallyrestrictive covenanLs. You can't put mobile homcs. You knou radio towers.
tlore than one accessory building or any accessory buildins over 85O squarefeet. There are a lot of restrictions in some of the newer neighborhoodsincluding mine. And Iivestock, that came up. You can't have that in my
neighborhood other Lhan horses. No businesses. only one accessorybuildins and the other structures. The other thing about this is that you
have to buy the lot and you hope that you can get horses but. you've plunked
your money down by the time you apply for the CUP. So I guess aperspective buyer nould urant to knou up front and you really couldn't say.
Emmings: I SUPPOSe ),/OU
Thank you .].latt ThiIl:
could buy it contingent on approval too.
Erhart: If I can address that point. I think in the first place I have a
number of my neighbors here. I p€rsonally don't really care. I'm not
uorried about these things either. But l,e started this Process looking as
you say in general with aII of the 2 L/2, 5 acre IoLs we've got in the city
to offer some protection that was already here. I mean this RR district
existed for many years and quite frankly I guess I'm going to vote for this
because I think it's good planning and that's what we're aupposed to do
here. Quite frankly, from a political standpoint the process is due at the -Council meeting and if the Council says gee whiz. It apPears that there's
a majority or 1OO? or uhaLever they Bant to vieur it, that doosn't Hant to
be in this, I don't care. So in a sense if this petition rePresents you
don't urant to be in it and Council looks at that and says that's thepolitical will of that neighborhood, I'm fine r.rith that too but I think
from a planning standpoint, I guess I'm going to vote for it because I'm
struggling with the same thing you are.
Planning Commission l.leeting
September 4, 1991 - Page 15
Marlin Edwards: Marlin Edr.rards. I live at Audubon and Lyman Road. Hyproblem is just as the city needs to plan, so homeowners need Lo plan andbefore I ever bought my 11 acre lot at the intersection of Audubon andLyman, I came in and talked to city planners about the long term plans forthat propertv and r was told that thev had recently extended the existingzoning which allowed A-2 for that category of property from the year 2OOOto the year 2o1o. so before r ever bought the lot r came in and talked tothe city planncrs. I figured that out. I am using it agriculturally. I,mplanting trees there. r want to have a nursery there. r realize r couldapply for an exemption.
Emmings: Are you in one of these subdivisions?
l{arlin Edwards: Yes I am
Emmings: tlhi ch one?
l.lar I i n Edwards: Sunridge Court.
Emmings: Okay.
Harlin Ed!,ards: so just as the city needs to plan, homeowners need toplan. The City has no accountabilily. people come and go- The Citychanges it's ru]es. r made verv conscientious p]ans. t^lint through allproper channels Lo figure out urhat the City,s long term plans are. Nou,they change plans. I don't know uhen I apply for Green Acres. I don'tknow how long it urill be before the city t^rilr change regulations anddisallow me to have Green Acres
Emmings: Tha!'s State law. Ue can,t. Is that right Orlin?
Harlin Edwards: Did you not mention though that it r.ras possiblc forexample Green Acres protection r.rourd not protect someone if the cityregulated that agricultural uses llere not longer even appropriate inar ea?
the
that
Orlin Schafer: I don't think. This is what I mcant- If you putunreasonable resLrictions on and said that an agriculturar use rould not bepermitted in this type of subdivision, then you'rc affecting value ofpropertv- rt uould be feasible lf vou no ronger cuarified for the GreenAcres. You can get Green Acves in dountown chanhassen if you gualify. rheyhave no control over that.
Marlin Edwards: r guess my issue ls just as r understand the city's needto protect the interest of new homeowners, I feel the City has aresponsibilty to protect the needs of pcople who've gone through allpossible recourse !o estabrish uhat the city's plans are. people need toplan as well as the citv needs to plan and rvG been very disturbed uiththe city's trends in the 3 years I've owned lhat property. I had to 9o andhave it reclassified A-2- As soon as r built a house on it lt uas ruialresidential and nou you're disallowing the A-2 and r imagine the oeglerssee the urriting on the wall too. r don't feel good aboui the trend becauseI believe people who planned to have certain uses ought to have thatrespected by the City. That's just not how growth Eoes I guess.
Plannins Commission
September 4, t99t -l,,leet i ng
Page 16
Emminss: Alrisht, thank you.
Erhart: It's not clear to me, what effect the is on.
Emmings: tle should probably, you knou, anytime that we can talk to people
about long term, bre should probablr heve to oive a warning that long term
is about 3 months here because I think that's rbout it today. Yes ma'am.
Carol Dunsmore: Carol Dunsmore, trest 96th Street. I'd likc to direct myfirst question to Ladd. Eecause you ualked in after my husband spoke, he
made some excellent points about r.rhy Nest 96th Street and the Jeurissen
Addition should be eliminated fron this rezoning and I feel that you cannot
make an informed comment or decision after not hearing his talk. I'm sad
thaL you didn't hear it because he gave some excellent.
Emm i ngs :
recap.
tlell why don't, if you feel that's important cnou€th, leL's do a
Carol Dunsmore: But my other comment was, I have a petition here that 12
out of 17 homeowners on our street says no, ue do not u,ant it. Obiect
means no. N o and 72 out of 17 and it's sad to see that the Planning
Commission is not listening to the residents. That's tlhat I thought thepublic hearing was for. To listen to the residents. Take in their
concerns and it sounds Iike it's aII hogwash. That you don't even care
now. You're just going to pass something because you think it feels good.
It's not affecting you. It's affecting us.
Nes Dunsmore: Again, I'm l.les Dunshore. I don't nean to take up the wholenight here.
Emmings: No, we asked you to.
tres Dunsmore: l.lell thank you. I guess all I'm just saying is that we, our -neighborhood is old and established and I realize there's got to bc rules
and regulations. I know I work for the City of Eden Prairie 20 years. I
know how this stuff goes but ue are established and I cannot see uhere we
can possibly subdivide doun there because nost of it is lowland behind us
and all that and I can't see, never's a long time but I can't see uhere
we're going to be bringing in anything new in there or anything else. I
think iL's going to stay the same- If sornebody's house burns dor.ln ' they're -just going to rebuild it. That's aII there's going to be. There's going
Emmings: Right, and I guess my comment there to you uould be, if notice
Hent out to 15o people. tle've heard negative comments from a very smallproportion of those really and there are times also tlhen bre Pass things
here that may not be wanted by a majority of the PeoPle but they are things
that have to be passed for certain reasons. You know regulations- Nobody
r.lants to be forced to pump their septic system every 3 years and to tell us
Hho's doing it. tre put people through a lot of problems pith that. Nobody
uith a septic system really uanted to do 'that but ure made them all do it.
So there are times when ue have to do it. I'm not sure this is the same
kind of issue. I'm not saying that but, ghy don't you tell, if you couldquickly recap your comments.
PIanning Commission
September 4, 1991 -
Heet i ng
Page 17
to be no golf course there or any of these 9 or 10 issues here that youpeople are concerned with allouring in there. Like I said on the end there,I can't believe that I could go in there right now and put in a cemetery
and so on. I think the people here r.lould stop me and I think that's areasonabl.e request. l.,e're already developed. I can't see any of this
coming in. There's no !{ay. tlhether it,s allowed right nou, I can,t seethat you people would let me do that. I think that's almost justified
enough there. I didn't even talk to everybody on the strset. Everybodythat I did talk to last night signed that petition. A lot of peopleweren't home. So thank you.
Emmings: Yeah. thank you.Alright, is there any more comments up here?
me hou this affected the fellou uith theErhart: It r.lasn't clear to
wholesale nursery,
Krauss: l.JeI I a wholesale
hearings and aII that.nursery is an interim use and requires public
Erhart: But he already has it.
Krauss: tlell as I understand it, I'm pretty sureThere's some agricultural use going on just off ofThat's a permitted use in the RR district.
I knor,t
Lyma n
what lot itin Su nr i dge
ls.
Cour t .
Erhart: l.,lhat is?
Krauss: The continuing ofdistr ict .
the agriculture is a permitted use in the RR
Erhart: Raising trees is considered?
Krauss: Yeah, so there is no implication. Now if there,s a desire tobuild a large barn or have a feedrot or something else, yes. Then it wouldimpact it but to the best of mv knouledge, r think lm familiar uith uhichIot we're talking about, it shouldn't impact it at all- By the way too,commissioner Farmakes, you asked how many peopre He sent notices to. Kathy
was. counting that up. There uas 2O4 notices sent out.
Farmakes: r just t{ant to make surc lve got that right. There are a totarof 17 and you had 12 on your petition?
Carol Dunsmore: There are 17 houses...and th€ro,s 12 nour
Emmings: AIright. Is there a motion?
Cheryl Hobbs: Are you going to find out about that sLr€et.. _
Emmings: tJhat? Oh. I think h,hat we're going toyou raised. Let's see, that uas Country Hills?have to do on the issue
Farmakes: Both sides of the street.
Planning Commission Heeti n9
September 4, l99L - Page 18
Emmings: Yeah.
the City Counci I I think they'll have to take care of that between nou and
meeting. Thank you for bringing Lhat uP.
Erhart: I'lI move that the Planning Commission rccommend aPProval of
Rezoning l+91-9 for proPertv zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate to RR' Rural
Residential District with the 11 subdivisions listed in the rePort-
Emmings: I see 10.
Erhart: okay, yeah. There's 10.
Emmings: I'll second it. Is there any discussion?
Erhart roved, Eomi n€ls ecconded that tho Planning Comiaslon rccorocnd
approval of Rezoning 191-9 for ProP€rty zoned A-2, Agric-ultural Est t€ to
RR, Rural Rcsidential District for the follooing Subdivigiorr:
Timberuood EsLates
Sun Ridge Addition
Country HiJ.Is
Pioneer HilIs
Lake Riley Woods North
Ri ley Lake I'teadows
Deerbrook
Hesse Farms
].lest 96th Street Area
Jeurissen Addition
AII voted in favor and ths rotion carricd.
Emmings: This urill 9o to City Council when?
olsen: 23rd.
Emmings: September 23rd and follow the issue there. Our action is not a
final action. It's a recommendation to the City Council and you have every
right to politic all you want between now and then uith those folks. They
r.rill make the final decision.
Chairman Emmings waived the staff report and callcd thc public hearing to
order .
Emmings: I r.,asn 't able to make it to
Hess€ Farms. Did anyone who was here
Olsen: Tim and Jeff did.
the visit to this property out on
90?
Emmings: okay, what did you guys see out there?
1.
2-
3.
4.
5.
6-
7.
8.
9.
10.
PI,BLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE A}IEND}IENT TO CREATE A BLI'FF LIIG PRESERVATION SECTION TO
THE CITY CODE.
Planning Commission l.leeting
September 4, L997 - Page 19
Erhart: A lot of trees. l.lhat'd r.re see? trhat lre saw ltas a lot that theperson purchased that's between two existing very nice homes. The lotitself did not have the view that the other homes had because it faced intoa ravine and therefore the home, the lot owner wanted to build the housefurther doh,n the slope on a ridge that went down and over to the right. Itcertainly structurally could be done and it sould afford him a very niceview and a yard further down on that ridee - On the othcr side, the house
would have been right in the viel, of a lot' of other homes looking douln onit. It would have been quite visible I think it a lot of other homes.
Certainly acutely to those two homes. Quite visiblo to a lot of other
homes all along the bluff and if you go around to the other, I drove around
ordinance, if this ordinance doesn't prevent that house fromthere, then there isn't a Iot of sense to have the ordinance.
through the other sid€ of Hesse Farms on tthat all of the homes uere built up and ofteII and I might be wrong if there's any .
area Iike that one that we're discussing t
have of it is that if you're going to have
Emmings: Okay. Thipublic hear that ulan
hc cast side and my analysis wasf the bluff. And it's hard toctually built dounhat one. The analythis ordinanc€, th
to the bluffs that I
theins bui lt
'm not
insi
en
beI
saying that the ordinance is desireable or.not. If we're 9oin9 to havethis ordinance, that house...then not much has been accomplished.
Farmakes: It r.ras a perfect thing to 9o to. For me it uas just xhat that
ordinance uould prevent. I guess I Has surprised by how little, as far asplanning in purchasing that lot work had been done on his part to reallyfared out uhether or not he could build a home there. You're slying it
would be possible for him to build out in that arca but he's done no soiltesLing. He's done no, as far as general conversation with him, he's done
no work with engineers or inquired as to whether or not how feasible ituould be to build a home dourn there. I'm not an €ngineer but it wouldcertainly be a difficult operation to put in a house down there I thinkjust losistically anyuay. 8ut it also seemed to be in an area that thisordinance, this urhole intent would be to stop.
Emmings: Okay. It didn't mak€ you feel bad about the ordinance I take it?
Erhart: It did uhat I wanted it to do. I lJantcd to have the viewing
because I still had some concern about the ordinance. It's not uhat I
intended when we started this bluff preservation talk here 3-4 year6 ago.
Obviously I'm goin9 after the commercial area and this is the first thingthat got on the agenda so I've had some doubts about it but I think after
having gone out there I feel better about the ordinance
sisattoa public hearing and are there any members of the
ddress this? Nobody's ta l king.
Conrad novcd, Erhart secondcd to closc thc public hcariml- All votcd in
favor and thc ootlon carricd- Tho public hcaring ras clo3cd.
Emmings: Other comments. Tim, do you heve an)rthing further you went to
say?
Er hart :No.
Ladd?Emm i ngs :
Planning Commission
September 4, 7991 -
f{eet i ng
Page 20
conrad: No.
Emmings: Jeff?
Farmakes: No.
Emmings: l.1e either. Is there a motion?
Erhart: Now we know why ue have seven people on the Planning Commission.
Emmings: Huh?
Erhart: So you can get motions. That's uhy they have seven people on the
Planning Commission is so they get moLions fasL.
Conrad: I recommend approval.
Erhart ! tlhere are we?
Emmings: It's on the first page.
Conrad: I know but there's nothing
Olsen: Because there's so many different sections we just, you can just
say recommend approval of the bluff protection ordinance I think wiIIsuffice.
Conrad: Okay, recommend approval of the bluff protection ordinance asfound in the staff repor! dated August 28th.
Erhart: I 'I I second it .
Emmings: AIright, is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Conmission reconmendapproval of the Bluff Protection Ordinanco as prcsentcd by staff in theetaff report dated August n, 1991. All voted in favor and thc notioncarricd.
PI,BLIC HEARING
REZONING OF 90 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2. AGRICILTI'RAL ESTATE DTSTRICT TO
PUD. PL A NNED UNIT VELOPITENT TO CREATE 10 INDUSTRI LLOA TS LOCATED SOUTH OF
CHICAGO. I{ILI.JAUKEE. ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND EAST OF AI'DIJBON ROAD.
RYAN CONSTRUCTION.
Ne m e €ss
KenL Car lson
Brook LiIIestol
Rick AI lerdi nssJeff & Ann Kul lberg
l.li ke & JoAnna Adler
R)'an
4460
4461
8480
4470
ConstructionBittern CourtCittern CourtBittern CourtEitter rr Court
Public Present:
Name ess
Erhart: Oh, okay.
uetland or it's out
So it's completely out of uhat we consider existingof the existing uetland?
Aanenson: It's in a floodplain.
Krauss: You mentioned that the wetland that's locaLed on the ProPerLy. I
think ue've been out to the site several times and calling it a u,etland's a
Iittle bit expansive. Right nor.r it's a spot in the sovbeans uhere beans
don't grow real well.
Erhart: Are you talkins about outlot A or are you talking about Lot 6?
Aanenson: Lot 6.
Erhart: Oh. I understand that.
Kathy Aanenson continued ullth her staff rePort Presentation at this point.
Chairman Emmings caIled the public hearing to order.
Kent carlson: Hy name is Kent carlson. I'm tlith R),'an construction comPany
and I thought we'd just maybe talk a couPle of minutes about our
organization and the things that we see haPPening on the site over the next
few years. I'Il make our advertisement for our firm brief as Possible but
to give you a Iittle background on our f irm, ue're 53 years old. tle're a
design-buitd construction develoPment organization and ue're fullv
integrated with our own staff of design PeoPle. Our ProPerty managemenEpeople. Our construction peoPIe. Financing and development PeoPle. l.le've
Planning Commission Heet i ng
September 4, 7997 - Page 21
Doug Bar i ns ky
Don l.lhi te
i,lar k Laaser
8731 Audubon
8a5O Audubon
8037 Erie Avenue
Kathy Aanenson presented the staff report on thls item.
Emmings: Is that retention pond taking uater fron xhat Part of the site?
Aanenson: Pardon me?
Emmings: trhat part of the site uould be draining into that retention Pond?
Aanenson: The entire project.
Krauss: The entire site would drain into it. l.Je've also asked that the
developer develop this pond to the NERPS standards-so we're not only
retaining uater but r.re're removing nutrients-
Erhart: Excuse fie. The pond's not shown on the plans at this Point.
Krauss: No it is. If you look at the grading plan.
Aanenson: It's on there. It's noted.
Planning Commission l.leeting
September 4, 799L - Page 22
been in the business for over 50 years. Started up in Hibbing in the coal
and Iumber business and then moved down to the l.linneapolis area in theearly 60'6 and since then have developed over 31l2 million square feet ofproperty that ue currently oun and manage. During the boom yeers of the8O's we did a lot of development for our portfolio and a lot of third party
development. That ratio is about 752 for our portfolio and 25t for thirdparty oh,ners and our clients who own and occupy their or.rn facilities.
Today the market's changed a little bit. tle see a lot more of our business
7OZ-8OZ of it now being done for third party people and that's u,het ueanticipate happening on this site. A number of build to suit projects
which would be homes for a lot of manufacturing organizations and tarehouse
and distribution organizations. tle do plan and have on the drawing boardseveral multi-tenant propertics that ue uould own and managc ourselvesrithin our portfolio. tlith me tonieh! is Dick Koppe uith RLK and'Associates and he is the engineer for the site. He is her6 to help us
answer more technical questions and Hith that I guess we'II open it up toyour questions. Thank you.
Emmings: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing again. Are there any
members of the public here urho uaht to address this issue?
Brook LiIlestol: My name is Brook Lillestol . My address is 8460 BitternCourt. I have a couple of concerns. One uas in doing this change, doesthis mean that the road itself, Audubon Road is restructured as far as the
amount of trucks that can go through there as far as ueight wise andstuff? I mean the road itself has gone dramatically over thc past year asfar as the amount of traffic I guess you could say and there,s nothing that -
we can really do about that but I guess my concern is, is there 9oin9 to bea restructure for I think there's a zoning like a 10 ton truck to 9o on orsomething Iike that?
Emmings: Let's see, are.you asking if there's a limit on the size ofLrucks that can use the road?
Brook Littestol: Yes, exactly.
Hempel: Audubon Road has just' recently gone through an upErade. It,s been -buil.t to a 9 ton commercial standard. It's proposed to be kind of a north/south corlector according to the Eastern carver county Transportation studyand we anticipate increased volunes of commercial traffic and normalresidential traffic on that road over the next 1O-2O years. As far asroads being built to accommodate such truck traffic, it's one of th6purposes of the recent reconstruction of it and upgrading.
Emmings: Okay. Does that answer your question?
Brook Littestoli Yeah, I guess so. In other uords it,s going to be up?In other h,ords there wiII be more truck traffic and there will be a higher?
HempeI: tlell potentially yes. From this development wiII increase thetruck traffic but the traffic study trould probably give us a betteranalysis of uhich direction they would be golng I guess. Hy first thoughtwould be accebs to TH 5 versus going to the south hor.lever.
Planni ng Commission l.leeti ng
September 4, 1991 - Page 23
Emmings: Once 212 is built that could change.
Brook Littestol: Okay. The other thing I wanted to ask you hras as far asthe Iong term effect and I'm very new aL this because of the fact that I'ma new homeowner and I've never owned a home before and as far as long termeffect. As far as property taxes. Does this at any point change? Inother words, uith a development versus a residential area going in there.
Emmings: This property is right now it,s zoned A-2, is that correct?
Krauss: Yes.
Emmings: But in our Comprehensive Plan it was zoned as industrial property
and that's the uray $e saw it's use 9oin9. The effect on, now you livewhere in relation to this property? You live across Audubon from this?
Brook Littestol: Yeah, right across. My backyard faces Audubon Road.
Emmings: okay. And are you asking me
impact on the value of your property?if this project is 9oin9 to have an
Brook Littestol: Right.
Emmings; I have no idea. That's a question for an assessor or somebodyIike that. There's no way for me to know. tle do have also in the
comprehensive plan realizing that there's residential properties across thestreeL, Paul actually cafie up with this buffer yard concept uhere oeincrease the setbacks for the industrial properties because we know thatthere's a residential development across the street. you get someseparation with the road itself but it r"lill also put in this buffer yard
concept to geL the buildings back even further aray from the residentialareas. Trying to get as much open space as we could between those two verydifferent uses. Maybe Paul can, what's the difference between a normal
setback and the difference with the buffer yard?
Krauss: The buffer yard was designed to increase the setback ar€a and toreguire that an area be set aside ao it can be permanently landscaped toserve as additional screening. Normally an industrial setback might be 50feet. tlhat the buffer yard does is along Audubon Road it adds another 50feet that's permanently set aside uith an easement and covenant so you havea much greater setback. And internally where you don't have a street, thatbuffer yard is 1OO feet uide. This issue uas explored quite a bit duringthe Comprehensive PIan; Going back a ways, some of the people in the
audience, I know Doug Barinsky uas here at that time. Originally one ofthe versions of the Comprehensive PIan had the industrial property Iine orthe industrial line 9oin9 doh,n to Sun Ridge Court. That was knocked outafter a lot of discussion because it was concluded that the high point onthe property, this area ulas right about here. There were some homes on
Audubon that this could most appropriate, the Rod Grams farm, be mostappropriately developed for residential uses. I believe your subdivisionis in this area right here that's not showing up on our map.
HempeI: Exactly.
PIanning Commission
September 4, t99f -
t'lee! i n9
Page 24
Krauss: The IOP section picks up here. This is the site. There's also anindustrial site, acLua1ly turo of them along the es yet unfinished road thaL -
separates your subdivision, between your subdivision and the railwaytracks. t,hat else, another thing that helps this project is that there's a
1.2 acre site right here that the l.leather Service is looking at taking andthat's really the highest ground in there. They're going to be moving or
they're proposing to move the weather facility, the regional weather
facility out from the airport to Chanhassen. There is a radar unit that
comes wiLh it that they've shown us that has some height guestions. It's
not as high as r.re thought it would be but basically on a 12 acre site
they're only going to be developing a tenth of it and the rest of it's all
going to be green space and that's the area that's the closest to your
subdivision. So ..re're pushing everything back down behind the hill so it's
dourn in that val ley.
Emmings: And the land slopes down there so.
Brook Littestol: Right.
Krauss: No. To be honest we're not, the plans haven't been that welldeveloped. This is a concept stage and ue're not looking at the finaldetails yet. They'll be coming back through again and we'II have moreinformation on that. But the development itself is obligated to do some ofthe work and additional work would be done on individual sites. Individualsites we uon't know until they actually come in urith them but the buffer is
9oin9 to be established along some sort of phasing program so that's up andrunning as the properties are developed. tlhat lre're going to be getting
and the ordinance, f don't know exactly what it's going to be because wehaven't had it laid out but the ordinance talks about a combination ofberming and landscaping and preservation of topography, uherever that,suseful to do that to separate direct views. I can't tell you you,re no!going to see anything there because you probably uill but I know that the
homes are sort of located on the other side of the sLreet and the streetgoes up and then starts going down on the other side. We'll do everythj.ngpossible to screen it. There's probably going to be some...
Brook Littestol: Okay, thank you.
Emmings: You bet. Is there anyone else here Hho (ants to?
Jeff Kullberg: My name's Jeff KuI]berg.first concern, uhat sort of restrictions I I ive on 8480 Bittern Court . l,tyare there and uhat types of
Brook Littestol: nisht.
Emmings: I think we've tried real hard to try and find a h,ay to minimizethe impact of that industrial area.
Brook Littestol: Well it sounds like you guys have done some planning
obviously but my third question, urhich me and Dave had talked abouL this,is about the landscaping. As far as if this goes into effect, uhat kind of -landscaping does it go in? You had Lalked about an easement on there and
everything else. Because I mean I really don't think they're going to put
highuray seed out Lhere like you did in my backyard.
Planning Commission Heeting
September 4, 799f -. Page 25
businesses wiII be allowed to locate in this park?
Krauss: As an induslrial park, you know our industrial park, the best
example of our industrial park is to go see urhat's in the existing parks
that we have right now. There's a cross section of off ice/nanufactur i ngl
research and some narehouses. Now this one is someuhat more unigue because
we're going uith a zoning category that alloh,s us to basically have a
conLract established uith the developers of r.rhat nill Eo in there. But itprobably r.rill allow full range of industrial uses. tle would expect to haveprohibitions against smelting plant or that kind of a heavy industry. tle
would be looking at the hish tech, Iighter industry stuff and possibly Kent
might uant to expand on that but I've got to believe that this trill Iook a
whole lot Iike what lre already have on the ground right noh,.
Jeff Kul lbers: The thin
development. Any kind o
is very high buildings w
Jeff Kul lberg:is Iocated now.trucks par ke
thing goi ngto be servic
no parking s
Krauss: There is no parking. In fact
it during construction, they shouldn't
some questions arise when Paisley Park
Lhere. Those are both situations that
'm concerned about is things, any sort of retail
hing that could pollute the ground h,ater or that
h could be aestheticall),. unpleasing.
Hcclynn's is doing it and I've seen
be doing it. In fact we've also had
is doing a movie they park along
should not exist and are not
9Ift
hic
Krauss: Height is something that's regulated. l.le would establish some
regulations on that. Right now I believe you can have a 50 foot heisht
limitation in the industrial district. It uill probably be something
consistent with that. of course there's buildings rolling off doun thehill and you're fighting Erade so you'lI see less and less of it. We would
also uork with them to do things like shielding truck loading areas...
buildins mass to, to bury them towards the back. There's a lot of thingswe'II be urorking with in fine detail.
Emmings: He asked about retail.
Krauss: oh, retail would not be allowed in this district. AIso ue should
add too that the premise that the develoPer's working under is that the
sites that are along Audubon Road, because they have the visibilitv, are
higher quality sites and uould tend to be a higher Percentage of office as
we read the proposal. The more intense uses or the more square footage
intensive uses would be down in the valley.
Emmings: You mean office...
Emmings: okay.
da
to
ed
ign
okay, another concern we have is presently phere Hcclynn's
There are times rye drive bv there. there's a dozen semi
long Audubon Road and we were Just wondering, is that same
move down to adjacent to our trouses now 8s they're t{aitingin these distribution facilities? Is there going to be anv
s on Audubon?
Krauss: ...higher percentage of office along Audubon. The higher profile
buildings.
Planning Cqmmission
September 4, 1,99L -
l,leet i ng
Page 26
al lowed. Lle do try to wor k r.rith these people and when l,tcclynn's was underconstruction they...out there. If there's a concern or a problem, Iet us
know and we'II respond to that. That's not permitted.
Jeff Kullberg: Okay. That's aII I have. Thank you.
Emmings: Anybody else?
Ann Kullberg: Yeah, I guess I have.
Emmings: tlould you Like to give us your name?
Ann Kullberg: I'm Ann Kullberg and I live at 8480 Bittern Court. I have
comment to that because as of right now I believe there lre no parkingsigns along that street. I have a conccrn because my lot backs up toAudubon and when I have children I do not want them running up to that andhaving semis there. It's very dangerous at night driving along thatstreet. I've driven along there several nights when there's been over adozen semis. I had a neighbor tell me today trhen I talked to her aboutcoming to this meeting tonight, that she saw children running along insidearound those semis. It's a very dangerous situation and I guess that,ssomething that I wish you would include is possibly putting up no parkingsigns along there.
a
Emmings: Okay, thank you.
Doug Barinsky: My name is Doug Barinsky. I live on Audubon Road justsouth of there and as Paul pointed out, I did spend quite a bit of timeIast year in the land use plan when you determined what He l^rere €,oing to dohere and u,e !,ere against it but that,s been decided and that really isn,tuhv r came tonight but r think that this issue of traffic is xhat r uasreally kind of interested in and the ua)r this has been laid ouL I thinkwill work, As long as we don't end up with variances dohrn the roadallowing aII those lots along there to have direct access onto Audubon.I'm glad our Mavor is here tonight because this is a sibnificant safetyhazard that's going on out there right now uith l{cGlynn;s. paul just
acknowledged here that it's not arloued but yet for some reason the city is -ignoring it. There are at least on some nights a dozen trucks doubleparked on both sides of the road. They start right rt the driveway ofHcGlvnn's. Totarlv block the viewpoint of anybody cntering or exiting intol{cGlynn's driveway and so my input or rny reason for cven standing up hereis this is approached and obviousry wirr increase the truck trafiic. Thisis going to have to be dealt with and r uourd hope that the city counciland the Pranning commission wourd be very adamant about nhen they approvethe entrance to this whole program, that it be locked in day one in a vcryclear understanding that there's not going to be variances offercd }atersimilar to h,hat happened r believe with pHT this last year. Thcre theycame along and wanted an expansion and got the okay to have a s€parate roadonto Audubon. so r drive it every day both ways. r think a. lot of thcsePeoPle here do too and ue're going to have more residential out there whichis going to add to the problern. So I hope that if somebody can pass thatuord onto our safely commission, .this has got to get deart xith befora youallow more industrial development out there. So ihank you.
Planning Commission f{eet i ng
September 4, 199f - Page 27
Emmings: Thank you.
llark Laaser: Again my name is Hark Laaser. l.le are proposing to build nextspring on Sun Ridge Court urhich is again south of the proposed developmenthere. I need to say yeah, one of those lots there you just put up. I have
no specific objection to this. I mean f trust the reputation of thedevelopers. I have just a general observation to make and the meetingtonisht allous me the opportunity to make it. That is this. One of the
reasons people like us move to communities like CMnhassen ia that we wantto be in proximity to the advantages of the city and yet enjoy the ruralquality of the communit)r in which xe live. The thought that I uould ]iketo share is I had the opportunity to drive back to vi6it r€latives in the
Chicago area and I grew up on the rest side of Chicago in a suburb cal]ed
Oourners Grove and ee have a rather uell known tolluay. of course Illinois
does not do anything Nithout charging a toll for it but, called the East,/
tlest Tolluray and since I have been a t€enager I uatched that shole area
between basically oakbrook, ooh,ners Grove, that area and Naperville, if anyof you are familiar with these areas, develop from a rural community
exactly like Chanhassen and t,aconia and Chaska and alI these other Places
intso a major league industrial corridor. You knou the havoc that it has
created has been, to me anyeJay, unbelieveable to the Point of raisingoffice buildings there uith no parking and creating traffic jams that are
something unknoun to us at this point in Minneapolis. So my comments are
directed touard 10-15 years into the future as uell as this sPecific area
which I hope the Planning Commission takes those kinds of things intoconsideration. I r.rould hestitate or I uould hate to think that TH 5 is
going to become Iike the area I'm describing. I don't know if any of )zou
knou this area in Chicago. It's Probably a grieving issue for me because
it's been sad to see a rural area develop into high tech. High tech is
valuable and all of that but so anyu,ay.
Emmings: l,laybe we could,.make Audubon Road a tollway. .. tlould that help?
Mark Laaser: tlel.I, to be quite honest with you, I mean I had ever)z
opportunity in the world to move back to Chicago and take a job there as
opposed
because
gone riof the
toittht
Nay
take a job in Hinneapolis. Ule chose to move to l'linneaPolis
doesn't present the hassles that Chicago does. ].le could have
back to Douners Grove and one of the reasons ue don't is because
that area has develoPed. Your dealing there with 9 or 10
different suburbs eho cannot get their act together to PIan anythinE in
unisom and as a result there have becn high rise white clePhants 9o up like
you can't believe that I'm sure they're a tax advantags for someone because
they're losing money but uell anvway. I've said what I needed to sav.
Emmings: uell thanks for sharing your thoughts. You knou those are a Iot
of the things that r.re talk about. l.re sPend a lot of tine talking about
here. tle hope ure're addressing thera. Any other comments?
Jeff Kullberg: I'm Jeff Kullberg again. I have one more question. with
the advent oi th" Proposed 212 coming in in 1996-998 or uhenever - How tlill
that affect the traffic flows and the access to this ProPosed industrial
park as traffic then comes soulh? ActualIy starts going north on Audubon
Loward this and then the access, as you ProPosed is on the north end- AII
the traffic t'tourd be diverted Past our house instead of going in' rs there
Planning Commission
September 4, l99t -
l,leet i ng
Page 28
going to be any access from the south to keep, for these residential areasor from the wesL?
Emmings: Is there going to be
say that again.
any access to |rhat from uhere? l.lould you
Jeff Kullberg: This industriat park other than the one spot shou,n?
Emmings: No. The one spot.
Krauss: Highway 212 uill affect, lre 90 back quite a lrays. One of thereasons the Planning commission rooked at this favorably as an industrialsite was the desire not to put all the traffic onto TH 5. lras the desireto orient at least a portion of it fronr t+ty 2L2-
Cohrad: Thanks Paul -
Krauss: l"lell I thought it uas a good idea.
Emmings: I think it tJas your idea paul.
Krauss: But the access Lo zLz is to come over here to cR 17 uhich isfurther ' goes off mv map but there will be a stub of cR 17 that wiLl dropsouth of Lym.an and there uill be an interchange down r.lhat is now acornfield down there. some of the traffic no doubt }Jill find it expediantto run out that r.,ay. some of lt to come up. The idea is to split Lheburden so that it's not focused on any one point. Ultimately there'sgoing to be a signalized intersection of TH s and Audubon. Also ue have aninternal system here where ue have the Lake Drive extchsion. The roadthat's serving this project is designed to come out through our existingindustrial park and r.re're trying to basically find alternite routes for alrthat traffic to go. you,re right, uhen 212 opens up there ulill be areversal of some of the flon. l.re've got some initial projections of thatin the EasLern Catver County study. The numbors aren't pirfect but it doestry to take that future system into account. tre're Eoing to try and getsome better numbers from the developer !s part of the divelopment process.l.le are looking into that further.
Jeff Kullberg: Hou about presently on TH S uhan you'ra turning to 9on Audubon. There's now a turn lane. There's a paved shouldei whicpeople go around right now. UiIl that be corrected as a part of thecurrent uridening of TH 5 or with this residential park? i.till tt" Ihighway extend out past Audubon or those turn lanes be addoai
o
h
souLh
lane
Krauss: unfortunatery the existing TH s program doesn't go out ttiat far.It should have and it's a long story as to why it aoesn;t-Out it uasn,t thecity'" fault. The question you raise is a vaiid on" "na-r"ire going to ask _the developer to respond to some of that r.rich theii tiairic study- Nowwe're probably not in a position to say to the devel opir ,
-ih",
"
,s a problema half a mile aurav vou've got to fix it all but it;" t.ri"iniy becoming i-problem now before these guys go in there and it,s sometrrinJ we're 9oii9 to -u,ant to address as a part of this program. r,m not sure how tnat ruill comeabout-or h,hat exactly will happen over there but we've got a long =t.naing-relationship r,rith HnDot trying to uork these things out and...
Planning commission l.leeting
September 4, 799t - Page 29
Jeff KulIberg: okay, thank you.
Emmings: Thank you. Any other comments or questions?
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded to closc the arblic hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried- Thc public hcarlng rras closed.
Emmings: comments, Jeff? Do ),ou uant to start this one?
Farmakes: I always get real uneasy uhen I hear about industrial being
adjacent to single family areas. I think the City's in the Iot addresses
itself somewhat to buffering the east side of that road. Audubon. I'm
still, can you clarify the issue of uhy it's 50 feet on Audubon but 1oo to
the south? The buffer zone?
Krauss: Commissioner F
that were held during tthe street r ight-of-way
r ight-of -r.ray is 8o feet
then the homes themselvsetback. You've got thfeet buffer yard and th
takes in quite a bit ofvisual contact is the b
uas that it uas felt th
the 1oo foot setback.
at minimum over there and it may
es are set back beyond that so you
e right-of-way for Audubon and you
armakes, that goes back to some of the discussions
he development of the Comp Plan. It Has felt thatitself provided physical separation. I believe the
be
'vetve
ind
loc
en you've got the setback for the
land. The only thing that uill b
Iargergot tgot t
ustr ial . Thatk the direct
. And
he home
he 5O
uffer itself but I believe, my recollection of it
at that much distance compensates, you get more than
Farmakes: The reason I'm concerned about that is that most of the homes
that you talked about have very flat yards. There's little or no
obstruction. They're new homes that are Put into what used to be a farm
field I'm sure. There's verv little in the uav of tree groelth back there.
And I'm looking at his proposed tree line uP here and it's aII deciduous
the u,intertime they're not going to Provide much in
articularly on Lots 10 and 11. They still would face
area. Lot 12, Ieaves more oPen sPace but I think
Iding uas put on Lot 11 say, there's not a lot of room
entially be pretty close uP there to the hiEhway and I
lar section is still fairly high before it sloPes down
ot
cu
Krauss: Lot 11 I believe has the high point. The buffer vard, the
landscaping that they've developed to date is concePtual and ue really
trees sthe e,ay
the res
pote nt i
Lhere.
bel ieveisn't i
I east
cover .tial ho
ifab
would p
t parti
tin
P
me
ui
oat
of
idenallyIt
tha
L?
didn't revi
being neces
grading onfor developIt 's goi ngto retain s
behind it.
they come b
ewitf
sary ththat si
ment , itobef
ome of
l.re are
ack bef
or content. Your commenta as to the coniferous trees
ere ar€ uell taken. In fact ue uould also look for
te that's sensitive to that. l.lhen thet site is graded
n aII probability that knoll is going to be knocked off-
latten out and I've always visualized having the ability
the heisht along Audubon with the building set down
asking for those clcments to be further refined phen
Of e )/OU .
Farmakes: Do you feel that if the buffer zone hras increased to the 1OO
feet that it is to the south, that Lots 11 or 10 q,ould be uneconomical
be developed? I mean L,as that a Part of the discussion?
to
-
Planning Commission fleeting
September 4, 7997 - Page 30
Krauss: It h,asn't a part of the Planning Commission's discussion. I'msure it has iome economic consequence to the developer. I guess ourfeeling is we urant to have the buffer do the best job. Do the job it'sintended to do. t,e think t^,e can accomplish that in 50 feet. l.le alsoaccomplish it in a lot less. The room should be adequate to do what wethink needs to be done.
Farmakes: My general concern uould be Lots 10 and 11. Again, not so much12 but 10 and 11. The other comment I had I guess tras in relationship tothe traffic 'area. I'm really concerned about there is heav)z trafficgenerated there or there is there even presenLly even though it's not partof this development. I get really nervous phen, if there is cquipment thatis being parked and running, a lot of tiares those things are left running.Being adjacent to a single family yayd lrhere kids play. That makes me verynervous to hear that. I r,rould hope that He do somethinE about that. Ialso on the issues of obviously if there's past the construction period, ifthese are offices, you're not 9oin9 to have a lot of semis coming in bui dothev have anv other tenants at this point other than what's listed here?
Krauss: t^le are not aware of any specif ic tenanls. Ryan may r.rish tocomment on that. Normallv when we deal with something that's phased over3 to 6 period, or uhatever it turns out to be, ue ron,t knou for quite aperiod of time Nho most of the tenants a.re. But I don't know, do you haveany idea?
Farmakes: rn office development there's a particular marketing plan. rfit's aII manufacturing or warehouse or perhaps office spaces. There,s alittle different types of traffic. I realize it's a long term plan. I'mjust wonderins if there is any other tenants on Lhe horiion for this pieceother than?
a
Kent Carlson: tJe've talked to a number of
Park. -.industrial park than we r.rill with abe a high tech business park.
users about this particular
pure office park... This wilI
Farmakes: aut it still r,lould generate a fair amount of truck traffic?
don't know uhat you wouldKent Car I son:consider to be
ir amount is relative.ir amount .
Afaafa I
Farmakes: r guess r would be concerned about the tiuck traffic that wouldbe heading to the south on that road. Further road improvements take placeto- the south there, which very werl could be the case.' A lot of semisrolling down that road .
Krauss: The road was upgraded last year and the city Engineer and r workedtogether quite a bit.. He u,as fully aulare of what our exiectations were. i _don't know uhat percentage of the traffic on Audubon Road uiII becontributed by this project yet. l.le have considerably ,nore residentialdevelopment that's 9oin9 to occur. Audubon Road already serves as one ofthe prime accesses to the citv's major industriar park ind the N"ori"r,"area which is a separate area and then the portion south of McGrynn'sthat's owned by Amcon so it is a arajor traffic artery in the city and we,vedesigned it accordinglv. Traffic volumes are high and theyire going to get -
PIanning Commission
September 4, l99l -
l,(eet i ng
Page 31
sa), that would happen grithout this butvalid one. tle're asking for some morethe road Nas designed to handle it.
higher. I darefor trucks is a
information but
yes. The concer nspecific deta i led
Farmakes: I was thinking of the aesthetic again to those homes to thethat are along there. fhere's very little if anything obstructing any
that.
Emmings: !.lhat he's talking about there with the berming along Audubon
uas, this came up some time ago but uhen ue aPProved your subdivision'
specific recollection is that the develoPer h,as obligated to Put berms
alI along Audubon and plant them. APParently it got lost in the b,ash.
east
of
Krauss: It's quite true.
Krauss: I think you know, also with 2ol2o hinesight the Bext item on vour
agenda r,rill fix some of the problems that we're havins Hith that
subdivision. I mean the developer of that subdivision should have and I
think some of the Planning Commissioners felt xas obligated to do some
berming and landscaping there. That's r situation that shouldn't haveexisted. Nor.r He can make Ryan do the best Job we know hou to do on tsheir
side. It doesn't fix the other side. Hopefully, if we can get that
ordinance through, the landscaping imProvem€nts, we can address that more
directly in the future.
Farmakes: That's the end of my comments.
it
my
uP
Brook LiIlestol: Exactly. That's exactly right.
Jeff Kullberg: l.le u,ere told that uhen ute Purchased our lots that he uouldput in landscaping aIso.
Emmings: No. And apParentlrr it's no on the Plans or the aPProval that ue
gave but some of us uho uere here at the time rsmember doing it. Remember
requiring it but it got lost somePlace. For them too, I think they should
know abou! our process here. This is the first very Preliminary stage when
we're Iooking at this strictly as ! concoPt. Now it's going to come back
to us aga i n?
Emminss: For what stage? tlhat's the next stage called so thev know.
Krauss: It's called a PUo preliminary PIat. Lre are probablv going 'depending on the developer request, we're probably going to combine the
preliminary and final stage.
Farmakes: So the city has an easemeDt along that road to the homeowners?Is that right? Has an easement along that highway?
Emmings: For the road you mean?
Farmakes: That's correct. On Audubon Road.
Krauss: Yes.
Planning Commission l.leet i n9
September 4, 1991 - Page 32
Emmings: And lhere niII be another public hearing at' that time?
Krauss: Correct. And then as each site develops, hrhen the weather station
comes in or uhen somebody comes in on the adjoining lot, there's additional -hearings held on those specific plans so there's a series of opportunitiesthat you'll have to provide comment and hopefully r.le can make adjustmentsas need be to resolve them.
Emmings: It's very sketchy
those things happen. Okay.
now but it will get more and more detail.ed asHr. Conrad.
Conrad: Are you going to follow upon the l,lcGlynn's issue Paul?
Krauss3 Yes certainly.
Conrad: Okay. I think that's important. I like the trail in here. Boththe south. I really like that. I'd like to see that in as re go throughthis process. I think a trail system, recreation for employees and thiscould handle a significant number of employees. I really 1ik6 that. Iuould hope our landscaping standards are set. I'm not 9oin9 to echo whatJeff said but I uill. I think ue need to pay aLtention to the east sid€
and the south side. Buffering residential areas. Just absolutely and theapplicanL should be aware that that's uhat a major intent is. I Iike theplan. I guess I'm starting out on a negative side but I like the plan very -much. I think it's interesting or it's a good thing for this parlicular
area the h,ay I see it. One concern that I do have on it, we're talkingabout weather station. l.te're talking about a Iot of area but I see thebuilding on the far south really close. Now is that xherc the radar unitfits risht on top of lhat pad?
Krauss: l'1r. Conrad we don't know. They haven't come up xith a specificplan. trhen I met uith Lhe Heather station, Ryan Has at one of thosemeetings. Their plan was a computer generated thing that Nas pretty
conceptual . tn fact they showed direct access to Audubon Road uhich wesaid we would recommend against strongly. The radar toxer does not need tobe on the highest portion of the site. In fact they said it shouldn,t be.rt sets someurhere down the slope to the west. Exactly where we don't know.
Conrad: And that tower can be hor high?
Krauss: Our information is that, first of all the FAA will only allow itto be 14O feet high. Now that's the same, the Cellular Telephone toh,er wasoriginally approved at 18O feet at Lyman and Galpin- The FAA loh,ered thatto 14O feet so if you erant to see rhat it looks like, or potentially whatthe height looks like, look at that tower. Noh, it,s going to be somewhatdown the hill. Certainly it's going to be seen from a distancc. Ther€,sno question about that but it's going to be sitting basically in a 12 acregreen space. One of the reasons nhy they have to have such a large green
space is that one of the things they'Il do from this site is they have asmalI buildins that they will release sounding balloons once a day. Theyactually needed enough land area for the balloons to clear aIl obstaclesbefore it departed the property. These things 9o up 40,OOO-SO,OOO feet.So it's kind of a nice use for the site. It's a high profile, white collarjobs. 6O professional employees. There,s no manufacturing. There,s no
smoke. It's kind of a nice high profile tyPe of user for the Citv. You'llget your time and temperature and if it's snouring in Chanhassen on the
radio all the time. So we've been talking favorably with them.
conrad: And I recognize this is not a site Plan and this is just a concePt
stage but on that Lot 12, the radar unit is literallv, it is not on the
building or it is on the buildine?
Krauss: No. None of the Plans I've scen ever showed it on the building.
conrad: So it's not there. So th€ building is tucked in Prettv close to
the east end south property line. There's not a rldar?
Krauss: No. That's a srnall brick, 15,OOO square feet office buildins.
conrad: A small brick, so it's a one story?
Krauss: One or two.
Conrad: And again, I know that this is not a final deal but I just l',ant to
make sure you knoul our connents before you get down too far.
Kent carlson: The plans of weather service Plans changed sienificantlv-
This Has...access off of Audubon tlould not be aPProved so they've gone back
and modified. The pl.ans currently shor.l the road, their access entering off
of our cul-de-sac and the buitdins uould be positioned aPProximately uhere
you see the tower shown on your Plans and the radar would be Pretty close
to where it,s currcntly shown,.. But the touer and the building have been
moved away from. . .
conrad: trell that's good and that again is just a general sense' I like
that a Lot. Landscape, our new ordinance uill Probably apply to this right
PauI? Okay. tle have a new landscaPe ordinance and you're talking a lot
about that. It's pretty, I think it's nice for Chanhassen residents. I
think you'll like it. I think h,e can aPPIv it to this ProPertv- I think
it trill, I can'! say that this is going to increase the value of vour
residential area. l.ly objective is to make sure that there's not an imPact.
It,s certainly, I don't think commercial elevates any residential Property.
tle've got to be real direct and obviously the other thing is, there's going
!o be truck traffic ouL ther€. There is. There's just no doubt about it
but h,e've paid a lot of attention to traffic - l.le're kind of' as we've gone
through some designing of uhere industrlal and offlce Park goes, we've kind
of paid attention to the traffic patterns so if nothing else, it may not be
perfect for you but at least ue've thought about it in advance and'hopefully can trke care of nost of the issues or concerns. Safety in one.
Noise is another and I think landscaPing is another and I think ue've taken
care of, at least I feel comfortable that we've taken care of sone of
those. But again for the developer, I think the landscaPing on the €ast
side against Audubon is real important to ne. And keePing that trail in.
I'd sure like to keeP that in. That's it.
Planning Commission lleeting
September 4, 799t - Page 33
Emmings: Okay, Tim.
Hl annr n9
September
uommrss).on4, L99L -meeE L n9
Page 34
Aanenson: The existing stand of trees that are there.
Erhart: You could go south of those.
Krauss: Then you're into the residential.area to Eome extent -
to the west also industrial?Erhart: Isn't on our Comp Plan the area
Krauss: Outlot A to the west is.
Erhart: Let's go back here. Isn't that industrial?
Krauss: This is high and this is hieh and here's the large uetland, thefloodplain that comes through here and separates the residential from theindustrial. The former City Engineer and I looked...it's advantageous to
have a looped street. I think as you're a[are, staff usually recommendsthose wherever possible. Our concern hras thet ue have some verysignificant environmental areas. Sensitive environmental areas down here.There's very dense tree cover down in this area. l.le have the floodplainfor the creek itself. There's a desire to presorve the crcek for arecreational as ueII environmental amenity. It's not impossible to make theconnection but you're really going to devastato that arca to do it. t.lealso even at one time looked at the possibility of Laying out a streetconnection that jumped back across Lhe railr.ray tracks. I think the one ueoriginally laid out came like that and hooked in right over here. This isa residential site and it just really didn't adapt itself very uell for theroad. tle would have preferred to have that option. Ue just didn't feelIike t^re could recommend it.
Erhart: I think we would agree toof traffic on Audubon Road becausethey have a route.
having it thcre would reduce the amounta lot of the UPS and those services,
Krauss: One of the reasons why we liked the idea of the thru strGet wasthat this then becomes an extGnsion of Lake Drive uhich is the city'a south -alternate to TH 5. It goes all the Hay over to the Eden prairie city line.But it just didn't seem the continuity that He uould get nas worth theenvironmental damage that lould ensuo. That's where we,ve taken it.
Erhart: tlell it's the thine that comes to mind with me. Having it thruuould have, risht now if anybodl uants to go from the future westernindustrial park to t'he eastern industrial park, I mean Hest and east ofBluff Creek has to now drive around on Audubon Road.
Krauss: No. I don't knou,to that southern route uras
that I can,
we laid out
t.that we did though as an alternativea collector street section on our
Erhart: You're proposing not to put a thru street through the western halfof this uhich is very inconsistent xith aII the industrial area along thetrack. By doing that you're going to increase the traffic on Audubon. But -not putting a thru street on there. I'm wondering is it clear that theproblem wiLh goin9 through the Bluff Creek, I assume the problem is going
through the Bluff Creek flood zone is |rhy you don't uant to do that. Or
some other reason.
Plannrng comm L ss r. o nlleet i ng
SepLember 4, 7997 - Page 35
Comp Plan that comes through here- So traffic could come up through ourindustrial park and come over that uay rather than 9o all the uay aroundsouth -
Krauss: trel I
graded .
keep in mind that the project will be phased so it uiII be
Erhart: The whole thins, well it will be landscaped. l.Jill all thebuffering landscape 9o in right auay?
Krauss: That's a matter for some discussion- That is what the ordinancesays. That the landscaping 9o in up front. I'll be honest and say that Ihad a discussion with the applicant today who uas concerned about the costimplications of doing it aII up front and ma)rbe doing it in phasing issomething that they would propose but that,s for you to determine.
Erhart: Okay, I uould regarding the landscaping. This wholenot getting that berm and the landscaping on that residentialresidential PUO across the street is really unfortunate and Ishocked when I saw as those houses started 9oin9 up, and as I'
shouldn't b
That area i
thine lritharea. Theras rea I Iy
m sure
inimum wantI agreeis deciduous
east half ofation and the
ay to 9o30 feet toeto
something.I area toI guess if
a r.Jay to gett try, we
lret I ands .
's found on an uor k uithherc. I
everybody is. So I guess it seemed to me that oe uould at a mto put this landscaping in along Audubon with th. first phase.with Jeff and I think it ras Jeff that stated that most of ithere. Deciduous used for the buffers and I'd like to see at Ithat be coniferous. Also 9o beyond that, because of that situfact that we've got a 50 foot buffer, that somehow we find a wbeyond our new landscaping ordinance where ue have trees everyput in two rotrs where the trees would alternate even if we hav
Itt
on
P
Somehor.l f i n
increase thit 's goi ngthat accomp
participate in that effort or some way giv€ credit to park or
ositively than that ao I agree with you
daeIaPIiset
NL
get at Least across from that residentian9 beyond uhat's in our ordinance. Ande that's the opportunity for us to findalso agree, I agree uith you. Let,s no
to
caPi
mayb
waY
a nds
UD,
hed.
ryi n9ot 6,
o make wetlands out of thines that aren'hat's tiIled and not really tetlands tha't need to te ke advantase of that . l.re c
tt
a
L
map someplace, we dthe developers morethink that's, I think it looks grood. I think obviously we,re a long wayfrom seeing anvthing specific on it. r guess thc othcr thing is It reallylends some ueight to our effort to get somcthing put dourn regarding theBluff Creek groenuray because now ue'rc actually talking atiout somedevelopment which includes that area. r reelize that'6 on one of our workitems but we need to get on uith it here and make surG that this is goingto fit lrith that. r like the trail. r could evcn use this trail from mioffice. r think it makes a lot of sense. r thlnk when you go into other,nicer communities. rndustrial parks like out in seattre, uhich r spend alot of time at, they've got a lot of trails and a Iot of evcrgieens withtrails through them and thev've made their industrial parks rearly quitehumane. I wish ue uould have done that in the industrial park that ure,rein, although the street's certainly easy enough to use. you see a lot of
Erhart: Okay. Essentially in this process that pe're looking at here withthe PUD, the first thing that goes in is the street. ...we see is thestreet goes in first.
Planning commission
September 4. 799t -
1.1eet i ng
Page 36
joggers. To have a trai]. Off street trail would have been really nice.
Emmings: Okay. I don't have much additional. I agree with
comments that have been made up here. I Has Eondering r.,here
under the railroad is in relation to this property.
most thethat underpass
Krauss: It's actually rieht over here. It's on the lrest side of the creek
and I lould imagine it's kind of the park board's area and to get to it
we'd have to structure some kind of nicely designed wooden bridge or
something across the cr6€k to geL thcre. tle had heard rumors, or I had
heard rumors for the last few years that this thing cxisted but we never
found it unLil ure erent searching for it one day and the applicant Hent
searching for it-
Emmings: I was curious about the rccommendation that the developer should
be required to petition for the feasibility study. l,rhat's the sisnificance -of that?
Krauss: Ouite a bit and it actually goes beyond this specific property.
There's a need to build infrastructure most importantly in this case is the -
sanitary seHer system that will serve a large part of the new HUSAexpansion. Virtually the entire area located south of TH 5. That area was
supposed to drain into a metro interceptor called the Bluff CreekInterceptor uhich only exists in the figments of the imagination of theMetropolitan l,Jaste Control Commission. They've Iargely done away with that
ever happening and when they approved our Comprehensive PIan they approved -our concept of, going back to this one of parking up a lot, of basicallyputting a lift station down here uith a pipe running up. Pipe running up.
Hou,ever they run it and letting everything flow by gravity donn along Bluff
Creek somehou and then lifting it either up Audubon Road or what we're
looking at right nouJ, out Lyman to TH 1O1 and back into the Lake Ann
Interceptor srhich has the capacity to do that. That's hou ue got our
Comprehensive Plan approved. Now this system serves a large area far
beyond the Ryan proposal and ue have the firm of Boneslroo Iooking into ageneral concept plan of horo sewer and water might be Provided but there
needs to be a more specific...study to that to say hotl exactly, where's the -system 9oin9 to 9o. tlhat's it going to cost. l.rhat ule're asking Ryan to do
is petition it. Petition the study so the Council can get it kicked off
and we're asking them to pay their fair share towards that. Now we don't
know what that fair share is right now but clearly there are a number ofproperties beyond their site that benefit from this so the City Engineer
and city Council uriII have to think up some equitable Hay of distributins
it. But until that study's done, r.le don't have a long term ansh,er for hou -to serve this area.
Emmings: And you Lrant them to initiate it for what reason?
Krauss: The usual procedure r,e operate in Chanhassen ls that the
developer, the proponent petitions the study and assumes some of theflnancial cost.
Emmings: Alrisht. That sounds Iike a good reason to me. Park and Rec is
talking about not accepting land in lieu of cash. Is the Iand that Lhey're -not eccepting Outlot B? Is that what's being offered? Or is that being
Planning Commission HeetIr€
September 4, L99l - Page 37
dedicated anyway?
Krauss: Outlot A.
Emmings: Or Outlot A?
Krauss: The Park Board hasn't bfficially acted onyou is uhat the Park and Recreation Director, Toddat this point. It's his feeling that Outlot A will
Emmings: Is that urhat ue're talking about here?
it
Ho
b
Kr au
norm
wed
sor tthat
Par k
TraiorL
ss: Basical Iy. ThataI course of events.o not normally acceptof an offset for some's going to be a benef. Long term we envisi
that
Thatthatoftit to
on th
yet. AII we can teIIffman's recommendi nge protected .
Iot would be protected by the City in theit's mostly floodplain or uetland anyuay andtype of acreage as park. There may be somehe trail expense because this is a trailthe public as well as the residents of theis trail of hooking into the Bluff CreekI and people beins able to access hopefully the new middle school siteake Ann Park. I mean lots of things. So there,s a benefit to thatand mavbe some kind of an offset will be figured but the park Board hasn'tacted yet official Iy .
Emmings: I guess that's all I have on my comments. Let,s see, anythinglelse of anybody up here? Did you have any response to anything you,ve Seenhear i n9?
Kent carLson: Ah yeah if r could make a couple of comments in regards tosome of the thinss we've discussed tonight and mention a coupre oi concernsthat we have after reviewing the staff report and before b,e get yourhopefully preliminary approval on our project. The uetlands issue, IaPPreciate everybody's, on item number 6. Or Lot 6. That small aieathat's been identified. I guess ue'd like to encouraEe us to wait and seewhat the Armv corps of Engineers come back and says. rf it is, we haveadditional Iand ouL in outlot A that we could mitisate that area and workuith them there. l.Jith regards to your feasibllity study for the new sewersystem, we fully intend to pay our prorated share and oe,re committed tO dothat also. Jeff mentioned some concerns about Lots 10 and 11 and therandscaping and the berming that ue would do there. r think as part of thedevelopment agreement paul and r have talked about incorporating theIandscaping requirements, the berming requirements in th€ developer,sagreement so in the future as lots develop we havc a standard to maintein.That's one of the nice things about going through the puD process is thatwe will develop standards that wilr carry throulh as tenanls.come along andue build buildings for them or they snt€r into a multi-tenant buirding. racreates value for the park. rt creates value and it lnsures the cxistingusers in there that the balance of the park wirl be deveroped in a qualltyfashion. unfortunately these folks something happened in the process and'the berming and randscapine that teas originarly pronised didn,t happen. l.rearc willing to and we have agreed to provide that assurance to thecommunitv that that wirl be done. tle r.rould rike to phase our landscapingas we develop. I think bre can work on some of the areas alohg Audubon butsome of those areas on the southern part of the property it courd be veryexpensive to come through and have to do all of the Iandscaping and the
Planning Commission lleet i ng
September 4, !99L - Page 3a
berming initially so ue rould Iike to
access to Outlot A. Or Lot number 1direct access to Audubon, t,le spent a
rk with you on that. As far as theof Audubon. tle've shoun tha! as a -t of time working on the
trOoff
lopreliminary plan coming up r.lith some concepts on hor4 Ne can develop thatparticular area, especially the area adjacent to Audubon uith a higherqualitv standard- l.le envision those buildinss to be a little shorter inheight. The clear height within those projects would be lorer. The frontof the buildings were more Iikely to have better image. t|aybe a decorative
block or burnish block along with perhaps some brick materials. Ne don't
knour r^rhat those standards are going to be yet but theysmaller. They're 9oin9 to be projects more the high tewith the higher quality, higher percentage of office anquality look. l.Jith that comes smaller projects and tha
cul-de-sac coming in off of ours. It develops those q small lots.
leaves us that one lot up on that northeast corner that becomes a
ay. And that
t the front of the
n and then agai n
reas to the backs
again I think we're going to modify the trail system to try to incorPorate
eventually joining up t{ith the other trail systems that are in your
comprehensive guide plan and so we mav lose the trail along the railroad-
tle kind of provided a looP here in our Preliminary Plans. If ue do have
make sense to have a jogging Path along lt. So that's one of the things
that you may see changing over time.
conrad: The point is just as long as the trail goes somePlace. It's got
to be a useable trail and whether it's here where I see it on the maP or
uhether it's connecting. As long is there's a valid place that it goes- A
PUTPOSe.
Kent carlson: Yeah, and again we need to work with the Park and Rec
Oeparlmen! to determine uhat the trails uould be like and things like that. -
So Iet's see, anything else. tlelI wc'd lPPreciate your assistancc with the
Iandscaping too Ladd. That'd be very nice ' Along Lhe berming and that
area so we'd be happy to work with the staff on that. So thank you.
Emmings: Thank you. okay. You trant a rnotion on this
9age 12-
I guess huh? On
Conrad: f make the motion that the Planning Conmission approve PUD concePt
plan for chanhassen Business center subiect to the three Points listed in
the staff report. Is there anything else that should be included?
tend to be
ch space if
d a Iittlet's why you
a Iittle
you will
higher
see thatIt
I ittle
best
d those
e truck
esent thef clustereies and th
's kind of the
a process uith an
ment and I thi nk
ke to consider
these preliminary
ilroad tracks and
bit difficult to access. In our desire to screen and Prpossible image to the street and to Audubon ue've kind o
four buildings so we can keep aII of the loading facilit
maneuvering areas within the backs of those buildings ok
Ieaves us that one Iot uP there that ue uould like to pu
building facing Audubon with the direct accGss to Audubo
allouing us to screen the truck access and maneuvering a
of the buildings that would be on Lots 2 and 3. So that
reasoning behind that. Again ue're going to 9o through
EAl.t to determine the traffic implications of our develoP
that wiII give us a pretty good feel of that but re'd li
that. The trail system that we're shor.ring, we develoPed
plans before we found the big crossing underneath the ra
rail access to a couple of the sites in the rear of the ProPerty, it u,on't
PIanning Commission
September 4, 1991 -
Meet i ng
Page 39
Emmings: I'Il second your
tlhether anybody else feels
approval .
motion and let's open it up for discussion.there ought to be any additional conditions to
Jeff Kullberg: Can I ask a question?
Emmings: Sure.
Jeff Kullberg: I heard a lot of different things being batted around likethe possibility of thru traffic through the development and for seLtingback the buirdings from 50 to 1oo feet and the economic feasibility of thatand that ue supposedly instead of getting berms on our side of Audubon, wegot a walking path that uill now be parallel to another one that could, ifit ls going to be parallel to another path, courd our path be replaced uithberms as a contingency of this development?
Emmings: You're talking about a path that goes dorn along the east side ofAudubon presentl y?
Jeff Kullberg: Yes.
Emmings: There's not envisioned one to be on the west side. That one goesinto the project. rt do€sn't run along Audubon. Not at least the bJay it;aon the plan right now. And as far as alr those other thingrs you heard,uhether it's 5O feet or 1OO feet or all those, all of thosi are openquestions at this point, l.le know it's got to be at L6ast so and r thinkJeff was suggesting that mavbe it should be even mor€ but as a practicarmatter r don't think that's going to happen but those are open questionsstill.
the point is that ue're concerned about uhere thatis an issue the city and the developer are working
Farmakes: I thinkyour property. It
sol ve .
Jeff Kullberg: How about the past mi sunder standi ng uith Joe HiIleruhether this should be berms and landscaping on oui side as opposeda path that somehow got approved?
abuts
to
aboutto just
Emmings: t,hat about it? I mean that,sExcepL we realize that you.
got nothing to do r.,ith this plan.
Jeff Kullberg: It directly impacts our.
Emmings: Yeah. You don't have screening on )rour eide and we,re tryingtake care of it on the other side but $e can't go back and do anythinsibout that at this point. r'rl terl you, hre'll just finish our uork uphere - Now ue've got a motion and it's been seconded- rs there anydiscussion on the motion or any further conditions anyone wants to add?
Erhart: Did you have some in mind?
Emmings: No, I don't. Do you?
to
Planning Commiss ion
September 4. 7991 -
l.leet i ng
Page 40
Conrad: I didn't have any. I think again this is a concept type thing
and I think that's what ue're approving generally here the concept of uhatthey're trying but we're not very specific yet. It's still up to the
appLicant to come i.n here with a specific recommendations and absolutes andthen we'1I be maybe a little bit more critical but right noul the applicantls saying hey. Here's a concept. tlhat do you think. That's uhat we'regiving him feedback on. Trying to give him a flavor for the things that we
care about and the things that maybe aren't so important buL at this point
in time I think the conditions in the staff report are iust fine.
Ann KuIlberg: tlhat are the conditions?
Conrad: That's a good question. tre k€ep you in the dark so you think
we 're smart.
Emmings: These things are available- I'll read the,n to you. Number one
is the applicant prepare an Environmental essessment l.lor ksheet for theproject to be reviewed with a formal PUD request. They have to petition
the city to undertake a feasibility study and Providing services to the
site. The third one is, prepare a formal PUD submittal resPonding to
issues raised in this report as well as all of them that had been raised at
the Planning Commission and City Council meetings while working with staff
on the plan development. And I tell you, you can Eear yourself out
thinkins about this hypotheticaLly. tlhen thev come back next time it's
9oin9 to be hopefully a r.rhole lot more specific and vou're going to get
able to get your teeth into it a little better and so are h,e. Right now
we're looking at it as a very concePtual matter.
Conrad: On the other hand, veah as long as you sav that I think ure've
given the applicant sort of a green light to say that the National tleather
Service should be in the southeast corner.
Emmings: And I think they've
be sensitive to your concerns.
they'II take ),ou into account.
the motion.
heard your concerns and our desire that they
So I think you'Il see in their plans that
Alrisht, I'm going to caII the question on
conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning commiasion rcconncnd
approval of the PUD Concept PIan for Chanhassen Busincas Centcr subject to
the following conditions:
1. Prepare an Environmental Assessment l.lor ksheet for the Project to be
revieued r^rith formal PUO request.
ity te sitthe
to2Peti tion
ser v i ces
c
rh
o undertake a feasibility studv on Providing
Emmings: Yeah . tlel I .
Conrad: That's the kind'of things that urc're saying subtley because we
haven't really complained about it. tle're saying hey, that's not a bad
place for that.
Planning Commission
September 4, 1991 -
l'leet i n9
Page 41
3. Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in thisrePort, as trell as those raised at Planning Commission and City Councilmeetings, while working with 6taff on the plan development.
AII voted in favor and the lotion carrlcd.
PUBLIC HEARTNG:
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ATIENDT4ENT TO A}IEiID SECTIONS REGARDING
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REOUIRE}IENTS.
Chairman Emmings waived the staff report on this item.
Emmlngs: There uas just one thing r xantod to look at but othernise itlooks like they've taken cverything into account.
conrad: rt looked that uav to me but Io surpr ised Dick uing l€ft.
Farmakes: I had one question on this whole thing.
Emmings: There Has one issue that came up that ue argued about quite abit.
Farmakes: r just uondered if when the ETA for the list of trees is.
olsen: tle did have the oNR forest€r look it over and he said it,s fine. Hesaid it's got the typical trees that nost other cities have, r.le also senta copy to the HaIIa Nursery. lte haven't heard any ,"spon"i O"cf iiom ittcm.So right noh, we're not reallv going to be changing the' riai but maybe ---"-
organize them the t.lay ),,ou uere discussing with tni Urawooas.
Farmakes: Did the DNR have any rccommendations as to r.rhat r.lould becompatible uith their study that they did or r.rhat's presentfy inChe nhasse n?
olsen: tte haven't gotten that far uith that. That's more for }ike thereforestation. l.le're not rcady to... I think v""-""r"-Soing to talk aboutwhat we discussed and.
Emmings: There was one issue that came up sherc lre uere kind of sprit-
Olsen: That hras uhcther or not, I think it's on page 4.
Farmakcs: 2or3 ttees.
Emmings: No.
Farmakes: Yeah it was conifer. l.lhether to have it conifcr.
Enmings: t^,ell that,s on6 of them.
Olsen: It was where you require the caliper inchcs to be replaced and ifthev removed trees that shouldn't have been rcmoved, like weie outside of
Plannrng Lomrn1sslon
September 4. 799! -
meeL r ng
Page 42
the construction area, should they have to replace those or not and it wasnot cl€ar,
Emmings: As I remember it was the tree that had to be taken dob,n or theproject couldn't go forurard and the question uas, do they have to put that
back caliper per caliper inch or can they just put back another tree or can -they just go urith uhat's in the landscape plan. I think Tim and I Here on
one side and Ladd and everybody else was on the other and how did that set
resolved in here?
Olsen: hle]I it's in number 3 but I don't knou if that does it.
Erhert: I don't think it does. I came up uith some words that I think
reflect h,hat Steve, t thought Steve and I were saying. If I can throw them
out and discuss them. It kind of goes like this. Number 2 it says you
have to demonstrate.
Emmings: Okay .
Erhart: It says that 6 inch trees shall be saved unless it can be
demonstraLed that there is no other feasible h,av to develoP the site.
I assume that means a street.
NotJ
Erhart: Okay. l.rell I didn't want to get
and 8. Obviously r.le're dealing uith ttto
is found on page 12.
in ahead of Ladd's turn. 6,7
pages here because the same text
Emmings: Nhat page? I'm on the wrong Page. Give me a Page.
Erhart: 4. Top of page 4.
Olsen: ThaL's streeL' building Pad.
Erhart: Or something. Okay, and then it goes onto 3. The City will
require the replacement of 6 inch caliPer or more. Trees or 6 inch caliPer
or more if they are removed without approval period. In other words, they
have to get approval to remove trees that are 6 inch or bigger on areas
that are streets or building pads. If they go bevond that, it's not E
matter of may anymore. The city r,lill require they be replaced.
olsen: So uhen the site PIan comes in and shows the building Pad and the
driveway, oe understand that ue should have them show like a construction
Iimit. 'And so it would be understood r,rhat will be saved and what will not
be saved.
Emmings: ttell 7 kind of addresses that though too because it says trees
desienated for preservaLion that are lost due to construction shalI be
replaced by new comPatible trees aPProved by the city.
Olsen: tle added that thinking that night get that.
Erhart: Are Ne just oPeni.ng this for general?
Emmings: Yeah sure. Nobody else is here.
Planning Commission
September 4, 1997 -
l,leet i n9
Page 43
Aanenson: Subdivision.
Erhart: I'm a little concerned here that by adding 6, 7 and I that h,e'regetting really hostile. It just, for example let me review this. you knowyou've got to keep in mind for example, let me go through. 6 yourreguiring some kind of a device out there that delineates r"lhat's going tobe in the tree croHn or arl that and there's tulo issues there. one's thathow much work, effort to put all these snow fences now or other means oruhatever it is and the other thing is, are lre talking about one tree or ifue're talking about a uooded area. uhere are you going to put this thing?rf you're talking about a heavily wooded area, what does the tree's crownmean uhen vou're lalking about a bunch of trees all crouded together? Andrm not trying to ansl,er questions here. Let me get a general feeling ofthis here first. The second thing ts that r thought nhin ure talked in tnelast meeting about protecting trees lre were talking about protecting treesfrom driving equipment underneath them.
Olsen: It's any type of vehicle.
Erhart: tlill any tree die if you drivesystem? I thousht it was just oak.
heavy equipment over it,s rools
Krauss: oaks are ftost susceptible in terms buL all the trees uill suffer.
Emmings: Birch is very susceptible to any kind of disturbance.
ErharL: okav and again, r'm trying to get a broad view of this first andthen get specific- Then bre go on 7 and-say trees that are rost, boy you;regoing to pav if )zou lose a tree because of construction, wlettrei actiaentaior on purpose and rm 90in9 whoa. Do ue really uant to take that positionhere? And then a, at che city's discretion ,""'."n r.i. ""n="rvationeasements over what r assume to be some of the existing wooded Lots andwooded areas and m_9oin9, bov that's, we're taking i-uis-"rice here.Remember that's still is the landowner and r think *rt"t uitn"rs me aboutthis is the guv who owns this land can come in and oefore-tre appries forthe subdivision or for the, let's see the first one is the applies for anysubdivision or urork. He can Eo in and cut all those trees Jotrn if hedoesn't like this document. you can't stop them.
Emmings: And then he,Il just be subject to th€ landscape ordinance whichwe've got to have a certain amount of confidence in that doing an adequatejob too I guess.
Erhart: l.relL' but compared to cutting down an existing mature, thisrandscape ordinance is peanuts. r guess maybe that's It. ue're getting tothe point here with these three items, are we going, ii struck me thature're rearry getting very, very aggressive and r just am trying to askourselves are we, r'm starting to sound like Lrdd here. phiroaophical .
Conrad: Sounded pretty good to me.
Erhart: rt's getting prettv tough and r think you're automatically puttingourselves in an adversarial role and rm not sure ere want to do that-.
rrdllral llv r-(J llt159Io l]geLI 9
September 4, 7997 - Page 44
Krauss: tlhen you say we're getting more aggressive, )reah we are because wefound that Hithout that sense of aggressiveness ue keep losing the battle.
Erhart:for it.Other than the one up here and I guess I'm trying to get a feel
Krauss: No, it's very common. There's so many times that you have a
developer uho says, weII urhere does it say I have to Put snou fence up.
I'Il just tell the Cat driver where he's not suPPosed to go. l.lel I gee,
I uent to Iunch and the Cat driver just plowed doun that forest. I mean
happens all. the time and the guys sa),s uell nobody ever told me. or thev
parked their equipment dunp on eop of the root system. And these aren't
totally new. l.le've been putting these conditions in one shaPe or form on
IE
projects lately and in fact the most recent one, the Lundgren one was where
rre actually when with the easements h,here lre say, alrisht. If we buy the
plan. If r.re buy your concePt that in exchange for this PUD one of the
things we're doing is salvaging tree cover, Protect it.
Erhart: No problem to negotiate that Hith the develoPer at the PUD
discussion stage. But here we're making it a Potential mandate- That's
uhen I, agai.n that you can go in and that neans tlhoever buys that ' in the
case of a subdivision, that lot. I nean he all of a sudden, he can't
remove his own trees.
OIsen: This is Iike protection during construction.
Erhart: That's not the way I read it. It
Okay, I'm hearing you on number 6' it does
|laybe it does make good sense. You've got
they start constructionto mark it off.
's not the conservation 'easemen!.
sound. Okay. I understand nour.
a mature uloods, to 90 and before
Emmings: I think tle've done that on several Projects-
Krauss: Yeah, that's not uncommon. tle've added it. It hasn't been in the
ordinance. fi,s been a condition of approval as have 7 in one uay, shaPe
or form but we've never had it really laid out as to ulhat the comPensation
}las .
Olsen: tlhat you had to rePlace or if you had to rePlace.
Krauss: Exactly. Nor., on 8 the conservation easements, ere've only done
this once and that's on the Lundgren one where we didn't pick an individual
basswood in Lhe middle of the lot and say that's uhere He're going to
protect. The line was drawn around uhere the significant massings lere and
th"r. are a number of other trees on the proPerty that are outside the
constrains of that easement and what the homeouner could choose to do what
the homeowner chooses to do uith those but the trees that you bough! as
part of the protection or part of the environmental Package xhen you bought
the subdivision, Lhe bulk of those trees, the sisnificant stand, I
guess I'm of the oPinion that those should be Protected.
Erhart: HelI let's just take one at a time. 7. I',m okay ulith 5. I'm not
sure it reads clear but okay we've got...shall be rePlaced by comPatible
trees approved by the city. The city r.rill require Lhe develoPer to rePlace
@September 4, 1991 - Page 45
Erhart: I mean that sounds good but as the tree gets bigEer, theprobability of it Iasting, living Eets quite diminished.
Krauss: Except r.re wourd accept professionar advice. r mean ure don,t havethe tree spade and if they could have their landscaper tell us what theyfel! and ure would r.reigh that. But uhat t.re have seen is we have seenordinances that have punitive damages. They said for every inch of treeyou lose vou o..,e us $1oo.oo and ue looked at that and said welr that maisatisfy your need for vengence but what does it get you?
Erhart: That's what r was thinking uas r don't orind Lhis. rt just wouldseem to me moving large trees, in the first placc the language here is kindof r.lho's to sav $Jhat Lhe rargest comparablc trees that ar! commerciallyavailable as mentioned. here whereas if you used the terminorogy replace ona caliper per caliper basis like ue previousry used, it jusi seems moreeasy to apply. I think a higher success with trees.
Farmakes: r'm not a landscaper. r couldn't give you a survivability rate.r know that thev, r've seen some awfully big irees put down in commercialdevelopments for office buildings and they're still there. I assume HaIIaor somebody has informatlon for us on that.
Krauss: The thing ue found a lot of times too is you really have to dependon some advice that's given by a randscape professional. A lot of times iidepends on what was the soil condition that the tree *"s gio,rn in and whatare you transplanting.it into. Are they comparable. Lriri the tree fit thespace. The guys urho do this r.rork, the Halla's, the Beaver Bros., Otten, Imean I've met them out on the sitc an), number of tines and they'ie prettygood at telling you trhat they lhink is going to survive.
Erhart: okay. tJeII maybe it gets down to...r.rho's 9oin9 to decide what thelargest comparable tr€es that are commercially availabli fortransportation? Are you 9oin9 to get us into an argument oith the guy?
Krauss: trell anything, it's alurays possible. I mean ultimately.
Erhart: tJe're trying to make your llfe as easy as possible.
Krauss: tlell that's true and r appreciate that because ultimately it,s mycall uhether I think they're telling the truth or not or what I'm willing
these trees r,lith the Iargest conparable trees that are commerciallyavai]able... as opposed to our previous rules that they have to replace
them on a caliper per claiper basis. tlhy the change?
Krauss! It's a different orientation I guess and when you replace oncaliper per caliper you can replace a 3O inch oak tree uith 15-2 L/2 Lnchright and they're pretty cheap. I think this is something that thedeveloper has pledged !o save that they bleu. They bleu their commitmentto you and lost. I don't know, this was kind of Jo Ann and I kind ofthought this up. I don't know, I've ncver seen this language before but itmade sense to us to tell the guy you've got, if you wreck the maple, you'vegot to go out and buy the largest maple you can buy and have Halla come inuith his tree spade and replace it.
Plannrn9 Commrssion
September 4, 7991 -
I'lee! i ng
Page 45
to accept. Now if I'm arbitrary, they always have the right to appeal tothe City Council saying that the Planning Oirector's jerking me around. Sothere's alh,ays that fallback but it's a new approach Tim. I can't tellyou, I can't cite somebody else doing it Lhis r.,ay but it seemed to make
more sense to us than the dollar cost.
Erhart: No, I agree urith the dollar cost. I uould just silggest that thecaliper per caliper, while it certainly isn't going to get you a 30 foottree, or 30 inch diameter tree, it's very €asy to administer. If thetree's gone and it's 30 inches and you put 15 2 inch trees or 7 7/2 3 inch
trees.
Erhart: So a
Hopefully wit
comments on t
hat point it's how you
that we uould prevent
?
administer it. Youthat. An)rbody else
have to do that.
have any
tth6
hat
Conrad: I Iike Lhem.
Erhart:
r oots .
Hy understanding was that it uas comPression of the soil on the
Krauss: It's eas i er -
Erhart: Just the way it is?
Conrad: I like 6 and 8. fhe onlj' thing I picked uP on 7 b,as exactlv what -you've been talking about. I didn't know if that xas the richt way to 90
and I guess Paul feels one lJay and you feel another.
Erhart: I hate to get into a situation where the staff geLs in a Position
where we just set up the ordinance where it's 9oin9 to lead to an argument.
I'd like to try to avoid that.
Conrad: t,ell it sort of oPens it uP but isn't that arbitrary anyHay. You
can have some lousy oak trees that are out there that are not necessarily
an asset. Sometimes lre treat everythinE as Perfect, of great value but
this seems to, well it's not an absolute and obviouslv thaL Puts more
pressure on staff and more disagreements, you're right.
Erhart: Hhat might be a lousy oak to someon€ might be a beautiful oak to
the next guy.
conrad3 Yeah. The fact that it's rePlaced is important to me
Emmings: l|y oaks depend on the aeason. I like them in the spring and the
fall I wish I could blow them up. They drop lcorns on ny deck and keeP me -auake all night and I have to rake uP the leaves but also at my house they
put my foundation r.rithin 6 feet of a oak tree you can't get your arms
around. It's been there 9 years nou.
Conrad: Boy, that's unusual . I've seen so many trees go.
Emmlngs: And I've got anolher one that's not v€ry far auay. tlell yeah,
I kind of expected it not to survive but it did.
Emmings: tJeII they drove the Caterpillers alI around the roots of alIthose oak trees out there and it didn't really s6em to do any damage at allso it makes you wonder but you don't want to take that chance. I think 3and 6 and 8 are fine. 7 is the one I had reservations on too. 5I didn'tmind because r.re've done it before. 8 ere just tried out but I think it,s agood idea or it's appropriate.
Erhart:ir?Steve, on 3 again. Did I hedr it the way it is or the oay I read
Emmings: Okay now read it again to me.
Erhart: t,lell again r thought vou and r, r thought ue kind of had agreedrast time to state if they're putting e street ind ue approve the rimovalof a tree because i!'s on a house pad or a street, that we aren,t Eoing togo back and make that guy replace those trees.
Emmings: Yeah, I think that,s uhat you and I said. I guess here theychenged it so basical.lv now they might do it on a caliplr per caliper'inchbut at a minimum thev're going to have to replace it and r'can Iive uiththis. But I still, because I think more people felt the other |ray. Thatthev should have to do it on a caliper per caliper and r thought this uaskind of a compromise and it,s alright with me. 'But basicaiiy I don,t seeanv reason to make them replace tre6s they have to take doun. r uould hopethev'd do the minimum. r suppose the other side to this thoush is ifvou've got a site uitha rot of trees, it's not so much of a problem. rfyou've got a site where the only trees they're taking down because theyhave to, then you'll b,ant to do more and mavbe this iives them thatflexibility.
Erhart: Then the otherthought h,e were, if the
I had was, again maybehad, if the developer.
I misunderstood but Ione
gu),,
Erhart: on page 10- section 18-61 Fhere re're talking about putting 3trees in on lots. r thought ue had concluded at the eia or-tni meetingthat if the guy had 3 trees that met the specifications in terms of size,type and location, that h€ urourdn't have to put in 3 new ones. rt comesout nou, that he can do 2 but he's still required to put in.
Krauss: tJe couldn,t figure out €xactly trhat you uanted because somecomments were allow 2 of them to be uaived but not the third. someuaive all 3.
Emmings: on which page?
Emmings: I can't remember either.
of the
were
anolsen: You switched at the rast minute, Then you, somebody brought upexample where uhat if the tr6es r.,ere arl so feet back or sornethiig andthen r don't know- so it uas hard to tcll so whatevei yor-,u"nt. r.recouldn't remember.
Conrad: I
nol., hrhat I think ue aIIsaid.said no. No, He probably didn,t have consensus. I
Planning Commission Meet i n9
September 4, 799f - Page 47
Emmings: I don't think so. l.lel I wait a minute, maybe that's a different.
f 'm not sure.
Conrad: I'm surprised we didn't do that. In my mind it qas clear that all
three can be waived to the turo.
Errmings: As Iong as they've got on6 in the front )rard.
Conrad: As long as. they met tho standards that lre had set, yeah. Then all
three could be laived .
Emmings: l^,ell it makes sense. I don't remember what the iseuc was but it
sure sounds like it makes sense.
conrad: Uell it's real consistent uith lhat we're tryinE to do.
Krauss: tle reren't sure r.lhere you'd stick the tYco. I m€an if they had
trees all over the Place.
Emmings: But if €xisting tr€es met the.
Conrad: Then lre don't care.
Emmings: If they're 3 and 1 in the front yard is deciduous, lhy lrould He
make them plant more tress?
Olsen: Just say this requiremGnt can be waived for all three trees? All
of the required trees?
conrad: Yeah.
Emmings: So long as it meets the standards of the ordinance.
Erhart: The other thins that ue srere going to clarify there and it uas
"ugsr=t"a by Don ttalla ihat when ue say declduous trbcs it must be at lcast
z i7z inches. I think don't 1ae have to state like ue prevloqsly caid at
some height?
Krluss: Heasured at 4 fcet above thc ground.
Emnings: It says and'4 feet abov€ the ground. It should really say '
Erhart: But not in that ParagraPh tt docsn't-
Emmings: Yeah it does. It's right dor.rn therc. Third line frorn the
bottom. Third and second llne from the bottom.
ErharL:at least
d i ameter
Up on the fourth line from th€ toP it sa
6 feet high and deciduous trses rrust be
at Lhe time of the installation.
YSat
con i ferleast 2
trees must be
1/2 inches in
September 4, 7997 - Page 48
olsen: That kind of slipped. we should have the 4 feet above the ground-
Planning Commissi on
September 4, L99l -
Meeti ng
Page 49
Erhart:
Krauss: l.lhat you're talking about is a deciduous tree.
olsen: That's suitched around.
about a deciduous tree. Thc coniferous is justKrauss: tle're tal ki ng
above the root baII.
Erhart: I think that's all I had. Just let me ask. tle're saying thenthat under the subdivision ordinance that rre as a city can go in and at ourdiscretion and demand conservation easements to protecL designated treepreservation areas. Therefore, when the guy buys that lot and builds a
house and moves on iL,.he can't go in and uhat?
Krausss He's going to know what the buildable area on that lot truly is
and He hopefully wiII avoid the situation brhere somebody comes to us andsays f 'II save every tree I don't have to cut dolrn to put this house thatI decided I eJanted on this property. The easement r.rill force whoever buysthe property to design the house appropriate for the Iot.
Emmings: I think Tim's asking the next question. Now f,m the owner andI ]ive on that lot. Can I cut down a tree in there for firewood? Can Iplant a tree in there? Can I mow in there? l.lhat does the conservation
easement mean?
Krauss: That's a good point. r guess we don't have boilerprate ranguagefor that easement yet as to what. I guess I can only say what I,m goingto, r.rhat I think is that lre never intended it to restrain a property otrnerfrom nornal decisions or maintenance of their property in the future. Butr wourd have a problem hrith clearcutting that stand of trees and that's whythat easement stands there. r mean if somebody uanted to do maintenance,you knour tree removal for healthy trees.
Emmings: tlhat if I r.lanted a tenni.s court and that,s t.lh6re I want it.
Kreuss: No.
Emmings: t,el} chat's going too far as far as I,m concerned.
Conred: That's going too far?
Emmings: Yeah. That,s going further than I'm uil.Iing to 9o.
Erhart:from. I
both ura nt
have with
comes in
Yeah, let me try to explain where I think Steve and f are comingdon't care if the developer and the city get together and say, weto do this and you create a conservation easement. The problem fit is r.rhen we have the arbitrary ability on a, uhen a developerand says I'm developins lots and we go in and say oe're going to
Emmi ngs:
do that?
Yeah, right up hcre on line 6 ar 7-
Do you measure a 6 foot trce 4 fcet above the ground? You can't
Emmings: Okay. So 2 t/2 inches in diameter measured at 4 feet high.
Planning Commission |,teet i ng
September 4, L99t - Page 50
put a conservation easementIot now has restricted whatto do that.
there.
he can
And as
do with
a result the suy uho buys that
his trees. I'm not sure He want
Krauss: In that respect though is it any different than what we do with
retlands? tle take drainage easements over them.
Emmings: I don't think it's the same kind of resource. To m€ it isn't. A
wetland, I can't fill in a uetland. Filline in a netland seems like
something that's much more significant than cutting doh,n a tree. I can cut -down a tree and plant another tree somewhere else and it t{ill grow. I feel
comfortable with that and I don't think that PeoPle are' I don't think that
individual ouners are going to clear cut their oun ProPerty iust for thejoy of it or anything eJ.se. I think most PeoPle like trees. I don't think -
lt's going to be that Problem. DeveloPers don't llke trees but I think
homeouners do.
Dick tling: One comment from a Phone call today from Bluff Crcek---
ordinances that prevented their neighbor from clear cutting their lot and
selling off the oak trees? She said thev had beautiful stands of oak
trees...neighbors bv their right sold the timber. came in with a
bulldozer, stripped out all these 1OO year old oak trees, Piles them up in
cords and hauled them away...
Emmings: Not t,here they've got their homes though- Do they have their
home ihere? I don 't know . But if I or,,,n a bunch of trees , I don 't see that
anybody should be telling me I can't cut them and sell them for uood'
That's takinS au,ay something Lhat, more trees can be planted there and more
trees will grour. It does take 1oo years but that's a blink. That doesn't
really bother me. This has gone on a uhole lot further because I've got
right now I ]ive on a lot whtre I can't grob, a damn flower because I've got -
so much shade. You're going !o tell me I can't cut down a tree on my lot
to make a sunny garden so I can grow vegetables?
Krauss: No but.
Emmings: But that's what I Horry about. or that I can't takc doun 5 big
trees to put in a tennis court if I've got the room for it and I Hant one'
Krauss: l.lhere that comes into play and the only time we've done it so far
is on the Lundgren proposal and that does mean if you buy Lot 12' that your -
hor.ise is going to have to be on the southern 2/3 of the ProPerty because
the northern 2/3 is covered by a conservation sasement -
Emmings: Right but that's a little different because there you've got
bordering a wetland. There's another rationale for having that be a
"onserrr"iion easement I think and there's other Parts of the ProPerty
if you just say no trees on this guy's ProPerty, he can't cut doun his
trees on his property.
it
but
Krauss: No, no. The idea is to, these areas would only be designated
where there is significant stands of trees that, dePending on how the
development is laid out, makes sense to protect- As I Pointed out earlier 'the Lundgren property has dozens and dozens and dozens of trees that are
Planning Commission
September 4, 7991 -
|,leet i n9
Page 51
not protected by these conservation easements and it's up to the individualto elect to do whatever they Hant to do urith those.
Emmings: Risht. But I h,ant to be careful that, you know I think we caneasily go nuts here. I mean I've got those old oak trees, old ash treesand old maple trees and I just really, I cut down three to build my house.I didn't cut down any more than I had to and I risked that oak that wasclose and all that but still I sure as hell don't uant the City telling methat if I ranL to take down a tree th€re, that I can't and I think youmight call that a significant stand of treea. I don't know. The),'re huge.
Erhart: And I see this as a difference betxeen the Lundgren thins iswe negotiated with the deveroper. r mean he courd have basicarry saidray. I'II negotiate something else but that, no ray. And lhat we'resaving here is that r.re don't give that option to the developer anymoreby putting number 8 in.
that
no
her e
conrad: r don't see that at all. That's just a tool . And it comes to usand ure decide whether we Hant that. rt's not paur making up something.This Planning Commission, City Council has the, we don,t-need it, Itisjust a Hay to protect a stand of trees that He think is important for thesubdivision.
Emmings: From the deveroper for sure and maybe urtimately from homeowners.
Conrad: Probably from the homeowners too.
Krauss: But what are you buying? you knou, we've just had too manyinstances where you manuever a road, you move things around to save trees -You massage everything. There's added costs. There,s added designconstraints. You think you know lrhat you,re buying and then blamlo,somebodv wants to put a hog house bn the thing and-because they want a 3car garage and they insist that it be on this side of the house, everythinggoes.
olsen: Yeah and that happens, specifically with vineland where oe r.rent toextra. The Plannins Commission and the Council added extra conditions topreserve some significant trees and they,re gone because they weren't, theymoved the street and now they uere just on a rot and that,s exactly what -'
Paul just said. They're gone nouJ.
Emmings: It's a tough issue but I think Ee're g'€tting real close toinfringing on some very personal rights herc- r buy ihe lot. r buy thetrees. They're my trees. The chances arc I'm not going to touch thembecause they add value and aesthetics to my lot but if i trrinr a tenniscourt ls better, don't terr me r can't have one. That doesn't seem rightto me. It doesn't seem fair to me. I don,t know. It,s hard. f don;tknou where you'd draw the line. r'm real concerned about protecting thetrees from developers because r know they view them as just a problim butrm not so concerned about protecting them from homeouners. Ue require 3trees here. r propose another way to rook at it. Here t.re require 3 treesand we're buildins in a cornfierd and the d€veroper puts in 3 trees andsome guys comes in and buys it and says r don't like trees and just cutsthose 3 trees down.
Planning Commission
September 4, 1997 -
HeeL i n9
Page 52
Emminss: Right. And I don't Iike that-
Erhart: This conservation €asement ulouldn't prohibit the lot ouner from
cutting trees in that easement maybe?
Krauss: They're within their rights to
the easement. l.,lost trees on a person's
Krauss: In the easement it ttould but
thing, I mean you look at where these
OIsen: It's such a unique situation.
do that. That's not protected by
Iot uouldn't normally be protected.
having gone through the Lundgren
easements are aPProPriate.
Krauss: It's relatively unique situations. Unique stands of trees
situated in different areas. I don't have numbers for you bu! a very
signficant percentage of the trees in the Lundgren ProPerty aren't in those
eaiements because they didn't uarrant being in there. I suPPose if ule uere -
to carry it to absurd lengths ue would have draun little circles around
individual trees on individual lols r.lhich t ould have made them unbuildable.
Emmings: Yeah -
problem uith what
appropr i ate .
No, I
uras
think what we did there was just fine. I have no
done on the Lundgren ProPosal . It seems perfectlv
Olsen: That's just all we're proposing to do is take it one steP further
and to preserve them.
Emmings: I guess
covers the entire
the one that scares me is where the conservation eaesment
lot.
Krauss: We can't do that. I mean you're not creating a buildable Iot'
Emmings: That's a difference.
Emmings: Risht.
conrad: I just don't see it as a Problem to tell you the truth' I
understand what you're doing and I don't uant anybody lelline me urhat I do
with my trees and I've got guite a few. rf I h,ant to take them down' I'm
going to. But in this particular cas€ we're talking about the excePtion.
tte're talking about a significant stand of treas. tle're talking about
somebody who hasn't bought the proPertY Yet. Period. They haven't bouEht
it. They're buying it knor"ring therc's an easement on it and they can't
touch it.
Conrad: Yes. Youtrees. iust like a
Steve but I think a 1OO
years to grow back uP an
The thing's been around
value to that. Some of
is a tool that $e Probab
have total control over
tooI.
know ue made a decision here that those are significant
wetland is. I guess f differ a little bit with vouyear old oak, that doesn't grow uP. It takes 1oo
d there's a good chance it's not going to make it.
here lr.lice as long as we have and there's some
you younger people. But again, I just think this
Iy aren't going to use very often and thaL...ue do
it and I don't know. I think it's Probablv a valid
Planning Commission ileeti ng
September 4, L99I - Page 53
Emmings: f'm not opposed to it. I agree and f'mI'm arguing against it going too far. This thins not arguing against it.
cou ld .
buildins
Conrad: That's where Tim is too and I.guess.
Erhart: I could see it being applied uhere everything outside theuhat do you calL it?
Emmings: Footpr i nt .
Erhart: Footprint is put into athat but his successor might.conservation easement. Paul miEht not do
Olsen: But you have the final say.
Emmings: Yeah.
Conrad: You're going to be for a long time.
Erhart: Hopefully not morp
Emmings: Dick, have you gotin a lot of uays. Anythingto the planting. you've got
and 1 coniferous.
her e
tha n 5 or 10 minutes.
any more comments on thid? This isyou lrant to say or, u,,e've made a lotyour 3 trees i n there . l.Je 've got 2
your babyof changes
dec i duous
Dick 1.lin9: Hy comments would be my otJn personalIevel as far as f sort of establish hou...I don,tyour meeting. I don't think it's approprlate.
Emmings: Okay, you don't Hant to tell us.
Dick tling: oh rd be happv to. r Euess on page 2 it talks about wantingto create a boulevard effect...f want to carry that over to page 10. So mycomments to council would be that r don't rike pine trees. I like shadetrees so r would have 3 trees. 2 of the trees shall be shade lrees andthen I would change the wording l may be a pine tree so you've got anoption. Then irrespective of the number of trees, my idea were t.oprimarilv protect the non-wooded rot. The wooded lot r don't think itpertain to front and back yard. This doesn't bother me...but r do Han! tofoll.our through...back part of the lot is wooded. r still want to requiretwo trees so my wording wourd be, three trees, one may be a pine tree endone mav be waived if there's...trees on the lot but r stitl want to require2 trees in the front yard so irrespective ee have this boulevard effect...
Emmings: There uas some question about whether you can get th€ bourevardeffect. rf vou're planting off the city easement, Hasn'i there: l,ras thecity Engineer 9oin9 to look at this for us? Didn't He talk about thatsomebrher e?
opinions at the Counci It.lant to interfere urith
Conrad: Yeah.
PIanning Commission Heeting
September 4, l99l - Page 54
Emmings: We had some discussion about the fact that it used to be, or at
Ieast r.rhere I grew up uhere ue had real sidewalks and then everybodyplanted trees on the boulevard, between the sidewalk and the street and
everybody had elms and you had this real nice canopy effect but now I think
they're going to be pl.anting these trees, the city uants them back be)zond
the streeL easement.
Dick tling: That's true steve. Any neighborhood in the citfact that the trees are...corners or uP by the house, you'r
a wooded effect on that street. So you can have a mile lon
trees in the front,...Iike the Sunrise Hills eddition... S
trees and I'm glad there's suPPort. I choose not to..-and
favor of the 2 Lrees in the front yard... Now the other th
wooded lot like your house or my house...
Erhart: I still like Your idea where
and then one of them had to be.
we had two classes of hardwood trees
Emmings: That was originalIY Your idea I think,
it the last tlm€. Did re abandon thatErhart:
i dea?
You u,ere the guy pushing
Emmings: I think the list are stiII being develoPed-
YAesgs
oI
I'm
ing
nd just thetiII creatingtreet uith no -like the 3still in
, if it 's a
going to
a pi ne
ue ai n't
third one be
a choice.
Emmings: Okay. tle're not too far aPart-
Farmakes: Isn't there a reason that they may want a Pine tree? Didn't ue
talk about that? Didn't thev say Pine trees urere beneficial ..-
Emmings: I think it uas primarily because of uinter.
Erhart: ue've kind of gone through all this discussion. I hate to start
this al] over again.
Emmings: Let's let the CitY Council do lt-
had missed thcn obviously we wouldErhart: If Dick had something that we
have liked to have covered that.
Conrad: It's Probably r.lorthwhile. Dick's the advocate and he's
be steerins the bulk of that meeting and the ieason ole went sith
tree or an evergreen, serious.ly you get 6 months here Dick uhere
got any leaves.
Emmings: I suggested we had 2 shade trees and then one' the
either an evergreen or an ornamental to give PeoPle like you
Olsen: Yeah we haven't sPIit
the impression that it b,asn't
Oid you still want that?
it down into catagor ies
going to be split in to
but I think we got
hardwood, softwood.
Emmings: Oh yeah.
Planning Commission
September 4, 1991 -
|1eet i ng
Page 55
Erhart: The idea was on the two reguired harduood trees, that one of themwould have to be from the expensive IisL.
Olsen: The hardwood and then a softwood?
Erhart: ttell the softwood, they,re "li the same.
Olsen: Right.
Aanenson: [.le h,ent the whole gammet, We had medium, hard and softue decided to go to just the hard and just the soft woods.
Erhart: In order tointo this ordi nance .
and then
Erhart: Let me rephrase it. Evergreen trees, no matter what species theyare, they're the same price for the same size tree, plus or minus 1O?.Hardwoods though are significantly different depending on whether it,s forexample an ash or a red oak. Sisnificantly different. It's significantiydifferent Hhat vou get in the end and the idea was that on true hardwoodsthat one of thern would have to be, so we get some varuable trees and yet wehave diversitv, one of them uourd have to be from the nore desircable listwhich uould be red oak, sugar mapre. r terl you that lis! uourdn't be morethan 3 or 4.
Olsen: But isn't an ash a soft or medium? l.le'll look into that.
Erhart: The issue is value I think. tlhether it's hard or soft.
Olsen: I think that that really splits the value though too.
Emmings: t,lill those lists come back to us?
Olsen: Yeah.
Emmings: Okay, let's do that another time then.
Erhart: tle're going to get this back again?
Emmings: No, but the I ists .
implement the tl,o valuG trccs, that has to be writtcn
Emmings: Yeah it does.
Olsen: You don't need to do value.
Erhart: No, you havethe list and see whichthink the list for the
oak and sugar maple.
Emmings: How about a or hac kber r y?
valuable tree?
to pick from two lists. We'II have to sit down withgoes into which...and I,Il be honest with you. Ihigh value trees should only include essentiaily red
wa I nut
isn't aConrad: A white oak
Planning Commission
September 4. l99L -
l.teet i n9
Page 55
Erhart:
me.
Conrad: l^lhy not?
Erhart: First of all you can't tree sPade the burr
they're slow grouring and they're not as nice a tree
It's a valuable tree. It's not a tree you'd want to Plant. TrusL
oak o
as th
r white oak -e red oak.
And
Emmings: Is the red oak more suscePtiblc to oak h,ilt?
Erhart: A little bit. Little bit but you can move it t{ith a tree sPade
and you...you can't do that rrith a burr oak. You can't do it lith a uhite
oak. They've got real big taP roots and you Just cannot move it. l'lell
anyway, it's stretching out. I thought it uas a good idea- In order to
implement it it has to be ulritten into the ordinance.
Emmings: tlell then uhat are we saying? Either Ne table it or ue revise
Lhat section when we get the list.
Conrad: Gee, I trust staff to imPlenent that hrithout us seeing it again-
Emmings: Then we don't have to sav it in here?
Aanenson: You don't feel comfortable that the City will provide a list of
species covering that?
Olsen: Even if it says the list would
have to be from one column or another.
with a Iist and revise that.
have to be, on Page 10
l.laybe He should bring
it'd say itthat back
Emmings: Let's get it onto the city Council. I think we
if r.re feel ue have to change something ' u,e can change it
Erhart: okay, do b,e want them to add the two classes of
and the time it gets Lo the City Council?
ought to and then
at some point.
trees betuleen now
Conrad: Yeah.
Emmings: t.lell tell us sPecificallv what it uould say-
ErharL! It uould say of the two required deciduous tr€es, at least one of
those would have to be from the, let's caII it clsss A list attached to
this ordinance or a part of this ordinance. That's it. And then ue've goc
to develop the t..lo I ists .
Emmings: Alright.
Erhart! Does that seem reasonable to you Dick? Bcc.use I'll tell you
,h"t'" going to happen? They'Il plant all kinds of green ash, silver
maple.
Emmings: so give them one short list and they can basically pick the other
tr€G they want .
Erhart: Right. That r.ray you'll get a variety plus we,Il get some of thetrees ure Hant -
Planning Commission Heet i ng
September 4, t991 - Paee 57
Emmings: And the only thing that uiII be off the list are things like, uewon't have box elders and stuff like that- chinese erm. okay, is theie amotion? Sure there is.
Erhart: Okay yes. f 'll move, what page is the motion? I'Il move thatthe Pranning commission recommends adoption, recommends approvar of theLandscape ordinance as shown in Attachment s1 as the ordinance with twochanges. one change regarding filrins of .the requiremen! for the threetrees in the subdivision ordinance that uas discussed here. And number twois that ure'lI add verbage that urill require that one of the decidious treesto be from a premium list that's developed and included with thisordi nance .
Conrad: f second the motion.
Erhart rovcd, conrad eecondd that the plannrng coonission rccommendlpproval of Landscape ordinance as shoun ln Attacharent *1 rrith thefolloring changes
1. The filling of the requirement of the three trees in the subdivisionordi nance .
2- Adding verbage stating that of the th,o required deciduous trees, atleast one of those urould have to be from a premium iisi-tn"t,=developed and attached to the ordinance.
AII voted in favor and the aotion carricd.
Emmings: tte didn,t close the public hearing.
Erhart: I'II move to close the public hearing.
Conrad: l.Je didn't open the public hcaring-
Krauss: I think you held the public hearing a long time ago.
Enmings: Okay. Lucky wc'vG got a refcree out here.
APPROVAL OF I{INUTES: The l'1i nutes of the Planning Commission meetins datedAugust 2L , L99L €ere so noted.
CITY COI,NCIL I.'PDATE:
Emmings: l.re've got Tim thanking us for some toys. Report from theDirector. It h,as stimulating as always. Is there anything in particularyou'd like to talk to us about? tre've all rcad it and studied it.
Krauss: No.
Emmings: Anybodv want to tark about anything on th€re? r thank you foriL. tte'd yell if it wasn't there
Planning Commission
September 4, 1997 -
Meet i ng
Page 58
Conrad: Just a quick comment. It doesn't seem like the C7SO.oo is very
much. If the intent is to cover staff time. There's no uay you can do it
for a7so.oo so I guess being competitive is what the issue is, Is that the
i ssue?
Krauss: There's a desire to defray more of the cost but not all of it.
Traditional.ly communities have basically eaten the cost. I m€an you
process a 3OO Iot subdivision and charge the guy $15O.OO when it took a
month and a half of staff time. Some communities try and defray all of the
costs, particularly those that use consultant with escrow accounts and it
gets kind of cumbersome. I'lost communities ue've found are trying to make
the developer bare a larger burden of the cost but not aII of it and that's
the approach that ste took. l"le're going to get a lot more fees out of Rvan
as they proceed with this. They're going to come back in phen they come
back in for their P€rmanent aPProval , they're going to come in uith a
subdivision. That is isoo.oo plus a per lot charge. Each site that thcy
bring in is going to have a site Plan aPProval and that's a fixed fee PIus
a dollar amount per square foot. so we should be generating significantly
more fees than ule have in the Past. No, i!'s noL going to cover all our
expenses but more than it did.
Emmings: I thought it ulas kind of interesting on this Halla thing. The
probllms we're havins with them out there and we're also asking them to
help us develop our list of trees. It's kind of fun.
Farmakes: It doesn't hurt their line of work at aII-
Emmings: UeIl no. Exactly. Especially if ue're going uith high end trees
becauie they're about as expensive I think as. Moon VaIIey. Next time
PauI you said there's not a lot for our next agenda.
Krauss: l.,le have no appl ications f or the next agenda . l.le've been tal king
to a few people. t^,e may have some the following one-
Emmings: How about the non-conforming beachlot thins?
Krauss: tle're putting Lhat onto the Council for discussion PurPoses on
t'10nday just to see if they'l] buy into the strategy that was laid out,
Before ioing through to bringing it formally back to you though, ue wanged
to go and sit do*n with the homeowners associations On one on one basis so
ue ian lay out uhat oe're Probably going to be doine or uhat you're
probablx going to be doing and we can start the discussion on what we think
is grandfatheied and urhat thev think is grandfathered. That uras the
pro..=s that we laid out. That we u€re going to meet h,ith them first and
ihen bring it back to ),/ou. Kathy is working on' she's going to be doing a
quick review of what's out there today and ue'lI be starting those meetings
what? Probably in the next 2 to 3 oleeks I would guess-
Aanenson: l.rhat hre're going to try to do is anslrer a lot of their questions
outside of this arena so they understand the Process.
Emmings: okay, as part of this I,d request that ue get this business of
mooriiS boats straightened out from Chapter 6 of the ordinance at the same
time.
Planning Commission
September 4, 1991 -
Meeti ng
Page 59
Krauss: I wrote up a memo to the Council
asked that it be brought to them anyway.that's been an issue that's been raised.
on this matter. Counci Imanfn Lhere I did mention that tJi ng
Emmings: Because r think it's not as compricated as uhen ue sere talkingearlier. There is a provision that says no watercraft shall be moored,docked or stored overnight on any rakeshore sile and then unless thelratercraft is either, and then number 1says, it's currentry registered inthe name of the owner of a rakeshore site- Alr you have to do is changethat, the Iakeshore site in front of xhich it's moored because therakeshore site is defined as the rand there. or we could put it, it's gotto be within the dock setback zone in front of the property of the p"rsJnuho owns the boa!. r don't think it wilr be as hard. There,s at least ttroways you can 90 there to get that defined. The problem that came up issomebody's got a boat moored in front of somebody else's house and we,vegot no restriction against that right now. rt doesn't quite address it soif that can get cleared up.
Conrad: l.toored in front of somebody else,s house?
Emmings: It's moored in front of somebody else's house.
conrad: Hithout their permission?
Emmings: Yeah. And apparently it'sclearly wrong if you read the intentagainst it and we,ve got to becausea uar.
Conrad: Boy, I'd sink the boat.
not, it's close to be wrong.but we don't have a specificthat's the kind of thing that
It 'sprovision
can start
Emmings: Rieht. AII I ask is that you please call me tothen it doesn't Iook like we,ll have a meeting next timeiremain to be seen. Nothing you can get ready for us?
help you . ttel IOr does that
tomor r ow
the next
Krauss: I don't think so but why don't I touch base urith my staffand Friday. I'II give you a caII and then we'II get notice out.
Emmings: And then ret's get an attendance record distributed uithpac ket
Erhart: Before you got here we passed a rule that if7:30, you don't count. Your attendanc€ doesn't count.
you're not here by
Emmings: Yeah, mark Ladd down for a late.
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting.and the motion carried. The meeting uas adjourncd it
Submitted by Paul KraussPlanning Director
All voted in favor
11:10 P.n. -
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CITY OF
EH[NH[SSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
U8!,IORANDr,l{
To: Planning Cornmission
FROU: Paul Krauss, Planning
DATE: Septenber 27, l99L
SUBr: Report from Director
At the City council neetingaction was taken:
Director
of Septenber 9, 1991, the following
1
Thicit
nee
s development proposal was discussed at great length by they Council . As had happened at the planning Conmissionting, there lrere a number of neighbors present. t{ost ofthe individuals at the Planning Conmission roeeting also spokeat the €ity Council neeting, rrith the prinary exception beingan individual tho resides south of the site, adjacent to iwetland. He raised concerns regarding drainage inpacts of theLundgren proposal on his property. Staff indicated a beliefthat there would be no impact, but agreed that this should beresearched further. The Council discussed a number of points
on the project and hras ul.tinately unable to reach a conclusionbefore work on the iten was continued due to the late hour.Staff vras given relatively little direction in terms offurther analysis on the project. Councj.Inan wing asked for
sotne approxination of what would occur on this property if the
PUD is not approved and severaL other minor questions wereraised. The iten was rescheduLed for the Septenber 23rdneeting.
At the Septenber 16,
were discussed:
1991, special neeting, the following itens
Surface w ter Manaqement am/Selection of Ta k Force.1
The ci ty Council appointed Councilnan !.{ason and CouncilwonanDimler to serve on the task force. The planning Comnissionhad previously norninated Cournissioners Batzli and Erhart (if
my memory is correct, if not, please correct me). The first
Report fron Director
Septenber 27, l99L
Page 2
neeting of the task force is scheduled for 4:30 p.n. on
IiIonday, October 7th .
Require Pernits for Grandfathered Recreational Beachlots and
Establishnent of Boat lloorinq Setbacks. Staff had earlier
discussed a proposed work program with the Planning Cornmissionrelative to reguiring pernits for non-conforning beachlots.
The goal of this program is to put the city in a position that
we are better able to adninister beachlot developnent, afactor which has caused staff to expend a large anount ofadrninistrative tine over the past fel years. The Planning
Cornmission supported the process, houever, staff also irantedto run this past the city council to see if they lrould also
buy into this. The city council lras supportive of the process
as outlined by staff and reconmended by the Planning
Cornrnission. Staff will begin work on this prograD inrnediately
and will probabl,y begin scheduling neetings with the homeowner
associations in early october.
3. UDdate on siqn ord inance Task Force.The Planning Commission
has selected Commissioners Farnakes and Conrad to serve withstaff on a Sign ordinance Task Force. Councihnan workman rras
appointed by the council to also serve along with Gene Borg
and Kevin llcshane, rrho represent local business fron the
chamber of commerce. Kate Aanenson, on our staff, will be
organizing the first neeting of the sign ordinance group as
soon as possible.
At the neeting City. council rneeting of Septenber 23, 1991, the
following actions were taken:
ontract fo Gradin on
2
1.
KIinqe1hutz.The Planning Conmission may recall that earlythis year, prelininary plat approval was given for the LakeRiley ltitls developnent for John Klingelhutz. Prelininaryplat approval was also given by the city Council i horrever,work has not yet proceeded nor has the final plat been
approved due to delays in preparing and adopting a feasibility
study to bring utilities to the site. This has turned out to
be a highly conplex issue, uhich is only now on the verge of
being resolved so that construction could begj.n next spring.
The applicant asked staff to authorize some prelininary
grading of a snall portion of the site in advance of this dateso that work could begin imrnediately next spring on theproject. Due to the unusual delays that occurred, staff
reconmended favorably on this request and based upon the City
Attorneyis recomnendations, we are requiring the applicant toenter into a developnent contract. The development contractclearly stipulates the need to restore the site if work doesnot begin on the project innediatety in the spring and tomaintain erosion control . The area that would be graded isvery lirnited and does not contain any unique environtnental
resources .
Report from Director
Septenber 27, 199).
Page 3
2. Approval Off-SaIe fntoxicatino LiBror License at 7/41 Crossinofor Pass Bv Liouors II. The planning Connission does noinornally get involved in liquor license requests unless theyare subject to a conditional use pernit. Irhat nade thiisituation unusual from ny view is that the shopping center inquestion is zoned t{eighborhood Business. Oft-sale liquorstores are not mentioned as a pennitted use in this district.They are listed as pernitted uses in the BH and CBD districts.Normally, lrhen a use is listed as pernitted in one districtbut is not mentioned in another, iL is assumed that this wasintentional and therefore, the use is not pernitted. In thisinstancei however, the Neighborhood Busiiress District doesallow rrneighborhood oriented retail shopsr, although it is notspecific as to exactly what this is. - Staff dis6ussed thiswith the City Attorney and cane to the belief that this mattercould be resolved in one of three rraysi a new ordinance
arnendrnent could be proposed, the Board of Adjustnents could beasked to make a ruling on the interpretation, or the CityCouncil could use the latitude provided by liquor licenseregulations to make this deterruination thenselves] ft lras thelatter course of action that was pursued and staff nade thisbackground clear to the City Council hrhen they acted on thisreguest. The liquor store in question is Lnall in size,containing approxinatety 2,400 square feet. Staff believe&that this was consistent t ith the- neighborhood scaled retailand ultirnately the City council agreed on a 3 to 2 vote.Horrever, the CounciL did request that action be taken tonodify the ordinance to place a size 1irnitation onneighborhood scaled liquo-r stores to ensure that this questionis adequately resolved if this occurs in the futuri. ThePublic Safety Comnission was also asked to look at the morephilosophical question of hrhether or not the city needsadditional liquor stores and if so lrhere should they -be.
3
The Council reviewed the conceptualPUD. They were generally quite suppoalthough they did echo sone of the
plans for this 90 acrertive of the project and
same concerns that thePlanning Comrnission had. Staff assured the Council that theseconcerns would be addressed qrhen the full scaled planneddeveLopment was undertaken and brought back for your- reviewand approval . The Council voted to approve the concept plan.
Lundaren PUD. Although this project was scheduled to returnto the City Council at their neit neetinc, it was DuIIed bvthe applicant due to a meeting conflict sternning t-rorn prioicommitments in another cornnunity.
5. Zoninq ordinance Atnendnent to Create a B1uff Line Preservation
section in the City Code, First Readinq. The cit y council rras
very supportive of this proposaf and there uere coDments thatthis represented an ideal and innovative use of the city code.First reading rras approved unaninously.
5.zoning and subdivision ordinance Anendment reqardino
Landscapino and Tree Preservation Reouirements. First Readino.The City Council ras also supportive of this ordinance
amendment, although the discussion focused on the nu[ber treesto be required for a single fanily residential lot. Although
the 3 tree requirenent is thus far retained in the ordinance,
councilman workman did raise a nunber of questions regarding
the cost of these requirernents. staff rras requested to do a
survey of other conmunitj,es and bring this back to the city
Council for second reading.
Rezonino Propertv zoned A2, Aqricultural Estate District to
RR. Rural Residential District. The City Council had received
a number of letters and petitions fron residences of the 96th
street area and country IIiIls area relative to this ordinance.Ultinately, the City Council reconmended that these two areas
be deleted fron the rezoning a).ong with the Jeurrisen Additionoff of Pioneer Trail, whose developer also protested the
rezoning.
Report fron Director
Septenber 27, L99L
Page 4
7.
REVISED SEPTEMBER 27, L99L
2. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2
3.*Bluff Protection
Ord inance
4.* Sign Ordinance
Tree Protection OrdinanceMapping of significantvegetative areas
6.* Rezoning 21 Acre Lots to
RR
7.* Wetland Ordinance/Surfacewater Management Prograto
September 27, 1991, staff toneet with University ofl,linnesota faculty requestingestablishment of a task forceto give new direction.
STATUS
Inactive
Staff directed to developscenarios - low priority
Staff directed to draft apotential new zoning districtordinance. Fish & Wildlife andDNR have agreed to expandrefuge boundary to include allland lying south of Hwy.169/2t2.
First Reading approved by Cc on9/23. Second reading scheduledfor !o/14/9t.
Work group established. Firstneeting in October.
5 MnDNR conpleted napping programand will Lrork with city todevelop. New ordinance laterin 1991
First reading approved by cc on9/23/ Second reading scheduledfor Lo/t4/91.
Task force established. Firstmeeting scheduled October 7.Video surveys of lake bottoms
underway.
In January we receivednotification from the ITInDNRthat we are a prioritycommunitywitha2year
deadline
8. Shoreland Ordinance
ONGOTNG ISSUES
conprehensive Plan fssues
1.* 1995 Study Area (North)
and Hwy. 5 .Corridor Study
2. 1995 Study Area (South)
OTHER ITEIIIS
1. Blending Ordinance
9 Group home ordinance
Rura1 Area Policies -
19 91l inactive
City request to eLininate
nininum 1ot size requirenentshas been subtoitted to lletroCouncil. Approval due in
septenber. ordinance revisions
required.
First reading approved by CC on9/23/ secortd reading scheduledfor to/t{/gt.
Residential PUD standards to PC
on LO/3 .
19 9 L/ongoing
19 91,
10.
11. * Landscaping standards
12 . ,t PUD ordinance
13.Pc input in Downtown
Planning and Traffic Study
14.Review of Architectural
Standards to Pronote lligh
Quality Design
15. * Bluff Creek Corridor
Greent ay
16. * Modifications to beachlot
ordinance - Re: Non-
conf onring beachlots
ordinance amendnent to
Non-conf orning use sectionto clarify ordinance.
18. * ordinance anendment
regarding liquor stores in
BN District.
* change in status since last
report
Meeting notice to
associati.ons sent for
neeting.
To PC November, 1991.
To PC November, L991,.
beachl ot
october
!7.*
with adoption of Bluff LinePreservation ordinance, ccreferred item to Park and
Recreation Conmission.
CITY OF
CH[NH[ESEI'I
690 COULTER DRIVE. PO. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-s739
}{EMORANDT'III
TO:
FRO!,T:
DATE:
SU&T:
Planning Coumission
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior planner
Septenber 24, 199!
Discussion Iten - ZShelters and Park a
oning Ordinance Amendment to Add Busnd Ride Lots
The city will be receiv.ing a request in the near future for a parkand ride Lot located at the southwest corner of Hrry. 5 and 184thstreet. The City currently h_as. no rray of regrulating a lirX anaride lot. The city -directed the city attoiney to- p.5vi.ae anordinance for bus sielters, fus lencnei, park and ride lots andessential services- The.proposed ordinancL wourd arlow lark andride lots in alL zoning di;tricts, except residentiJ ai=tii"t= u.a conditionar use .pernit. The oidinance arso r-quiie= aconditionar use pernit for bus sherters and bus benches o'n pubricrights-of-way or on property ottmed by ttre ciiy.
Since park and ride lots are not always in use, we have added thata farmerrs narket cour-d be allowed aJ part of the conditional useperni! for a park and ride rot. The fi-nar iten that [t "-i."na."ntprovides for is a definition of essentiar. services and allowingessentiar services as a permitted use in all zoning aiiiricis.
Staff is providing.the first draft for the plannin! Corrrrnisslon goconment on the ordinance prior to holding a public hearing.
RECEIVE&
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTI & FUCHS, PA.luH 0519e1
futcnevs at Law clry 0f unrurrnassErv
Thomas J. CamPbell
Roger N. Knutsc,n
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G. Fuchs
James R Walston
Elhon B Knetsch
(611\ 456.95J9
Fax (612) 456-9542
marketrl
June 3, L99L
Dear PauI:
Enclosed is the revised bus shelter/Park and ride lot
ordinance you reguested uhich adds the definition rrfarners I
under section 2O-1 of the City Code.
I y yours,
CAMPBELL,oN, scoTT
&P.A.
I
I
r N. Knutson
RNK: srn
Encl osure
cc: Jo Ann Olsen
Yankee Square Office Ill ' Suite 202 ' 3460 Washington Drive ' Eagan' N"tN 55122
tlr. PauI Krauss
chanhassen city Ha).I
590 coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Uinnesota 55317
RE: Bus shelters/Park & Ride Lot ordinance
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENI{EPIN COI'NTIES, UINNESOTA
III ORDIIIIITCE II,IE}IDINC CEIP:TER 20 OI TEE
CEANEASSEN CITY CODE, TEE ZONING ORDINAITCE,
BY IDDIIIC PROVIgIOtrs CONCERIIING ESSENTIAL
SERVICEA, BU8 SEEIJTERS, AID PIRtr IIID RIDE I'OTA
THE CITY COI'NCIL OF THE CITY OF CIIA HASSEN ORDAINS:
8€ctloD 1.Section 2o-]- of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding the following definition:
Farmers t lIarket neans occasional sales held outdoors where agroup of farmers prinarily offer the produce and fruit whichthey have raised for sa1e.
SectioD 2.chapter 20 of the Chanhassen city code is
amended by adding Section 2O-9zO to read as follows:
aec. 20-920. Eus thelters a[A 8us Bencbes.
Sectl.oD 5.
SectloD 3.LS
anended by adding
Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen city CodeSection 20-92]- to read as follorrs:
a€c. 20-921. Park aDal Rid€ rJots.
Parking lots intended for use by persons parking their carsto use public transportation is pernitted by conditional usepermit in all zoning districts except residential districts. Theconditional use pernit Day allow use of the Iot as a farEerslnarket. Park and ride lots are prohibited in residentiaLdistricts.
Sectio! a.Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is
anended by adding Section 20-922 to read as follorrs:
Bec. 20-922. Essentl,al Serrrices.
The erection or placenent of bus shelters and bus benches onpublic right-of-lrays or property owned by the city ls pernittedin all zoning districts by conditionaL uie perroit.
Except as provided ln Section 2O-9OL, essential services area pernitted use in all zoning districts and are exempt fron theprovisions of this chapter.
Code is amended
106/03/91
Chapter 20, Sectj.on 20-1 of the Chanhassen Cityby adding the following definition:
ORDINANCE NO.
trEss€Dtial Serrrlcesrr. Underground or overhead gas,
electrical, steam or rrater transmisaion o
systens i collection, comrnunication, suppl
systems including poLes, wires, nalns, drpipes, conduits, cables, fire alarn boxes
boxes, traffic signals, hydrants, or othe
and accessories in conjunction therewith,
buildings .
rdyo
ain
rPrs
istributionr disposals, sewers,olice callinilar equipnentt not includingbu
Sectiol 5. This ordinance shalL be effective lnnediately
upon its passage and off icial publication.
PAssED AND ADoPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
-
day of , 1991.
ATTEST:
Don Ashlrorth, clerk/Manager Donald J. ChnieL, Uayor
(Published in the chanhassen Villager on ]'ee 1. )
-2-
CITY OF
EH[NH[SEEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX I47 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
UEUORANDIJ}{
TO: Planning Coumission, HRA and City
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: September 27, l99L
SURT: Highrray 5 Task Force
council
As the Planning Comnission is aware, there has been considerableactivity relative to undertaking the corridor study along Hwy. 5.This activity originated in the study area designations provided bythe Conprehensive PIan, and the proposal agreed to by the Planning
Conmission and City Council, that rrork should begin irrrmediately
upon approval of the Conprehensive Plan to clarify the uses thatare intended for these areas. Over the suDDer, this progressed toa bus tour organized by staff to view the corridor, and currentlythe involvernent of the University of lilinnesota Urban Design Centerin assisting the city in developing information useful to futuredecision rnaking on the corridor. Recently, staff has raised a
number of concerns at City council rneetings that sole reliance uponthe University of Minnesota does not appear to be resulting in theproduct that had originalJ.y been envisioned by the Planning
Comnission and City Council. on Friday, september 27th, the city
Uanager and f are scheduled to neet with Lance Neckar at theUniversity to discuss the project and wilL report back relative tocurrent project status. Hohrever, at the Septenber 16th specialCity Council neeting, the Council directed staff to put together a
task force to quickly develop options vis-a-vis the Hwy. 5 corridorstudy. For the sake of discussion purposes, these options could
range fron deternining that nothing should be done to undertakinga fu1l blown corridor study in conjunction with a selectedconsultant. To the extent that this has been discussed, it would
be envisioned that the Universityis vork could be rolled into this
study, but it is clear that uruch more than the Universityts work isto be required if a useful product is to result.
Based upon this direction, I am requesting that the Planning
Comnission, HRA and city council designate two individuals each toneet lrith staff, discuss the options, and develop a course ofaction to be brought back for review and approvaL. It is
envisioned that this would take only one meeting, but there is a
Hny. 5 Corridor Task Force
SepterDer 27, l99l
Page 2
possibility that this rrork group could become the nucleus of a taskforce that nay ultinately work vith a consultant on a H!ry. 5corridor study should this be the selected option. I would llke tohold this neeting as early as possible in October to avoid a drawnout project definition process.
Your assistance is appreciated in selecting these individuals.
RECEiUTi;
.sEP251991
DlJ .V UI
'NAITHASSETV
September 23, 1991
ltayor Don Chniel
City of Chanhassen
590 coulter Drive
P.o. Box 147
chanhassen, lIN 55317
future of chanhassen.
The addition to our farnilY Ia
honeward and I believe that I st fa11 has brought mY connittment
should spend nore tine here.
Dear Don:
Ird like this letter to serve as notice that I plan to resign from
the chanhassen Planning Cornrrission.
It has always been ny thinking that if I want to see a better
tommorrow that I should be doing sonething about it. The planning
comrnission gave me a super opportunity to nake a difference to the
I thank you and the council for allowing re to serve.
Yours trul It
Annette Ellson
c:PauI Krauss