Loading...
12. Zoning Ordinance regarding posting of Public Information Signs for New Developments I CITY OF /.%. i CEANHASSEN :, . 1 ,, { ` - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I * e . ''-' (612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739 ACior ty c�sri Er.d.s ___✓l.` - 1 MEMORANDUM n ., R c . _ y Arc.c. TO: Planning Commission -1-. Dot_. IFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 0.- — -. ---° Date - DATE: March 13, 1990 _BILE I SUBJ: Proposed Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Pertaining to Requiring the Posting of Development INotification Signs PROPOSAL/SUMMARY 1 During the adoption process of the amended site plan ordinance, the Planning Commission and City council discussed the protential of requiring the posting of signs on sites undergoing development I review by the City. Both the Commission and Council believed it would be a good idea to promote public knowledge of these proposals through the use of these signs as is done in many other IIcommunities. Responding to a request by the City Council, staff prepared three Ialternatives for their review including: 1. Requiring the applicant to obtain and post the sign, 2. Requiring the City to obtain and post the sign, and I3. An alternative whereby the city would obtain the signs. They would be rented to the applicant who would be responsible for I posting the sign. The rental fee ,and damage deposit would enable the city to recoup its expenses relative to implementing the sign program. 1 The City Council selected the bird alter nave with a suggested $100 rental fee and $100 damage deposit. Staff has information that the signs will cost $200-$250 1tnd we estimate a need for up to I20 signs for the projects where he ordinance requires a sign. Staff reviewed the Council's direction and determined that I ordinance amendments are required to implement it. These ordinance amendments were accordingly prepared by the City Attorney and are presented for your review. I . II I Planning Commission March 13, 1990 Page 2 ' The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance at the March 21st meeting. They supported the proposal although there were some comments to the effect that the proposed $100 rental fee was ' excessive. The fee structure is not listed in the ordinance and can be revised by the City Council at any time. Staff is seeking your direction in this matter. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of the amendments. ATTACHMENTS ' 1 . Memo to Don Ashworth dated February 5, 1990 . 2 . City Council minutes dated February 12 , 1990 . 3. Proposed Ordinance Amendment. 4 . Proposed Sign. 5 . Planning Commission Minutes dated March 21 , 1990 . MANAGER' S COMMENTS (4-5-90) : The $100 rental fee is not excessive. The $200 to $250 cost ' estimate does not include employee costs for specifications, taking bids, ordering, storing, receipting payment/deposit, preparing check-out (physically doing it) , check-in, storage, ' reimbursing deposit, etc. /L. , ... Ib # , CITYOF 1 .:. - 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900• FAX(612)937-5739 I MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager I FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: February 5, 1990 I SUBJ: Second Reading of Proposed Amendment to Division XI I Site Plan Review Procedures of the Zoning Ordinance, Approval of a Summary Ordinance for Publication PROPOSAL/COMMENT I On January 22, 1990, the City Council approved the first reading ' of proposed revisions to the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The changes would provide guidance in conducting these reviews as well as provide standards against which proposals could be Ijudged. There were no specific revisions requested by the Council during the first reading and staff is recommending that the ordinance be given a second and final reading. The Engineering Department has requested that drainage calculations for 10 and II 100 year storms be provided with site clan submittals. Staff has revised the ordinance accordingly. We'tave also drafted an ordi- nance summary for your approval. The summary will allow the City II to reduce expenses related to the required publication of the ordinance. 1:.. SIGNAGE 'It- II At that meeting, a discussion -was__,held segardingx_the advisability of requiring that signs-be Posted' on-sites-Tor 'Which jlevelopment II plans are being reviewed. The signs would be used. "increase the public awarenessof._development propoals� e-signage idea was supported by the Planning ommisston *n Council and staff was directed to further teseiich the matter. II We have had an opportunity to A ter additional data. Of the communities that were surveyed, we found that Apple Valley, I Edina, White Bear Lake and Minnetonka require signs, while Eden Prairie, Eagan, Bloomington and Maplewood do not. Eden Prairie formerly required signs, but let the program lapse as signs II needed to be repaired or replaced. Of the communities that require signs, Edina requires that the applicant provide the sign while the rest have city-owned signs. II II .Mr. Don Ashworth II • February 5, 1990 Page 2 II We believe that there are several options regarding the signage including: Il. Require that the applicant obtain, post and maintain the sign as per Edina's example. Edina provides detailed signage requirements that are attached to this report. This has the advantage of no cost to the City, but the disadvantages I include developer cost and difficulty of obtaining a sign, and administrative work related to insuring that the required sign has been posted. II2. Provide the signs at City expense with the City crews erecting and removing. Advantages include ease of admi- nistration and the disadvantage is cost, although permit fees Icould be raised accordingly. 3. The last option is for the City to provide the signs and I charge the developer a rental fee. The developer would be responsible for erection and removal and for sign replacement if needed. This would appear to be the least cost option. IStaff found that Rainbow Signs, Hopkins, the company that makes the signs for Minnetonka, charges $175-$200 for 4 ' x 6 ' wooden sign. I If a sign program is adopted, the City would have to determine which actions would require posting. We would recommend the following: ' 1. Platting resulting in the creation of 3 or more lots. II 2. Rezonings. 3. Guide Plan Amendments. I 4. Conditional Use Permits resulting in the construction of a new building (such as a church) . Is. Site Plan reviews. It is expected that the City would need approximately 15-20 signs to start a program if the sign is to be maintained until final Iaction is taken on a proposal. Staff is seeking the City Council's direction on this matter. If I you wish us to proceed, we will prepare any required ordinance changes and procedures for your review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION II Staff recommends that the City Council approve second reading of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to Division XI regarding Site Plan I review procedures, and approval of the ordinance summary for publication. I II 1. Manager's Recommendation Regarding Signage Options: Should the Council determine that posting a sign is required for platting, I rezoning, etc. , this office would recommend that Option 3 (City purchase/rental back) is preferred. Without question, there are a number of days during the course of the year where the Street Superintendent could assign one or two employees to erect a sign on a given morning/afternoon. However, there are an equal or greater number of days where each employee is given a section of the city to complete a specific work function (plowing, sanding, second pass widenings, etc. ) , or where each man has a specific task, i.e. sealcoating, overlaying, trench work, etc. Plowing/ sealcoating/trenching work can be a one to two week process. Taking away one or two men then becomes extremely difficult. Making the developer responsible for installation insures that the City is not going to be blamed for not getting the sign installed in a timely fashion. The second benefit is that by having the City purchase the sign, we can control lettering, con- sistency of sizes/shapes/color/etc. The rental aspect should reduce costs for most applicants. A rental fee of $100 with a damage deposit of $100 should produce a cash flow position having very minor impact upon the City. TitAM l 1 lz- 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 9, 1990 o. Authorize to Purchase Recycling Bins. 11 - q. Accept Resignations from Public Safety Commissioners Takkunen and Wing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A. APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW ' PROCEDURES, FINAL READING; AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION. Councilman Boyt: Okay, just a couple of changes to it. If you look at page 3. his is our interim use ordinance. Something that I think we're all looking ' forward to having. Section 20-676, it 3 seems to me to be a repeat of item 1 so maybe we can just strike it. ' Councilwoman Db'ler: Temporary real estate offices? Cbunciliman Boyt: Since it's interim uses, they're all temporary. Then I would ' like to see in 20-716, the BH, Business Highway district that we allow temporary farmer's markets so I'd suggest an item 3, Farmer's Markets. In the BH. 1 allow it in the CBD. It would seem like it would be even more appropriate in the BH. That's all I had. Mawr Ctrael: Okay, with those two changes, can I have a motion? ' Councilman Wbrkman: Is there a reason Paul why maybe we left that out of there? Out of the BH? ' Paul Krauss: No Mr. Workman. There really wasn't any intent to leave it out and we have no problem including it. ' Councilwoman Dd:mler: I'd appreciate seeing it in there. Councilman Boyt: Why? ' Councilwoman Dialer: Because we're in the business. I move item 1(a) . Councilman Boyt: Second. Councilwoman Diller :moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance ' Taan3ment regarding site plan review procedures, Final Reading and approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication as amended by Councilman Boyt. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B. APPROVAL OF STING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE REVIEW AND GRRAMM OF INTERIM USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE TEMPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS, FINAL READING; AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY miDINAICE FOR PUBLICATICN. Councilwoman Dialer: I guess other people picked up on this too but we did talk about, I talked to Paul earlier today indicating that this ordinance could be passed the way it is and we could talk about the signage but I think that we 1 2 I City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 should uraybe take care of it right away. There are three options given in the first page after the yellow page. I guess I'll go along with staff recarrendation of Option 3 but I'd like to hear same discussion. Councilman Boyt: I'd be ha to chime in. I think Option 1 makes more sense PP:' � because it keeps the City out of the sign business. Mina seers to be able to do it quite successfully. You notice in your packet, the part of it you just received this evening, there is Mina's requirements. I think that that to re rakes more sense to have the developer take care of this than to have the City store 20 signs someplace in city property. Councilman Johnson: For years all over the country developers have done this. A lot of other towns I've seen everyplace this is for subdivision you know. It's the cost of doing business and it's not that expensive. Councilman Boyt: We're only requiring the signs in same particular situations that are reasonably dramatic so I think this sort of developer probably hake sign or is aware of the likelihood of needing it. Councilman Johnson: Cn the issue of 1, 2 or 3. Option 1, 2 or 3, I'll go with 1 right now with 3 in second place and Option 2 I don't like at all. The other thing is, what are we going to require the signs for. Councilwoman Dimler: We already discussed that. Let re just explain to you why II I liked Option 3. I think I explained the last time this care around that we had such a problem even getting a sign up for the garage sale for Chaska II Boosters because no one could came up with a sign that met the ordinances. Even though it was a temporary sign, that we finally gave up so I'm saying if our requirements are that difficult to ireet, then it's going to be a hassle for the developer to care up with a sign that will allow them to put up. On the other hand if the City rakes the sign, we won't have that hassle. Apparently we're going to meet our own ordinance to put up the signs. Then also, it's not going to cost the City much because they will be paying. It's just that they don't have to be responsible for the design and all of that rigamaroll coring up with the correct sign. Councilmen Johnson: Edina gives you the exact design. 60 inches. , Councilwoman Dirtier: Well then the City would have to came up with a design. Councilman Johnson: I'd use Edina's. %by reinvent the wheel? We'd just have to change Edina to Chanhassen. C7ouncilwaman Diirler: Paul, do you want to address that? I just remember that ' was such a hassle to get a sign, a temporary sign to put up for the Chaska Boosters wham we wanted to support. They were having a rummage sale. It was a very temporary sign and we couldn't put one up just because we couldn't care up with the proper sign. Paul Krauss: Well Councilwoman Dimler, if gave criteria and changed our ordinances if we need to, one of the things we need to do is ask our attorney as to what structurally we need to do when we rake a selection on this. But if we required it, the sign could go up without requiring additional permits. The problem I think you had with the temporary sign was that you needed a temporary sign permit under our existing ordinances and those are samewhat restrictive. 3 • 1 City Council Meeting - February 12; 1990 The probler1 that we saw though in requiring the applicant to obtain their own sign was one of cost and tire. They would need to procure a sign each time this care up. The sign would only be used once and then it would be disposed of. Ooiuncilwaran Dialer: So it'd be a waste? Paul Krauss: We think you could expedite if we had the signs on hand.' ' Oouncilwaran Dialer: Yeah. Plus they're paying for it. I don't think it's going of cost the City much. And we're talking about storing 20 signs? We're building a big new shed. ' Councilman Johnson: When I look at somebody who's got a million dollar development going and see a $200.00 expense on that million dollar development, ' I don't see that I'm breaking the bank. I see we're going to rent the sign to them. for $100.00 and sage of these guys can probably get it make for less than that if they have their own shops and whatever. It's just a big deal. I don't want, we already do enough. Our staff is plenty busy without having to hire ' sarebody on to put up signs for developers. It's part of their job. If they went to develop that piece of property, they just follow the ordinance. We used to have... ICourcilen Dialer: But under Option 3, the developer would be responsible for even putting it up and removing it. It's just that we'd provide the signs and I II think that's a good use of our natural resources. I hate to see us reinvent the wheel all the time. Councilman Johnson: Between 1 and 3, I'll go with 3 as easy as 1 but I still 11 think that we haven't defined exactly which things are going to need signs. There are same suggested ones in here but I think we have to decide what will need a sign and what won't. Like this Shivley Subdivision later tonight. A lot split into two lots. Do we want to have to put up a sign for that? I say no. Councilman Boyt: Well you don't under this either. ' Councilman Workman: I think if platting resulting in the creation of 3 or more lots, even if scnebody probably already has a willing buyer for all 3 lots, what do they care. That gets into a little bit of why we're doing this to let - 1 everybody know but it's kind of a private deal. If 3 people bought 3 lots, what difference does it rake sometimes that it's been done. II Councilman Johnson: Yeah, or whether your plat, if you're in a RSF district and you have this cornfield in the RSF district and you're going to plat those into 15,000 square foot lots. That's what expected to go in there. If you're going II to came in and put caarercial buildings in there, then I'd see the sign. I'm not even sure if replatting needs a sign. Councilman Boyt: I think it needs a sign because there are all sorts of issues ' Jay as you know around any development that cares in. We software community involvement. When we nail things to people within 500 feet, many times that's the squirrels and the rabbits. And so when we put a sign up, everybody that II goes by there at least knows something's going to happen and they can call the City to find out what. Maybe we'll get a few more people contributing ideas. 4 rsetar rel.ruary il, 1990 Mayor Chriel: Tam, do you have anything further? I guess I wouldn't have any problems with item number 3 either. I think by us having those signs available, giving them to the developers. Let the developers install them eliminates the probleh with our people having to take that time out to do it. I/ Councilman Boyt: The City's talking about a $4,000.00 expenditure initially. Mayor Chmiel: Co ceiveably maybe we won't get 20 signs right awry either Bill. Courcilwot<an Dialer: to you want us to move the signs separate from where we need the signs? Mayor C niel: I think so. ' Councilwoman Dialer: Okay, so I would rove that we adopt under signage option 3. Councilman Johnson: Second. , Councilman Boyt: Before we take the vote, I'd like to suggest that there may be same logic here in what Edina is saying works for them. Granted we haven't decided what we're going to require a sign for but I would venture that in the next 3 years you're going to see even more development when the MUSA line expends, as we know it will. ' Mayor Q iel: I think that's a foregone conclusion on that. I agree. Councilman Boyt: If the developer's responsible for all of it, and really then 11 it isn't the City's responsibility to see, do we have enough signs. Spare signs out there. How many rezoning signs do we get versus subdivision signs? We don't have to worry with that if we go with 1 so I guess for that reason I'd vote against 3, although I will acknowledge there's a very wall difference and Ursula makes good points. Councilman Johnson: Well see one thing I would do, if you're using a sign like this. I'd have the basic sign made and have rezoning on a separate piece of wood. Subdivision on a separate piece of wood. All the other information stays the same and then you just bolt on whether it's going to be a rezoning or a subdivision so if it's a subdivision, slap that puppy on. We don't need quite as many. Councilwocran Dialer: So then that would be better for the City too. , Councilman Johnson: Make it reversible. Councilwoman Dialer: Yes. I agree. W nderful. Mayor Chrdel: Good points Jay. ' Councilman Boyt: I give up. Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Johnson seconded adopting ion 3, that the City provide the signs would be responsible for erection and removal and for rental in rep�cer t developer 11 needed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 1 Councilman Johnson: Are you going to move on to for what purposes we're going to put the signs up because we didn't vote on that? Mawr Qiiel: I think that's something we're going to have to do. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Was that your portion of what you wanted to discuss? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That was my, but we've really just discussed it with Bill and Bill has convinced me that planning use would, so I'll go with the 5 listed. The 5 reasons listed in the staff report. uncilwawan Dimler: What page are you on? !laver Clyde': Items 1 thru 5. It's on the second page after this yellow sheet. ' Platting, rezoning, guide plan amendments and conditional use permits resulting in the construction of new buildings such as a church and site plan reviews. Councilwoman Dimler: Is there a time limit on here? How long these signs have ' to be up? Mawr Orden There is a time limitation. Paul, is that correct? How many days prior to the public hearing must they be up? Paul Krauss: The ordinances I've seen required 9 days prior to the public ' hearing. I would personally, we have a month notice when something comes in. I would personally prefer that we use that. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but should we specify in here up to 1 month or do we need a time restriction? I don't know if I follow. Councilman Johnson: I think 2 weeks. That gives us 2 weeks to get the sign up. You say it's 1 month from when they bring it in to us until it Domes before the Planning Camtaission. Paul Krauss: Right. Cbuncilttan Johnson: So we're not going to get it up exactly the day it cares in here so you need, I would say 2 weeks prior to the first public tweeting on the ' action. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that would be fine. ' Councilwoman Dialer: Just as long as there's something time wise. Ccunciltwan Boyt: Where should that go in the ordinance? Mayor Chmiel: Where would that fit in Paul? ' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, what we need to do after we get your direction tonight is to sit down with the City Attorney and figure out where exactly in the ordinance we have to make these changes or if we can just do it as a procedure without changing the ordinance. Councilwoman Dimler: However this is the second reading. ' 6 1 City uncxrmeeting = February 12,1990 • Paul Krauss: No, the thing that's for the second reading tonight is for the site plan review ordinance itself. I Mayor C2nie1: Okay. Jay, we have a motion on the floor. 1 thru 5. Councilman Johnson: I will. I'll pave that we add reasons for the sign as 1 thru 5 and the signs should be up 2 weeks prior to the first public meeting. Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to discuss a little bit what our bottom, end on this thing is as far as 3 or pore lots and what maybe Jay or Bill, sa*ebody can give me an idea about the type of impact that we're going to be averting if we require that. I think that's a little bit smaller time. , Mayor Ch iel: Well if people within their areas are still concerned as to what's happening in and adjacent to theirs with what's being developed within that specific area. , Councilman Workman: But even for 3 lots? Councilman Johnson: Well if you're sitting in an area where everybody's got 1 1 acre lots and somebody decides to convert his 1 acre lot to 3 15,000 square foot lots. His neighbors would be very concerned about that. Theoretically he could ' if he had just slightly over an acre, convert to 3 lots. Councilman Workman: I agree that could happen but covenants usually provide against something like that you know. Timberwood is an example probably. Well, I 1 you couldn't break those down into less than 2 1/2 acres anyway but. is Councilman Johnson: No. Not until sewer canes in. ' Councilman Workman: But I'm saying, I don't know. Maybe it's hurting nothing. It's going to put a burden on a small split I think. You talk about the million dollar deals. Councilman Johnson: You see so few mall splits. usually it's either 2 or a bunch. What number are you thinking? 5? 4? 12? 50? ' Councilman Boyt: There's a good argument for why we don't went it to be 2. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Everybody lot splits. ' Councilman Boyt: But up from there, where do we go? I don't know what's magic about 3 but I don't know where to stop either. ' Councilman Johnson: You can probably argue 4 as well as 3 and 5 as well as 4. Councilman Workman: You know I don't like to argue. That's fine. I guess I I - still haven't heard any reasons why but that's fine. Councilwoman Dialer: Do you want to remove it out of there? ' Councilman Workman: No, because I don't really have an option. I don't have an option up from 3. I don't have a logical point to stop. 11 City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 Mawr Chmiel: I think 3 or more lots is a good place to start with it Councilwoman Dirtier: I do have a question on number 3. Paul, could you give me an example of a guide plan amendment? ' Paul Krauss: oh, it's a change to the land use plan. If somebody had a high density residential site and they wanted it to be commercial/retail. Councilwoman Dimler: Wouldn't that be covered under rezonings? Pual Krauss: They could theoretically ask you to change the land use plan before they ask you to change the zoning. Councilman Johnson: Then they can came back and say the land use says it's supposed to be Commercial. You have to change my zoning forme. ' Councilman Boyt: I just thought of something. We're about to change the land use plan. Does this mean that the City has to run out and post the City? Paul Krauss: There are practical limitations to that. No. Councilman Boyt: But we are changing. We're proposing to change the land use in several areas. Can we handle that as a blanket for the whole city and we don't have to get into, I would like to think that we're not creating a situation in which we're si adenly going to litter the highways with... ' Paul Krauss: We had no intent of doing it. If you'd like to specifically exclude that, that would be the way to do it. ' Councilman Boyt: Tell me, do we have to specifically exclude that to keep the City frail having to be concerned about the land use plan airentrents? ' Elliott Knetsch: Number 3 only? Councilman Boyt: Right. And it makes sense if a developer wants to came in and ' change the land use plan, that's pretty remote but if they wanted to do that, that that be posted. But what about when the City changes the whole land use plan for the City? ' Elliott Knetsch: The way it is right row we would have to post signs. You could distinguish between private and publically initiated projects. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, except during the Comprehensive Planning process? Would that exclude it? Councilman Johnson: I will take that amendment as a friendly amendment and change guide plan arendfients except for during Comprehensive Plan modification or wording thereof. I'll let you work that out with the Attorney if my second will accept that change. ' Councilman Boyt: Who's your second? wcilp1an Johnson: Ursula. - Mayor Oriel: You haven't got a second. i8 ,City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 Councilman Johnson: I thought Ursula seconded it. I Mawr Oriel: Not yet. Do you want to second it. Councilwaran Dinler: I'll second that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dinler seconded to adopt that all signs be posted 2 weeks prior to the first public meeting for the following reasons: ' 1. Platting resulting in the creation of 3 or more lots. 2. Rezoning. ' 3. Guide Plan Amendment except during the Comprehensive Planning Process. 4. Conditional Use Permits resulting in the construction of a new building, (such as a church) . 5. Site Plan Review. , All voted in favor and the motion carried. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we need action on the ordinance itself. Councilman Johnson: I move item 1(b) . Courcilwaran Dimler: As amended? Councilman Johnson: Well actually what we did didn't even amend iter, 1(b) . It had no affect on item 1(b). Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the second and 1 final reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Division XI regarding Site Plan review procedures, and approval of the ordinance summary for publication. All voted in favor and the motion carried. H. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION or LAKE DRIVE WEST FROM COUNTRY ROAD 17 TO AUDUBON ROW, REDMOND PRODUCTS, INC.. Councilman Workman: I only went to say that, and I'm not sure if the dimensions here for the Redmond Products construction which is going to be rather intense, does appear as though it's going to be right near and across from Lake Susan Hills. Cry, do you have an idea about at this time, as infant as it is, any idea about the impact on that neighborhood? They have a very large facility now. I know they're going to double or triple it. 9 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 ' OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT NOTIFICATION SIGNS The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: ' Section 1. Chapter 18, Section 18-39(c) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the ' preliminary plat after notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing has been published once in the official newspaper. Written notice shall also be mailed by ' the City to the applicant and all owners of record within five hundred (500) feet of the outer boundaries of the preliminary plat. A proposed development notification sign shall also be erected on the subject property by the ' applicant for all proposed plats of more than four (4) lots. The sign shall be erected at least ten (l0) days before the date of the hearing on the preliminary plat. The signs shall ' be furnished by the City and the applicant shall post with the City a $100.00 security deposit. Failure to post a development notification sign or to give notice or defects in the notice shall not affect the validity of the proceedings. If a development is proposed adjacent to a lake, or will affect the usage of the lake, the applicant shall provide the City with a list of property owners ' abutting the lake at the time of application. The City shall provide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in compliance with the procedures above. The applicant is ' responsible for meeting with affected homeowners. Section 2. Chapter 20, Section 20-43 (a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: ' No amendment to this chapter, including the zoning map shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the Planning Commission. Notice of the time, place and purpose of an amendment hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the day ' of hearing. When an amendment involves changes in one (1) or more district boundaries affecting an area of five (5) acres or less, notice of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the date of hearing to each owner of ' property within the area proposed to be changed and owners of property situated wholly or partially within five hundred (500) feet of the property to which the amendment relates. 02/26/90 1- When mailed notice is required, a proposed development I notification sign shall also be erected on the subject property by the applicant. The sign shall be erected at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing. The sign shall be furnished by the City and the applicant shall post with the City a $100.00 security deposit. Failure to post a proposed development notification sign or the failure of a property owner to receive notice as specified herein shall not invalidate the proceedings. Where appropriate, notice shall also be given to affected homeowner's associations. Section 3. Chapter 20, Section 20-111 of the Chanhassen , City Code is amended to read: Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for review of the site plan before the Planning Commission. The review will be held no less than ten (10) days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of properties located wholly or partially within five hundred (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 sites fronting on lakeshore where the development would be visible over a larger area. A proposed development notification sign shall also be erected on the subject property by the applicant. The sign shall be erected at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing. The sign shall be furnished by the City and the applicant shall post with the City a $100.00 security deposit. Failure to post a proposed development notification sign or the failure of a property owner to receive notice as specified herein shall not invalidate the proceedings. Following the hearing or any continuance thereof which is not appealed by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation. The site plan shall be forwarded to 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 4. Chapter 20, Section 20-231 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: 1 The application, public hearing, public notice and procedure requirements for conditional use permits shall be the same as those for amendments as provided in Article II, Division 2, except that the permit shall be issued on the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire Council and only applications that propose construction of a new building shall require the erection of a proposed development notification sign. Although specific submissions required to complete an application for a conditional use permit may vary with the specific use and the district in which it is located, all applications for such permits must include at minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates the following: -2- .' proposed land use building mapping and functions, circulation and parking areas, planting areas and treatment, sign locations and type, basic lighting concerns, the relationship of the proposed project to neighboring uses, environmental impacts and demand for municipal services. ' Section 5. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Division 6, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Section 20-120, to read: ' 20-120: Comprehensive Plan Amendments. If a landowner initiates an amendment to the land use ' map in the City's Comprehensive Plan, a notification sign shall be erected by the applicant on the property for which the change is sought. The sign shall be ' erected at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing on the preliminary plat. The sign shall be furnished by the City and the applicant shall post with the City a $100.00 security deposit. ' Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this MI day of , 1990. ATTEST: I Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1989. ) I -3- JPre".71 172W LG. J rrc.J1 ..aI I Nr .-.•arst r�+ -+�+t••,r. ,�t 1• 1• i 112$ lilt o Mt , / I $III tJ11iI! s1oK 1111 I o � taw ,� - �� lilt � �S =S �. ,,e , 1� i i ' trim a 1 z 111Pill II ._qIh iL" t U U. UIl t lip ii filnif . tiiji . lifilil! lilt 74 .8.11 b Iltli till s �. 12 a .y i o ` . FDa 1 l .114 hill S • I. I p ____..-7,... lig, 44 043 tifigo, 1 6 . g Uen C° e d.• (L) •� � 1 0 (1) 1 — CO co p i. • m o 5 1` O m 1 0 1 ' - 2 2 • a. - v a. . 0 -b. , 2 a c • 91, .- I >% E t I .4=e, E `i - >, 0 1 16 = 2 1 I ad 12 i I -at- CL.-4 atC2 1 1 i Cli Q • •.. 4 Q. -. .. •• `� Z 1 2 m w W ♦�,, Zia Iiss......4;alt,:w......••.. _ Ithilki6.-- . Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 34 I Erhart: Thank you very much for coming . I hope we can resolve that one. That's very unfortunate. ' PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THE POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN ' THE CITY. Erhart: Is there anybody who would like the staff report on this? Apparently not. Is there anybody in the audience that would like a ' report? If not, then we will not have the report. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to comment on the proposal to change the ordinance? If not, I would request a motion to close the public hearing . Elison roved Ahrens seconded to close the ublic hearing. All p g voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Wildermnth: And I move that the Planning Commission adopt the draft ordinance. ' Erhart: We have to have some discussion. Does anybody have any discussion? Anybody on the Planning Commission? ' ERmings: I guess I 'd like to know, the only thing that concerned me about this was the cost. The $100.00 rental fee with a $100.00 deposit and that really seems, it doesn' t seem like a big deal to a developer . What is the ' smallest development that this would apply to? Krauss: The platting of 4 lots . Emmings: I guess then it doesn' t bother me too much. I know that in Minneapolis I went through a variance proceeding when I lived there and ' they gave, I think they gave us the signs and they were kind of flimsy cardboard signs that disappeared after the first rain but you didn' t need to have them up very long and they were bright orange the whole idea was to bring attention to the property in a quick and cheap way so that the ' neighbors knew something was going on. But I didn' t think that was a bad system. But as long as this doesn't affect something that's very small , I guess that doesn't bother me. Erhart: Any other comments from other commissioners? I have a question. Why did Eden Prairie phase out their program? Krauss: It wasn't clear . Shemin talked to them. It sounded like some of their signs disappeared and they just decided it wasn't all that important. I don't know. In my experience, I worked in a community that had a sign program and it was not only very effective but it was something that the City Council was very supportive of because it did get the word out effectively. Once you start something like that, it's kind of hard to believe you could stop it but apparently Eden Prairie did. Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 35 I Ahrens: Notification of the public is a hard thing to be against. Ei ings: Yeah. I think we should try it. Erhart: I think it's good too. I think it is going to put a burden on thi City that's going to be such a detail in that they tend to fall in cracks and I'm sure that's what happened in Eden Prairie but with that, would someone like to rake a motion? ' Wilderruth: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the draft ordinance. ' Ahrens: I 'll second it. Wilder_mnth moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Pertainng to Requiring the Posting of Development Notification Signs. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: , ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE II , SECTIONS 20-56 THROUGH 20-70 PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF VARIANCES. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Erhart I called the public hearing to order. Emmings roved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Alright, Joan do you have any questions? Ahrens: Not right now. ' Em ings: I've got one I 'd like to ask. Let' s say you're in a place where, a neighborhood that's got 70 foot lots with lake frontage or whatever and they are substandard lots. Not only for their width but for their area . Let's say somebody lived in there but had bought two lots and built a house. Could they tear their house down, subdivide those lots and build two houses? You see what I'1tm saying? , Krauss: Well what you want to avoid I think, and I think what you're getting at Steve is that you don't want to lower the standard in the neighborhood. You don't want the lowest common denominator be what is enforced. The intent of this, and I hope the language does it, is to establish the neighborhood average and then say, if you meet or beat that average, we'll probably recommend that it be approved. So there's a middle II ground if you will . Ersmings: But would you be able to say no to someone who wanted to do what 11 Ijust. ..