10. Zoning Ordinance division 6 site plan, revise procedure, expand development landscaping II .
Jo
II t C I TY OF
-I
y CHANHASSEN
1 . _:.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, M, 4NESp.TA%55317
I �_ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
Endorsed-1G
I MEMORANDUM Modifies
Rejected
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Dtt
Submitted to Comr:ssorr.
IIFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director6C -^1/.,.,e,.,,K to D£te �L::!�I�id is CDATE: January 16, 1990 �Jj /
ISUBJ: Proposed Amendments to Division XI, Site Plan Review
Procedures of the Zoning Ordinance
IPROPOSAL/COMMENT
During the processing of several recent developments, staff
I became concerned over the site plan ordinance as currently
drafted. We concluded that the ordinance offers very little
structure or guidance in the procedure, i .e. exactly what we are
I looking for in doing this procedure and what right we have to
require changes. Growing out of this concern and several other
matters that will be discussed, staff has proposed a significant
revision and expansion to this section that would accomplish a
Inumber of things including the following:
1. Provide a purpose section to establish the intent of site
Iplan review.
2. Establish general standards for evaluating a site plan that
I goes beyond simple application of setbacks and other fixed
requirements. The ability to review aspects of site design
and architecture are clarified.
c .
1 3. One of the things the ordinance does is ban the usage of
metal buildings (except in agriculutural districts) and una-
dorned concrete panels or block. The administrative process
I for handling site plan reviews is outlined in greater detail.
We are proposing that a public hearing and notification be
required. This is not currently the case.
4. The ordinance allows the Planning Director to administrative-
ly ly approve minor changes and modifications to any site plan.
This will give staff flexibility to work out minor changes
I that often occur as final plans are drafted for construction
or to respond to matters that arise during the construction
process.
I
1
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
I - January 16 , 1990
Page 2
5. The ordinance clarifies public notice requirements of the
site plan procedure.
' 6. The draft ordinance specifically allows the city to establish
conditions of approval of the site plan to promote the intent
of the ordinance. As currently drafted, it is not clear as
' to whether or not conditions could be applied.
7. The draft ordinance establishes the requirement that finan-
cial guarantees be posted for landscaping and other site
improvements and that the site be maintained in the approved
condition until revisions are approved. The financial
guarantees would be equivalent to 125% of the estimated costs
' of installation and would be valid for a complete growing
season past the date of installation. This standard is rela-
tively common in most Twin Cities suburbs, yet provides the
' City assurances that landscaping will be installed as
approved even when, as is often the case, landscaping is not
completed at the time of a certificate of occupancy is
requested.
' The Planning Commission reviewed this item on two occasions .
During the first review on December 6th, several modifications
' were requested. These were generally minor in nature and on
January 3 , 1990, the Planning Commission voted to recommend adop-
tion of the ordinance by the City Council. This ordinance as
' modified by the Planning Commission is presented for your review.
There is one remaining item that warrants discussion. The
Planning Commission mentioned a desire to have signs posted on
' sites where the city has a pending development application. The
signs would be used to assist in notifying area residents of the
proposal to increase public participation in the review process.
' The signs would urge interested parties to contact City Hall for
additional information. This sort of sign is used by a number of
communities . Should the Council wish to ,j.zndertake such a program
in Chanhassen, there are several approaches that could be used.
' The first is to require that the land owner post the sign which
would be required to meet city established criteria for size and
message. The second would be for the city to obtain sets of
' signs and be responsible for installation utilizing Public Works
crews. Staff would advocate using city installed signage because
it offers the advantages of commonalty to improve identification
and the insurance that it would be installed in a timely manner
and would be maintained until action has been° taken on the propo-
sal. Should the city acquire these signs, there would obviously
be costs to do so, however, we believe this cost could be
recouped by raising the permit fees to in essence cover their
rental. Staff is seeking Council direction in this regard.
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
January 16 , 1990 II
Page 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the zoning ordi-
nance amendments pertaining to site plan review and direct staff
as to your wishes regarding the posting of signs for development
proposals. y I
ATTACHMENTS `
1 . Draft ordinance.
I
2 . Existing site plan ordinance.
3 . Staff report and Planning Commission minutes dated October
31, 1989.
I
4 . Staff report and Planning Commission minutes dated January 3 ,
1990.
I
I
I
I
I
I
w; ' r
I
I
I
I
I
- ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as
' follows:
ARTICLE II ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
' DIVISION 6 . SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Section 20-106 . Purpose. It is the intent of this ordinance
' to serve the public interest by promoting a high standard of
development within the city. Through a comprehensive review of
both functional and aesthetic aspects of new or intensified
development, the city seeks to accomplish the following:
a) implement the comprehensive plan;
' b) maintain and improve the city' s tax base;
c) mitigate to the extent feasible adverse impacts of one
' land use upon another;
d) promote the orderly and safe flow of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic; and
' e) preserve and enhance the natural and built environment.
' Section 20-107. Approval Required. Without first obtaining
site and building plan approval it shall be unlawful to do any of
the following:
' a) construct a building;
b) move a building to any lot within the city;
c) expand or change the use of a building or parcel of land
or modify a building, accessory structure or site or land
' feature in any manner which results in a different inten-
sity of use, including the requirement for additional
parking.
' Section 20-108. Exceptions. Notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 20-107, the following shall not require site or building
plan approval :
' a) construction or alteration of a single or two family
residential building or accessory building on a lot zoned
for residential use;
b) enlargement of a building by less than 10 percent of its
gross floor area, provided that there is no variance
involved and also provided that the planning director
has conducted an administrative review pursuant to
Section 20-113 of this section;
c) changes in the leasable space of a multi-tenant building
where the change does not intensify the use or require
additional parking;
d) construction of buildings for agricultural uses on land
zoned and utilized for agricultural purposes.
e) moving a residence or accessory building to any lot zoned
Al, A2, RR or RSF provided that the lot and structure '
siting comply with all applicable zoning ordinance stan-
dards.
Section 20-109. Application. Application for a site plan ,
review shall be made to the city planner on forms provided by the
city and shall be filed four ( 4) weeks in advance of the planning
commission meeting at which it is to be considered. Incomplete
or deficient applications shall not be scheduled for a meeting
unless the Planning Director has determined that official action
is warranted. The application shall also include: ,
a) Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property;
b) The application fee; and '
c) Complete site plans, signed by a registered architect,
civil engineer, landscape architect or other design pro-
fessional, to include the following:
d) General: ,
1. Name, of Project.
2. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant, '
engineer, and owner of reotd. .
3 . Legal description (certificate of survey will be
required) .
4. Date proposed, north arrow, engineering scale,
number of sheets, name of drawer.
5 . Vicinity map showing relationship oftthe proposed
development to surrounding streets, rights-of-
way, easements and natural features.
6 . Description of intended use of the site,
buildings, and structures including type of occu-
pancy and estimated occupancy load.
7 . Existing zoning and land use. ,
-2- '
1 -
' 8. Tabulation box indicating:
( i) Size of parcel in acres or square feet.
( ii ) Gross floor area of each building.
' ( iii) Percent of site covered by building.
( iv) Percent of site covered by impervious surface.
(v) Percent of site covered by parking area.
(vi) Projected number of employees.
(vii) Number of seats if intended use is a
restaurant or place of assembly.
( viii ) Number of parking spaces required.
1 ( ix) Number of parking spaces provided including
handicapped. -
(x) Height of all buildings and structures and
' number of stories.
e) Site and Building Plan:
' 1. Property line dimensions, location of all
existing and proposed structures with distance
from boundaries, distance between structures,
building dimensions, and floor elevations.
2 . Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural
' features (topography, wetlands , vegetation, etc. )
as well as propose grade elevations and sedimen-
tation and storm water retention ponds .
1 3 . All existing and proposed points of egress/ingress
showing widths at property lines , turning radii
abutting rights-of-way with indicated center line,
width, paving width, existing and proposed median
cuts , and intersections of streets and driveways.
' 4 . Vehicular circulation system showing location and
dimension for all driveways , parking spaces,
parking lot aisles, service roads , loading areas,
fird lanes, emergency access ( if necessary) , public
' and private streets, alleys, sidewalks, bikepaths ,
direction of traffic flow, and traffic-control
devices .
' 5 . Landscaping plan in accordance with the provisions
of Article XXV.
' 6 . Location, access and screening detail of trash
enclosures.
' 7 . Location and screening detail,,of roof top equipment.
8 . Location and detail of signage.
' 9 . Lighting location, style and mounting.
' 10. Building elevations from all directions indicating
materials and colors. Interior floor plans may be
required.
' -3-
11. Utility plan identifying size and direction of
existing water and sewer lines, fire hydrants,
distance of hydrant to proposed building.
12. List of proposed hazardous materials, use and storage. I
13. Proposed fire protection system.
14. Such other information as may be required by the city. I
Section 20-110. Standards. In evaluating a site and building
plan, the planning commission and city council shall consider its
compliance with the following:
a) consistency with the elements and objectives of the city' s
development guides, including the comprehensive plan,
official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
b) consistency with this ordinance; 1
c) preservation of the site in its natural state to the
extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and
designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas;
d) creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and 1
open spaces with natural site features and with existing
and future buildings have a visual relationship to the
development; ,
e) creation of a functional and harmonious design for struc-
tures and site features, with special attention to the
following:
1. an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses
on the site and provision of a desirable environment
for occupants, visitors and general community;
2 . the amount and location of open space and landscaping; '
3 . materials, textures, colors -and-details of construc-
tion as an expression of the design concept and the
compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neigh-
boring structures and uses; and
4. vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walk-
1
ways, interior drives and parking in terms of location
and number of access points to the public streets,
width of interior drives and access points, general
interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of
parking.
f) protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through
reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and
sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and I
-4-
I
those aspects of design not adequately covered by other
regulations which may have substantial effects on neigh-
boring land uses .
Section 20-111. Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a completed
application, a date shall be set for review of the site plan before
the planning commission. The review will be held no less than 10
days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of properties
located wholly or partially within 500 feet of the site, as
reflected in the records of the Carver County Auditor. The
director of planning may require an expanded mailing list for
' site fronting on lakeshore where the development would be visible
over a larger area. Following the hearing or any continuance
thereof which is not appealed by the applicant, the planning coat-
' mission shall make a recommendation. The site plan shall be for-
warded to 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 vote of the
city council.
Section 20-112. Multiple Applications. Any site and
building plan application which is accompanied by a request for a
conditional use permit or for a rezoning amendment to this ordi-
nance shall be considered by the planning commission concurrently
with the conditional use permit or rezoning application.
Section 20-113. Administrative Approvals . Minor site plan
and building alterations which do not involve a variance, which
' are consistent with the intent of the approval relative to all
aspects of the site and building plans and which are not accom-
panied by other matters requiring consideration by the planning
commission or city council, may be approved by the director of
planning. The director is not authorized to approve the prin-
cipal construction of new buildings or alterations to existing
buildings that would add more than 10% to the existing gross
' floor area. If any application is processed administratively,
the director of planning shall render a decision within 30 days
and shall serve a copy of the decision upon the applicant by
' mail. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the director of
planning may appeal the decision to the planning commission in
the manner specified in Section 20-109 of, this ordinance.
' Section 20-114. Conditions. The planning commission, city
council or director of planning may impose conditions in granting
approval to site and building plans to promote the intent of this
' ordinance and to protect adjacent properties.
Section 20-115. Specific Project. Site and building plans
' shall be valid only for the project for which approval is
granted. Construction of all site elements shall be in compliance
with the plans and specifications approved by the planning com-
mission, city council or director of planning.
Section 20-116. Architectural Standards.
a) It is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom
unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with
-5-
II
II a site and building plan. However, it is in the best
interest of the city to promote high standards of architec-
tural design and compatibility with surrounding structures
and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by
I an architect or other qualified person acceptable to the
director of planning and shall show the following:
I1) elevations of all sides of the building;
2 ) type and color of exterior building materials;
1 3 ) a typical floor plan;
4) dimensions of all structures; and
I5 ) the location of trash containers and of heating,
ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
' b) The use of unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and
concrete block shall not be permitted. Acceptable materials
I will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and or
other patterning. The use of metal on building exteriors
shall be limited to trim detailing and/or to buildings using
metal and glass curtain walls . Architectural metal roof
I ( standing seam and similar) systems and canopies may also be
allowed.
I c) All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and
exterior trash storage areas shall be enclosed with materials
compatible with the principal structure. Low profile, self-
contained mechanical units which blend in with the building
Iarchitecture may be exempt from the screening requirement.
d) Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and
I substantially renovated structures. On sites where, through
design on topography, rooftop mechanical systems are highly
visible from off-site locations, structural screening will be
Irequired.
Section 20-117. Maintenance of Site and Landscaping. The
owner, tenant, and their respective agents shall be held jointly
I and severally responsible to maintain their property and
landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly
appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground
I . cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan
and which have died shall be replaced within three months of
notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may
I be extended up to nine months by the director of planning in
order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions .
Section 20-118. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding
I five feet in height, including stage walls which cumulatively
exceed five feet in height, must be constructed in accordance
with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect.
ISection 20-119 . Landscaping Financial Guarantee Required.
When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to
I -6-
property are required by this ordinance, a performance bond shall
be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least 120%
value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements. The
security must be satisfatory to the city and shall be conditioned
' upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engi-
neering, legal or other fees in connection with making or
completing such improvements. The guarantee shall be provided
prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid
for a period of time equal to one full growing season after the
date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept a
letter of credit, cash escrow or bond. In the event construction
of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by
building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its
option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner
' and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion
' of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are
reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which
may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or
weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall
' require such additional security as it deems appropriate.
Section 20-120. Maintenance of the Site. It shall be the
obligation of the owner to maintain the site in a manner
consistent with the approved site and building plan. Unapproved
alterations are in violation of this ordinance.
1 Section 20-121 . Issuance Building Permit and Certificate of
Occupancy. A building permit may be issued if the proposed
construction conforms to the approval granted by the City. A
' certificate of occupancy may be withheld if construction is not
consistent with the terms of plan approval and will not be issued
until the terms of plan approval are met. Minor changes to the
' approved site plan may be made after review and approval by the
planning director in accordance with Section 20-113. Major
changes shall require the submission of another site plan review
application.
I
I
I
§20-94 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(d) Every effort shall be made during the building permit application process to deter- ,
mine the full extent of erosion control required. However, the city engineer shall be empow-
ered to require additional controls to correct specific site related problems as normal inspec-
tions are performed. I
(e) All erosion control measures noted on the approved plan shall be installed prior to the
initiation of any site grading.Noncompliance with the grading and erosion control plan shall
constitute grounds for an order from the city engineer to halt all construction.
(Ord.No.80,Art.III, § 4(3-44), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-95-20-105. Reserved. I
DIVISION 6.SITE PLAN REVIEW
Sec. 20-106. Required.
(a) The city council, with the advice and recommendation of the planning commission,
shall review and approve a site plan application before issuance of a building permit in the
multiple family districts and in the business, office and industrial districts. Expansion of a
building in any manner which results in a different intensity of use, including the require-
ment for additional parking,shall also require site plan approval.
(b) The following do not require site or building plan approval:
(1) Construction or alteration of a single-family or two-family residential building or
buildings accessory thereto;
(2) Enlargement of a building by less than ten (10) percent of its gross floor area, 1
provided that there is no variance involved and also provided that the city planner
approved the enlargement; and -
(3) Changes in the leaseable space of a multi-tenant building where the change does not
intensify the use,"require additional parking, or result in an inability to maintain
required performance standards.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.III, § 6(3-6-1, 3-6-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-107. Application.
Application for a site plan review shall be made to the city planner on forms provided by
the city and shall be filed three(3)weeks in advance of the planning commission meeting at
which it is to be considered.The application shall also include:
(1) Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property;
(2) The application fee;and '
(3) Complete site plans,signed by a registered architect,civil engineer,landscape archi-
tect or other design professional,to include the following: '
a. General
1. Name of project.
1166
1
1
1 ZONING §20-107
2. Name,address,and telephone number of the applicant,engineer,and owner
of record.
3. Legal description(certificate of survey may be required).
' 4. Date proposed, north arrow, engineering scale, number of sheets, name of
drawer.
5. Vicinity map showing relationship of the proposed development to surround-
ing streets,rights-of-way,easements,and natural-features.
6. Description of intended use of the site, buildings, and structures including
type of occupancy and estimated occupancy load.
' 7. Existing zoning and land use.
8. Tabulation box indicating:
' (i) Size of parcel in acres or square feet.
(ii) Gross floor area of each building.
(iii) Percent of site covered by building.
' (iv) Percent of site covered by impervious surface.
(v) Percent of site covered by parking area.
(vi) Projected number of employees.
(vii) Number of seats if intended use is a restaurant or place of assembly.
(viii) Number of parking spaces required.
(ix) Number of parking spaces provided including handicapped.
' (x) Height of all buildings and structures and number of stories. •
b. Site plan.
1. Property line dimensions, location of all existing and proposed structures
' with distance from boundaries, distance between structures, building di-
mensions, and floor elevations.
2. Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural features (topography,
' wetlands,vegetation,etc.)as well as proposed grade elevations and sedimen-
tation and storm water retention ponds.
3. All existing and proposed points of egress/ingress showing widths at prop-
erty lines, turning radii abutting rights-of-way with indicated center line,
width,paving width,existing and proposed median cuts,and intersectipns of
streets and driveways.
' 4. Vehicular circulation system showing location and dimensions for all drive-
ways, parking spaces, parking lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire
lanes, emergency access (if necessary), public and private streets, alleys,
' sidewalks,bikepaths,direction of traffic flow,and traffic-control devices.
5. Landscaping plan in accordance with the provisions of article XXV.
6. Location,access,and screening detail of trash enclosures
7. Location and screening detail of roof top equipment.
8. Location and detail of signage.
9. Lighting location,style and mounting.
1 10. Building elevations from all directions.
11. Utility plan identifying size and direction of existing water and sewer lines,
fire hydrants,distance of hydrant to proposed building.
1167
1
. 1
§20-107 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
12. List of proposed hazardous materials,use and storage.
13. Proposed fire protection system.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.III, § 6(3-6-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-108. Issuance building permit and certificate of occupancy.
A building permit may be issued if the proposed construction conforms to the approval I
granted by the city council. A certificate of occupancy may be withheld if construction is not
consistent with the terms of plan approval and will not be issued until the terms of plan
approval are met. Minor changes to the approved site plan may be made after review and '
approval by the city planner.Major changes shall require the submission of another site plan
review application.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.III, § 6(3-6-4), 12-15-86) '
Secs. 20-109-20-200. Reserved.
ARTICLE III.ZONING DISTRICTS GENERALLY AND
ZONING DISTRICT MAP
Sec. 20-201. Establishment of districts. I
The city is divided into the following zoning districts:
Agricultural Districts
"A-1" Agricultural preservation district.
"A-2" Agricultural estate district.
Residential Districts
"RR" Rural residential district.
"RSF" Single-family residential district.
"R-4" Mixed low density residential district. :;P-
"R-8" Mixed medium density residential district.
"R-12" High density residential district.
Business District
"BN" Neighborhood business district.
"BH" Highway and business services district.
"CBD" Central business district. r
"BG" General business district.
"BF" Fringe business districts.
Institutional and Industrial Districts '
"OI" Office and institutional district.
"IOP" Industrial office park district.
1168
I
i
CITY OF
1 . F '
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning
DATE: October 31, 1989
SUBJ: Proposed Amendment to Division 6 , Site Plan Review, of the
Zoning Ordinance
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
1 In recent months staff had indicated a concern over the lack of
any financial guarantees for landscaping and other site improve-
ments. We noted that a letter of credit or bond is normally
1 required in most metro area communities and that without one,
staff is handicapped in our ability to insure that a site is
developed in a manner consistent with approvals. The Commission
' encouraged staff to propose such a requirement. We also note
that the City Council has been informed of this proposal and
agreed with staff' s recommendation that the recently approved
Market Square PUD be required to post financial guarantees. The
' proposed amendment that follows this report provides the finan-
cial assurances we believe are necessary. Prior to issuing a
building permit, financial guarantees must be posted. They will
' be equal to 120% of the estimated costs of the improvements.
Guarantees for landscaping will be held for one full growing
season past the date of installation since mogt survivability
problems become evident in the first full growing season.
We have also recently had several opportunities to work with the
balance of the site plan ordinance. I have become concerned that
' there is very little structure or guidance in the procedure i .e. ,
what are we looking for and what right do we have to require
changes. Growing out of this concern we are proposing a signifi-
cant revision and expansion of the section thatwould •do the
following:
1. Provide a purpose section to establish the intent of Site
' Plan Review.
2. Establish general standards for evaluating a site plan that
1 goes beyond simple application of setbacks and other fixed
requirements. The ability to review aspects of site design
and architecture are clarified.
1
Planning Commission
October 31, 1989
1
Page 2
3. Verbalize the process for site plan review that has been '
followed to date. The draft ordinance outlines notification
requirements and states that site plans are to be required
with conditional use permits and rezoning applications and
reviewed concurrently.
4. Provide for administrative approvals for minor changes to an
approved site plan or minor modifications to any property.
This will give staff the flexibility to handle minor changes
or approvals. i
5. The draft ordinance specifically allows the city to establish
conditions of approval to promote the intent of the ordinance.
6 . The draft clarifies that a site plan approval is valid only
for the project that was approved. Significant deviations
from approved plans requires new city approval. ,
7. Architectural review standards are described in some detail.
While the ordinance avoids the "brick or better" standard
adopted by cities like Bloomington, it would prohibit the use
of "unadorned" concrete panels and block and also limits the
use of metal buildings. We are aware that the issue of metal
buildings has been discussed previously, although no ordi-
nance revision resulted. This draft is structured to leave a
lot of latitude up to the developer. It simply prohibits the
use of plain metal exteriors where metal is the primary com-
ponent.
Agricultural buildings are excluded from this
requirement.
8. The draft establishes financial guarantees for landscaping
improvements and requires that the site be maintained in the
approved condition-.
In our opinion, the proposed ordinance will greatly enhance the I
utility of the site plan review procedure while clarifying the
standards against which projects will be judged. Much of what is
being proposed are criteria we have used in the past so that
implementation of the draft should not significantly alter
development in Chanhassen.
The draft ordinance is structured so that the site plan review
• process remains unchanged. However, the Planning Commission and
City Council may wish to give the Planning Commission authority
to review and approve site plans when those applications are not
being concurrently reviewed with conditional use permits, plats
or rezonings. This would serve to reduce the City Council' s
workload and the length of time it takes to gain approval. The
City Council has the ability to place this authority in the hands
of the Planning Commission and can even authorize the Commission
to approve variances related to the site plan. If a developer '
I
1
Planning Commission
October 31, 1989
Page 3
objected to the Planning Commission' s determination or if the
item was particularly controversial, it could be referred to the
City Council for final resolution. The recent approval of the
' Rome Office Building on Park Drive is a good example of a site
plan that is non-controversial and could have been reviewed just
by the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
following ordinance revisions .
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 3
d. Cross access easement over the southern 50 feet of the common lot
line between Lots 1 and 2. The easement shall be 20 feet wide on
each lot .
2. The final plat should show Outlot A as Lot 2, Block 1. '
3. The Lot 1 park dedication fee should be paid as outlined in the HRA' s
purchase agreement at the time of sale. The City reserves the right„ to I
acquire park dedication fees on Lot 2 at such time as it is proposed
for development.
4. The owner of Lot 1, Block 1 agree not to contest the City sponsored 1
rezoning of the entire site to the BH district.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, DIVISION 6, SITE PLAN
REVIEW TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE, EXPAND ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIRE
FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public 11
hearing to order .
Emmings moved, Elison seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I
Erhart : I don' t really have anything right now Ladd. Maybe after some
discussion.
Emmings: I've just got a couple things. On a e 6 on item C at the top.
P g P•
Where it says, in the second sentence, low profile, self contained
mechanical units which blend in with the building, architecture are exempt II
from the screening requirement. I wonder if we should' add onto that, that
unless topography makes them visible to otherpioperties or something like
that so that we have an out there to require screening in some odd
circumstance. I think the general idea is fine.
Krauss: Should we say then may be exempt instead of are?
Emmings: Yeah. Or may be exempt. That's right. That would be fine. I 'd
agree with that change rather than the language I had. .That's even broader
and I like it better because it gives them the 'idea that we might accept
something other than the screening which I think is fine but it doesn' t
make it automatic. If they buy a low profile unit because there might be
one that's obnoxious. Alright. The other thing is, I 'm just glad that
Howard wasn' t here to hear you say plain concrete block.
Conrad: Yeah, Howard would not go along with that.
1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 4
Emmings : Howard thought a concrete block was a thing of beauty. Anything
that was made out of concrete or anything. Masonry was. . .
Krauss: To their credit though, the masonry industry has been very
' creative with concrete block. I mean they make burnished block and exposed
aggregate and different imprints on it. Some of the stuff looks like
brick. Some of the stuff looks like granite and I don' t have a problem at
all with any of those deviations .
Ervtmings: I'm just kidding. This doesn' t deserve all this. I just wanted
to remember Howard. The public hearing aspect of it, I have always been
concerned , this is a pet issue of mine I guess maybe but when you're going
to give notice to owners of property, it seems to me that we have this 350
and maybe a 500 foot standard in some cases and the idea is to give notice
to people who might be affected by the project. In my experience, because
I live on a lake, I 'm affected by things that happen further away than 350
or 500 feet and in fact I 've used this example and I 'm sure everybody's
tired of it but when Red Cedar Cove was built, all those townhouses, I live
directly across from that and look right at it and never knew it was going
in there until it went up. So I know that under the, I think under the CUP
or at least under some other section we have language in there that says
that if the parcel is on the lake, that property owners or the owners of
lakeshore properties are also notified and I think that's a real good thing
to do on a lake. But that again, like I say, that ' s something I 'd like to
add but I don't know what other people think of that.
Krauss: Jo Ann was just telling me we do that as policy. It' s not in the
1 ordinance. One thing we'd like to do though.
Emmings: What ' s that?
Olsen: I don't know that that's written.
Emmings : No, it's in the ordinance.
Olsen: Just for CUP' s? Because we do it for everybody.
,40 4r
Emmings: I know that it's in there for, I think it's in there for CUP' s
IIand maybe not for zoning ordinance amendments or it's the other way around
but that' s something I 've always had on my own little work list is we ought
to make all of those consistent and right now they're not.
Krauss : I would standardize that, I would change that 350 to 500 since
that's what we've used elsewhere. One of the things that a lot of
I communities do that we haven' t done, and I 'm a little relunctant to propose
it because it's sort of an adminstrative problem, "but it's sometimes useful
is to require the posting of signs. If you go into Minnetonka or
Bloomington or Edina, you' ll oftentimes pass by signs that say proposed
IIsubdivision this site. Call City Hall . Now in Edina I think they make the
developer put them up. There's a standard format they use. In Minnetonka
we used to have the City print these things up and it was our signs and our
crews put them up. That requirement gets owners, for example if you're
like our first item tonight that was pulled, you're just dividing two lots.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 5
Having to buy a sign to put up on your property. If it' s a city sign, it' s
no big deal. It's included in your application fee but it's surprising how I
many people see those things and will call in on it. If the ultimate goal
is to notify as many people as possible, you might want to make that as a
proposal. It's something that I assume would require some funding source II
because it's not an insignificant expense to make those signs up but that
is an option.
Conrad: Don't we have, is there any situation where we have A requirement 1
to put up a sign because we've talked about this before and I thought we
had it going .
Olsen: We used to have that in there and whether or not it was ever
enforced. It used to be in there. I 'm looking right now. I don't see it
in there anymore. 1
Conrad: It' s almost we should have a sign up, if the zoning changes, if
there's a subdivision going in, if there's anything that the public. If we 11
have a public hearing, there should be a sign going up. It' s the best way,
without a doubt it's the best way to inform the public of what's going on.
I think we've talked about the cost before and some people bear a burden,
heavier burden when it's a simple little deal but geez, I 'd sure like us to II
think, maybe we rent signs to these people. Maybe the City takes the
burden on to begin with and then charges a sign fee to pay for the sign
rental for the month preceeding the hearing. I
Olsen: Then we' ll have consistent signs too.
Ellson: Yeah, it'd be the same looking and you'd start driving and you'd II
see that sign.
Krauss : That's important that you standardize on the sign format. It says II
call the City.
•
Conrad : I sure would like to do that. In fact I thought we were.
Krauss: If you'd like to make that as a pr000sgl, we can carry that on up
to the City Council and get some information for thei4 on what that might
cost with some different options. '
Conrad: Let's do that. We comment, we never knew that was happening.
That one sign will take care of all the problem, or a bulk of the problems II
that get through. People don' t read the newspapers. They simply don' t.
Ellson: Or their mail . ,
Krauss: The mail, frankly, the mail in Carver County is tough. Hennepin
County has a computerized address file as does Dakota County and some of
the others where you tell them, you've got this lot and you need a 500 foot
list and you get a computer generated map with a circle around it and the
mailing labels and everything else. Our Planning secretary has had no end
of trouble trying to get formal lists from Carver County. They will not
certify a list.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 6
Emmings: Don' t you get it from the Abstract company?
Krauss: The Abstract company won't certify it and they won't do it in a
timely matter apparently. There's only one Abstract company.
' Olsen: It's very expensive.
Krauss : So what we've been doing, the best that we can 'do is have people
come through our plat files and pick out the lots and go lookup the
addresses and make up a mailing list but that is not what' s specified and
that's basically all we're able to do because of Carver County's position.
Olsen: We make them go through the Abstract company.
' Krauss: Yeah, for the bigger plats .
Olsen: Even small ones we've always make them. We try.
Emmings: For my lot I had to do that.
Conrad : Steve, I interrupted. Anything else?
Emmings: No.
Ellson: I think I remember talking about the material and what have you
and I 'm a little concerned about saying the use of any metal. It's like
you said , a lot of times it's done very tastefully. I know aluminum siding
11 is considered metal and there's residential all over the place where you
can' t really tell it looks aluminum. I guess I 'm a little concerned about
using just the brazed metal because that's like saying all plastics are
alike. All metal looks the same. Under the ordinance on the first page
you're talking about exceptions. Constructionor or alteration of a single
or two family residential building or accessory building on a residential
lot. Does that mean a garage wouldn't have to come?
Olsen: A site plan?
•
I/ Ellson: Yeah.
(There was a tape change during Jo Ann Olsen's answer .)
Ellson: The other thing is when we're talking about the 4 weeks. Does
this mean that we' ll guarantee that we will see this within 4 weeks?
Krauss: We would guarantee that we will schedule or try to schedule it.
Ellson: I was thinking maybe we should say, not less than 4 weeks or
something to that effect. I 'd hate to feel that they come in and say okay,
my 4 weeks is here and they never provided you with two-thirds of the
things intially required and things like that.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 7
Krauss: There's always that option. If we determine that it' s not a
complete application or we need additional information, we just pull it. I
Ellson: I don' t know that we have to give them a guarantee if we' re not
ready. If we've got people sick. If we've got things going on. We want
to do a thorough job yet this 4 weeks is a requirement. I hate the fact
that we're putting it in writing that we' ll guarantee 4 weeks when there' s
all sorts of things that could happen. I also noticed, well I think we
mentioned that. On page 4 it was 350 feet and I thought it was 500 that we II
did. Generally I guess I don' t have a good feel for what, ,we're talking
maybe that Roman thing. We would have the authority to grant that
site plan or something like that. Maybe we could take a look at the
history. How often is there a difference between what we say and what the II
City Council says and maybe that would be some rationale to support
something like these types of issues and then go back to the past and say,
here was one. Here was one and they went through without a hitch as an
example. But if there was you know a good 50% or something that we had to
add to or take away or disagreed or something like that, then I 'd probably
would think that that extra body of approval would be worth it. I also
agree that any kind of notification or increase of it or front page
advertisement requirements . Sometimes I really think that communication is
in my feelings, almost always the solution. People always feel it happens
without them knowing it and they think that they were ripped off and they
don't feel it' s fair and even though it's in the Villager and things like
that happen, they still don' t feel that so I think the sign idea is
fabulous and I think that any other kinds of things to make sure that
people are notified I think would be wonderful . I don' t think we could do
enough probably. That's what I have.
Emmings: Ladd, could I just go back and comment on something she brought 1
up that I forgot to comment on and that is whether or not you should go
onto the City Council . I think that they should. The reason I think so is
that I think it's good, particularly on a large development, that the
developer get a feel from as many people in a position to later approve his II
project as soon as possible. If we miss one, if we're really out of sync
on one of them with the City Council , and the person winds up with, I'm
sure he'd rather know that early on rather than later., I have a feeling
that these should go onto to the City Council.
Batzli: Would you get the same result if it was either the lot owner felt II
aggrieved or within 10 days after our decision the City Council wanted to
review it?
Krauss: It would be my intent that if we proposed that, that they would
• have the right of appeal to the City Council. That's typically the way
it' s done. 1
Batzli : And I agree that it would be either or. If the City Council
wanted to review it, they could.
Emmings: How would they know until they reviewed it?
I
11
IPlanning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 8
i
Batzli : I don' t know but it would be kind of like a consent agenda deal
' and of course you know that Chanhassen's consent agenda is never a consent
agenda so. My turn?
' Conrad: Yeah.
Batzli : I like Sections 106 and 110. I have some problems with some of
the other ones . Part of it is just language. I think you misuse the word
' section and division in various places throughout the proposed changes
Paul . For instance in 20-108 as just one example. Notwithstanding the
provisions of this section. That should probably read division or it
should read Section 20-107. One of the two. Question on residential lot.
We have a definition of lot but not necessarily a residential lot. I don' t
know how picky we really want to get about our ordinances but it' s probably
a lot that's in a zoned residential zoned area or something like that.
There' s no such thing as really a residential lot. There' s a lot which is a
meets and bounds parcel that' s recorded but my question is just, I guess my
bigger question is, where did this come from? Some of this it's clear came
from our ordinance already. Is this copied from another city? Did I miss
that? Did you tell us where you got this from? Is this from Minnetonka?
Okay. I assumed that.
' Krauss : Well a lot of it is. The original sections, some of the original
sections that are in there today came from the Minnetonka ordinance as it
sat a number of years ago. When I went back through, I looked at, you know
I took what we had in Minnetonka because I spent a lot of years developing
that there. Took out pieces that I didn' t think were relevant and then
threw in what we've already adopted here that I thought could be adopted or
changed . Put that together .
Batzli : Yeah, I don' t know. The residential lot just struck me as what
the heck is that and I looked it up and there wasn't such a thing and I
just thought well , what they mean is of course a building on a lot in a
residential zoned district or something like that. That's really picky.
Conrad : It doesn' t bother me.
Batzli : It didn't bother me until I looked -fror'residential lot and then
II when it wasn't there and then you kind of have to start guessing what you
mean. Not really but. . .
Krauss : Should we change it to a lot zoned and guided for residential use?
Batzli : I mean that's clear but then the question is, do we want to go
through the whole thing like that and I don't know that ,ewe necessarily have
' to. I wanted to flag it that there are certain problems like that in
various places of this and do we want to really go through it in that
detail or do we.
' Conrad : I think we do if it's unclear. Now the residential lot was not
unclear. I know what a residential lot should be so it wasn't a case of
misinterpretation in my mind.
1
1
Planning Consiission Meeting II
December 6, 1989 - Page 9
Batzli : No, and I agree. I just bring that up as. . .
Ellson: Consistency kind of.
Batzli : Do we want to talk about things like that? Only if they're clear . "
Only if they're not clear.
Emmings: If it makes it unclear , you're right. We should change it.
Batzli: Then the question is, for instance in 20-109, Section 1. Evidence
of ownership or an interest in the property. Well should that really be,
well lot wouldn't necessarily be a lot so property is probably correct
there but I went through it and I was kind of looking at things like that II
and I guess I won't worry about those.
Krauss : If I may make a suggestion, if you want to deal with the '
substantive ones and give me the contextual ones and we can just make those
changes before it goes to the City Council .
Batzli : Okay. In 20-111, a date shall be set for review of site plan. Do '
we also review the building plan or no? We sometimes get the interior of
the building and that types of things. I
Krauss : The site plan application requires that they give you building
elevations from all directions. We have not required interior building
plans. A lot of times they' re not developed at the stage that you look at
things.
Batzli : Would there ever be a cause to have a public hearing on a building
plan? Under the admistrative apprpoval , if a person is aggrieved, suddenly
they come under that section 111 don' t they? If you admistratively
approved one. They would suddenly have the right to come to us with the
building plan. Do we want that to occur?
Krauss: You mean by building plan you're talking about an interior?
Batzli : I don' t know. For instance in 20-113, minor site and building
plans and alterations which do not involve a vaEiance. That means you're
adminstratively approving it. The last sentence reads any person aggrieved II
by a decision may appeal it to us. I would assume that includes building
plans. Do you want that to occur is my question?
Krauss: If I could clarify further. If it's building plans in terms of II
structural issues or something, that' s not something I would get into nor
would I think it' s something the Planning Commission would. Well , let me
give you a for instance. If we approve the building. If you approved a
building that had a particular architectural style, for instance Market
Square, which has those significant entryways and we discussed them a lot,
and they came in with building plans that significantly altered that and
asked me to adminstratively approve it. I would refuse. I 'd say your
appeals go right back to the Planning Commission to see what they think.
That would be a building plan that yes, I think it would be warranted for 11
you to review.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 10
' Batzli : Do we anywhere have a definition of building plan?
Krauss: I don't believe so.
' Batzli : Maybe that's what confused me. We talk at great length about site
plans but this kind of talks about building plans and site plans. I
guess I didn' t know where those building plans really fit in and who would
review them.
Krauss : Maybe we should just clarify it by using the continuity of just
' saying minor site plans because site plans include building and exterior
features.
' Batzli : You' re going to approve them unless we think we should look at it
under 20-100 (b) . Is that a typographical error? I couldn't find that
section.
Krauss : I think what you have there is an example of cutting and pasting .
Batzli : Okay. What are the criteria? Where are they in this document?
Krauss : I 'm not certain. I ' ll have to clarify that but I think what I was
referring to are the mandatory site and building plan reviews under 107.
IIBatzli : Under 20-107? I guess I 'm kind of confused on that but. . .
Conrad: I 'm real confused on that. The whole, under adminstrative
I approvals, I don' t understand that. I think I want to allow it but I don' t
get it. I don' t understand what you said in those 5 sentences at all and
I 'd like to know when, under what circumstances. The key there is minor
II sites and building plans and alterations which do not involve a variance
which are not accompanied by other matters. I want to know when you have
the authority to do it. ; It's got to be.
IIBatzli : It' s difficult to.
Krauss : There's a catch-22 in there. As a +staff member I 'd like to have
II the authority to work out minor detailed problems. I also want to have the
authority to say that's beyond the scope of my authority and I can't do it
and if you disagree with my opinion, take it to the Planning Commission.
' It's hard to define what those items are going to be because there' s a
whole variety of them as they crop up. You know if you put a list, minor
• changes to parking lots or minor architectural details, that's still not
I going to do it because what's minor? You might have an larchitect saying
that the entrances to the shopping center are minor in his opinion. It's
one of those open ended things that we can try to define it a little
better . I think it basically is a matter of an understanding by doing it.
I If you think I transgressed, tell me and we work out an understanding of
what minor means. Minor in my opinion is, as your staff person, is that
which I am comfortable doing in the context that you approved it in. If I
I don' t think it violates that approval , I'm willing to work with somebody.
But it is hard to define.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 11
Conrad : Are we talking about changes or are we talking about the site?
These are changes that you're talking about once we've approved it. I
think that should be, it really doesn' t say that in those words in here
Paul.
Batzli : But I don't know if he should be limited to just minor changes. I
mean if someone came in with an incredibly trivial, I think one of the
deals is that they move a house within Chanhassen or something isn' t it
under that section?
Krauss: It says move a structure. I was looking at that tonight before I
came down here. It shouldn't apply to single family homes. It doesn't as II
I read it.
Batzli : I was thinking if you moved a single family home into Chanhassen I
onto a platted lot. Met all the setbacks. It was really kind of a no
brain deal . Why would we want to see it? That' s the kind of thing I was
thinking of. I don' t mean to say no brain deal but one that doesn' t really "
raise an issue that we'd really need to look at but then the question is,
how do you define what do we need to look at and that's why I was hoping
that when he changed that from 20-100 to whatever it was going to help. If ,
you were pointing to something, some set of guidelines, I think that would
be more helpful than none but like you said, it's going to be tough to
define it and in any event it's going to be kind of loosey goosey any way
you do it. ,
Krauss : I can attempt at coming up with some sort of definition on it but
I think it boils down to we as staff gaining an understanding of your
intent.
Ellson: You're thinking more changes? In other words, it' s been approved '
and then you' re quickly going to, or maybe like that bank that came back
just to move it a tad and it came all the way?
Krauss: Well yeah. Something like that we might say is minor . I
Ellson: Right and yet it was back here again". That whole person had to
stop. I
Krauss: We've had projects where after they've been approved and building
permits were requested, we realized that the architectural plans are
significantly different than what you approved. The bricks disappeared.
Detailing goes away and I want to be in a position to say that's not what
the Planning Commission approved and I won't authorize it. If you want to
push this, you're not going to get a permit. You're going to .go back to
the Planning Commission. If on the other hand they say I have this arch
over here but I need to move it and my entrance to the other side of the
building . It's still going to look pretty much similiar but I have to
change my landscaping to do it. That's minor and we do those kinds of
things all the time. I 'd like to have the authority to do it because we've
been doing it.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 12
' Batzli : I think probably our relunctance is that we don' t have a good
feeling ourselves of what minor and not minor is. Not necessarily that we
don' t trust your judgment.
Ellson: The word changes alone would help. Not just seeing it once.
Conrad: I think you mentioned something in there that I would feel a
' little bit comfortable with. Changes but still making the original intent
of what was previous approved. That's your call to figure out what our
intent is . I never know if you can interrupt what 7 people here say and
also the City Council because you get a difference of opinion. The intent
' is what really you have to measure it to. The only other thing I can think
in that issue is if you make a decision, and I don't want to create
adminstrative stuff but if you informed us what you did. Just say here' s
what I did. It' s not an agenda item. It's just for information on our
part.
' Krauss : We'd be happy to try and keep you posted but sometimes this would
have, by the time you would have known about it, it may have already
happened .
' Ellson: Well not like having veto power but just to keep us informed as to
if you're going the right way we saw the changes or not.
Conrad : I don' t know. I ' ll let you decide whether you want. If that' s an
adminstrative hassle but.
Krauss : I think initially anyway so that we' re both comfortable with how
that procedure is being handled, I think that's a valid way of doing it.
Conrad : We don' t want to get into the job that you do. That's clear .
' Some stuff we just shouldn't see but right now we don't know what we're
talking about so Brain it's still yours.
Batzli : In Section 20-114. Fourth line, after the word ordinance. Should
that be to promote the intent of this ordinance and/or to protect adjacent
properties?
Krauss : Right.
Batzli : Okay. The next section, substantial compliance with the plans and
I specifications. I hate using the word substantial there because 31 feet
from the lot line might be substantially close to 35 feet from the lot
line.
IIKrauss : Well but would revert, that goes hand in .hand with the
adminstrative approval section which says you can't create variances.
' Batzli : Yeah, I think construction of all site elements shall be in
compliance with the plans. Personally. I think you' re giving people room
to not quite do what they asked them to do there by saying in substantial
compliance. If I was an attorney, I 'd love that word.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 13
1
Krauss : Brian, I know what you' re trying to get at and I would agree with
it. The problem we face is that virtually every plan that we see deviates II
for some reason by the time it goes through the City Council but more
importantly by the time it goes through final plans and specs and gets
building permit approval . If they have code compliance reasons for I
changing entrances from here to there or for enlarging window sizes or for
building parapets.
Batzli : Yeah, but if you added construction of the site elements shall be II
in compliance with the plans, specs approved by the Planning Commission,
City Council , Director of Planning . I mean it's a done deal by the time I
think this happens. I don't know. Maybe that's something that I 'm not
seeing something .
Emming : I think you're absolutely right. I think you can interrupt
compliance to mean substantial compliance but if you' re going to give the II
developer substantial compliance, he' s going to feel like he' s got leeway.
Why give it to him?
Batzli : The next question is, I think we need to reword the approved by
the Planning Commission, City Council or Director of Planning so they don' t
say well , we did according to the Planning Commission and really they
should have been doing it according to the City Council. I don' t know what II
our name has to be on there unless the City Council doesn't review our
work. I don't know what the other Planning Commission people think about
that. In other words, it's the Council ' s final say and you have the
authority to make minor changes but they shouldn't be doing what we told
them. They should be doing what the City Council told them.
Ellson: In case there was a flip flop or something?
Batzli: Yeah. Exactly. ,
Conrad: So you want it ,City Council?
Batzli : Yeah. I don' t know that the Planning Commission needs to be on
there. Again, if I haven't thought of something, I'm perfectly willing to
back off on that one.
Conrad: That sounds okay.
Emmings: The only thing I can think of there, do you ever go back to
Planning Commission discussion to find out what the intent for something
was that maybe didn't get discussed at the City Council? Of course I guess
the City Council would be adopting that too if they approved it and they
could still go back to the Planning Commission Minutes.
Krauss: Let me give you another for instance because this has happened to
me on a number of occasions where you might approve something and it gets II
hung up at the Council and it goes through repeated changes. By the time
the final version comes through, people aren' t thinking straight. We're
looking at a different set of issues and the final plan deviates from the
one you approved but not because anybody intended it to deviate but because
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 14
somehow it changed along the way. You then go back and say well , that's
' not what the Planning Commission approved and it fell through the cracks at
the City Council and we still want to enforce. What the Planning
Commission required is still binding upon you. We never forgave that
' requirement. It just got lost in the wash.
Emmings: Except one thing you're saying there isn't accurate. We don't
approve anything.
' Batzli : We recommend approval .
' Erhart: Nothing we do is binding.
Emmings: So that' s a problem. I don' t know. It would seem to me that if
' the Planning Commission discusses something and there was a rationale for
imposing a condition and the City Council then adopted that condition, I
guess they'd also be adopting the rationale so you could always go back to
the Planning Commission Minutes but our action doesn' t have, our action is
only a recommending action so I guess maybe you could take it out of there.
Batzli : Something to think about anyway Paul . 20-116 (b) , the metal on
building exteriors shall be limited to trim. Does that include accessory
buildings?
' Krauss: Yes.
Batzli : Is this in all districts?
Krauss: In all non-single family and duplex districts, yes.
Batzli : Where is that limited?
•
Krauss: The site plan section only applies to those.
Batzli : Okay. Agricultural areas are also excluded?
' Krauss: Right.
l Batzli : Okay. That was my main concern were those two things. Make sure
that those weren' t included. Maintenance of site landscaping, 20-117. How
long can you require that these things are growing? That they're replaced?
How long are you intending this maintenance to occur?
' Krauss : I view it as a ermanent requirement.
IIP 4
Batzli : This is like perpetual?
Krauss : Yes.
1 Batzli : Something about that just bothers me. I mean I like it. I like
the concept but I mean, stuff changes. What would they have to do if they
II wanted to relandscape? They'd have to come in with a different landscaping
plan?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 15
Krauss: That gets into the adminstrative thing again. If somebody came in I
and said I want to cut down a stand of mature trees, we'd probably have a
fit about that. If somebody came to us and said we've got a new landscaper
who wants to completely change the bushes around and put in some new trees 111
and move some stuff, we'd probably just say fine. Go ahead and do it and
just give us a copy of the plan for our files. But I think the intent,
when you and the City Council approve a project, it's not your intent that
that project will look any different in 3 years than it does the day after
it's built. It' s your intent that it look like that for the life of the
project or be improved upon.
Batzli : I like that. Maybe we need to clarify that this is forever and
ever then. I thought this was part of the landscape financial guarantees I
guess when I read it through the first time. It's clear to me now that it
isn' t but when I read it I was initially thinking that this was for the
first year and that this is part of that process. I understand retaining
walls now then. Those are my questions.
Conrad : Okay, good ones . Just two quick ones. The use of metal on
exteriors. So there's not a good, I guess I 'm a little bit concerned with
that one. There' s not a high quality metal that we would allow? We just
don't know of anything right now that seems to meet?
Krauss : You know the technology keeps changing .
Conrad: But today there's nothing that we know that really would meet the
quality that we' re looking for?
Krauss : I've not seen it. Frankly I 've come across one building in the
last 8 years that I thought warranted a variance from this standard and I
wrote this ordinance so it wouldn' t require a variance and that was, if
you're familiar with it, there's the Key Nissan dealership up on Hwy 12
which was a wooden front building and they wanted to make it a much
classier looking operation. The ordinance that I had to work with at that
time prohibited all metal except for glass curtainwall construction. If 11
you look, it's a burnished aluminum or brushed 4luminum with a reflector
glass and it's a very pretty looking facade that the' stuck up there which
was a technology that hadn't been anticipated when the ordinance was worded II
that way. I recommended it and it got a variance to be approved but the
way this is worded, that sort of a building would have been allowed.
Ellson: How can you say that would be allowed this time? ,
Krauss: Because that aluminum panel above the windows we could have was
the trim material .
Conrad : There are, or at least I think it is, roofings that are really the
front of the buildings. They really don't cover the roof but they're the, 1
well we've got them in downtown Chan in the redevelopment and that' s
probably, in that case that's probably wood but there are metal roofs that
are very attractive. They look like copper . They probably are a copper ,
so what is that?
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 -. Page 16
'.
f
Krauss : That is true and this does not, I guess the way I envision it,
maybe we can clarify that so it doesn't apply to roofing materials.
Standing seam metal roofs are attractive and it was on the Crossroads Bank.
' I think they're going to use it very effectively.
Conrad : Or copper canopies . There' s another case where I 've seen that
used architecturally and that's really attractive so there's something
that, these words seem to exclude those things so maybe you could clean
that up a little bit. I think the intent is right. Then I 'm real confused
' about the Section 20-113. I really need some help there to reword that and
figure out what 20-100(b) is. Those are my only two. I think generally
this is real good.
' Batzli : I have one other . The use of the term, and this was actually the
biggee and it was up front so I missed it. The use of the term building
rather than structure. Is that intentional? If you have the Code in front
of you and you look up structure, much broader and it includes building but
it includes sheds. It includes a lot of other things that I think we want
to include.
Krauss : We can convert that over .
Olsen: . . .talking about it all the way through?
IBatzli : Yeah. Just the construct a building under 20-107. Under
structure includes building, fence, anything constructed, erected. I don' t
know that, I guess I don' t know if we want to go that broad but it seemed
II to me that we wanted to go broader than just building.
Olsen: Fences and everything?
1 Batzli : That' s the big question. Structure may be a little bit too broad
but I think building isn' t broad enough. I think the intent is to include
Ithings other than what you would think of as a building.
Krauss: Yeah, because we've had some problem with the definition of
II structure in other sections of the ordinance. It' s too all encompassing.
Batzli : Yeah. We almost need something in the middle. A kind of
structure.
Elison: Quasi structure.
II Krauss : The site plan covers everything that's not the principle building
so I think it's actually covered there. We're talking about the building.
We're talking about the site. That structural definition that we have does
have some problems in here with it.
Batzli : I just thought of for instance where it says move a building to
any lot within the city. Well what if they moved a shed? A big shed. A
big metal shed. Get as crazy as you want but the problem in the structure
is that we talk about a building and a shed being different things and I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 17
think people would have good arguments that they' re listed separately under
the definition of structure. I 'm moving a shed but not a building and so I
tough luck.
Emmings: Is there a definition under building? I
Batzli: No. Not building by itself. Any other kind of building that you
want except building by itself.
Conrad: Okay. Any other comments? Would it be wise to table this and y '
bring it back? Any rush to get this through to City Council?
Krauss: No. Jo Ann and I have been spending time trying to get things 1
together for the spring rush and I think holding it over a meeting is not
going to hurt that. We don' t have real big agendas coming up so that will I
be fine.
Conrad : I think because we asked you to change enough words in enough
sections that it probably makes sense. I think if you gave us a real , I
don' t think it' s going to clog the next agenda. It should race through
here. Give us one final chance to take a look at it. Is there a motion to
table this? I
Emmings: So moved.
Ellson: And I ' ll second it. '
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
amend the City Code, Division 6, Site Plan Review to revise the procedures,
expand on development standards and require financial guarantees for
landscaping and other site improvements so staff can make the modifications II
outlined by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: `
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO MODIFY THE
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS.
Public Present:
Name • Address
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive . - 1
Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the item. Chairman Conrad call II
the public hearing to order .
•
•
I
I
CITY OF
CHANEASSEN
.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by C.ty ,^,!minist-e'or
MEMORANDUM Endo r cec✓!���'
TO: Planning Commission
Rejected-
D:t;2! cif83
Date Submiite,d to Commission
' FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director //J
DATE: December 27, 1989 Date 7'1Ed to Coarcil
SUBJ: Second Draft of Proposed Amendments to Division 6 , Site
Plan Review of the Zoning Ordinance
On December 6 , 1989, the Planning Commission first reviewed the
draft of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The ordinance as
drafted represents a significant departure from the existing code
in that it does the following:
1 . Establishes a purpose section to clarify the intent of the
' site plan review procedure.
2 . Establishes standards for evaluating site plans including
architectural review.
11 3 . Creates a legal notice and public hearing requirement for
site plan reviews.
' 4 . Provides procedures for administrative approvals for minor
alterations to plans.
5 . Creates a requirement for financial guarantees for
landscaping and related improvements.
The Commission reviewed the document and raised a number of
issues. Among these include the following:
' 1 . Low profile HVAC units should be required to have screening
if topography or site design makes them visible from off-site.
2. The Commission supported the public hearing requirement but
indicated that a 500 foot notice should be standardized upon
with larger notice required on lakes where sites are visible
over great distances.
' 3 . Staff was asked to clarify what sort of alterations might be
authorized by the Planning Director in the administrative
review procedure.
I
II
Planning Commission
December 27, 1989
Page 2
4 . Architectural standards should be revised to make it clear
that metal roofs and canopies to be allowed. Non-
agricultural metal buildings are prohibited in the ordinance.
5 . Staff was asked to clarify exactly when moving a building 1
into the city would require a site plan review.
6 . Miscellaneous minor revisions to various sections of the '
ordinance.
Staff has reviewed the minutes and hopefully has made the changes
which were requested. Revisions have been underlined for
clarity. Based upon our discussions at the last meeting, the
concept of revising the ordinances to allow the Planning
Commission to recommend approval of site plans will be dropped.
In addition, the requirement to place signs on sites undergoing
site plan review will be conveyed to the City Council. I believe
that if such a requirement is to be established, it may not
belong solely in the site plan review section, but rather should
pertain to all zoning matters requiring public hearings. A
recommendation to consider this will be made through the City
Council.
At the December 6th meeting, staff discussed problems that often
arise when developers attempt to alter site and building plans
after they have been approved but prior to issuance of building
permits. This discussion was used to clarify when administrative
approvals of site and building plan alterations would and would
not be considered. It is interesting to note that an incident
recently occurred that clarified this point. The developers of
Country Hospitality Suites Hotel informed staff that they are
requesting building design changes in order to reduce construc-
tion costs . These included changes to the roofline, deletion of
cedar shake shingles replacing them with asphalt shingles, dele-
tion
of entrance canopies and removal of approximately 12 feet
from the length of the building. I believed that these changes
were more significant than staff had the authority to authorize
and further believed that these requests were inconsistent with
the intent of the approval. Therefore, I refused to authorize
them and put the request before the City Council on Monday,
December 18th. The staff memo to the Council regarding this item '
is attached to this report. The City Council acted on the
request and was quite supportive of staff' s position. They
agreed to authorize the revised roofline and deletia`n of shake
shingles but required that the balance of the °building be
constructed as per the approved plan. Any other changes
requ ested by the developer would need to be taken back before
the Planning Commission for review. '
I
1
I
Planning Commission
1 December 27, 1989
Page 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the draft
for review and adoption by the City Council .
1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Paul Krauss regarding Country Hospitality" Suites
' Hotel.
2 . Site plan of hotel.
3 . Proposed ordinance.
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated December 6 , 1989 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF ia. 5--- .
CHANHASSEN 14 ' '. 1
. . .....„ .
.. .
, ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739 1°n by City A-f-,IP tibtr,
c fir I
Endorsed- .
MEMORANDUM Dlo":d____.._
Rejec d
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager �'e--L `"`1
yy-- 'Date Submit 3t to Co�:m;ss-,:
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 3
Date Su',;r:icc to Council
I
DATE: December 14 , 1989 / 3. - a'S-c_
SUBJ: Proposed Architectural Changes to the Country Hospitality
Suites Hotel
On Thursday, December 14, 1989, staff met with Dave Hemminger of
II
D.W. Hutt Consultants who is working on final plans for the
Country Hospitality Suites Hotel in Chanhassen. Mr. Hemminger
presented staff with a package of architectural modifications
I
which have been designed to cut the costs of construction. As
presented to staff, these modifications include changes to the
roof line of the building to go with a full-hip roof system rather
than the mansuered roof that had been originally proposed, a
II
change from cedar shake shingles to asphalt shingles, removal of
the entrance canopies at the front of the building, and a
decrease in size of the building by some 12 foot in length. I
Staff indicated that we had serious reservations with these pro-
posals and believe that the changes were of a magnitude that the
City Council should be asked to authorize them prior to the
issuance of any building permits. Todd Gerhardt, representing
II
the HRA, indicated that that group also would be interested in
reassessing the current plan. Consequently, I have scheduled a
time for Mr. Hemminger to make a short presentation to the City I
Council of these changes. Due to the short notice.provided by
the developer, plans cannot be made available for review until
the City Council meeting. " -, F
I
Some of these changes are minor or through modifications can be
designed to have minimal impact on the building's appearance.
The loss of square footage results from a diminished size of the
II
room around the pool building and really does not have a signifi-
' cant impact on the external appearance of the building so long as
landscaping and exterior site plans are changed accordingly.
Likewise, staff has worked with the applicant to hopefully design II
a revised roof section that, while different in appearance, is
reasonably attractive and consistent with other buildings in the
Central Business District. However, the loss of shake shingles,
II
detailing of architectural trim on the roof and of the entrance
canopies, in my opinion represents a significant diminishment of
the architectural quality of the building. I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
' December 14, 1989
Page 2
' I have a fundamental problem with the process that is being
requested by the applicant. It is my opinion that the developer
should feel an obligation to construct the building that was pre-
sented and approved by the City and should not conclude that
significant architectural changes which result in diminished
expenditures are going to be acceptable. If the City Council
believes that the current architectural package is acceptable or
' can be modified to be acceptable, staff should be directed to
authorize the building permits accordingly. Should a deter-
mination be made that the plans have been significantly altered,
' it would be my recommendation that the plans be returned to the
Planning Commission for re-approval. Todd Gerhardt has informed
me that the HRA would be reviewing these plans at their regularly
scheduled meeting on Thursday.
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
i
i 4
1
sm 1...._._ D, ,•
_ •In ..
II
1.
- -,
....
Ili' MI ___-===.ir14‘\ \ E.-E,. E i E..] : • 1
-E. ES _7E1
1 I
MI B n:!I 1EEi_i.-S iEi i:1 1• _=>
E=
771
;E i E --
I!
TE. 11.1
I:Hi M --,
. -:-.:::.1.7 ,.161
. I
'.,.. ai • ! .....„
...--ii I
... .., .,,,„ .. ..=_,
- ...
Ii E.:-...q II 1-12,' : :_-..1 .:,1,--E.11 :•_-iff
- it _
urn
EE I ___,fi
—I ,\\
!LI M 21>/
vi. ! 1.110, _II
t ili _ 5:1>
S x Hill'
mENNI
SE.111
,ILE• ==i,
.
,
1 1E2 m 1:.--E----.
r ==; .--,
t
ri III, .
1.1 Iasi Ma 7-4:
.;61•=1 pm= 1=1'
Ell
i EE I
,=_Ell
IEE: ,g 1 ia-E.--.e,
,==. . . ..,...,, ,
-la, i 1 •
... ...1 . .
r :
L=..,*:=, =:-._,1 . :\
==, ==, 2_1. 1-
,==, ==
is:-71 1.._==.1 „11,
I E --- 1 IC
,...... .
ES Ilk
E.gli/,
1 1==. __
z ..... I
I
,.., •
h==. MI 1
-7 I '== ='''i i iar. \\
I 1:E= lEs— 1 ;RI M I
•
IIMEL r
...... ri
- MEI
Eri 1::::. :---E•k\ 11144Fil i 1 _ \\ illmo
■•==1
--i :Es.:1 C/
I
• ":, IEEE 7E-
I aliE i IEE. •Efill/ iii71==Irill IIII'' / z. ii HI :1E1 ss 1 1
/4-
if 12I .---.■-
-I:
s. • i.r. rta-z-INN .
i
JI ......-
/ •. 7 I
r. , itir ..r7
,
.._ ,
re=
fr..-.; „El . 1
,! • ! = =Sir
..E • i■ t Ea;
t rall4 1 TiTiii :I ..E-FE:II tj
' 1
.IIIIk _
it 11111 .
iEil —It-- \
III -tt It — , .s-
,--Si ; mi \
10- it' \ aiii i \
I ci ii.L \
•Im-- 1 --7E.iiil , mat Eili Esi me \
i es. . mei TIE
- -
enn ....... \ un.V// \ 1
T =E1 P
• - I - \\/
It 1
11,--mci =1 \ inry 7
Net / /
6 11111 V ' _. i arlee=i ,
..., , .
r
‘ r ;
-...,...
/ •
1
All il
-
; f
• . • II Alld . •
I
. _
i . .
Iq .t,,,,,.t.i,.:ai... niki,:,?1: a Country liospItaity, Suites
..tefigm
- -—
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 30
II Ellson: I think we've summed them up fairly well . They've got the Minutes
also.
IIConrad : It's nice to summarize.
Emmings: I think we all have, or at least some of us have kind of a queezy
feeling that this is probably improper in some way. It just doesn't feel
I good.
Conrad: Are we concerned with the overall.
IIEllson: Ethics I guess behind it. It doesn't seem right to be able to do
that.
I Conrad : By expanding it to all tax exempt, does that make us more
uncomfortable than we were when we were simply dealing with churches?
IEmmings: Just as uncomfortable, yeah.
Batzli : I think last time at least I expressed that I was uncomfortable.
Whether it was for just churches or all tax exempt but given the choice of
two lesser evils, I would rather not just single out churches.
Conrad: Okay. Maybe we could try to summarize that. Make some kind of
Isense out of it for the City Council .
I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, DIVISION 6, SITE PLAN
REVIEW TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE, EXPAND ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIRE
FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
1 Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
I Conrad: Okay, Tim I 'm going to start down at your end. We've got, it' s
changed a little bit from the last time we saw it. Do you have any
specifics?
IErhart: I notice I didn' t have any comments from the last comments,
additions or involved in the last meeting. I probably won't have a lot
this time. I do have one question on your item 4 there where you say
I non-agricultural metal buildings are prohibited in the ordinance. What
does that mean specifically Paul?
I Krauss : Specifically the ordinance is intended to prohibit the development
of primarily metal buildings in all non-agricultural districts. For
example you can' t throw up a metal warehouse.
IErhart: I understand that but does that say that? Non-agricultural metal
buildings? Why don't we just say metal buildings are prohibited in the
ordinance?
I
p
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 31
Krauss : It says metal buildings are prohibited in the ordinance and then II
if you go up to the front, I don't find it as citation, on the first page
of the ordinance, well at the bottom of the first page of the ordinance,
Section 20-108, it says exceptions to the ordinance. On the following page I
(d) , an exception to this ordinance, requirement for site plan review is
construction of buildings for agricultural uses on land zoned and utilized
for agricultural purposes. So a metal Butler building on an agricultural
piece of ground does not have to be reviewed and is acceptable.
Erhart: Okay. That is the understanding you have? Okay. That's the only
thing I've got Ladd. •
Emmings: I don' t have anything.
Ellson: Nothing here. ,
Batzli : I had a lot of questions last time. This time my question is
still the adminstrative approval. Section 20-113. My question is how that I
ties in with 20-108, Section (b) .
Krauss: Section 20-108, Section? I
Batzli : B.
Krauss : Which is an exception. '
Batzli : If there's an exception. My question is this, you're saying you
don't require site plan approval but yet really what, as the Director of
Planning would be giving them site plan approval but it would be an
adminstrative site plan approval wouldn't it?
Krauss: Right. But it wouldn' t apply to anything in Section 20-108. 1
Anything in Section 20-108 is exempted from all the requirements of the
site plan review ordinance.
Batzli : But you're exempting, and maybe I 'm missing something here, you're
exempting enlargement of a building at less than 10%; of it's gross floor
area which is what you say in the section of adminstrative approval but
really you need site plan approval. It's just that it can be
administrative site plan approval. Right?
Krauss: Right. 1
Batzli: I'm just wondering. . .everytime I think about it, it just doesn' t
seem to make sense. '
Krauss: It' s an exception from an exception.
Batzli: Yeah. I don't know that it should be an exception. It should be I
an exception from the formal process but not of site plan approval is how,
my gut feeling but I don't know that that's what it says.
Emmings: We could just eliminate it.
Planning Commission Meeting
IIJanuary 3, 1990 - Page 32
Batzli : don' t don't know but I don t really want to do something kind of knee
jerk here at the meeting because I couldn' t figure it out and I didn't want
to say let's just strike it but I think that' s something you have to look
at before we pass it.
Krauss : I don' t know if it's a solution yet. I'd like to think about it
but it may be more appropriate to relocate that to Section 107 which is
approval required and make it a (d) under that and clarify that that' s an
I *administrative review.
Batzli : Yeah, you see I don't know that you have to have it as an
exception or in 107. I 'm not sure. I think that if it' s required and you
' can do it in accordance with your adminstrative approval section, that
should be adequate. I don' t know that you have to accept it. I 've also
just got some words in here that I was going through and circling that you
I may want to take a look at after we get everything said and done. They' re
just changing of wording from Section to Division and things like that that
I kind of glossed over last time and I think we missed just one or two
' here.
Conrad: Do you want to read them out now or .
' Batzli : I ' ll give them to Paul . I don't think they're major deals.
Emiings: He could change them on his own if it' s less than 10% of the
words.
Batzli : I think that last time when we talked about Section 113, we had a
philosophical problem as to what the authority of the Director of Planning
Iwould be. At least Ladd and I did. And when we would ever see it and
when we would know about it. I like the way you tried to handle it by,
rather than saying what your powers were, saying what they weren' t. I
I thought that was a good way to try and handle it and I 'd be interested in
hearing from Steve and Tim if they have a problem with the way he worded
it. I don't know if you had a problem with it the first time but in any
Ievent, that's all I 've got to say about this:- •
Wildermuth: I don't have a roblem with that Section
P 113.
IAhrens: I have no comment.
Conrad: I've got comments on 113. It speaks to 10% of gross floor space
or area but it doesn't speak to the intent of what was, when we talk about
a site plan change, we're really talking about something that was just
approved.
' Krauss : Not necessarily. You could be talking, a tenant moves into a
building. Tim purchased a building or expanded into it and maybe his needs
were somewhat different than the original owner and they need to make some
I modifications. To house some new equipment they need to push out a
building wall or something like that. Those kinds of things crop up quite
frequently.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 33
Conrad : Expanded parking space. Would that be one?
Krauss: That could be, sure. '
Conrad: How about taking an impervious surface ratio up by 11%?
Krauss: To the point where it would create a variance? I Y
Conrad: It' s still acceptable under the ordinance but it certainly was a
lot different' than what we originally saw but it still met the ordinance. I
What would you do?
Krauss: I don't know. I 'd really have to say it's a matter of degree. If
I felt it was really a departure from the intent of the approval as best as
I can figuxe out what that was, I would bring it back.
Conrad: Okay, you just said the words and I didn't see them in there but I
the intent is really where I'm going. I don' t know, I think that has got
to be in here in terms of somehow saying you have authority. You've got to
look at what was originally intended to happen and make sure that if it' s I
still meeting that original intent, then I think you should have that
approval . I think the 10% of the gross floor area, that' s one aspect of
site plans and it misses a whole bunch of other ones so it only talks to me
about one thing . And it' s not bad but I guess rather than having you •
detail all the, detail everything and limitations on everything, I think
we've got to get an intent statement in there in terms of significantly
altering the intent of what was originally proposed. My only other comment I
on these things is there' s no way to monitor what you' re doing. Again,
don't interpret this as I don't want to get into what you're doing. I
think this is really a valid, I like adminstrative approvals but I also
like our ability to monitor what those are so if we can see that you're
going beyond what we'd like, there' s some way for us to review the process.
Maybe that's self policing, I don' t know. How do we find out what you've
approved without us? ,
Krauss: Well, Ladd as we discussed last timed ; think to be timely in
responding to these things, I couldn't come back to you first and ask for I
your approval typically but we would certainly be happy to give you a
periodic update and say this is what we've done on these. Is this meeting
your intent. If not, let us know and we can revise our position in the
future. We're asked to make these decisions on a pretty daily basis.
Ellson: You were saying you're basically somewhat doing that now just to
save the time and you just would like to more legal and written in here and I
stuff like that.
Krauss : That's exactly the case.
Conrad: What do people want to do?
Ellson: Let him do it. 1
Planning Commission g C nm� ssion Meetzng
January 3, 1990 - Page 34
I Wildermuth: I think the Planning Director 's got to have some adminstrative
discretion.
' Conrad: And what is that Jim?
Elison: I like your idea about the intent. I think that you could look at
what we' re intending to do and if it looks like they' re adding more parking
I space or impervious surface, even based on the ordinance and we know we
were trying to save that big oak tree and that extra space is going to take
it down. I trust his judgment that he'd bring it back to ut or something
Ithat he feels is important. I think this kind of stuff is done regularly
and I think we don' t need to be bothered with some of these other things.
I Conrad: What if you were here when downtown was being proposed and for
some reason they decided that altering the City Hall . When we saw it it
was perfectly square with the street and it never came back to us, and that
was not a site plan. I don' t know what the process was but it never came
Iback to us where the architect decided that it should be cocked at a little
bit of an angle. Had we seen that, it would not be the way it was today
but that's the type of thing that can sneak through.
' Ellson : And Barbara let that go through?
Conrad: I 'm just posing the question.
IWildermuth: But I think if you try to. . .
' Ellson: Be all things to all people you're going to be here until midnight
every night.
I Wildermuth: If you try to control something like that or restrain
something like that, you're going to be so restrictive. As it turns out in
retrospect, the positioning of the old City Hall is probably about as it
should be. It probably looks much better than it would squared off as it
Iturns out.
Conrad: Well.
' Wildermuth: But I agree. A lot of people complained about it at the time.
I Conrad: It's not one of my favorite things that has happened here. It
seems like a designer , I work with designers so I know what they like to do
and on paper it may have looked alright but I'm not convinced it was the
right thing to do. But that's just a minor example. I guess Jim, you
Ibasically don't want any kind of control on the ,process?
Elison: It's not saying you're not going to have any.
IWildermuth: I think we've got control here.
Conrad: Well how do you know? Out of sight, out of mind.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 35
Wildermuth: It says minor site plan and building alterations which do not '
involve a variance and which are not accompanied by other matters requiring
consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council may be approved by
the Planning Department.
Ellson: We can get a list of what minor things have been done and if you
feel it's getting out of hand.
Conrad: You're comfortable? '
Wildermuth: I would be comfortable with a periodic review.
Conrad: Well Steve, what do you care?
Wildermuth: I would be comfortable Ladd with a periodic review of
adminstrative approvals. I would be comfortable with that.
Conrad: Is anybody interested in that? '
Elison: You mean like it wouldn't necessarily be our consent agenda or
something like that but just to get a feel . I think that would make you
feel better .
Conrad: No, I 'm just raising an issue here and staff does do this all the
_ time and all they' re doing is putting what they' re doing everyday on paper . II
Elison: And I think they should.
Conrad: And I 'm just challenging what our role is so we know exactly what IF
we're allowing them to do and what we're not and how we want to monitor it.
And we haven' t in the past. Zippo.
Batzli : Interesting question is how much power can we delegate to the
City Planner .
Conrad: We can take it away.
Batzli : Well we can take it away but how mutt cinder a site plan "review 11 type process can you give to the City Planner and not have it be a public
hearing or whatever is required or you know, that type of thing? I don' t
know. Paul?
Krauss: I don't know what the real answer is but I know that there are
communities that have staff authorize virtually all site plans without any
public hearing at all . It's just they do it adminstratiyely which we would '
feel very uncomfortable with and wouldn't recommend so clearly the spectrum
is way over .
Conrad: Tim, any comments? Well , I directed comments at you and you '
didn't say anything.
Enmings: That' s because other people were talking and I'm polite. '
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 36
Conrad: This is a new role.
Elison: He' s bucking for chairman.
Conrad : And you can have it too. You've got my vote fella.
Emmings: I think it would be a good idea. I'm comfortable with this. I
think it's important to get rid of some of this stuff on the adminstrative
side so that we don' t have it here and that's what' s being done now. The
control there to me is that if Paul gets power crazed and starts putting
I buildings in places where we haven' t seen them before, then we have other
recourse I guess. The key to me is that as long as they don't involve a
variance, which it says and then if we added a clause right after that that
I said, which are consistent with the intent of approval, and then finish the
sentence, which are not accompanied by other matters that require it. I
think that's enough because to me that does define minor change.
Batzli : So it' s up to his discretion as to what the intent was?
Emmings: Yeah it is. But you know, if you can't trust the adminstrator
Iside of the city to do those things, what have you got them there for?
Batzli : I agree. I 'm just clarifying that you're allowing them to infer
I what your intent was. It' s a statement. I'm not questioning that they
can't do that. I think they do a good job of that.
Emmings: I guess I 'm comfortable with what's here and as far as them
' reporting to us, I get enough to read already. I think if they do
something outlandish, it will come to our attention some way or other .
' Batzli : But then it will be too late.
Emmings: It' s going to be too late anyway.
Batzli : I know.
Conrad : Not if everytime they made a signifipagt change, they notified us.
IEmmings: What does that mean?
' Batzli : They'd have to notify Ladd.
Conrad : Yeah, they'd notify me at home. They could call me. No, they
could literally document the changes that they thought we would be
Iinterested in. They thought.
Emmings: Yeah, it's real nebulous.
IConrad: But they could let us know. So there's a way to communicate
before it really gets done. There is a way to do it. I'm not lobbying for
' that but I 'm saying there is a way to do it.
Emmings: How?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 37
1
Conrad: Every 2 weeks we see what site plan changes they have approved. 1
Batzli: Well, let's get a sense here. How many site plan changes are
there every 2 weeks? 1
&tmings: He just said he's doing it on a daily basis.
Krauss: When things are going hot and heavy like in the fall when they .
wanted to get a lot of certificates of occupancy done, there's probably a
could a week. 2 or 3 a week.
Emmings: Oh well , that's different than on a daily basis.
Elison: Feels like it I 'm sure when you working on it. ,
Conrad: Tim, you don' t want us in this mess do you? You prefer to keep us
out of this I would assume.
Erhart: Yeah but I think there' s, help on 20-113. Are we talking about
adminstration approvals of a new site plan or are you also including?
Conrad: Everything.
Erhart: Are you also including in that paragraph any changes to those
things that haven't been but have been approved?
Krauss: Both.
Conrad: Things that were approved 5 years ago.
Erhart: My feeling is that yeah, you have to trust your planner to do the
adminstrative things. However , in the real world when you get down to the
applicant versus the planner and in a discussion of whether he wants to
approve it or forcing ittto go back to Planning Commission, things like
adding more than 10% actually is to the detriment of the planner because
then the applicant can come in and say, they can work it around so it
becomes 9.9% and then takes the argument that--well , since the ordinance
says that you can do this because it's only 9.9%, therefore you're
insulting me or something else. You're just being a jerk if you go back to
the Planning Commission. I'd rather see it used more in terms of intent of
the Planning Commission. Things like that because then it comes down to it '
is truly left up to the judgment of the Planner whether the guy is changing
the intent of what Planning Commission approved or not.
Batzli : I like Steve's suggested language and if ,you're concerned about
it, are you concerned that it looks like the adminstrator doesn't have the
authority to take it back to the Council or the Planning Commission if in
fact it fits within those guidelines? Would you rather see at his option 1
he can take it back even if he thinks it is within the intent?
Emmings: I think that's what it says.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 38
li Erhart: I'm just saying, as soon as you put 10% in there, they' ll use
that.
Emmings: I don' t think they can. Paul can just say.
IIEllson: It's his call.
I Emmings: Yeah. It seems to me it would be very much in his hands whether
it comes back or not.
IConrad : Especially if we put the 3 new words in referring to intent of
what was originally stated. If that's in there, then Paul has total
control to bounce it back or to handle it himself.
I Erhart: The other thing is that, does it state, basically we don't have
our architectural regulations or control. On the other hand, when someone
comes in here, let's say like this building of the hotel, essentially our
I disapproval or approval is. as much based on our perception of the
architectural integrity as it is about the ordinances. Whether it passes
or meets or doesn' t meet and so is it clear or should we emphasize more
that any changes in the architectural intent of it should come back to
IIthe Planning Commission? Again, I 'm not proposing that we bring all this
stuff back. I think the staff should be able to do these things. I'm
trying to give them the ammunition to argue with the applicants and say
Iyeah, this has to go back and not just being a jerk.
Krauss : Well it says minor , it does talk about minor site and building
IIalterations and I think it gives us enough latitude to do just what we did
with the hotel and say that it's still a hotel but it doesn' t look the way
it did when the Planning Commission approved it.
I Erhart: So you're talking about building size essentially. There' s
nothing that says anything about architectural alteration.
I Wilderr.,uth: I think that's a good case in point for the hotel situation
where you exercised good discretion there.
Emmings: Why did it go to the City Council? - That's- the part that I- don' t
1 understand.
Krauss: Well it went to the City Council initially because we were under
I the gun. They wanted to break ground before the first of the year for
their financing. It was one of those situations where they were probably
going to go to the City Council anyway if I didn' t get there first and one
'I of the things I stressed to the City Council is that the, appropriate way to
handle this is to send it back to the Planning Commission and they agreed.
They told the developer look, if you want to push us any further, you've
got to go back through the hoops.
IEmmings: I thought it was fine that you did. I was just wondering why you
missed us in that setting. If they needed it for time, I don't see
II anything wrong about that, even if it said it in here. It's your
discretion and could go to the City Council.
II
Planning Commission Meeting • 11
January 3, 1990 - Page 39
II
Krauss : Well and also, at the this time we' re working with an ordinance i
that doesn't say anything about adminstrative approvals and it doesn' t say
anything architectural review either.
Conrad : Okay. Any specific wording changes? Steve proposed the one. We
incorporated the word intent and some stuff like that. Any other wording
changes to 20-113? Shall we skip any kind of a review? Does anybody want II
a review at all tucked in there?
Batzli : I would prefer to see an update. Kind of an informal status like
we currently have rather than requiring it here personally.
Conrad: So not something that we'd really put into our ordinance but
something that we'd have our staff just. '
Emmings: How about an agenda item? Why don' t we put it right on our
agenda to be on there as a routine item. I
Ellson: Minor adminstrative approvals.
Wildermuth: How big a problem would that be Paul? How time consuming 1
would that be?
Krauss : I suppose we can try it and find out. I
Conrad: Tame your enthusiasm Paul . It's going to turn into one of those
items that it will be last on the agenda.
Ellson: Like approval of Minutes. Approval of the minor items.
Wildermuth: At a quarter to 12:00.
Ellson: We won' t be here til 12: 00 because there will be less of these
things. ,
Batzli : Well that's the most review you're going to get if it's required
to be on an agenda item.
Emmings: But you know we've tried this before with other things like City
9 g C t�
Council update is on there but maybe there wasn't any City Council meeting.
There's nothing or maybe you're going to do it orally. I don' t know. i
Krauss: Yes. I will .
Emmings: And the other thing that was supposed to be on here was our work II
list. I 've always wanted that as an agenda item and it not only is it not
an agenda item, but it' s never , well we got talking about the agenda.
Ellson: The last one we had was November 9th. Ongoing issues. That
status report.
1
11 ° Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 40
II
I Emmings: Maybe we can talk about the agenda when we talk about other
adminstrative stuff. Maybe we should try it and leave it up to him which
ones he brings to us . We try it for a while. If we don' t like it, we can
always get rid of it.
IConrad : Okay. Let's leave it out of the ordinance. Any kind of
adminstrative processing for us. Let's keep that out of this document.
IOkay. Any other comments on the ordinance? Is there a motion?
Emmings: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission approve the draft of
I review and adoption by the City Council as contained in the packet under a
memo dated December 27, 1989 with the change that we've all been
discussing . In the first full sentence of 20-113 so it would read, minor
site plan and building alterations which do not involve a variance, which
II are consistent with the intent of the original approval , and which are not
accompanied by other matters requiring consideration by the Planning
Commission or City Council , may be approved by the Director of Planning .
1 Ellson: I ' ll second.
Erhart: Would you consider adding the word to your addition, a word
Istructurally and architecturally.
Conrad : In 113?
II Erhart: Yeah.
IIEmmings: Where would you put it?
Erhart: Right in the middle of your , in other words, changes to the intent
structurally and architecturally.
1 Ellson: Wouldn' t that limit that just to those two things?
I Erhart: I want to make sure it doesn' t but I 'm still concerned that we are
not, that this whole paragraph is all oriented around structural.
. . .architectural and structural.
-
I Ellson: But nature is part of the intent.
Erhart: Well the same words that he's got.
IEmmings: If you want to do something like that, maybe you want to put a
parenthesis after intent. Say architectually, structurally and otherwise.
IErhart: Right. You would do that including architectural, structural and
otherwise.
IEmmings: I suppose we could do that. That'd be fine with me.
Conrad: Do you want to amend your second?
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting -
g
January 3, 1990 - Page 41
11
Elison: I'll amend my second to say architectually, structurally and
otherwise.
Conrad: Otherwise is sort of inclusive.
Batzli: That is kind of a catch all isn' t it?
Conrad: Any more discussion? y '
Emmings moved, Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code, Division
6, Site Plan Review with an amendment to Section 20-113 to include the
following as the first sentence: Minor site plan and building alterations
which do not involve a variance, which are consistent architecturally,
structurally and otherwise, with the intent of the original approval , and
which are not accompanied by other matters requiring consideration by
the Planning Commission or City Council , may be approved by the Director of I
Planning. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: f
ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 1990.
Conrad: I'll give you my common speech on this item. If there' s somebody I
who is dying to do this, or not even dying, I think we should nominate that
person. I'm more than happy to sit on the Planning Commission. I
Emmings: I nominate Ladd for Chair.
Batzli : I second that. 1
Elison: I like the idea of getting your comments ahead of time sometimes.
I think you being the last isn't always to our benefit. I think it'd be
nice if we. . .
Conrad: The Chair 's job is not to direct asi uch as- to. . . Brian, do you
feel like you'd like to chair this for a year?
Elison: He'd be late every time.
Batzli : See we'd never get started on time. You're just trying to get me I
here. No, I'd be more than happy to sit in once or twice but I don't have
any designs to become chair. '
Erhart: It should be everybody's objective at some point in their life.
Batzli : Well not at this moment. '
Conrad: Tim, how about you?
Erhart: No. I'm not ready.
11