1m. Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Post signs CITYOF ///14-/
I
_.. ' 1- ,-*"" CHANHASSEN
1 _. „.
i . ,c_.
% , „, ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I 40' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
4..... Actin t C,", F I '
First reading was approved on r=-��
4/9/90 by the City Oouncil. E.ilv; ':-.....!:_C--_.
1 MEMORANDUM Second and final reading is -
recomended. R- 1.: .
TO: Planning Commission �/Y._/`it
1 FROM Paul Krauss, Planning Director alt: ;
Det;
DATE: March 13, 1990 ��� 1. — - —
1
SUBJ: Proposed Zoning ning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments
1 Pertaining to Requiring the Posting of Development
Notification Signs
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
1 During the adoption process of the amended site plan ordinance, the
Planning Commission and City council discussed the protential of
1 requiring the posting of signs on sites undergoing development
review by the City. Both the Commission and Council believed it
would be a good idea to promote public knowledge of these proposals
through the use of these signs as is done in many other
1 communities.
Responding to a request by the City Council, staff prepared three
1 alternatives for their review including:
1. Requiring the applicant to obtain and post the sign,
1 2. Requiring the City to obtain and post the sign, and
3. An alternative whereby the city would obtain the signs.
They would be rented to the applicant who would be responsible for
1 posting the sign. The rental ,fee and damage deposit would enable
the city to recoup its expenses relative to implementing the sign
program.
1 The City Council selected the third alternative bwith a suggested
$100 rental fee and $100 damage deposit. Staff has information
II that the signs will cost $200-$25O and we estimate a need for up to
20 signs for the projects where the ordinance requires a sign.
Staff reviewed the Council 's direction and determined that
I ordinance amendments are required to implement it. These ordinance
amendments were accordingly prepared by the City Attorney and are
presented for your review.
1
1
'1
' Planning Commission
March 13, 1990
' Page 2
The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance at the March 21st
meeting. They supported the proposal although there were some
comments to the effect that the proposed $100 rental fee was
excessive. The fee structure is not listed in the ordinance and
can be revised by the City Council at any time. Staff is seeking
' your direction in this matter.
RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of the
amendments.
' ATTACHMENTS
1 . Memo to Don Ashworth dated February 5 , 1990 .
2 . City Council minutes dated February 12 , 1990 .
3. Proposed Ordinance Amendment.
4 . Proposed Sign.
5 . Planning Commission Minutes dated March 21 , 1990 .
MANAGER' S COMMENTS (4-5-90) :
' The $100 rental fee is not excessive. The $200 to $250 cost
estimate does not include employee costs for specifications,
taking bids, ordering, storing, receipting payment/deposit,
' preparing check-out (physically doing it) , check-in, storage,
reimbursing deposit, etc.
f4-
1
I ID li,
. ..
.._
,. s CITYOF —CHANHASSEN I
i
11111 :0'
, ., , ::-
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
_ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
II
DATE: February 5, 1990
SUBJ: Second Reading of Proposed Amendment to Division XI I
Site Plan Review Procedures of the Zoning Ordinance,
Approval of a Summary Ordinance for Publication
II
PROPOSAL/COMMENT
On January 22, 1990, the City Council approved the first reading I
of proposed revisions to the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The
changes would provide guidance in Conducting these reviews as
well as provide standards against which proposals could be
II
judged. There were no specific revisions requested by the
Council during the first reading and staff is recommending that the
ordinance be given a second and final reading. The Engineering
I
Department has requested that drainage calculations for 10 and
100 year storms be provided with site clan submittals. Staff has
revised the ordinance accordingly. We :,have also drafted an ordi-
nance summary for your approval. The summary will allow the City I
to reduce expenses related to the required publication of the
ordinance. ,,, _
ISIGNAGE .
-- ,- . y .w
At that meeting, a discussion.was.held ,regarding the advisability
of requiring that signs be posted"oa"Sites-!er- 'h dh ;development II
plans are being reviewed. The signs would be used106 increase
the public awareness of,development propoals. _g. #e" signage idea
was supported by the Planning commissiaitia -City Council and
II
staff was directed to further se*rch the matter.
Ar
We have had an opportunity to Tiler additional data. Of the I
communities that were surveyed,'we found that Apple Valley,
Edina, White Bear Lake and Minnetonka require signs, while Eden
Prairie, Eagan, Bloomington and Maplewood do not. Eden Prairie
formerly required sighs, but let the program lapse as signs II
needed to be repaired or replaced. Of the communities that
require signs, Edina requires that the applicant provide the sign
while the rest have city-owned signs. I
II
,I ,Mr. Don Ashworth
February 5, 1990
Page 2
We believe that there are several options regarding the signage
including:
' 1. Require that the applicant obtain, post and maintain the sign
as per Edina's example. Edina provides detailed signage
requirements that are attached to this report. This has the
' advantage of no cost to the City, but the disadvantages
include developer cost and difficulty of obtaining a sign,
and administrative work related to insuring that the required
sign has been posted.
' 2. Provide the signs at City expense with the City crews
erecting and removing. Advantages include ease of admi-
nistration and the disadvantage is cost, although permit fees
could be raised accordingly.
' 3. The last option is for the City to provide the signs and
charge the developer a rental fee. The developer would be
responsible for erection and removal and for sign replacement
if needed. This would appear to be the least cost option.
Staff found that Rainbow Signs, Hopkins, the company that makes
the signs for Minnetonka, charges $175-$200 for 4 ' x 6 ' wooden sign.
' If a sign program is adopted, the City would have to determine
which actions would require posting. We would recommend the
' following:
1. Platting resulting in the creation of 3 or more lots.
2. Rezonings.
3. Guide Plan Amendments.
4 . Conditional Use Permits resulting in the construction of a
new building (such as a church) .
' 5. Site Plan reviews.
It is expected that the City would need approximately 15-20 signs
' to start a program if the sign is to be maintained until final
action is taken on a proposal.
' Staff is seeking the City Council's direction on this matter. If
you wish us to proceed, we will prepare any required ordinance
changes and procedures for your review.
' STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve second reading of
' a Zoning Ordinance amendment to Division XI regarding Site Plan
review procedures, and approval of the ordinance summary for
publication.
1.
Manager' s Recommendation Regarding Signage Options: Should the
• Council determine that posting a sign is required for platting,
rezoning, etc. , this office would recommend that Option 3 (City
purchase/rental back) is preferred. Without question, there are
a number of days during the course of the year where the Street
Superintendent could assign one or two employees to erect a sign
on a given morning/afternoon. However, there are an equal or
greater number of days where each employee is given a section of
the city to complete a specific work function (plowing, sanding,
second pass widenings, etc. ) , or where each man has a specific
task, i .e. sealcoating, overlaying, trench work, etc. Plowing/
sealcoating/trenching work can be a one to two week process.
Taking away one or two men then becomes extremely difficult.
Making the developer responsible for installation insures that
the City is not going to be blamed for not getting the sign
installed in a timely fashion. The second benefit is that by
having the City purchase the sign, we can control lettering, con-
sistency of sizes/shapes/color/etc. The rental aspect should
reduce costs for most applicants. A rental fee of $100 with a
damage deposit of $100 should produce a cash flow position having
very minor impact upon the City.
---DWA t 6-
I
I
•
,' Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 9, 1990
o. Authorize to Purchase Recycling Bins.
II - q. Accept Resignations from Public Safety Commissioners Takkunen and tiring.
IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried.
I A. APPROVAL or ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW
PROCEDURES. FINAL READING; AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION.
Council/ran Bout: pkay, just a couple of changes to it. If you look at page 3.
I This is our interim use ordinance. Something that I think we're all looking
forward to having. Section 20-676, item 3 seers to me to be a repeat of item 1
so maybe we can just strike it.
1 Cocincilwaran D3smler: Temporary real estate offices?
Cou;ciliman Hoyt: Since it's intern uses, they're all temporary. Then I would
Ilike to see in 20-716, the BH, Business Highway district that we allow temporary
farmer's markets so I'd suggest an item 3, Farmer's Markets. In the BH. 1
allow it in the CBD. It would seem like it would be even more appropriate in
Ithe BH. That's all I had.
Mawr Oriel: Okay, with those two changes, can I have a notion?
ICouncilman Workman: Is there a reason Paul why maybe we left that out of
there? Out of the BH?
II Paul Krauss: Pb Mr. Workman. There really wasn't any intent to leave it out
and we have no problem including it.
ICouncilwoman Dialer: I'd appreciate seeing it in there.
C buncil:ran Boyt: Why?
ICouncilwoman Dialer: Because we're in the business. I move item 1(a).
Councilaan Boyt: Second.
II
Clouncilwaman /dram moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
I Amendment regarding site plan review procedures, Final Reading and approval of
Sunmary Ordinance for Publication as wended by Councilman ciliran Boyt. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
11!* B. APPROVAL OF ZC JING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF
II INTERIM USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE TEMPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS,
FINAL READING; ADD APPROVAL CF S&M ARY -COMA= FOR PUBLIC:ITIC W.
•
Cosncilwaman Ed ler: I guess other people picked up on this too but we did talk
about, I talked to Paul earlier today indicating that this ordinance could be J
I passed the way it is and we could talk about the signage but I think that we
I2
II
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
It
should maybe take care of it right away. There are three options given in the
first page after the yellow page. I guess I'll go along with staff
recarvendation of Option 3 but I'd like to hear some discussion.
Councilman Hoyt: I'd be happy to chime in. I think Option 1 makes more sense
because it keeps the City out of the sign business. Edina seems to be able to
do it quite successfully. You notice in your packet, the part of it you just
received this evening, there is Edina's requirements. I think that that to re
rakes more sense to have the developer take care of this than to have the City
store 20 signs someplace in city property.
Councilman Johnson: For years all over the country developers have done this. A
lot of other towns I've seen everyplace this is for subdivision you know. It's
the cost of doing business and it's not that expensive.
Councilman Hoyt: We're only requiring the signs in same particular situations ,
that are reasonably dramatic so I think this sort of developer probably hake
sign or is aware of the likelihood of needing it.
Councilman Johnson: On the issue of 1, 2 or 3. Option 1, 2 or 3, I'll go with
1 right now with 3 in second place and Option 2 I don't like at all. The other
thing is, what are wa going to require the signs for. '
Councilwoman Dirmler: We already discussed that. Let me just explain to you why
I liked Option 3. I think I explained the last time this came around that we
had such a problem even getting a sign up for the garage sale for Chaska
1 Boosters because no one could came up with a sign that met the ordinances. Even
though it was a temporary sign, that we finally gave up so I'm saying if our
requirements are that difficult to meet, then it's going to be a hassle for the
developer to came up with a sign that will allow them to put up. On the other
hand if the City rakes the sign, we won't have that hassle. Apparently we're
going to reet our own ordinance to put up the signs. Then also, it's not going
to cost the City much because they will be paying. It's just that they don't
have to be responsible for the design and all of that rigamaroll coming up with
the correct sign.
Councilman Johnson: Edina gives you the exact design. 60 inches.
Councilwoman Dialer: Well then the City would have to came up with a design. ,
Councilman Johnson: I'd use Edina's. bury reinvent the wheel? We'd just have
to change Edina to Chanhassen.
O uncilwaman Dialer: Paul, do you want to address that? I just remember that
was such a hassle to get a sign, a temporary sign to put up for the Chaska
Boosters wham we wanted to support. They were having a rummage sale. It was a
very temporary sign and we couldn't put one up just because we couldn't came up
with the proper sign.
Paul Krauss: Well Councilwoman Dimler, if gave criteria and changed our
ordinances if we need to, one of the things we need to do is ask our attorney as
to what structurally we need to do when we make a selection on this. But if we
required it, the sign could go up without requiring additional peardts. The
problem I think you had with the temporary sign was that you needed a temporary
sign permit under our existing ordinances and those are somewhat restrictive.
3
,, City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
The problem that we saw though in requiring the applicant to obtain their own
sign was one of cost and titre. They would need to procure a sign each time this
came up. The sign would only be used once and then it would be disposed of.
Councilwoman Disler: So it'd be a waste?
Paul Krauss: We think you could expedite if we had the signs on hand:
ICouncilwoman Disler: Yeah. Plus they're paying for it. I don't think it's
�J t
going of cost the City much. And we're talking about storing 20 signs? We're
' building a big new shed.
Councilman Johnson: %hen I look at somebody who's got a million dollar
development going and see a $200.00 expense on that million dollar development,
I don't see that I'm breaking the bank. I see we're going to rent the sign to
then for $100.00 and some of these guys can probably get it make for less than
that if they have their own shops and whatever. It's just a big deal. I don't
I want, we already do enough. Our staff is plenty busy without having to hire
somebody on to put up signs for developers. It's part of their job. If they
want to develop that piece of property, they just follow the ordinance. We used
Ito have...
Councilwoman Dit*ler: But under Option 3, the developer would be responsible for
I even putting it up and removing it. It's just that we'd provide the signs and I
think that's a good use of our natural resources. I hate to see us reinvent the
wheel all the time.
I Councilman Johnson: Between 1 and 3, I'll go with 3 as easy as 1 but I still
think that we haven't defined exactly which things are going to need signs.
There are same suggested ones in here but I think we have to decide what will
need a sign and what won't. Like this Shivley Subdivision later tonight. A lot
split into two lots. Do we want to have to put up a sign for that? I say no.
Councilman Hoyt: Well you don't under this either.
ICouncilman Workman: I think if platting resulting in the creation of 3 or
more
lots, even if somebody probably already has a willing buyer for all 3 lots, what
' do they care. That gets into a little bit of why we're doing this to let
everybody know but it's kind of a private deal. If 3 people bought 3 lots, what
difference does it sake sometimes that it's been done.
IIConncilsan Johnson: Yeah, or whether your plat, if you're in a RSF district and
you have this cornfield in the RSF district and you're going to plat those into
15,000 square foot lots. That's what expected to go in there. If you're going
1 to come in and put commercial buildings in there, then I'd see the sign. I'm
not even sure if replatting needs a sign.
Iwxihran Boyt: I think it needs a sign because there are all sorts of issues
Jay as you know around any development that comes in. We want more comrenity
involvement. men we sail things to people within 500 feet, many times that's
the squirrels and the rabbits. And so when we put a sign up, everybody that
goes by there at least knows something's going to happen and they can call the
City to find out what. Maybe we'll get a few more people contributing ideas.
' 4
Cityamtncil Meeting - February 12, 1990
!•
Mayor Oriel: Tom, do you have anything further? I guess I wouldn't have any
problems with item number 3 either. I think by us having those signs available,
giving the to the developers. Let the developers install them eliminates the
problem. with our people having to take that time out to do it.
Councilman Boyt: The City's talking about a $4,000.00 expenditure initially. '
Mayor Qiriel: Conceiveably maybe we won't get 20 signs right away either Bill.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want us to move the signs separate from where we '
need the signs?
Mayor Qi'iel: I think so. I
C uncilwaran Dimler: Okay, so I would move that we adopt under signage option 3.
Councilman Johnson: Second. '
Councilman Boyt: Before we take the vote, I'd like to suggest that there may be
same logic here in what Edina is saying works for them. Granted we haven't
decided what we're going to require a sign for but I would venture that in the
next 3 years you're going to see even more development when the MUSA line
expands, as we know it will.
Mayor Ch iel: I think that's a foregone conclusion on that. I agree.
Councilman Boyt: If the developer's responsible for all of it, and really then
it isn't the City's responsibility to see, do we have enough signs. Spare signs
out there. How many rezoning signs do we get versus subdivision signs? We
don't have to worry with that if we go with 1 so I guess for that reason I'd
vote against 3, although I will acknowledge there's a very small difference and
Ursula makes good points.
Councilman Johnson: Well see one thing I would do, if you're using a sign like
this. I'd have the basic sign made and have rezoning on a separate piece of
wood. Subdivision on a separate piece of wood. All the other information stays
the same and then you just bolt on whether it's going to be a rezoning or a
subdivision so if it's a subdivision, slap that puppy on. We don't need quite
as many.
Councilwoman Dirtier: So then that would be better for the City too.
Councilman Johnson: Make it reversible. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I agree. Sib derful.
Mayor Qsrdel: Good points Jay. I
Councilman Boyt: I give up.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded adopting Option 3, that
the City provide the signs and charge the developer a rental fee. The developer
would be responsible for erection and removal and for sign replacement if
needed. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
5 1
_City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
.1
Councilman Johnson: Are you going to move on to for what purposes we're going
to put the signs up because we didn't vote on that?
Mawr Chniel: I think that's something we're going to have to do.
' Councilwoman Diller: Was that your portion of what you wanted to discuss?
' Councilran Johnson: Yeah. That was my, but we've really just discussed it with
Bill and Bill has convinced me that planning use would, so I'll go with the 5
listed. The 5 reasons listed in the staff report.
Councilwoman Limier: What page are you on?
Mayor Chmdel: Items 1 thru 5. It's on the second page after this yellow sheet.
Platting, rezoning, guide plan amendments and conditional use permits resulting
in the construction of new buildings such as a church and site plan reviews.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is there a time limit on here? How long these signs have
to be up?
Mawr Oriel: There is a time limitation. Paul, is that correct? How many
days prior to the public hearing must they be up?
Paul Krauss: The ordinances I've seen required 9 days prior to the public
hearing. I would personally, we have a month notice when something comes in. I
would personally prefer that we use that.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but should we specify in here up to 1 month or do we
need a time restriction? I don't know if I follow.
Councilman Johnson: I think 2 weeks. That gives us 2 weeks to get the sign up.
' You say it's 1 month frame when they bring it in to us until it comes before the
Planning Commission.
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Johnson: So we're not going to get it up exactly the day it comes in
here so you need, I would say 2 weeks prior to the first public meeting on the
' action.
Mayor Oriel: Yeah, I think that would be fine.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just as long as there's something time wise.
' Cancilman Hoyt: Where should that go in the ordinance?
Mawr Ordel: Where would that fit in Paul?
Paul Krauss: P . Mayor, what we need to do after we get your direction tonight
is to sit down with the City Attorney and figure out where exactly in the
ordinance we have to make these changes or if we can just do it as a procedure
' without changing the ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: However this is the second reading.
' 6
1 •
_Lary uou ncrr rjee 1ng - February 12,-1990
1.
Paul Krauss: No, the thing that's for the second reading tonight is for the
site plan review ordinance itself. I
Mayor C r iel: okay. Jay, we have a motion on the floor. 1 thru 5.
Councilman Johnson: I will. I'll move that we add reasons for the sign as 1 ,
thru 5 and the signs should be up 2 weeks prior to the first public meeting.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to discuss a little bit what our bottom '
end on this thing is as fax as 3 or more lots and what maybe Jay or Bill,
somebody can give me an idea about the type of impact that we're going to be
averting if we require that. I think that's a little bit smaller titrre. '
Mayor Qi iel: Well if people within their areas are still concerned as to
what's happening in and adjacent to theirs with what's being developed within
that specific area.
Councilman Workman: But even for 3 lots?
Councilman Johnson: Well if you're sitting in an area where everybody's got 1
acre lots and somebody decides to convert his 1 acre lot to 3 15,000 square foot
lots. His neighbors would be very concerned about that. Theoretically he could
if he had just slightly over an acre, convert to 3 lots.
Councilman Workman: I agree that could happen but covenants usually provide
against something like that you know. Timberwood is an example probably. Well,
you couldn't break those down into less than 2 1/2 acres anyway but.
1 Councilman Johnson: No. Not until sewer comes in. '
Councilman Workman: But I'm saying, I don't know. Maybe it's hurting nothing.
It's going to put a burden on a mall split I think. You talk about the million
dollar deals.
Councilman Johnson: You see so few small splits. Usually it's either 2 or a
bunch. What number are you thinking? 5? 4? 12? 50? ,
Councilman Boyt: There's a good argument for why we don't want it to be 2.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Everybody lot splits. '
Councilman Boyt: But up from there, where do we go? I don't know what's magic
about 3 but I don't know where to stop either.
Councilman Johnson: You can probably argue 4 as well as 3 and 5 as well as 4.
Councilman Workman: You know I don't like to argue. That's fine. I guess I
- still haven't heard any reasons why but that's fine.
Councilwoman Dimier: Do you want to remove it out of there? '
Councilman Workman: No, because I don't really have an option. I don't have an
option up from 3. I don't have a logical point to stop. ,
7 1
1/
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Mayor axrdel: I think 3 or more lots is a good place to start with it.
Councilwaran Dir-aer: I do have a question on number 3. Paul, could you give re
an exarple of a guide plan aiencirent?
Paul Krauss: oh, it's a change to the land use plan. If sorebody had a high
density residential site and they wanted it to be cocnrercial/retail.
' Councilwaran Dialer: Wouldn't that be covered under rezonings?
Peal Krauss: They could theoretically ask you to change the land use plan
' before they ask you to change the zoning.
Councilman Johnson: Then they can care back and say the lard use says it's
supposed to be comrercial. You have to change my zoning for re.
' Councilman Boyt: I just thought of swathing. We're about to change the lard plan. Does this mean that the City has to a o run out and �
post the City?
' Paul Krauss: There are practical limitations to that. No.
Councilman Boyt: But we are changing. We're proposing to change the lard use
in several areas. Can we handle that as a blanket for the whole city and we
don't have to get into, I would like to think that we're not creating a
situation in which we're suddenly going to litter the highways with...
' Paul Krauss: We had no intent of doing it. If you'd like to specifically
exclude that, that would be the way to do it.
Councilman Boyt: 711 re, do we have to specifically exclude that to keep the
City fray► having to be concerned about the lard use plan aren3rents?
' Elliott Knetsch: Nufiber 3 only?
Councilran Boyt: Right. And it rakes sense if a developer wants to care in and
' change the land use plan, that's pretty remote but if they wanted to do that,
that that be posted. But what about when the City changes the whole land use
plan for the City?
Elliott Knetsch: The way it is right now we would have to post signs. You
could distinguish between private and publically initiated projects.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, except during the Oocrcrehensive Planning process? Would
that exclude it?
' Co:nciljran Johnson: I will take that aren3rent as a friendly arend<rent and
change guide plan armaments except for during Coiprehensive Plan modification
or wording thereof. I'll let you work that out with the Attorney if my second
will accept that change.
Councilman Boyt: Who's your second? -
I Councilman Johnson: Ursula.
Mayor Oriel: You haven't got a second.
8
,City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Johnson: I thought Ursula seconded it. It
Mayor Chriiel: Not yet. Do you want to second it. 1
Councilwoman Dialer: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? 1
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to adopt that all signs
be posted 2 weeks prior to the first public meeting for the following reasons:
1. Platting resulting in the creation of 3 or more lots.
•
2. Rezoning.
3. Guide Plan Amendment except during the Comprehensive Planning Process. 1
4. Conditional Use Permits resulting in the construction of a new building,
(such as a church) . 1
5. Site Plan Review.
All voted in favor and the Motion carried. 1
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we need action on the ordinance itself. 1
Councilman Johnson: I move item 1(b) .
Councilwoman Dialer: As amended? 1
Councilman Johnson: Well actually what we did didn't even amend item 1(b) . It
had no affect on item 100 .
Councilwoman Dialer: Second.
1
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the second and
final reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Division XI regarding Site Plan
review procedures, and approval of the ordinance surmary for publication. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
H. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION CF LAKE DRIVE
WEST FROM COUNTRY ROAD 17 TO AUDUBON ROAD, REDMOND PRODUCTS, INC..
Councilman Workman: I only want to say that, and I'm not sure if the dimensions 1
here for the Redmond Products construction which is going to be rather immense,
does appear as though it's going to be right near and across from Lake Susan
Hills. Gary, do you have an idea about at this time, as infant as it is, any
idea about the impact on that neighborhood? They have a very large facility
now. I know they're going to double or triple it.
9
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
' ORDINANCE NO.
' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18 AND 20
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING
DEVELOPMENT NOTIFICATION SIGNS
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
' Section 1. Chapter 18, Section 18-39 (c) of the Chanhassen
City Code is amended to read as follows:
' The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
preliminary plat after notice of the date, time, place and
purpose of the hearing has been published once in the
official newspaper. Written notice shall also be mailed by
' the City to the applicant and all owners of record within
five hundred (500) feet of the outer boundaries of the
preliminary plat. A proposed development notification sign
' shall also be erected on the subject property by the
applicant for all proposed plats of more than four (4) lots.
The sign shall be erected at least ten (10) days before the
date of the hearing on the preliminary plat. The signs shall
I be furnished by the City and the applicant shall post with
the City a $100.00 security deposit. Failure to post a
development notification sign or to give notice or defects
in the notice shall not affect the validity of the
proceedings. If a development is proposed adjacent to a
lake, or will affect the usage of the lake, the applicant
shall provide the City with a list of property owners
abutting the lake at the time of application. The City shall
provide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in
compliance with the procedures above. The applicant is
' responsible for meeting with affected homeowners.
Section 2. Chapter 20, Section 20-43 (a) of the Chanhassen
' City Code is amended to read as follows:
No amendment to this chapter, including the zoning map shall
' be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by
the Planning Commission. Notice of the time, place and
purpose of an amendment hearing shall be published in the
official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the day
' of hearing. When an amendment involves changes in one (1) or
more district boundaries affecting an area of five (5) acres
or less, notice of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten
(10) days before the date of hearing to each owner of
property within the area proposed to be changed and owners
of property situated wholly or partially within five hundred
(500) feet of the property to which the amendment relates.
02/26/90
,'
When mailed notice is required, a proposed development IF
notification sign shall also be erected on the subject
property by the applicant. The sign shall be erected at
I
least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing. The sign
shall be furnished by the City and the applicant shall post
with the City a $100.00 security deposit. Failure to post a
proposed development notification sign or the failure of a
II
property owner to receive notice as specified herein shall
not invalidate the proceedings. Where appropriate, notice
shall also be given to affected homeowner's associations. i
Section 3. Chapter 20, Section 20-111 of the Chanhassen
City Code is amended to read:
Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, a II
date shall be set for review of the site plan before the
Planning Commission. The review will be held no less than
ten (10) days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of II
properties located wholly or partially within five hundred
(500) feet of the site, as reflected in the records of the II Carver County Auditor. The Director of Planning may require
an expanded mailing list for sites fronting on lakeshore
where the development would be visible over a larger area. A
proposed development notification sign shall also be erected
II
on the subject property by the applicant. The sign shall be
erected at least ten (10) days before the date of the
hearing. The sign shall be furnished by the City and the I
applicant shall post with the City a $100.00 security
deposit. Failure to post a proposed development notification
sign or the failure of a property owner to receive notice as
specified herein shall not invalidate the proceedings.
II
Following the hearing or any continuance thereof which is
not appealed by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall
make a recommendation. The site plan shall be forwarded to II the City Council with the Planning Commission's
recommendation for review on the next available agenda.
Final approval of the site plan requires a simple majority II vote of the City Council.
Section 4. Chapter 20, Section 20-231 of the Chanhassen
City Code is amended to read: 1
The application, public hearing, public notice and procedure
requirements for conditional use permits shall be the same II as those for amendments as provided in Article II, Division
2, except that the permit shall be issued on the affirmative
vote of a majority of the entire Council and only
applications that propose construction of a new building
shall require the erection of a proposed development
notification sign. Although specific submissions required to
complete an application for a conditional use permit may
II
vary with the specific use and the district in which it is
located, all applications for such permits must include at
minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates the following:
II
-2- 1
I .
,1 proposed land use building mapping and functions,
circulation and parking areas, planting areas and treatment,
sign locations and type, basic lighting concerns, the
' relationship of the proposed project to neighboring uses,
environmental impacts and demand for municipal services.
' Section 5. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding Division 6, Comprehensive Plan Amendments,
Section 20-120, to read:
' 20-120: Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
If a landowner initiates an amendment to the land use
' map in the City's Comprehensive Plan, a notification
sign shall be erected by the applicant on the property
for which the change is sought. The sign shall be
erected at least ten (10) days before the date of the
hearing on the preliminary plat. The sign shall be
furnished by the City and the applicant shall post with
the City a $100.00 security deposit.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
i
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1989. )
1
1
' -3-
JR4-31-1990 1203 FROM CITY OF ED I NR TO =*(*(3.0 1'004
I
•
''
�« I
i 11118 tZ!i lilt
0o 1= �11a 1 b c iak.il la l VP
P
a
11 4 .1 1 lligg Iffigi%
ttu'j, 1 . .1 .11iiI1_ as I � t , !
2y �e Mesa [; t .kkjJi j 1 lill I
i.. uwei - 111 .2 1 , 141 gli =di • '
of st=4 . - ticli - POI ! I in; : 1 - I
4 I! 29 is 2144 41414 ° 111 .gr"�3 Jr" .g►;4 a h = . d: _ , .
i
!illhh !41ili 4 1iIJt I !lht 11111
W
•
•
II
•
- . _ni,„9 I. SP 1 i /17e-------fr 'F 44 ftl*
r; 1 : 1TT
s] l . .
I-
v z '
c y � hU
p a o M1` c v m u ~
O. = • 3 v V g , a TD. O
i
1
. 2 Z -
ci. E go cz
>4 1 - 7--• 2 t I. -5-1- .aci 2 i
4.4 0 1 (0 z . ._ fp g 0 es Z
: 0 fiq ... ,
c %. E 44. . 0 . 1; E 4
a a ; / CL
11i a °'.r 4 _ .. .. Q I-- 0 : 0 a
.,.. . -.1 m u.t 7E: . w 1
�_._.
1_______________ . 4
1 ,...:_.-
iiiihis.... . - ..., :„„,j. ..„
. . .v.,t-r- .L-...,,-.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 34
11
Erhart: Thank you very much for coming . I hope we can resolve that one.
That's very unfortunate.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO
REQUIRE THE POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE CITY.
' Erhart : Is there anybody who would like the staff report on this?
Apparently not. Is there anybody in the audience that would like a
report? If not, then we will not have the report. Is there anybody in the
audience that would like to comment on the proposal to change the
ordinance? If not, I would request a motion to close the public hearing .
Ellson moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
' Wildermuth: And I move that the Planning Commission adopt the draft
ordinance.
' Erhart: We have to have some discussion. Does anybody have any
discussion? Anybody on the Planning Commission?
' Emmings: I guess I 'd like to know, the only thing that concerned me about
this was the cost. The $100. 00 rental fee with a $100. 00 deposit and that
really seems, it doesn' t seem like a big deal to a developer . What is the
' smallest development that this would apply to?
Krauss : The platting of 4 lots .
' Emmings: I guess then it doesn' t bother me too much. I know that in
Minneapolis I went through a variance proceeding when I lived there and
they gave, I think they gave us the signs and they were kind of flimsy
' cardboard signs that disappeared after the first rain but you didn' t need
to have them up very long and they were bright orange the whole idea was to
bring attention to the property in a quick and cheap way so that the
neighbors knew something was going on. But I didn' t think that was a bad
system. But as long as this doesn't affect something that's very small ,
I guess that doesn' t bother me.
' Erhart: Any other comments from other commissioners? I have a question.
Why did Eden Prairie phase out their program?
' Krauss: It wasn't clear . Sharmin talked to them. It sounded like some of
their signs disappeared and they just decided it wasn't all that important.
I don't know. In my experience, I worked in a community that had a sign
program and it was not only very effective but it was something that the
' City Council was very supportive of because it did get the word out
effectively. Once you start something like that, it's kind of hard to
believe you could stop it but apparently Eden Prairie did.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 35
Ahrens: Notification of the public is a hard thing to be against . i
Emmings: Yeah. I think we should try it.
Erhart: I think it's good too. I think it is going to put a burden on thi
City that's going to be such a detail in that they tend to fall in cracks
and I 'm sure that's what happened in Eden Prairie but with that, would
someone like to make a motion? 1
Wildermuth: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the draft ordinance.
Ahrens: I ' ll second it.
Wilderranth moved , Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Pertainng to
Requiring the Posting of Development Notification Signs. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: '
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE II , SECTIONS 20-56 THROUGH
20-70 PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF VARIANCES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Erhart "
called the public hearing to order.
1
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart : Alright, Joan do you have any questions?
Ahrens: Not right now. ,
Emmings: I 've got one I 'd like to ask. Let's say you're in a place where,
a neighborhood that's got 70 foot lots with lake frontage or whatever and
they are substandard lots. Not only for their width but for their area.
Let's say somebody lived in there but had bought two lots and built a
house. Could they tear their house down, subdivide those lots and build
two houses? You see what I'm saying? '
Krauss: Well what you want to avoid I think, and I think what you're
getting at Steve is that you don't want to lower the standard in the
neighborhood. You don't want the lowest common denominator be what is
enforced. The intent of this, and I hope the language does it, is to
establish the neighborhood average and then say, if you meet or beat that
average, we' ll probably recommend that it be approved. So there's a middle
ground if you will .
Emmings: But would you be able to say no to someone who wanted to do what I
Ijust. ..
I