1i2 Zoning Ordinance AmendmentsCITYO?
690 City Ce, ter Drive
PO Box 147
CIJa,hasse,, Mi, nesota 55317
Phoile
952.937.1900
General Fax
952.937.5739
Engineering Department Fax
952.937.9152
Building Department Fax
952.934.2524
Web Site
www. ci. chanhasse,.,m, us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Scott Botcher, City Manager
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: May 14, 2001
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
BACKGROUND
Originally, the City required a 75-foot setback from the edge of a wetland. Since
manicured lawns were being maintained up to the wetland's edge on most
properties, the ordinance was amended in 1992 to require a vegetated buffer and
allowed a reduced setback. Buffers allow a reduced setback while maintaining
water quality benefits.
SUMMARY
Wetland Accessory Structure Setback
The wetland setback ordinance currently does nbt address setback requirements.
for accessory structures. The existing wetland ordinance states that the wetland
setback requirements pertain to "structures," hoWever, the setback table specifies
only "principle structure setback," thus our dilemma. The proposed revision
specifies that the setback would be the same for principle and accessory
structures.
The issue of limiting the amount of impervious surface for accessory structures in
wetland setbacks was discussed at previous meetings. Staff believes that
specifying a maximum percentage of impervious surface or a maximum square
footage of structures would be difficult to administer. For instance, specifying a
maximum square footage of an accessory structure may allow some structures
like a small shed, but excludes others that may be more appropriate, like a play
set, which could be as large as 22 feet by 22 feet. Setting a standard for
impervious surface would be troublesome since the determining the amount of
hard surface for some structures may be difficult. For example, a deck is not
typically considered hard surface because water can permeate through the cracks
of the decking, so it would be difficult to determine the amount of impervious
surface.
The city also evaluated the possibility of permitting accessory structures at ½ the
required setbacks for principle structures. However, this alternative appeared to
violate the intent of the ordinance, which is to avoid alteration and destruction of
wetlands. In a Single Family Residential District, accessory structures may be up
Planning Commission
April 17, 2001
Page 2
to 1,000 square feet in area. In Rural Residential and Agricultural Districts, there are no size
limitations except for the overall lot coverage limitation. Permitting accessory structures closer
than the principle structure could be highly detrimental to the protection of wetlands.
Therefore, we recommend that the setback specified in the existing ordinance be maintained for
both principal and accessory structures.
The provision has been amended as follows:
Section 20-406. Wetland buffer strips and setbacks.
Wetland Type
Principal and
Accessory
Structure Setbacks
Buffer Strip
Buffer Strip
Minimum Average
Width
% of Native
Vegetation in Buffer
Strip
Pristine
100'
Natural Ag/Urban Utilized
40' measured 40' measured 0'
from the from the
outside edge outside edge
of the buffer of the buffer
strip strip
20-100' 10-30' 0-20' 0'
50' 20' 10' 0'
Entire Entire Optional Optional
This change will clarify the ordinance for all structures, as it currently only includes principal
structures.
Planning Commission
April 17, 2001
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 17, 2001, to review the proposed
ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of
the proposed amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
"Smffrecommends the City Council approve the following code amendment adding accessory
structure to the setback requirements:
ARTICLE VI. Wetland Protection
Section 20-406 Wetland buffer strips and setback (a)
Wetland Type Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized
Principal and 100' 40' measured 40' measured 0'
Accessory from the from the
Structure Setbacks outside edge outside edge
of the buffer.' of the buffer
strip strip
,,
Buffer Strip 20-100' 10-30' 0-20' 0'
Buffer Strip
Minimum Average
Width
% of Native
Vegetation in Buffer
Strip
50' 20' 10' 0'
Entire Entire Optional Optional
Planning Commission
April 17, 2001
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS 1. Amending Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Minutes of 4/17/01
g:\plan\bg~zoa 4-17-01 wetland setback.doe
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Section 20-406 (a), Wetland buffer strips and setbacks, is hereby
amending the table as follows:
Wetland Type Pristine
Principal and Accessory 100'
Structure Setbacks from the from the
outside edge outside edge
of the buffer of the buffer
strip strip
Buffer Strip 20-100' 10-30' 0-20' 0'
Natural Ag/Urban Utilized
40' measured 40' measured 0'
Buffer Strip Minimum
Average Width
% of Native Vegetation
in Buffer Strip
50' 20' 10' 0'
Entire Entire Optional Optional
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
2001.
of
ATTEST:
Scott A. Botcher, City Manager
Linda C. Jansen, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on )
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Karlovich: What?.
Slagle: You'll report back to us after you measure.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well it's been moved and seconded.
Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the
following code amendment adding accessory structure to the setback requirements:
ARTICLE VI. Wetland Protection.
Section 20-406 Wetland buffer strips and setback (a)
Wetland Type Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized
Principal and
Accessory
Structure Setbacks
100' 40' measured 40'measured 0'
from the from the
outside edge outside edge
of the buffer of the buffer
strip strip
Buffer Strip
20-100' 10-30' 0-20' 0'
Buffer Strip
Minimum Average
Width
50' 20' 10' 0'
% of Native
Vegetation in Buffer
Strip
Entire Entire Optional Optional
All voted in favor and th& motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20, OFF STREET PARKING.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, are there any questions for staff?. I guess I just have one Bob. This 22 feet versus 24
and 26, can you have me any examples of recently where it may have made a difference in how things
were handled, or has it traditionally been 24 and 26 feet?
Generous: Well it's for the two way operations. It says if it's one way you can have a 22 foot aisle, but
if we had parking on both sides, you can't have a 22 foot aisle, even if it's one way. And so that's where
we were concerned that someone would come in and say well, there's a, I'm really constrained on my site
and this is the only way I can do it ifl picked up that additional 4 feet of area. And so that's the purpose.
We were looking at, it was the Emplast building actually that came out and we were looking at it for that
one and we noticed that there was that issue.
10
Planning Commission Meeting- April 17, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet:. So basically the 22 feet would not be an option anymore? It would have to be, the minimum
would be 24.
Generous: Well it is an option if you only have parking on one side and it's a one way drive.
Saechet: That is still a possibility?
Generous: That's still in there in 1101.
Sacchet: Because I was wondering why with the 20 foot, why it came in in the first place but that is the
reaSOiL
Generous: That's it. For one way operations you can go smaller, but if you allowed it on one way
operations with parking on both sides, then it's a little too cramped for the back out movements and
turning movements.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, did you have a question?
Slagle: Yes Madam Chair. Bob, on the first One requiring the stalls for handicap parking, since we are
now changing or leaving that with the State's recommendations or requirements, has that placed any sites
that we've approved, okay.
Generous: No, because we've required them to meet the State standards even though our's said 1 per 15.
Slagle: Okay. No other questions.
Blaekowiak: Other questions? Alright, this item is open for, oh I'm sorry. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'm sorry.
Blaekowiak: That's alright.
Kind: Bob, I never really looked at this until just now but 22 foot would be allowed if it was one way
traffic. Our aisles don't really account for one way traffic for a 90 degree situation. On that table. It
says 26 feet, and then it's got a double asterisk and then it says it may be 22 feet wide if there's no
parking spaces across the way. It's just a one sided situation. I'm wondering if we should have a double
asterisk say, if it's one way traffic you would be allowed to have the 22 foot.
Generous: Yeah, that's on page, well 1246 of the ordinance, Section 20-1101 has one way traffic and
business, a maximum of 22 foot driveway width.
Kind: So would it be conflicting with, on page 1248 if we changed the aisle width to 26 feet? Period,
and no asterisk, no nothing.
Generous: Well that's what, we're taking those asterisks out.
11
Planning Commission Meeting- April 17, 2001
Kind: I'm suggesting that if it's one way traffic we would allow 22 feet, and this table would be
conflicting and require them to have 26 feel
Generous: No .... they already have one side parking then we would permit that.
Kind: Or some how it's designated as one way. I mean do we ever designate 90 degree parking as one
way?
Aanenson: No.
Generous: No, usually it's angled parking that we permit. Or would have one way.
Kind: So that's the assumption we're making is that it would not be one way situation with 90 degree
parking.
Blackowiak: Staff, are you comfortable with that then?
Generous: Yes. And the engineers actually do this one.
Blackowiak: Alright, I don't mean to put you on the spot but, okay. So we've had a public hearing. Any
Other comments? Okay, I'd like to have a motion please.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City
Council of the following two code amendments, delete the Section 20-1118(a) ** and the corresponding
note, and delete the first sentence of Section 20-1124(1 )(f).
Kind: I'll second that. ~
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Sacehet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City
Council the following code amendments:
Delete Section 20-1118(a) "**" and the corresponding note.
Delete the first sentence of Section 20-1124(1)(0.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 INCLUDING THE SITE PLAN
REVIEW, PUD AND HWY. 5 OVERLAY, REGARDING USE OF MATERIALS AND DESIGN.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Any questions for staff?. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, how would you like lo approach this?
12