6b1-8. Zoning Ordiance Revise Article Section 5 Article V, to state 125 feet , 1 -
I 1111
CITY 0 F
CHANHASSEN
,
-"-■1;10-
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 -7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner —
DATE: February 18 , 1988
SUBJ: Review Specific Zoning Ordinance Amendments First Reading
The following proposed ordinance amendments were acted upon by
the Planning Commission at the February 3 , 1988 , meeting.
Because the City Council has now authorized the codification of
all city ordinances including the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed
motions refer to the reference numbers in the new codified ordi-
nance.
Each amendment proposal has been placed on separate sheets to
ease Council members review of each issue. Note that in some
cases, the Planning Commission tabled action for further
research. These items will be brought back to the Planning
Commission at the March 2 , 1988, meeting. Their action will then
be placed on the City Council agenda on March 14 , 1988 , second
and final reading of the codified ordinances .
I
4 k-
6 . b. 1) Revise Article V, Section 5 ( 5 ) ( 3) and Article V,
Section 6 ( 5 ) (3 ) to state 125 feet. ,
The City Council at the January 11, 1988 , meeting agreed with
the Planning Commission' s recommendation to reduce the lot
depth requirement for single family lots from 150 feet to 125
feet.
Recommendation
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion: '
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to revise the lot depth requirement for
single family lots from 150 feet to 125 feet [Article V,
Section 5 ( 5 ) ( 3 ) and Article V, Section 6 ( 5) ( 3 ) in Ordinance
No. 80 and Article XII, Section 20-615 (3 ) and Article XIII ,
Section 20-635 ( 3 ) ] in the proposed ordinance. '
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the amendment for
125 foot lot depth. They approved the motion as recommended by
staff.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Planning
Commission recommendation.
I
II
6 . b. 2 ) Revised Article VI, Section 5 , Accessory Structures, to
1 provide for setbacks for various sizes of accessory
buildings.
1 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Commission tabled this item for further research. No
1 action is necessary.
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
i 4 II
6 . b. 3 ) Revise Article VI, Section 12 , Fences and Walls , to
provide for regulations regarding the use of barbed wire
fences.
The City Council at the January 11, 1988, meeting agreed with
the Planning Commission' s recommendation regarding prohi-
biting the use of barbed wire fences in residential, commer-
cial, and industrial districts and to permit barbed wire
fences only in the agricultural district or in the commercial
and industrial district with a conditional use permit.
Recommendation
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to amend the Fences and Walls section of
the Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance
(Article VI, Section 12 in Ordinance No. 80 and Article
XXIII, Division 5 in the proposed ordinance) as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval as recommended '
by staff but changed the last section as follows :
"Fences utilizing barbed wire in all commecial and industrial '
districts shall require a conditional use permit. "
CITY COUNCIL ACTION '
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Planning
Commission recommendation.
1
I '
6 . b. 4) Delete Article VI, Section 4 , Temporary Structures and
Uses .
Currently, Article VI, Section 4 , provides that temporary
structures and uses to be located on a lot within the city
receive a temporary conditional use permit. As some of the
members recall, the City Attorney has a problem with this
section in that it conflicts with state law. Given the
' Attorney' s opinion, it is recommended that this section be
deleted from the Zoning Ordinance. This issue was originally
considered in conjunction with the temporary book store
' application in the rural area several months ago. At that
time, the Commission was concerned as to whether or not eli-
mination of this section would prohibit some temporary uses
like Christmas tree lot sales to occur. Temporary outdoor
' display of materials are permitted in the commercial
districts as conditional uses. The City Council in the past
has waived the conditional use permit process for Christmas
' tree sales .
Recommendation
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to delete the section regarding Temporary
Structures and Uses (Article V, Section 4 , in Ordinance No.
' 80 and Article XXIII, Section 20-903 in the proposed ordi-
nance. "
' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval as recommended
by staff.
' CITY COUNCIL ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Planning
Commission recommendation.
1
r
6 . b. 5 ) Add Section 26 to Article VI, Supplementary Regulations
to Regulate Construction of Metal Buildings . 1
Recommendation
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
1
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to add a section to the Supplementary
Regulations (Section 26 , Article VI, in Ordinance No. 80 and
Article XXIII, Section 20-920 , in the proposed ordinance) to
state as follows:
Section 20-902 . Metal Buildings . Structures located in
the Office and Institutional, Business, and Industrial
1
Districts shall not have metal exteriors or be of metal
construction. "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION '
The Planning Commission tabled this item for further
research. No action is necessary.
II
6 . b. 6 ) Add subparagraph 20 to Article IX, Section 2 , General
Provisions for Signs Require a Conditional Use Permit
for Cemetery Signs .
This issue was raised during consideration of the sign
variance request for St. Hubert Church for the construction
of the cemetery gate/sign to be located along West 78th
' Street ( see attached Planning Commission minutes) . The
Commission directed staff to come back with a recommendation
as to how the ordinance should be amended to accommodate for
cemetery signage.
Recommendation
' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to include Signage Regulations for
Cemeteries as follows (Article XXVI, Division 1 in the pro-
posed ordinance) :
Section 20-1277 , Cemetery Signage. Signage for ceme-
teries shall be processed as a conditional use permit in
all districts . "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval as recommended
by staff . The Commission reworded it to say under Section
' 20-1277, Cemetery Signage:
"Signage for cemeteries in all districts shall require a con-
, ditional use permit. "
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
' It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Planning
Commission recommendation .
I
6 . b. 7) Add an article to the Zoning Ordinance to regulate II
burial of demolition debris .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission tabled this item for further
research. No action is necessary.
1
1
6 . b. 8 ) Revise Article VI, Section 21 , Antennas and Satellite
Dishes , to limit a single family lot to one antenna and
one satellite dish.
' The City Council on January 11, 1988 , agreed with the
Planning Commission recommendation to limit the installation
of the number of antennas to one per lot in all residential
districts , and wanted to limit the installation of satellite
dishes also to one per lot in residential districts .
' Recommendation
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to revise the section regarding antennas
and satellite dishes (Article VI, Section 21 in Ordinance No.
80 and Article XXIII, Section 20-915 in the proposed
Ordinance) as follows:
Add the following and renumber the existing six subparagraphs :
1 . There shall be no more than one satellite dish and one
' radio antenna per lot in residential districts . "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
' Although the Planning Commission recommended approval of this
item, they requested staff to develop definitions for antenna
tower, and ground mounted vertical antennas. No action is
necessary.
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988
Don Ashworth: You could do it a week from today, a Saturday, whatever you
choose. I'm just suggesting that a special would probably be better. Either
that or start at 6:30 - 7:00.
Councilman Johnson: I think we're getting kind of, we've decided on a
process. We went for it and then at the eleventh hour now we're trying to
change our process and do it slightly differently. We say we've got a whole
handful of candidates that we could, each of them equally well will work out.
I believe I'm going to go and say we ought to get this over with, appoint
these three people and get on with business. I agree the process probably is
not the best process we've could have done. I think with the large selection
of people, we're going to have good, capable people doing the job. We can get
it over with and we can change the process on all the commissions, look at all
the commissions and decide on a process. I don't think we should do that
tonight. Let's just get this over with and go on with business.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation to appoint Annette Ellson, Brian Batzli and Jim
Wildermuth to the Planning Commission. All voted in favor except Mayor
Hamilton who opposed and motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's all pretty clear and straight forward. We're not
{ deciding on these things, it's just discussion right? '
Barbara Dacy: What staff would desire is direction from the Council either
agree or disagree with the Planning Commission's recommendations on the eight
items so we could go through the public hearing process.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, the first one is the 150 foot lot depth. The
Commission agreed that the lot depth should be reduced to 125 feet. What's
magic about 125?
Barbara Dacy: The 125 requirement was what was originally proposed in the
intial discussions of the Zoning Ordinance and was increased during review.
Over the past year we've had a number of variance requests to the 150 foot lot
depth requirement so the Commission asked that we go back and relook at that
requirement and based on information from other communities plus a look at
various subdivisions, the Commission agreed that the most important
requirements are the lot area requirements and the lot width requirements and
the lot depth requirements was not as important. The advantage of the reduced
depth is that it would allow design flexibility for subdivisions.
Councilman Boyt: I disagree. We've got Shadowmere, Saddlebrook, Currey
Farms, Kurver, they've all conformed with us. I think that the Planning
Commission made the comment, although it currently didn't carry the day, that
this hasn't been on the books very long. That we have plenty of examples of
people being able to live with it and hardly enough time to throw it out. I
think that it's very important when we design, when people design layouts of
property, that there be distance between them and their neighbors. Most homes
27 _
��� cvT
i
II
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988
have the windows on the front and back of their home '
e nd a that's where we need
the greatest distance. We have a setback from the road capability and we need
' distance from the neighbor who's going to be behind them. 150 feet gives
them 25 more feet of distance.
' Councilman Horn: Just to respond to that, I think you're assuming
architectural styles and I think that's the idea of this is to allow some
architectural flexibility. You're assuming a traditional house with a front
' yard and back yard. Some housing has the windows on the sides and I think
depending on the type of style used on a particular lot, this gives you some
flexibility on doing that. I agree with the concept of having space between.
I think that's why we have density. I think this gives people more
flexibility.
Councilman Johnson: The only comment is we've got a 30 foot rearyard setback
' which means they can put on a 125 foot lot, they can put it at 95 feet back so
they only have 30 feet in their backyard but at 150, it doesn't necessarily
guarantee anything more. The 30 feet is the only thing that guarantees it. I
wouldn't want anything smaller than 125.
Mayor Hamilton: So you're 60 feet away from the neighbors.
Councilman Johnson: 30 in the front and 30 in the rear. Yes, there's 60.
Minimum, the closest they will ever be is 60 foot to their neighbor. I don't
see 125 as that bad of a problem. They'll have to have an awfully wide lot to
get the 15,000 at 125.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I've never been afraid to see my neighbors. I don't
think 125 is bad. They're just people.
' Barbara Dacy: The only comment I was going to give was, with the required 90
feet of frontage, by necessity to get to the 15,000 square foot area, you're
t going to have to end up with 167 feet of lot depth anyway. Having a shorter
lot depth, again just allows some flexibility in those cases that you still
receive a minimum amount of lot depth, or reasonable amount of lot depth but
we're going to have to make up for that in the lot width. So again the lot
area and the lot width are probably the most important as far as maintaining
separation from side to side.
I Mayor Hamilton: I'll just poll each of us on these items so that will
probably give them an idea of how we all feel. Just to give us a yea or nay.
' Councilman Boyt: I'm against the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mayor Hamilton: So that's a nay, correct?
' Councilman Boyt: I gather.
Councilman Horn: Yea.
' Councilman Geving: Yea.
' 28
11
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Yea.
Mayor Hamilton: And I'm yea. The next one is the barbed wire fence. Barbed
wire fences and fences in general. I just had one question. How about a
fence with a barbed wire at the top?
Jo Ann Olsen: That is prohibited right now to commercial buildings. You
can't have the exposed barbed wire...
Mayor Hamilton: You can't have the barbed wire fence on top?
Councilman Johnson: You can't have a 6 foot tall fence with two additional
feet of barbed wire?
Councilman Geving: Don't we have that over at Hanus' where we've got the flat
board up?
Mayor Hamilton: I think so.
Councilman Boyt: They ought to take it down. '
Jo Ann Olsen: This again is in the residential. The industrial and commercial
it's a conditional use permit.
3 Councilman Johnson: They can have that in those with a conditional use
permit? I know there are certain government regulations for certain types of
information to be secured behind certain items that we may end up having to do
that at some building.
Mayor Hamilton: You are yea or nay? '
Councilman Johnson: Yea.
Mayor Hamilton: Yea.
Councilman Geving: Yea. '
Councilman Horn: Yea.
Councilman Boyt: Yea. '
Mayor Hamilton: The next one is accessory buildings not to exceed 1,000 feet.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we need some sort of sliding scale here. With
the 5 foot rear lot setback, which is I think what we have now for accessory
buildings, the prospects of an 800 or 1,000 square foot, 5 feet back is
frightening. I would suggest that we have something along the lines of 5 foot
setback for up to something like 200 square feet which would be a small
garage. Maybe 10 feet for something foot setback or something between that
and some larger size and 30 feet for 800 feet in building.
29
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I think this is a maximum. That's what ou're saying isn't
y y g n
it Barb and Jo Ann? This is a max so each one is going to have to be looked
at on it's own merit. Aren't they conditional uses anyway?
Jo Ann Olsen: No.
' Mayor Hamilton: So then each one on each piece of property is going to be
looked at though, whether or not it's. ..
' Councilman Boyt: No.
Councilman Johnson: It's permitted use.
' Jo Ann Olsen: It also has that 30% of the area...
Mayor Hamilton: How would you address Bill's concern then?
Jo Ann Olsen: Are you talking the sliding setback?
Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that if you have a certain size outbuilding, that
can be within 5 feet. If you have a larger outbuilding, you need to be
further away from that end lot line. At 30 feet, which is our existing depth
for a house, I would think an outbuilding could be 800 feet or 1,000 feet or
whatever but we shouldn't allow a large outbuilding that's any closer than we
would allow a house to be of comparable size.
' Barbara Dacy: I think an opportunity that we could investigate would be
looking at typical size, I guess what I would call a Sears Tool Building and
get just a rough idea of what the smaller ones are versus a larger garage
type and potentially propose something to the Planning Commission for
consideration. Anything smaller than 500 square feet, it shall be set back 5
feet from the lot line, is that what you're saying?
' Councilman Boyt: No, I'm saying if it's smaller than 20 by 10, I don't know
that that's magic, I think you're going to find whatever this outbuildings
' are and a small one of those should be 5 feet and as they get larger they
should be further back.
Barbara Dacy: The only caveat to that is just trying to make sure that a
' number that is fairly consistent otherwise you could be getting a number of
variance requests with 350 versus 300 and at 4 feet instead of 5 feet. So one
drawback of the zoning regulation is trying to make sure that what we're
regulating is actually what's out there.
Councilman Boyt: That's where your homework will help us.
Councilman Geving: I think 1,000 square feet is large. That's a big
building for residential outbuilding.
Mayor Hamilton: I would guess there probably aren't any.
[::
' 30
I
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988
Councilman Geving: There might be some but I think 1,000 is way too large.
Al's got a farm, maybe he knows.
Al Klingelhutz: I know there are several of them that have 1,200 on 2 1/2
acre lots but you'll never see 800 on a 15,000 square foot lot.
Councilman Geving: Staff recommended 800.
Councilman Horn: I think too you get into, to understand what Bill was getting
at, I think if you start getting into something like that, the administration
of it becomes very tough and very confusing to know whether they're conforming
to it or not. The other thing which might even be a bigger issue than this,
that we'll be addressing later, is the architectural style. If you have one
of these Sears metal buildings, if I were a neighbor I'd object to that 10
feet away from my lot line a lot more than I would object to a 10 by 10 wooden
structure of some type that blended in so I don't know that the distance is
the total criteria here. I think what we're trying to get at is something
that won't be obnoxious to the neighbor. This only addresses one potential
issue and that can get even stickier. 1
Mayor Hamilton: Let's leave this one until staff can bring it back.
Barbara Dacy: You would want us to pursue looking at the graduated scale?
Mayor Hamilton: Right, and then bring it back.
Councilman Horn: And I think look at other criteria relating to how obnoxious
it may be in the architectural styling.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is treated wood. Yea or nay? '
Councilman Johnson: I agree with the Commission.
Councilman Geving: I agree.
Councilman Horn: Yea.
Councilman Boyt: I'm okay with that.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that's five. Amateur radio towers. ,
Councilman Boyt: I have a note here that says two towers, one dish. I think
that given some of the concerns that we've had earlier, some of the people who
wanted these antennas, that two might very well be reasonable. I think what
the Planning Commission was suggesting was one? We had a fellow who was in
here in the last year who talked about how very inconvenient it was and how it
would limit his use. If there's one back there, is two that much worse?
Councilman Horn: We're talking permitted use. They can still come in under
the conditional use.
I
31
II _T
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Plus,, a ccordzng to the FCC, can we limit to one? I'm not
sure that we even have the right to control.
Roger Knutson: The regulations are not tremendously clear. After some
analysis of it, I think we have a good argument that we can regulate the
' number as long as we give them reasonable use of the airways. We've asked
them about it, I guess Jo Ann asked them about it, and they will not give you
a definitive answer.
' Mayor Hamilton: Clark, yea or nay or comments?
Councilman Horn: I agree with one.
' Councilman Geving: I agree with one.
Councilman Johnson: I'll agree with one.
Mayor Hamilton: I was wondering if you could clarify your wording here a
little bit or maybe that will get worked over but it wasn't clear to me that
it was just one per household in all residential areas. It almost seemed like
you were saying one house in one residential area could have an antenna. I'm
okay with one.
' Councilman Johnson: If you have a radio tower, can you have multiple antennas
on that tower?
' Councilman Boyt: Oh yes.
Councilman Horn: It's just massed right?
Councilman Johnson: Because the back end of the section says, or one
individual antenna in all residential districts.
Jo Ann Olsen: You can have a tower with individual antennas throughout the
large tower.
Barbara Dacy: One point of clarification, would the Council also want the
dishes? That's one per lot also.
' Councilman Geving: Let's go with one.
' Mayor Hamilton: The next item is the demolition debris disposal. Jay, any
comments on this one yea or nay?
Councilman Johnson: I'm totally for it.
Councilman Geving: Yea.
' Councilman Horn: Yea.
[::Councilman Boyt: What's point 2 mean?
' 32
1
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988
II
Councilman Johnson: There's a typo in there. It should read from the lowest
elevation of the landfill, if I remember the State regulations correctly. II Instead of the lowest high water elevation. In other words, the bottom of the
debris landfill should be 5 feet above the water table.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, then I'm assuming that when they're burying this it's
II
below the frost level. I see nothing that indicates that in here.
Councilman Johnson: I thought there was a minimum cover in this State. There II was a 4 foot cover required. 2 foot cover?
Councilman Boyt: It needs to be below the frost level. II Mayor Hamilton: Why?
Councilman Boyt: Because eventually you'll see it on top of the ground if II it's not below the frost level. It seems like a simple thing to add.
Mayor Hamilton: I disagree. When you do berming, one of the best things to II do in berming to make the berms work and to make the trees that you plant on
berms grow, is to bury some debris in there. Specifically boards, because
that retains water. Otherwise, your trees are all going to die. You can ask
builders and developers, they all say the same thing. You can require them to II put all the berm and all the trees and when they get done, the trees will all
? be dead because it does not retain water.
IICouncilman Boyt: I don't know exactly how a frost heave works on a berm but
when you take a flat piece of ground and you put something above the frostine,
eventually it works out to the ground level. Just go and pick up rocks in the
Ifield in the springtime.
Mayor Hamilton: I think boards and things are going to decay. I don't know
if concrete would work it's wa up. I suppose like a rock.
II
Councilman Johnson: Concrete will work it's way back up.
Councilman Boyt: We're talking 2 feet deeper here. It would seem to me, I
given what they're going to use to bury this stuff, that another 2 feet that
keeps it below the ground is worth the effort to do that.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with that as long as we put in a II
section that says when you're berming, they're allowed to put some demolition
debris, or however we want to term it, in the berm to make the berm liveable
II
for the trees.
Councilman Geving: As long as the debris can decay. II Mayor Hamilton: So could you bring that one back to us too. I think we're
all in favor, it just needs to have a few adjustments. The next one was the
architectural exterior standards.
II
Councilman Boyt: No comment. Yea.
II
33
II
At
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988
Councilman Horn: Yea.
Councilman Geving: Yea.
Councilman Johnson: Yea.
' Mayor Hamilton: I'm okay with it as long as it states here, the A rovision
eliminates the construction of metal buildings, pole barns and encourages a
better appearance and we don't start getting into the architectural exterior
design of homes and other things we don't need to have anything to do with.
The next one is lot width requirement for cul-de-sacs and flag lots.
' Councilman Johnson: There are some occasions where I am for some flag lots
and we've got some very unique circumstances here. The Centex circumstances
would be a couple of lots nestled in behind the pond, the wetland and the top
' of the hill there. I sometimes see that the flag lot used in very small
moderation, I'm not sure if it should be totally permitted but I don't think
it should be totally excluded. I guess in the cases I've seen and have been
' able to justify in my-mind enough of a hardship that, I guess here they say
have a hardship. The first part of it sounds real strict. It should not be
permitted and I'm personally for permitting a flag lot under shown hardship.
' It has to be a topographical reason for it. The reason can't be to save
concrete and put in smaller streets and be able to put a whole bunch of houses
out back with only having one circle. That's not a hardship. That's my
comment there.
' Councilman Geving: I agree. I think the only thing we need to do here is
change the wording a little bit on the line here. Flag lots shall not be
' permitted unless there is a hardship that exists and I think that's fine, so
I agree.
Councilman Horn: I agree. I think flag lots should stay in.
Councilman Boyt: I liked Option 3 on page 7. It leaves some things to be
worked out about arc length but I think what we've done in fact is to approve
homes that have a 90 foot width at their building setback line. We've done
that all year, so that would be the option that I would support.
' Mayor Hamilton: Personally, I think there are instances where flaglots are
necessary and so long as we can still handle that issue, I'm comfortable with
it. Is that all you need?
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Geving: I think Todd should handle the zip code issue. You're
' more familiar with it and you're ready to give us some information.
Todd Gerhardt: Don and I have been working with getting all the people
outside the Chanhassen zip code district and have come up with 934 addresses.
I've given Dale a copy of those. What I'd like to do is go through here, I
briefly printed it tonight and I'd like to make some corrections and we will
mail that out to you, the Councilmembers tomorrow. You have a meeting here
34
1
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON '
DAVIn L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER.
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE M.CECILIA RAY
PATRICK A. FARRELL ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
DAVID L.GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 MICHAEL J. MAYER
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE:(612)455-1661
September 11 , 1987
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
City of Chanhassen -
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Temporary Conditional Use Permits
Dear Jo Ann: '
You asked me to review and comment on Article VI, Section 4
of the City' s Zoning Ordinance concerning temporary conditional
use permits. Minnesota Statutes § 462. 3595 provides in part:
Duration. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect
as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed, but
nothing in this section shall prevent the municipality from
enacting or amending official controls to change the status
of conditional uses.
* * *
Conditional uses may be approved by the governing body or '
other designated authority by a showing by the applicant
that the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will
be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both
general requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar
as practicable, requirements .specific to each designated
conditional use.
The City' s temporary use permit does not comply with either
requirement. Having been granted a "temporary permit" an
applicant could argue that the time limitation was prohibited by
state statute and that they have the right to continue
indefinitely. Our response would be that if he or she is correct,
then the entire permit was void from its inception. A court would
have to sort out who is correct. This concern can be eliminated
in advance by repealing the provision.
SEP 14 1987
CITY OF'CHANHASSEN I
7ff7 o Tw
V
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
' REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 1987
' Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 ! .m. .
; MBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, L••dd Conrad and David
Headla
IFMEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart , James Wildermuth a d Howard Noziska
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; J. Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner and Larry Brown, Asst . City Engineer
Or
" PUBLIC HEARING: TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE 'ERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A BOOK STORE IN HER HOME LOCATED AT 8 s0 GALPIN BLVD. WHICH IS ZONED
A-2— ESTATES, MARIAN SCHMIT!.
' Public Present:
Ail
Mr and Mrs . Lawrence Raser 821ralpin Blvd .
Barbara Dacy presented the staff re'ort on this item.
' Mrs. Raser: We're the Rasers, w �, ve right next door to her and we wer-
just kind of wondering how she cja have a retail store in her house.
That's our main corcern. Then an'.ther thing we were wondering about
parking. If there's going to an lawful lot of parking with that? There'
been before where they've had company and they've used our driveway for
parking. They had about a 40 f6at motorhome in our driveway one day when
' we came home. 2
Conrad : How close do you live to her?
Mr. Raser: Right next door ,
Conrad: Do you think it's going to be a negative impact? It's not goin•
I to be a great use but do au think it's going to be a negative impact?
i
Mrs. Raser: We don't kn.w. There's enough traffic out there right now
as it is. We get an aw ' ul lot of traffic.
Mr. Raser: 'that is agricultural land there and that's wha .
' people are buying their homes.
Mrs. Raser : There was a time when Dale Wanaker had a business out ther :
and they closed him out.
Emmings moved, Si:gel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion) carried.
1 �
Conrad: A lit e bit of background. She operated the bookstore in to n.
In essence, .s she been evicted because of the downtown redevelopment?
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23 , 1987 - Page 2 II
Dacy: That's correct. The City had a lease with her to operate the
bookstore out of the old town hall. She was given notice as required bil
the lease. She had been looking elsewhere and no longer in Chanhassen
because commercial rent rates in a retail center is fairly expensive
compared to the size of her operation. So she's continuing to look in
Excelsior and other areas but in the meantime needed a temporary permit.
Conrad : So we don' t know how temporary it is .
Dacy: She has indicated up to a year and I also I
City policy has been not to approve anything beyond a a year's her that past
9 year's time. I
Conrad: So Barbara you do not feel that the circumstances of her lease
not being renewed because of the downtown redevelopment, are extenuating
circumstances that would fit into the accepted means for granting her a
conditional use?
Dacy: I may have my own personal opinions. As a planner, I've got to
interpret the ordinance and be objective with every case. There may be '
another case within the next month that wants a temporary use.
Conrad: But because she was in a circumtance because of our downtown '
redevelopment, that doesn't sway you at all in this?
Dacy: I can't make a recommendation based on those facts. I have to
make a recommendation based on what the ordinance says and the legal '
implications to the City for granting a temporary conditional use.
Emmings: I basically agree with the Staff's position on this. I feel II
there shouldn't be a bookstore in a private home. I don't have any idea
what temporary means and I don' t think we should allow it even on a
temporary basis. I guess if they told us they had a lease but they II couldn't get into the store and they knew they were going to be able to
get in 6 weeks or something, than I would look at it differently but it
doesn't even sound all that, it sounds like it's entirely possible they
won't find a place to rent and we may see this thing there for a long II
time. The other thing that kind of interested me is the fact that she
apparently sells some kind of materials for people who are active in AA
and is the only source of those materials locally and I wanted to ask
II
what part of their business that was but they're not here to answer those
questions. In light of that, I guess I'm just opposed to it.
Siegel: I don't feel that we should do anything out of the ordinary as II
far as a conditional use permit in this case either but I don't know if
we should react by removing the provision from the zoning ordinance. The
provision for temporary conditional use permits I gather were taken for
legitimate reasons and included in there are zoning ordinance for such
things like Christmas tree lots and seasonal type operations where they
require a temporary conditional use permit. I don't think we should II eliminate that kind of opportunity because I don't see that in the same
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23 , 1987 - Page 3
light as this kind of an application but otherwise I agree with the staff
report.
Headla: I'm sure glad I'm not a business person in this town. We've got
some cold blooded people here. I kind of like the wording of the
temporary conditional use permit. It leaves some human factor and a
place to talk about it. We evicted this person, pulled out their lease.
Dacy: If you could avoid the term evicted. It sounds so cold and
impersonal but we had a lease agreement so both parties understood what
was going to happen.
Headla: Apparently we had a viable business person in this town, the
lease ran out and now we're in a position we don't want to do anything to
help. Saying black is black and white is white. I think it can be more
than that. ..give them an easy turn them around and that motorhome, I'm
glad to see some kind of, I was hoping the other person would be here.
I'm torn now with those types of arguments because the safety factor is
so important. I don't know which way I'd vote right now. Do you have
any idea how much traffic goes in there now, of that store?
Dacy: Based on the information that she relayed to me, for a period
potentially I think she said 1 or 2 cars every hour. It is a low
intensity operation but we had to address a larger issue.
' Headla : I can see where you' re coming from with that recommendation.
Siegel : Didn't her business exist before she located in the old town
hall?
Dacy: I think that's correct. I do not know where she was located prior
to that however.
Siegel : She entered that agreement knowing that was a redevelopment area
and that location was going to be used for historical purposes so she
knew it was a temporary situation when she did the lease so it's not like
she didn't have an opportunity to look for other places to locate during
the interim. I don't see it as a cold blooded act. She knew that the
' redevelopment was going to occur eventually and in the near future when
she moved in.
Headla : Do we have any idea what would happen to the services they
render if she can't operate out of her home for a while?
Dacy: I understand that she's continuing her search to locate in some
' other community. I only have to assume that she would have to
discontinue that until she could find another place.
Emmings : Could she do it by mail?
1
r
k ' I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23 , 1987 - Page 4 - 1
Dacy: Probably not but again, the Chanhassen situation we've got a lot
of commercial development coming in. We approved two commercial strip II
centers and the one over at the Q-Superette but unfortunately those are
high rent in the commercial centers for the size of her operation so we
did try and work with her to say well , you could try this place, this
place and this place but the economics and the market downtown now can't
accomodate her.
Headla : If we were to approve something for like 3 to 6 months , would II
there be a problem with terminating that?
Dacy: The advantages of that would be that you would allow her to
continue for a limited amount of time. The disadvantage would be that
there is always that potential of asking for an extension and I guess you
run that risk with every time period that you establish. 1
Headla: I guess I'd like to see them have it for like 3 months only
because they do serve a useful purpose to the community and if you make
it 3 months, that's a big red flag that they've got to get out there and
hussle and get something lined up. Anything beyond that, they can kind
of sit back and bring business in there and inconvenience the neighbors
which we shouldn't be doing. I
Conrad: I don't agree that we should allow the conditional use. I think
simply the proximity to the neighbors with a retail operation overshadow
any kind of obligation to keep her in business. I think in this
particular circumstance, if the circumstances were different and maybe
even if they were here , there might be more information for me to
incorporate in my thinking but right now, I think because of her close II
proximity to the neighbors, her potential hours of operation for a retail
use, I don't think that's appropriate in this particular district. In
terms of what legal counsel has directed, I guess I'm kind of naive in
understanding the legal implications of the variance or the conditional
uses. It seems to me to be a way that we can review certain uses on a
situation by situation approach and I guess I'm not sure I want to give
that up at this point in time but I don't understand the State Statute
that we're operating under and therefore if it's totally out of order, I
guess we should get rid of that but in terms of Bob is saying , those_
conditional uses make sense and therefore I don't t know that I wou d tike ,
to see this conditional use struck from our ordinance. Maybe we should
take, Steve you've got a little bit of insight on the legal aspects of
this, what do you think? ,
Emmings : It doesn' t seem to me whether or not we keep that in our
ordinance is in front of us anyway, is it?
Conrad : No . It ' s what we recommend the staff to do .
Emmings: I agree with Bob but I think, looking at what the Attorney's
written here, that once you grant a temporary permit an applicant can
then argue that the time limitation is prohibited by State Statute. Then
r
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23 , 1987 - Page 5
they have the right to continue indefinitely and now you've got a real
' battle on your hands because now you've got to say, okay then we really
can't issue these temporary permits at all.
' Conrad: Because they' re not temporary.
Emmings: Now you've got for sure you're going to go to court and that I
' don't think we want that. An easy way to avoid that, this thing
conflicts with the use in that area and that's enough for me. If they
had some concrete plan. I guess what bothers me is I don't see anything
concrete from them that they plan to have this really be a temporary
' duration. It looks to me like it's a very marginal business, and that's
not for me to judge but it's such a marginal business that they can't
afford to pay rent out of what they make out of the business. Well, once
' I see that it conflicts with the zoning in the area, I don't think I've
got any choice. It's not like Christmas trees. I think the Christmas
tree example is a good one. There you know they're not going to want to
be selling Christmas trees in January. You know it's going to have a
' life of it's own if you can reasonably put a two week limitation on it or
month or whatever but this isn't the same character to me.
' Dacy: Maybe the suggestion is staff can work with the Attorney, maybe
the proper vehicle is a conditional use permit. Maybe there's some other
vehicle to allow for the types of uses that he listed tonight but again,
yes you're right, that's really not the issue.
Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
deny the request for a temporary Conditional Use Permit #87-16 based on
the Attorney's opinion. All voted in favor except Headla who opposed the
motion and motion carried.
Headla: I think with a small business we should extend it for a maximum
of 3 months.
Conrad: Barbara, in terms of the ordinance, the temporary conditional
use permit, I guess I would like Staff to review it further and bring it
back to us for modifications, alterations or elimination.
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE (ARTICLE 9, SECTION 7 (1) }
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENTRANCE GATEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
' SOUTH SIDE OF WEST 78TH STREET (ST. HUBERT'S CEMETARY) AND ZONED OI,
OFFICE INDUSTRIAL, ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH.
Public Present:
' Harold Kerber Representing Applicant
Charlie Combs Applicant ' s Architect
' Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this item.
' 1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23, 1987 - Page 6 '
Conrad: Before we open it up for public comment, a ground low profile
business sign is what?
Dacy: That is a sign that is directly attached to the ground and is no
taller than 5 feet and no larger than 24 square feet in area. An exampl'
would be, for example I think the Redman Project sign is integrated into
the ground area. The Chanhassen Office Complex sign right next to TH 5.
Conrad: And this one would fail that requirement because it's more than
5 feet high?
Dacy: And if you look at the definition of a sign in the ordinance it I
says pole structures. We look at that and said it is not a ground
profile sign, it is an elevated sign. That's the issue. I know it isn't
a crucial planning item. '
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Headla : I agree with the Staff ' s recommendations .
Siegel: Maybe just some general informational comments that I would likil
to have for my own knowledge. That's a very small cemetary with limited
capacity and no area for growth, what is the capacity of it now and what
is the potential?
Harold Kerber: It's hard to say. There's still a lot of room toward the
highway, about 100 feet yet that could be used.
Siegel : Towards TH 5?
Harold Kerber : Yes .
Siegel : I guess that's one of the questions I have about that property
is don't you know the status of that right-of-way? Does that get into
any kind of right-of-way situation with the railroad? '
Harold Kerber : Towards the back , no . We ' re talking about the front.
Siegel : But what is the capacity of that area for a cemetary?
Harold Kerber: Right now there's still 160 lots available. Eventually
we'll need more land or go to the front. Is that going to be commercial '
land of can it be used for cemetary?
Siegel : I guess my opinion would be that there would be no available '
land for extension of the cemetary.
Harold Kerber : We couldn ' t come around towards the railroad?
Siegel : I don ' t know. Barbara , do you know?
1
i
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23 , 1987 - Page 7
' Dacy: You could occupy the land that you own between West 78th Street
and the railroad. That's your land. If they wanted to expand the
cemetary, that's fine.
Siegel : Is it owned for cemetary purposes?
Dacy: Yes .
tSiegel : And how much land are you talking about?
Harold Kerber: About 4 acres .
Dacy: That sounds fairly accurate but it's zoned office instituational.
' Siegel: I have .a concern here, if that were to become a cemetary today,
it wouldn't be. If they came in with a proposal to make a cemetary at
that location, it probably wouldn't be granted because of the nature of
the business industrial complex so I'm wondering whether this is sort of
converging the potential growth of it in an area that is really not going
to be suitable for a cemetary location.
' Harold Kerber : It' s about 2 1/2 acres of land .
Siegel : And there's about 160 available plots left in the existing
' area?
Harold Kerber : . . . they' re already plotted out.
' Dacy: It's under the St. Hubert's Church ownership now. They can
continue to locate more plots within that area. We looked at this
request merely saying we want an entrance into that area and this is for
that particular structure.
Siegel : Does this structure go around the cemetary or is just fronting
' on West 78th Street?
Dacy: It's just fronting on West 78th Street and will be located 10
feet behind the property line.
' Harold Kerber: Also on TH 101. The cemetary also goes all the way to
TH 101. y
' Dacy: I'm sorry, when I said West 78th street, I meant TH 101. It's
the north side of the property. It will be located along West 78th
Street which on that part is TH 101.
' Siegel : The question of the poles, I think it's a o.od ide a
and have it fenced very nicely as they have done here but I question
it
' whether it might be, with the pole going up, how many feet?
Dacy: About 15.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23 , 1987 - Page 8 '
Siegel: I guess from my own personal standpoint, I don't see that as a
real attractive thing to put in there with poles and that kind of thing
due to the fact that it's very close to our downtown bar district with
the very possibility of vandalism and that kind of thing occuring to it
on a regular basis. I'm thinking of, generally you think of wrought
iron or something like that having a lot more stability especially in a II
public area. Usually they put up wrought iron in rural areas for
stability purposes. I just question whether the pole will have a
lasting effect and whether there might be problems with it from a
vandalism standpoint.
Harold Kerber : There are going to be rock walls. '
Siegel : But it ' s going to be a wood structure, super structure right?
Harold Kerber : The poles are. . .
Siegel : I'm not questioning the wall, I'm questioning the pole that
will be erected from the wall and that entrance there and the fact that II
it is in a real public area. It's not like it's situated out in
farmland so there's going to be a lot of access to it from everything
from juveniles to . . . 1
Harold Kerber : Access to the cemetary you mean?
Siegel: You're in a downtown area so you're going to have Pauly's and
the Riveria and the other bars are right across the street and they're
going to be there I guess and stay there.
Harold Kerber : We ' ve got signs across the street of wood structure.
Siegel : And you haven ' t had any problem with that? '
Harold Kerber : No .
Siegel : That' s all I have.
Emmings: I like the plan. I think it's very appropriate. I think it's
got a certain character to it that's appropriate to where it is as part
of the downtown redevelopment. I think it all fits very nicely and I'm
all for allowing it. I guess my only hang-up is how to do it for other
ones that come along. Rather than granting a variance, and I think it's
very easy to do that because it is and it isn' t. It' s very easy to
distinguish this from the other things that we see in the industrial
office area down there and I don' t have any problem with that but that
makes me think we ought to set it in a separate category because it
really isn't a hardship situation so I don't like granting a variance
for that reason but I 'm not real happy with this language and I feel we
almost ought to deal with cemetarys maybe at some future meeting. The
things I see, this sign that they've got, it's got a little
inspirational message on it and that's fine. We wouldn't want to see
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23 , 1987 - Page 9
some kind of promotional message up there and I don't know exactly what
that means. It's hard to imagine somebody putting a sign on a cemetary
that's going to wind up being offensive to me but it's possible. We've
seen a lot of weird things. We see a lot of weird things here and you
' start thinking are they going to light it or are they going to put signs
up with lights or light it some way, we may want to have control that
way. I feel almost it's more like a conditional use type of a thing
' where, if we could just take a look at each one individually and say
yes or no but as a matter of general intent, say they ought to be
allowed to have a sign of this kind, whatever that means. So I guess
those are my concerns. I would be willing to allow this one to go
forward but I guess we ought to maybe have an ordinance amendment
brought back to us as a separate topic and I guess I'd like to look at
it as a conditional use.
' Conrad : The top of the sign is something made out of wood?
Dacy: That' s correct.
Conrad: And the message is carved in the wood? To ou knowledge,Y no ledge, it s
a timber. . .
' Harold Kerber : It ' s 10 x 10 or 8 x 8 .
' Conrad : It ' s 2 x 12.
Dacy: And 3 x 12 posts .
' Conrad : What does 3 inch by 12 inch mean?
Dacy: The person who designed this has now arrived .
' Charlie Hoops: If you guys have any questions, my name is Charlie
Hoops , I 'm a parishioner over there .
Conrad: We're dialoguing about the request and just for information
clarification, what you've designed, the posts you've got going up, the
diagram I ' ve got says 3 inch by 12 inch posts . What does that mean?
' Charlie Hoops: 3 inches thick just to give it enough stability to
actually the cross member on top so roughly 12 inches wide with 3 inches
' thick going up to hold the horizontal member. The Father was looking
for something that was just kind of rustic in nature that he thought
would fit in with the old church .
' Conrad : And the top part is made out of what?
Charlie Hoops : Timber also.
Conrad : And the message is carved in?
, _ T i
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23 , 1987 - Page 10 '
Charlie Hoops : Routed in, that's correct so it really wouldn't stand
out. It basically would be something that if we put a brown stain on II
it might darken out where the letters are so it's just got a brown
to dark brown tone. Something that's not going to really stand out
or something ' s that you' ll notice if you stand close to it and it. . . ,
Conrad: I like the fencing portion of this. A gate type structure. I
think that's nice. The entryway itself, I guess I'm with Bob, I kind of
like wrought iron and whatever but I think here I just don't want it to II
be something that's going to detract from the area and I guess my sense
is it's not going to detract from the area. Therefore, I think we
should be granting this. I'm interested in Steve's comments in terms o f
how we treat these in the future. Barbara, what do you think about a
conditional use?
Dacy: I think that' s a good idea .
Conrad: That makes sense to me.
Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve the Sign Variance Request #87-6 based on the plan submitted in
Attachment #1. All voted in favor and motion carried . '
Conrad: As a footnote to that, if Staff could bring back to us their
recommendation as to how we can control the cemetary use of signage
through the use of a conditional use permit.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A 180 FOOT RADIO I
TOWER ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED SOUTH OF
CR 14 (PIONEER TRAIL) AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD
TRACKS NEAR THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN CHANHASSEN AND EDEN PRAIRIE, D & L
SPECIALITIES . — —
Public Present:
Mr . and Mrs . Dave Schmidtke Applicant
Mrs. Robert Tischleder 185 Pioneer Trail
Jo Ann Olsen
presented the staff report on this item.
Dave Schmidtke: I guess it was pretty well lined out in the t
staff
report . If there are any questions .
Conrad : So nothing to add to the staff report?
Dave Schmidtke : No, it covers everything . '
Mrs. Tischleder: You say there ' s a road going in on the corner?
r
4
I .
Planning Commission n Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 29
I 4:
Erhart: Yes. Because they came out and did that sight improvement
I right outside Chanhassen Hills and all of a sudden, they never had any
money for TH 101 and all of a sudden they do.
IDacy: It' s the developers .
Erhart: I don't know. Somehow he feels with some appropriate pressure
right now that he can get some funds.
ISiegel : We might as well try it. You've got to remember that TH 101
doesn't go through Chaska so it's a single community effort within this
Ijurisdiction.
Erhart: Anyway he's the Carver County Commissioner and if we could
Ijust get a resolution, let' s do it.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - GENERAL DISCUSSION.
IConrad: Basically what staff would like on these items is our opinions
and then some direction as to, do we proceed? How do we proceed from
Ihere? Why don't we take them one at a time.
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on the 150 foot lot depth
requirement.
IEmmings: I mentioned last time I thought that as the lot widths
increase, and I thought maybe the sideyard setbacks ought to be
I increased or there ought to be some attempt to center that. I guess
what I had in mind what someplace, if you've got a development in and
if you've got 175 foot wide lots or 150 foot wide lots or something
I like that, somehow it seems that if there's a house built here and
you've got an open lot for that house to come in and build within 10
feet of that lot line and decides to leave the other side of his lot
completely open doesn ' t seem fair to that neighbor .
IWildermuth: It depends on what he does with it though. If he builds a
tennis court over there or something like that , swimming pool .
IEmmings: I guess what I'm thinking about is if I'm the neighbor that's
living here, if we all have nice wide lots and he comes in and decides
I for whatever reason he wants his house as close to mine as he can get
it, I'm not going to be very happy about that. I'm not going to happen
to look at that. Now the neighbor on the other side may be just as
happy as can be but I'm not going to be too happy. It seems to me that
Imaybe there ought to be some kind of a sliding scale so that if you're
making the lots wider to try and give it a kind of a look so the houses
area little further apart, why let this guy build all the way over
next to the lot line within 10 feet of it so maybe if you have, I don't
know. Maybe if you have 100 foot lot, maybe you leave them at 10. If
you have 150, maybe you increase it to 15. Just a little bit more just
1
'I
I Anortatoegr, ,,
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 30
I
to provide more of a buffer to the people who are already there.
Siegel : Do we have a lot width requirement?
Dacy: Yes , it' s 90 feet. 1
Siegel : 90 feet so you' re not suggesting that we change that?
Dacy: No. Lot width is later on. 1
Siegel : How does that affect the strange shaped lot where we grant a
variance because of the shape of the lot. We just created a 50 foot ,
entryway to a 25, 000 square foot lot. You know what I 'm talking about?
Dacy: You mean a flag lot? '
Siegel : Where you just have enough room for a driveway to get into a
lot.
Dacy: If it's going to be that large, I'm sure that the depth is going
to be well in excess because the throat of that lot, the 50 foot strip
is going to have to open out into a larger area for their flag portion
if it's 25,000 square feet and that would certainly I would think would
be excess of 150 feet. Is that what you ' re asking?
Siegel: No, well I'm asking about it in the context of a subdivision. '
If it's obviously going to affect the two lots on either two sides of
this entranceway and the configuration of those lots. In other words,
we might have two 90 foot and a 40 foot entryway to a larger lot behind
it. Obviously the lot depth would be measured from where? The roadway
or the back of that lot back in the back corner?
Dacy: The ordinance defines lot depth as the average distance between
the front property line abutting the public right-of-way back to the
rear property line.
Siegel : So his depth would be from the road then to the back of his
lot?
Dacy: Right. We're going to be talking about flag lots and the
problems that they pose a little bit later .
Headla: Steve's got a point there. I'll give you a first hand example '
of that. Here's my property and the neighbors property goes like
this. They put up a barn, and we're talking just imaginery but this
thing is like 120 by 60 and we're 10 feet away from the line. If you
look at the watershed coming off of there and the snow and my fence
line is right on the line, it used to be the fence is down, it raises
havoc with the trees. It just doesn't seem right that they should be
able to put a building like that. If they were within the laws, I
think we should control something like that and when you mentioned a
II
ir IC (
Planning Commission Meeting
ii October 28 , 1987 - Page 31
sliding scale, I think that' s very appropriate.
IDacy: I hate to do this sometimes but when I worked in Florida we did
have an ordinance provision for sideyard setbacks. If a lot width
Iexceeded 100 feet then the side setback would be 10% of the lot width
but at minimum you had to have 8 feet as a side setback. I think that
gets at what you're trying to do however there are two cautionary
I points that I want to throw on that. One is from an enforcement
standpoint. It poses problems because it was one of those details that
got lost in the process in the number of building permits every month
to be looking at 10% of the 110.9 feet is 10.1 so they've got to have
I 10 feet on either side of the lot. The second comment that I would
have is if you do have 110 or 120 foot wide lot, you would have a
buildable area width of 100 feet and I'm sure there's going to be some
I isolated cases that some people are going to cramp all to one side. I
think the norm is that people tend to center their homes on the lot.
So there is a mechanism to do it. From a staff's standpoint we're kind
of leary because of enforcement and monitoring aspect. That issue
Icomes up on another item that we ' re discussing.
Emmings: I guess my reaction is enforcement is a totally separate
Iquestion. My notion is if that's what people will do anyway, then it
will never be an issue and we don't have to worry about it but if it's
A, there, then you protect. In that one case where the guy comes in and
is going to be abusive, you've got a reason, something to point at to
I say no you can ' t do that .
Conrad: I don't know what abuse is. I'm having a tough time with
I that. I really understand what you're saying but if we have a sideyard
setback of 10 feet and somebody meets that , we obviously feel that 10
feet is not an abuse of the neighbors property regardless of if the
Iother side is 90 feet and this side is 10, it's still by ordinance we
felt that it's good enough for everybody in the community. Somebody
gets the advantage of having 90 feet of sideyard but still the
Iordinance has protected you by the 10 feet.
Headla: I think you're trying to measure something in strictly
absolute terms without stepping back and looking at the overall
Ipicture. My situation there, they've got about 500 feet, they're
probably within 10 feet.
IConrad: I would just hate to get into ratios and stuff like that. It
seems real arbitrary.
Emmings: You're saying arbitrary and you've got a 10 foot sideyard
Isetback now and you tell me what great compelling logic that made that
anything but arbitrary.
ILConrad: Let's do a couple things. Let's sort of take a straw poll
here in terms of should we have staff proceed in allowing the depth to
change from our current ordinance? Yea or nay on that?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 32
C
Erhart: We' re talking about 125 anyway?
Emmings: To whatever they want as long as they meet 15,000 square
feet.
Dacy: No , we' re saying a minimum of 125 feet.
Erhart: I 'm in favor of that.
Emmings: Yes .
Siegel : Yes . '
Conrad : Me too .
Wildermuth: We felt at the time when this ordinance was put into
place that there was a value to having a deep lot along with the
minimum of 15,000 square foot lots. I don't think we've tested it
enough, given it a fair shot to change it now. Maybe 6 months from now
or 4 or 5 subdivisions from now if it turns out to be an issue in every
one, that the variances are coming at us from right and left on every
one, then yes I think we better listen to what ' s going on. '
Headla: I'll go for 125 based on what Mark Koegler said last time. It
certainly would make his planning a whole lot easier.
Conrad: It looks like consensus is to go ahead and draft somethin g and
pass it by the City Council. Jim, my only thought is, I hear you and I
think that's valid yet on the other hand, when you think about a
physical look of a neighborhood, when you pack the houses together and
they're only 20 feet apart, to me that looks crammed regardless of how
deep the rearyard is so I think Council was talking about give people
open space in their rearyards but I think there's also something to the
appearance. I think the flexibility to allow developers to use the
land a little bit easier. So, it's a yea on that one. In terms of the
scaled ratio, that seems real complicated to me but Tim, would you like
to have staff work on some kind of a way to move that setback?
Erhart: Nay.
Emmings: Yea .
Siegel : Yea. '
Wildermuth : I don' t care.
Headla: Yea .
Conrad: And I'm a nay so we have two nays and three yeses and a I
r don't care so why don't you draft something that might seem easy to
. implement .
t
1 t
Planning Commission Meeting
ICOctober 28 , 1987 - Page 33
Fence Ordinance.
IOlsen : Pretty much all we did was just to add into the fence section
of the ordinance to say that the use of barbed wire fence is
Iprohibited .
Conrad : How do you feel about that Dave?
IHeadla: Now that' s any fence, barbwire that' s in place now is okay?
Olsen: Right it would probably be grandfathered in.
IErhart: We're talking about no barbwire in the residential areas?
We're not talking about agricultural? We're not talking about fences
Iused for horses in agricultural areas?
Olsen : It' s not in the agricultural . In the residential area.
IHeadla: Where do you draw the line there? The people where we were
all classified agricultural tax wise but you've got us listed as
residential .
1 Olsen : You' re zoned residential .
Wildermuth: What about industrial where you've got a cyclone fence
with a strand of barbwire? I think we should take a look at it.
Olsen : It ' s not permitted right now anyway.
IWildermuth: I think we should take a look at it because we may get
some kind of a business in town that has a very high security
Irequirement and we ought to do something about it.
Emmings: I didn't understand the language of the proposal because I
understand what you're proposing. You say the use of barbed wire
Ifences is prohibited in the residential districts for any use other
than agricultural purposes. What would it be permitted for?
I Olsen: It could be used for agricultural purposes in the agricultural
district.
IEmmings: No, that ' s not what that says though.
Erhart: Yes, you need to go back and focus on that. It's really
confusing .
IHeadla : Steve, if I put cattle on my property, I interpret that as I
can put up a barbwire fence.
ILEmmings : Can you have cattle anyplace that ' s zoned residential .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1987 - Page 34
C
Headla: I 'm agricultural .
Erhart : No, it says residential . The language is confusing .
Olsen: No you' re not agricultural . You' re zoned residential .
Headla : My tax says I 'm agriculture.
Olsen: We want to make it clear that in the agricultural district, in
the A-2 and unsewered areas where agriculture is a permitted use, there
barbwire fences are permitted. In the single family districts where
it' s not agricultural , it' s not a permitted use.
Emmings: Are you saying that barbwire fence will be prohibited in
residential districts period? Then you need a period and you need to
delete the rest of that sentence. Then it says it can be used in the
agricultural area and I guess it already says it, barbwire fences are
permitted in the agricultural district when used for agricultural
purposes and I was just wondering if we ought to put in there or just
put in, for active agricultural purposes or uses. The thought being
that we would then have a way to go. I take it people don't like
barbwire and my thought was , if somebody wants to have, what do you use
barbwire for? It's always for cattle and horses? Alright, so if
they're going to have that use in the agricultural area, that's fine
but let's make it almost like a conditional use in the sense that as
long as you're using it for cattle fine but if you're going to quit
using it for cattle, you ought to take that barbwire out of there. Are
we that much opposed to barbwire that we'd like to do something like
that? I personally have no feelings about it one way or the other .
Erhart: I agree with Dave. When you get into the residential area
I'm opposed to it but there's an advantage in the rural area even if
you have horses because for the money constraints you've got, you can
provide a lot bigger area for your horses for a lot less money spent on
a fence. There's a real advantage to it. I think I'd be careful 111 wording it so it doesn't get interpretted later that horses are not
agricultural therefore it' s not useable on horses .
Siegel: Does this anticipated change affect any existing stables in '
the residential area? I can think of one. Those horse stables over
there on CR 17. Right up by Shorewood .
Conrad: Pat Jensen?
•
Siegel : Pat Jensen Stables .
Conrad: She' s gone. Moved out west.
Siegel : They will be informed of the change or will they be '
grandfathered in if they are barbwire?
I ' C
Planning Commission Meeting
IOctober 28 , 1987 - Page 35
IOlsen : They would be grandfathered in .
Siegel: In a situation like that, would we inform them anyway just so
they might do it out of their own goodwill?
IOlsen: What we'll do is just send them a notice to all people with
horses .
IIConrad : Jim, your concern?
Wildermuth: What about a company coming into Chan Lakes Industrial
IPark. Let's say they process precious metals or something and they've
got to put up a cyclone fence stranded with barbwire on top of the
fence. Are you going to tell them they can' t do that?
1 Olsen: It does specify what kind of fences can be used in the
industrial park.
IIDacy: It's prohibited in residential and commercial and industrial
districts. The use of barbwire fence is prohibited in the commercial
and industrial areas .
IWildermuth: That's not what I would like to see. I would like to see
it optional for your industrial area for example. You may want to put
a minimum height.
I Conrad : That would robabl
p y be a good way to do it .
I Olsen: We've got a maximum of 8 feet in the commercial. Anything over
that has to get a conditional use permit.
I Headla: If we left it as you suggested, no barbwire fencing, could a
conditional use permit allow them to put barbwire at the 8 foot level?
I Olsen: Not with that language. You need to tell us what you want for
commercial and industrial. They are allowed to go to 8 feet or
barbwire may be considered in commercial and industrial areas through a
conditional use permit.
IHeadla: Maybe that' s a good way to do it.
IWildermuth : I think that ' s good to do it as a conditional use permit.
Siegel: Have we addressed the fencing requirements in commercial and
II industrial districts within the context of the fence ordinance?
Dacy: Yes.
111 I ACCESSORY BUILDINGS .
II(
\,Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on Accessory Buildings .
II
II
C II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 36 1
C
Erhart: I like the concept and I think I was the one that started out
with this thing. I think it's a good approach. I would just question
the example where someone comes in wanting, he's in a residential area
and owns a big lot and wants to build a four stall detached garage with
cedar shake roof and it's beautiful. He's going to spend $30,000.00 on
this garage and I think we need to accomodate that guy. I'd like to
see us raise the 850 to 1,400 but limit the height or whatever way you
define the difference between a steel barn in a residential area and a
beautiful detached garage. That ' s the only concern I have.
Emmings: I don't know how you're going to do that because if you allow
the size, I think what the person chooses to build it out of, you
aren' t going to be able to regulate that.
Erhart: Can't you make aesthetically similar to the main structure on
the house? I should say architecturally similar to the primary
structure.
Emmings : I actually went through the same process. I thought a 3 car i
garage is very common today. I thought about building one and it's 22
by 36, which isn't far from the standard size, that's 792 square feet
so that fell within the 800 so I was kind of comfortable with the 800
myself but I agree with you, if somebody wanted it to be a four car
garage and they were going to do a nice job, I really wouldn't have any
)bjections to that. I don't know how you can draw that line in
language in there. If they can think of someway to do it, that would
be fine.
Erhart: I think any number, 800 or 1,400 is going to eliminate the 1
problem we had with the 50 foot by 30 foot or how big was that barn?
Headla: That was like 100 by 50 that he wanted to put in. That's the
one you really want to stay low. The height is a clear way to
eliminate that one.
Erhart: Even 50 by 30, that's like a small Menard's steel shed. '
What' s that size? 50 by 30 so that' s 1, 500 square feet.
Emmings : If we can get away with saying that it will be '
architecturally consistent with the principal use, that would be nice.
Headla: You're talking about these low sheet metal buildings and low
barns , they' re all portable.
Erhart: I would think that 800 and 1,400, anywhere in that range would
serve to cover that 30%.
Emmings: What kind of a height minimum would help to get rid of these
metal barns? I
I
I C C
Planning Commission Meeting
I October 28, 1987 - Page 37
Headla : What I was thinking , the only time people put up those
I
buidings like that, they like to hide for dump trucks coming in,
construction trucks. Like on mine, I have a 12 foot opening and that's
mandatory for good sized equipment but if you limit it to 20 feet,
IIyou' re going to knock out the sheet metal buildings.
Erhart: And yet you could still put a nice 3 car garage with a 20 feet
Iceiling I would think.
Headla : I look at the height of my house, it isn ' t that high.
I Siegel: How many square feet existed in that infamous St. Louis Park
treehouse? Probably 800 to 900 square feet? Okay, we better consider
some types of these kinds of things. You're talking about the barn
I type of house structure and you're talking about height and square
footage here.
Erhart: At 1,400 square feet?
I
Siegel: No, you're talking about you're trying to restrict that kind
of structure in size in relationship to the rear lot. But the rear lot
I may not be dimensional a part of a person's plan for detached accessory
structure.
IErhart: I thought we were talking about limiting height to 20 feet
period.
Siegel : That means no building could be taller than 20 feet? I don't
I know if Igo along with that for every application in the world. I can
see your point and what you're trying to achieve but I can see some
structures coming in here for permits, especially for the larger pieces
Iof property. I 'm talking about a detached building on the lot .
Erhart: In the first place the ordinance doesn't allow detached
garages .
I
Dacy: No, it says if you have a certain style house you have to attach
your garage but you can have detached garages.
IErhart: I agree that we should allow detached garages .
' Siegel: We already have. There have been people in here asking for
permits for detached garages .
Dacy: Weren't you saying, we're talking specifically about the
Irearyard area and somebody is going to build a four car garage, it's
going to be detached, it's going to be fairly close from the side or
the rear of the lot.
ILErhart: So we don't get into problems with horses, I think you should
cake out the rearyard and just call it accessory buildings.
I
II
:a
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 38
C
Dacy: I think the original intent of this was if somebody had the
Sears buildings that it could be placed as near as 5 feet to the rear
lot line but yet we wanted to put some type of area.
Erhart: But then this guy with a 5 acre lot can walk in and put a barn '
in front of his house and say it's not in the rearyard. When you get a
5 acre lot, it' s going to be difficult.
Headla : Tim has a point . '
Dacy: That's why we're proposing a 800 square foot maximum. Like the
lot on Highway 7, you're saying it's 5 acres but there was single
family lots in Shorewood and this area could be subdivided .
Erhart: I 'm just saying , don' t talk about rearyard at all .
Headla: The Lawson property, which is the front yard and rear yard?
You've got double fronted lots .
Olsen : The street frontage side of the lots are the frontyards.
Headla : Well , he's got two streets . '
Conrad : Where did the 5 come from? 5 feet from any rear lot line?
Olsen: That' s in the ordinance right now.
Conrad : That seems close to any lot line .
Wildermuth: It seems too close.
Conrad : It does and I don ' t like that.
Siegel: I don't see why you'd have a problem with that. Why do you
think somebody is going to build their house facing their yard to the
rear?
Conrad : It' s just 5 feet is this far .
Siegel : Yes but the other guy has 5 feet so you've got 10 feet.
Conrad : The water from the eaves of this barn or roof will hit the
neighbor ' s property.
Dacy: It was consistent with what the older ordinance also. The only
thing that was new in this was the 30% thing. Trying to establish a
maximum area.
Erhart: I think a lot of this accessory stuff, I think they're fairly I
common.
17 e-
Planning Commission Meeting
' October 28 , 1987 - Page 39
17
' Conrad: Accessory structures are garages right so garages are covered?
That's the typical accessory structure that we're talking about now.
Is that right?
IOlsen : Yes and the tool shed.
Conrad: So whatever, we have to make sure that whatever restrictions
are not really restricting a garage.
Siegel : That also says that provided no detached accessory structure
shall be placed nearer than 5 feet from any rear lot line. I've got
Ione that's closer than that. It's my pump house for the swimming pool
and it doesn't affect my neighbor at all. And I'm sure there are a lot
of people on smaller lots who are going to be faced with similar
II circumstances. If they put in any kind of detached accessory
structure. It doesn't say a garage. I guess that's where I'm having
problems with that because it says no detached accessory structure
because it covers too many possibilities or all the possibilities .
Emmings: Permitted accessory uses in RSF, there's garage, storage
building and there's a bunch of others. Also like a kennel. Those are
Ithe kinds of the things that are permitted .
Conrad: I originally didn't like the 800 feet thinking that they're
I ( jarages but I guess I 'm comfortable with the 800 and I could be
persuaded to go up from 800. I guess I'm not really concerned that it
fits the character. What I don't want to see is a humongous building
out of context in the residential area and I think it sure seems like,
whether it be 800 or 1,400, we'll probably rule that out so I don't
care which number we pick.
Emmings : What would be the sideyard setback on the accessory building?
10 feet?
' Conrad : So , who would like to go along with a larger than 800?
Erhart: I would. Is there a typical dimensions for a 3 stall detached
garage with a little workshop area at one end?
IEmmings: You've got 12 feet per stall, per car stall and then whatever
you want for your shop.
1 Erhart: How deep is it?
IEmmings : 20 is minimum and they are typically 22 or 24.
Erhart: That ' s 1, 056 feet.
Conrad : What should we do? Should we round it off to 1, 000? Should
we go up to 1, 200?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 40 '
C
Siegel : Why not leave it 30%?
Conrad: Let ' s leave it at 1, 000.
Emmings: Do people want that 30% referred to in there too? '
Conrad: I don't like the 30%. It's not meaningful to me at all and
that was my biggest problem with this whole deal. The 30% does not
mean anything to me.
Emmings: Out of 15,000 square foot lot, say half of it was your
backyard, is that reasonable? Do you think it would be half of it?
It certainly wouldn' t be bigger than that.
Erhart: So let's say you go down a lot, say you only have a quarter of
a backyard , is that reasonable and that ' s 1, 125 square feet.
Emmings : So we don ' t really need the 30%.
Dacy: It 's in there for smaller lots .
Erhart: What are our smallest lots? ,
Conrad : It' s 13,500.
Dacy: There are some existing lots that are 8,000 or 9,000 square '
feet.
Emmings : Maybe you ought to leave it in for a just in case.
1
Siegel: Yes, I'm really worried with setting any size on it. I'd
rather stick with a percentage. We've got too many different sizes of
lots to try and yield the maximum or even the minimum.
Erhart: But if you stick with this percentage and then some guy comes
over with 150 by 20 foot barn.
Conrad : The straight percentage doesn ' t work for me.
Olsen: I think the reason that we have that percentage is just for the
benefit of small lots that don ' t have 1, 000 foot .
Conrad: Okay, I buy that. Instead of the 800 we can out in the 1,000.
We can leave ' the 30% in controlling . . .
Olsen: Small lots . '
Conrad: Right and we'll up the 800 square feet to 1,000 and we'll
change the 5 feet from any rear lot line. Obviously I have no support
(for by change to 5 feet.
I
C 4
Planning Commission Meeting
IOctober 28 , 1987 - Page 41
Emmings: Change it to 10. I think it should be 10. Why not?
I Conrad: I think it should be too. If the side is 10.
IConrad: If the side is 10, why wouldn't the rear yard be 10? What do
you want to do. 10 or 5?
IEmmings: 10.
Siegel : 5.
IConrad : I say 10.
Siegel: I can envision a lot of situations in small lots where you're
Igoing to have problems with that kind of requirement. It's fine for
those that have 15,000 square foot lots and larger but you down to
those under that size and we're going to have a lot of people in here
I asking for variances on their rear lot line requirements for accessory
buildings.
Emmings: Especially where they're setting up these small metal sheds
Ithat you buy at the store.
Siegel: Even a gazebo in a corner of a lot. They're going to have to
I :ome in here because they can't put it 5 feet from the fence? Their
own fence because you' re going to make them put it 10 feet in?
Headla: But why should you put it so close to the lot line? That's
Iimposing on the neighbors .
Siegel : A gazebo is imposing on their neighbors? You're actually 20
Ifeet from them minimum.
Emmings: Why?
ISiegel : Because there would be 10 feet on their side.
Conrad: There's some validity in what Bob says in terms of those other
Ilittle structures. Let's take another vote? 5 or 10? 5's win.
TREATED WOOD.
Olsen: Basically what I said is let's not do anything right now until
we have all the information.
1 Conrad : Does anyone want to do anything right now?
Headla: Yes. I don't think we should allow treated wood in the ground
unless they show us that it's not harmful. I can come up with
something that can be very dangerous. I can stick it in the ground and
re have no way of controlling it .
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1987 - Page 42
1
C
Conrad: How do they show, they can't show right? They can't show that
it 's not dangerous .
Headla : I think it' s up to them to show that it' s not dangerous .
Olsen: I'm investigating having some tests done. They are sending me
some addresses of labs who can do tests .
Headla: Yes but I think the vendor or the manufacturer of that product '
should be doing the testing and pay for it. I don't think we should
spend one penny verifying that. I think it's up to the manufacturer to
verify that it is not dangerous. Like this wood, why can't we bury
that in the ground? That's prohibited. We have to haul it away.
That' s a situation I really get sqwimish .
Wildermuth: Rather than take this issue on ourselves, I think we ought
to be pressing for the EPA or some state agency to look into it.
Olsen: They have looked at it and concluded that . . .
Headla : Do they list it by product , the manufacturer?
Olsen: When we put a boardwalk in, we don't see the type of wood
that' s being used .
CHeadla: So somebody really can use just about any type of treated ,
wood?
Olsen: Right. It's all treated with three major chemicals that are '
used in the pressure treated woods and they have not found that they
are harmful .
Conrad : Are we talking about treated wood that is in the water? We're
not talking above ground , we' re talking about below ground?
Headla: That was my main concern where people wanted to put in '
boardwalks over wetlands with treated wood in the water .
Conrad: What is the alternative for treated wood? If we don't use
treated wood in the wetland . . .
Headla : Cedar poles , oak poles . They last what , 20 to 30 years .
Olsen: Or metal .
Conrad : Is that a hardship? 1
Wildermuth: More expensive.
Conrad: What typically are we talking about? Are we talking about
,oardwalks? That's what brought it on was boardwalks through wetlands.
1
I 47
Planning Commission Meeting p
October 28 , 1987 - Page 43
I
Wildermuth : Aren' t we just spinning our wheels if we . . .
Conrad: We can' t provide it' s harmful .
IWildermuth: We aren ' t going to be able to point to some State Statute.
Olsen: The EPA said they didn't specifically do, there are 1,000
different combinations.
Wildermuth: At this point all we can conclude is there no issue here.
I Headla: I disagree. I think we should say no treated wood in water
period. Are we going to get our backs against the wall by saying 5 or
10 feet clearance, no way.
ISiegel : How are you going to police that though?
Headla: I guess the same way you would police the 5 foot.
ISiegel : No but how are going to police it as a community? They can go
to Eden Prairie and buy their treated wood. You're talking about a
I bigger question than just what one municipality can do. I think it's
fine if we alert the concern, if we have one, to the Environmental
Protection Agency and maybe it already has been or others should voice
f 1 concern but why should Chanhassen not allow treated wood without the
'-capabilities of enforcing it?
Headla: I think you can enforce it. Just remember now we're only
Isaying like putting treated wood posts in the wetlands. When somebody
comes in to put a boardwalk over the wetlands, that's when we explain
to them that they can use treated wood as the actual walkway and
everything . You just can ' t put treated wood down into water .
ISiegel : That ' s for new construction?
IHeadla : Oh yes . That ' s all we could do.
Conrad : At what point in time would we have control on knowing if it
was treated wood or not?
I
Olsen : A lot of those docks we don ' t even know about .
IConrad: When would we have an opportunity to tell anybody that we
don ' t allow treated wood in the water?
IOlsen: Like a wetland alteration permit.
Conrad: Probably only in the wetland alteration permit process. We
say you can't do it. You've got to have a dock or you have to have a
Iboardwalk.
I
I
4
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 44
Siegel: Can we as a community dictate the materials used in such
construction?
Dacy: That was the issue that we were just discussing. If a national
agency and the State has not found whether or not it is harmful , for us
to have a basic ordinance or legal justification being reasonable and
so on, if that were challenged.
Emmings: Meaning the health, safety and public welfare, does it if
there' s not any proven harm?
Erhart: I think if some agency or some group came out, anybody, even
the University or a doctor came out and said treated wood is harmful in
water then I think we'd have an excellent, good reason to make this
ordinance. Whether or not we could enforce it. Just to make that
statement but the fact that no one , if we can't find some even semi-
official agency to do that.
Headla: What about that treated wood at a construction site? Why
can't they? Why can't we bury that right at the construction site?
Like right next to your house.
Erhart: You' re saying we can' t do that now? '
rieadla : Right .
Siegel : We can ' t?
Emmings: Who says? I'm not arguing with you, I just wonder where does
that come from?
Headla: I knew you were going to ask me that too when I started. I'm
going to have to look into it more.
Conrad: Here's what I'd like to do. Let's defer this issue Jo Ann at
least until Dave can find an agency or somebody saying it's negative or
let's look at it in 6 months. In the interim, if we can in the wetland
alteration permit process highly recommend that treated wood not be
used in contact with water, let's highly recommend it. I don't know
how you get that word out but in your contact with them , I think that
would be at least some temporary thing .
Olsen: It's a hot issue right now and I think it is being
investigated .
AMATEUR RADIO TOWERS . '
Olsen: I'm essentially saying let's limit it to one radio tower per
site.
•
1
I 4k.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 45
Emmi.ngs : I agree.
IConrad: I agree.
Erhart : I agree .
IHeadla: You can put many antennaes on one tower. I can put a whole
bundle I can p
bundle, put 20 to 30 square feet up on one tower and that's what
I that one fellow I think he was really angling to do that. I don't know
the right wording but I think this really doesn't cut it. I think
there's a good way, people can really be imposing on their neighbors if
Iwe word it this way.
Olsen: I looked at your concerns. It's really difficult to put all
your antennaes because they're so different and varying in sizes and
I sometimes you they are closed up and then they are extended when
they're used. That might be getting more into what the FCC is trying
to prevent the cities from doing and allowing them to at least
I communicate. When you're limiting them to that one tower, it may be
hard to come up with a maximum size but we can look into it.
Headla: I really think that's the way to go. Like 12 feet maximum
I area .
r ^.onrad: It's just all relative though Dave. It's like is a telephone
111, pole uglier if it's got 3 wires on it versus 2? The pole is intrusive
to begin with and that' s like 90o of the impact and the wire.
IHeadla: Some of those things get pretty obnoxious.
Conrad : I just don' t know how in the heck you can regulate that.
IHeadla: I don' t either.
Emmings : To me, isn' t is a separate thing maybe? One thing we ought
Ito do is regulate the number of towers and then maybe we want to go a
step beyond and regulate what's on it to the extent we're able to but
we don't know how to do that so at least this is taking the first step
Iin regulating the number of towers .
DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL.
IOlsen : The next one was from City Council , they wanted to have some
control over demolition debris disposal. I pretty much took a lot of
the data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Conrad: Yes, it sounded like it was exactly or the way I read it, so
what have we done? Why do we need this?
IOlsen: They don ' t regulate those .
t
I
Planning Commission Meeting
1
October 28, 1987 - Page 46
Conrad : Those are just recommendations?
Olsen: No, those are conditions if it 's 15,000 cubic yards of open.
Conrad : And we ' ve adapted it to a smaller space. Any comments?
Emmings: Yes, the key is the permit obviously so you know what's going
on where and you can regulate it. I think it looks fine.
ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIOR STANDARDS .
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on architectural exterior '
standards.
Erhart: It sounds good. I think the thing we have to think about is I
think people building industrial plants here are not willing to pay the
same kind of price as they would in Eden Prairie. It's just a thought.
I think it's a lot easier for us to price ourselves out of industrial
jobs. It's a lot easier for us to carried away with Eden Prairie
because Eden Prairie has such high minimums. I'm in favor.—that we
don't find ourselves in the position where we're adversely affected.
I'm just saying I don't think we have quite the luxury of Eden Prairie
to dictate some of these things .
f
Conrad: I think it' s okay. '
LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS ON CUL-DE-SACS AND FLAG LOTS . '
Barbara Dacy stated that she had a presentation that would easily take
half and hour and asked that this item be tabled until the next
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS FOR 1987 .
Conrad: Point number one on the goals, increase communication between
Planning Commission and public such as encouraging attendance by
reporters from local newspapers, regular articles. How are we doing
that? That' s the one I really wanted to focus on.
Olsen : We really didn ' t start doing much on that until recently. '
Conrad: What other things will encourage reporters from the paper
here? What' s the strategy and I guess I haven' t hit an objective?
Olsen: I think we just wanted to let people know about what was
happening before it gets to Council. When a subdivision was approved,
let it know that it is in the process.
li C
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1987 - Page 23
IC
because it just plain wouldn't get used. I think that's a good
Ialternative.
Noziska: Have you run some projections on that little sketching that
I you've got there as far as what that means to Chanhassen in the way of
taxes and etc.?
Tom Hamilton: The building would generate about $6,000.00. Just the
II one building we're looking at right now. If you increase the uses and
I haven't had a chance to talk to the assessors to find out what kind
of changes you would put on that property but it would increase the
I taxes. If I can get the information for you, I'll see if I can talk to
the assessor.
Noziska: All those sorts of things are important parts of
I consideration which obviously you have more knowledge of and
understanding .
IOPEN DISCUSSION: LOT WIDTH AND FLAG LOTS.
IIBarbara Dacy presented the staff report on lot widths.
Conrad : What do you think? Keep it the same?
I (1Noziska: It doesn't seem like there's any consistent guidance out
there. It's whatever anybody or any particular community feels is
right.
IConrad: I guess I just get the feeling we're not gaining anything by
changing the ordinance right now.
I Headla: To me we've had several situations where flag lots, it looks
liked it was very reasonable. I don't what else the developer could
have done.
IDacy: One example, or at least I felt that a flag lot was and a
variance was deserved was on the Shadowmere subdivision at the end of
I that cul-de-sac. They had kind of a hammerhead shaped cul-de-sac and
if they would have built the cul-de-sac and created the lot lines so
you could get the 90 feet across , it would have meant a retaining wall
of 22 feet in height and x amount of cutting and filling and so on but
I if they can achieve the same number of lots but do less damage to the
topography, and the topography I thought in that instance was the best
reason to do that. Other examples, there was controversy in the Creek
I Run subdivision on Yosemite and then we talked a lot about this in the
Centex and Curry Farms development. There are 2 or 3 flag lots along
the steep slopes and cul-de-sacs also. The Commission felt that in the
Creek Run example that it was pushing a line that he's trying to get an
I
additional lot out of there. I think the Council went along with that
(_ too .
I
liFilt-144627145-
47 47
Planning Commission Meeting
Npvember 4, 1987 - Page 24
Siegel : Barb, wouldn't you find if you had a standard arc width that
you would avoid some of those kind of things just because of the cost
of construction? They would have to be planned according to the
topograhy of the land and meet the requirements and we wouldn't have to
worry about variances for flag lots or that kind of thing. If you had
an equal distance arc around a cul-de-sac and wanted to open up them to
building odd shaped cul-de-sacs to take full advantage of every square
foot of land .
Dacy: To me that's another way of enforcing it. You can establish a
40 to 45 foot length along the arc or the curve of the cul-de-sac. You
would end up with a 80 foot lot width at the setback line. If you
increase that, then your lot width gets bigger. To me that's just
another way of saying you have to have 90 feet at the setback. Yes,
establishing a distance along the curve of the arc also would eliminate
the flag lot option because you're establishing a minimum width at the
cul-de-sac and not saying, you could go down to 15 feet and go back out
and at the building setback line I am at the 90 foot lot width. While
we' re talking about flag lots, should I move onto that? '
Conrad: We should make a decision on this while we're talking about
it. Is there any reason to change? Does anybody want to pursue that?
Okay, we ' ll keep it.
Dacy: We're glad we talked about it because a couple developers come
in and say this 90 foot thing at the building setback line is
ridiculous. You folks are too restrictive but after we called around
to other communities , we find that that ' s not the case.
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on flag lots . ,
Emmings: Do you have a minimum width?
Dacy: Technically right now we're just saying everything has to be 90
feet and you have to abut on the street. If you wanted to you could
put a sentence in the subdivision ordinance that said if a flag lot is
to be created it shall have a minimum width of x feet but I don't know
if you want to get that definitive at this point .
Emmings: The only thing is if you're looking at it as preserving your
space for future possible street. Is there anything in there about
flag lots now, in the zoning ordinance?
Dacy: No and not in the subdivision ordinance .
Emmings: The thing that comes to my mind , we can sure leave it the way
it is and the other thing we might do is just address flag lots in the
ordinance and say we don't like them for these reasons but we recognize
there are certain places where they might be appropriate as a variance
! and list those things. I think those are real good points that you
( .Wade there.
1
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
INovember 4, 1987 - Page 25
Noziska : So that wouldn ' t totally close the door but it would. . .
' Emmings: It would show that we're predisposed not to like them but
there are certain cases where we will look at them because that will
I help us remember in the future too. And we want to say, when we do it,
we will probably want to have a minimum width of, I don't know. You
may want to give an easement or something over more land to be sure
there ' s enough space there to build a road in the future.
I Conrad: I like that. I'm comfortable with keeping it the i
p g way it is
but putting in some rationale for any variance to the conditional use.
Dacy: Okay, then we can bring that back. -
IThe Planning Commission reviewed the City Council meeting update.
Tim Erhart arrived at the meeting .
IErhart moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 40 p.m. .
II Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
1
I
I
1 . The fill and trench areas of a demolition debris land
disposal facility are prohibited within the following
areas: ,
a. 1000 feet from the normal high water mark on a lake,
pond, or flowage.
b . 300 feet from a stream
c . regional flood plain '
d. wetlands
e . within 50 feet of the property line
2 . Dumping of demolition debris shall be confined to as
small an area as practicable and with appropriate facili-
ties to confine possible wind blown material within the
area.
3 . The demolition landfill shall be constructed and cover
material graded so as to promote surface water runoff
without excessive erosion. '
4 . Surface water drainage shall be diverted around and away
from the landfill operating area.
5 . Effective means shall be taken, if necessary, to control
rodents and vermin.
6 . Adequate dust control on the site shall be provided.
7 . The site shall be adequately screened by existing or pro-
vided means .
8 . Within one month after final termination of a site, the
area shall be covered with at least two feet of compacted
earth material, graded to a minimum two percent slope to
promote surface water runoff without excessive erosion.
a . The finished surface of the filled area shall be
covered and maintained with adequate topsoil and
seeded to provide suitable vegetation immediately
upon completion, or immediately in the spring on
areas terminated during winter conditions . If
necessary, seeded slopes shall be covered with straw
or similar material to prevent erosion.
b. Prior to completion of a demolition landfill site,
the City shall be notified in order that a site
investigation may be conducted by the City staff
before earthmoving equipment is removed from the
property. '
7f771fC11:1169(7A
1
c . After completion of a demolition landfill site, a
detailed description, including plat, shall be
recorded with the City and County Registrar of Deeds .
The description shall include general types and loca-
tion of wastes, depth of fill and other information
of interest to future landowners .
d. If the completed site is to be cultivated, the
integrity of the finished surface shall not be
' disturbed by agricultural cultivation activities. If
cultivated, a sufficient depth of cover material to
allow cultivation and to support vegetation shall be
' maintained.
9 . Plans, including a permit application, engineering report
' and drawings, shall be prepared by a registered engineer
of Minnesota. Ten complete sets of the plans shall be
submitted to the City offices. The submitted plans shall
include the following:
( a) A completed permit application form.
' ( b) An engineering report including:
( i) General information.
( ii) Site analysis, including consideration of each
item in number 2 of these guidelines , surface
features, type and availability of cover material
' and any existing refuse deposits at the site.
( iii) Proposed operating method and procedures .
( iv) Estimated construction time schedule.
(v) Completion date.
' (vi) Description of the materials that will be buried.
' ( c) Plans showing:
( i) Location of debris to be buried.
( ii) Description of debris to be buried.
( iii) Location of burial site.
' ( iv) Grading and erosion control.
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 3, 1988
Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Brian
Batzli. and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and James Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner
PUBLIC HEARINGS :
1
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE CODIFICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 80, THE CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED, AND TO I
CONSIDER REVISING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 80.
Emmings: We ' ll just go through these one at a time, I assume.
Headla : Do you have to have a public hearing on each one of these items
or how do you work that?
Dacy: How about if you just open the public hearing and ask if there II
is any member present that would like to speak on any of the items 1 (a)
through 1 (h) .
Emmings : The publing hearing is open and we have one member of the
public who is just here to listen.
Ellson: From the press .
Emmings: I think what we should do is let ' s just go through them one by
one and we ' ll ask if there' s any comments after each one if anybody else '
shows up. Then we will close the public hearing at the end of all the
items.
Dacy: The first issue that staff would like to present is the
codification issue. Enclosed in your packet ' s list, this black book
that pulls together all of the City' s ordinances . Your action tonight II
is concentrating on Chapter 20 or the Zoning Ordinance. It is, in a
couple of ways , different than the newspaper version that was originally
published and approved in February of 1987. I have noted those changes
in the report . Tim, before the meeting just brought up an error on page
1174 and I found one on page 1270. Did the Commisiion find any other of
those types of errors or organization or duplication?
Erhart: Barb, why don' t you assume that there are probably hundreds of
errors in a document this large and that those will be cleaned up.
Emmings: Is there going to be another draft printed? '
Dacy: Yes , after the Planning Commission public hearing and the
Council 's final approval , there will be correction pages of certain
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 2
pages that had to be changed. You will receive a supplement probably
sometime at the end of March that you will have to remove your old pages
and insert the new ones .
'
Emmings : So if we have an opportunity, then we should all try to read
through for those kinds of errors and just phone them in to staff.
That ' s the best thing to do rather than take time in the meeting . I 'd
' rather do it that way.
Dacy: Maybe in the motion, we 've suggested a motion there , maybe you
would want to add the phrase, something to the effect to correct any
' oversights that may be detected prior to the Council meeting or
something to that effect so we don' t have to go back.
' Headla : What' s your idea of an oversight?
Dacy: I would say those items that are either duplications,
misspellings , or typing errors or placement of sections in the wrong
place in the ordinance.
Headla : Okay, no rewording or anything like that?
' Dacy: Right. So that' s the first motion that' s proposed .
Emmings : There' s no one here from the public to comment , so are there
any commissioners here that want to comment?
Erhart : Essentially in the past , everything was single, separate pieces
of paper? There was nothing tied together in sequence?
Dacy: That ' s correct . We had a series of ordinances from Ordinance No.
1 through Ordinance No . 80.
Erhart : So this is the first time it ' s been pulled together in a single
book. The intention is to constantly update this book as changes are
made. Who will have copies of the book?
Dacy: These are your permanent copies and if there are any changes, you
will be sent corrected pages for you to insert .
Erhart: Can citizens purchase copies of the book? Is that what it is,
' a purchasing?
Headla : The general public would have to purchase a copy?
' Ellson: Would there be one for their review like at the library or
something?
Dacy: Sure, they could always stop upstairs or that ' s a good idea , we
should probably keep one on file.
Batzli : I think you ' re going to have a heck of a time trying to keep
' track of what pages are the current pages in the current format. Unless
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 3
you start putting revising dates on it or something on the pages, I
don 't know how you' re going to be able to tell if you' re looking at the II
most recent page or not.
Dacy: From what I understand from the Municipal Code Corporation , when I
they print the corrected page, sometimes they may have to do, for
example, 1221A, B or C and then they will correct the reference that ' s
on each page. You' re right, it 's going to be. . . ,
Batzli : What they normally do in a looseleaf book like this though is
to keep track of it by year and then the number of amendments that have
come out. For instance, the first amendment would be labeled right on ,
page 88 .1 or something and I think unless you go to that kind of system,
you' re going to have a heck of a time trying to decide if the book is
complete or not. That's not even really relevant to the Planning
Commission but I think it' s something you might want to consider .
Emmings: He' s absolutely right and we all deal with these in our
libraries , both Brian and I deal with looseleaf services all the time
and it 's a constant struggle to know and be sure that you've got the
latest materials, the up-to-date materials . It ' s not even easy a lot of
times when the replacements come in to sort it out. It can be one of II
most confusing things known to man. But that ' s part of this anyway.
I feel like you did this just because I was finally getting used to
F using the other set so you wanted , I didn ' t have to ask if things were II
in the Code anymore or not.
Dacy: I appreciate your input because we can relay that to our office
manager who is going to be in charge of working with this process. '
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommends I
approval of the proposed codification of the Zoning Ordinance as Chapter
20 in the proposed Chanhassen City Code subject to correction of
typographical errors, duplications and other corrections found by
Planning Commissioners . All voted in favor and motion carried .
REVISE ARTICLE V, SECTION 5 (5) (3) AND ARTICLE V, SECTION 6 (5) (3) TO
STATE 125 FEET.
Erhart : I thought this went to City Council already? '
Dacy: It did for discussion purposes just to make sure that they agreed
with the Planning Commission .
Erhart: So we never actually recommended it?
Emmings: This is to hold the public hearing . Again, for the record , we I
have no one from the public to comment so we' ll just ask if there are
any comments or questions of staff from the commissioners .
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 4
11 (7-
Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
' approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise the lot depth
requirement for single family lots from 150 feet to 125 feet. [Article
V, Section 5 (5) (3) and Article V, Section 6 (5) (3) in Ordinance No. 80
' and Article XII , Section 20-615 (3) and Article XIII , Section 20-635 (3) ]
in the proposed ordinance. All voted in favor and motion carried.
' REVISE ARTICLE VI , SECTION 5, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE FOR
SETBACKS FOR VARIOUS SIZES OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
' Emmings: It appears that the City Council had something of a different
idea than we had when we sent it up there. You might just hit that
quick for our new commissioners .
' Olsen: One of the councilmembers felt that if we ' re allowing larger
buildings, right now the ordinance allows accessory structures 5 feet
from the rear lot line and they felt that the larger accessory buildings
' shouldn't be permitted to be only 5 feet away so they asked us to look
into a graduated setback. We called around and reviewed what the
different sized accessory structures there were and we found that they
were either the small accessory structure or the larger 3 car garage and
the pole barns. We felt that if we permitted the 5 foot setback for the
smaller buildings , that that would be adequate and then increase the
Csetback to 15 feet for the larger buildings . That would satisfy it. To
have setbacks for each different size of building would be real
confusing to enforce and we felt that this would still satisfy keeping
the larger buildings back from the rear lot line and would still be easy
to enforce.
Emmings : It seems to me that when we had it , before we sent it up to
the City Council , that we were concerned about height. Building height
on the accessory buildings . Am I remembering that right?
Erhart: We talked about it.
' Emmings : Did the City Council , were they concerned?
Olsen: No , they didn ' t discuss it . I think there ' s a 40 foot limit to
the buildings.
' Dacy: Right now the accessory structure limit is the same as the
principle structure and I think that was based on the fact that if you
did have a detached garage or something , the same style or manner that-
the principle building was and I remember when we were going through ,
that was the basis .
Erhart : You ' re saying that the accessory building can not be higher
than the principle structure?
Dacy: Right.
' Erhart : So is that in there?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 5
C
Dacy: Yes . In each of the zoning districts , the accessory structure '
height limit is the same as the principle structure.
Emmings: You can' t build an accessory structure without the principle
structure being there.
Erhart : You can be higher . You can have a 20 foot high house and a 40 II
foot high accessory structure.
Dacy: Oh yes, okay.
Headla : . . .the sheet metal barn on the north side of TH 7?
Erhart: You've got a 1,000 square foot limit here. '
Headla : You can put a big truck in there. What ' s it for , A-2 buffering?
Erhart: It ' s 30 by 33, that' s not as big as this room. That ' s not real II
big. I think that fellow was talking about a much bigger building.
1, 000 square feet would be approximately the size of this whole room
without that portion of it. Wouldn' t you say Dave? I think a guy II should be able to build a 3 stall or 4 stall garage and that ought to be
the limit and isn ' t that about where we came up with this 1,000 square
feet? '
Olsen: The 3 car garage was approximately 800.
Headla: That wasn ' t consistent with the exi.sti.ng. . .height? Is that why
they used the same height for like a 3 or 4 stall garage?
Dacy: You mean the height restrictions for the accessory buildings? '
Headla : Yes .
Dacy: Yes , that' s what I recall . '
Erhart : What conceivably could be an accessory building 3 stories high
that you'd want in the RSF district? ,
Dacy: If we' re limiting accessory buildings to 1, 000 square feet , that
would pretty much exclude the pole barns. Usually they range from 12 to II
14 feet . The only time I ' ve seen second stories in a detached structure
is over in the Red Cedar Point area where they have proposed a little
storage space.
Erhart : Is the object here to prevent metal buildings in the RSF
district? Is that what they' re trying to do?
Dacy: No , the object is to provide a sense of scale and separation '
between an accessory structure and adjacent property. Most of those
Sears buildings are metal so to prohibit that , I'd feel real
uncomfortable saying they can' t have metal .
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 6
C I Erhart : I wouldn ' t suggest that. It gets back to this think that we 've
discussed many times and that 's about architectural regulations and you
could say that buildings over 200 square feet , which gets bigger than
' the Sears stuff, is it has to be architecturally similar to the
principle structure. Then the question is , do we want to get into
architectural regulations and for some reason in the past, we've always
said no . I don' t know why.
' Emmings : I just wonder if there' s ever any reason to have accessory
structures, I wonder if there ought to be a limit that they could be 3
' stories or not taller than the principle structure . If you' re talking
about keeping things in proportion on a residential block.
Erhart : I think a minimum, that makes sense. At least to include a
sentence that says it can ' t be taller than the principle structure.
Batzli : Then you ' re going to start conflicting with a lot of other
' stuff. We' re going to have to go back in and clean it up. In each
Article, for different residential single family, R-4, they go through
maximum heights.
' Erhart : That' s not conflicting with that . All it is is adding another
restriction.
' Batzli : But it says , the maximum heights is as follows : for accessory
structures , 3 stories , 40 feet. Then you ' re going to say later on that
an accessory structure can ' t be higher than the house .
' Erhart: That ' s not in conflict.
Batzli : I think you ' re just trying to put it in the wrong place .
There's a lot of redundancy in this new codification. It would probably
be a lot easier to actually define what an accessory structure is
because I don' t know that I know what one is. They talk about accessory
' uses throughout the code but I don ' t know that they ever define what an
accessory structure is , although that' s what we' re currently talking
about now.
' Dacy: It should be defined .
Batzli : Is that first Article 1, in general , page 1142?
' Erhart: It combines them. Accessory use or structure means the use or
structures subordinate to and serving principle use or structure on the
same lot and clearly and customarily incidental thereto.
Batzli : Is structure and use mutually exclusive although they' re
defined the same way?
Erhart : The way this is written it is . I think what they've done is
combine two separate thoughts in the same sentence.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 7 '
Batzli : So you ' re not talking about , for instance, a 1, 000 square foot
tennis court having a setback requirement but you are a structure? I
Dacy: Correct . It says a detached accessory structure , except a dock,
it excludes that, as accessory uses in some of the districts, parking
lot, signs , home occupations , tennis courts , swimming pool , garages .
I ' ll have to take that back. They are mutually exclusive. A use of an
accessory structure as a garage. It can be the same thing but. . . '
Erhart: That' s a good point Brian. I don' t see a reason why a guy
would have to put a tennis court 15 feet away from his property line, if
that's what you' re suggesting. I don' t see any reason for that. So you II
could exclude that just like we did for docks here. Do we have a
current problem or do we anticipate a problem?
Emmings : We got talking about this because we were talking about '
buildings right? That ' s what we' re concerned about here is people
building garages, storage sheds and things of that nature. Maybe we' re
not saying it the best way here. I see under definition of structure,
it even includes a hard surface parking area . How is that different
than a tennis court? I don' t know. In fact it says, anything
constructed having a permanent location in the ground. That would
include a swimming pool or tennis court or anything else and I don' t
think that' s what we' re talking about . I don' t think that' s what we
meant to talk about.
Erhart : We ' re talking about the first sentence under structures , we ' re
talking the first term there.
Dacy: You' re talking about storage buildings .
Emmings : I think we' re talking about garages too though. If you look II under permitted accessory uses , just for example in the RSF, you 've got
a list of things on page 1208 . The first one is a garage. The second
one is a storage building . I think we are talking those two and then
way at the bottom is a private kennel . Maybe that involves a building .
Maybe we ' re talking about that one too but all the rest of them in the
middle, I don ' t think a home occupation is clearly just a use and does
not involve a structure. At least, according to our own definitions ,
the rest could be structures .
Dacy: First of all we' re just talking about the RSF district because I II just noticed the way (b) is written, you could interpret that to mean in
any district .
Emmings : We ' re only talking about amending the RSF section? '
Dacy: That ' s what I 'm asking for clarification. That' s what we
interpretted as the commission' s intent . '
Emmings: What this says we' re doing is amending Section 20-904 in the
proposed ordinance which is not the RSF.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 8
Batzli : That' s the general regulations section.
' Olsen : We can clarify that it' s just the RSF though.
' Dacy: (a) and (c) currently say in any residential district but (b)
does not say that .
Ellson : So at the end of the first sentence just add, in residential
single family. Is that what you' re saying?
Dacy: Right.
' Batzli : I don ' t think you want to say that there. You don' t want to
amend all of that paragraph do you?
Dacy: That ' s what we need to find out . If that ' s what the Commission
wants.
' Batzli : I would think that you still want to maintain paragraph (b) for
all districts.
Dacy: The way that we have it proposed for the 200 and 1, 000 in a
commercial or industrial district, that could be limiting especially in
the industrial district if they did want a 2,000 or 3,000 square foot
building in the back of their principle building. That ' s what I 'm
Isaying. These 200 ' s and 1, 000 ' s are based on our research .
Erhart: It ' s only really the last sentence in that paragraph that you
' want to limit to a district, isn ' t it? Isn ' t it only the last sentence,
the 1,000 square feet, you want to limit that to RSF?
' Dacy: What I was thinking is adding that to before the second sentence.
In the single family residential district the detached accessory
structure, etc. . Maybe to really clarify it , we add (d) for the RSF
requirements and leave (b) as a detached accessory structure may occupy
not more than 30o area of the rear yard .
Emmings: I like that better. Let' s go through the proposed motion
here. (a) would stay the same. (b) would be just the present first
sentence of (b) . The present first sentence of (b) , that ' s all there
would be of (b) . Then (c) would speak of any residential district , just
' as it is and (d) would say in the single family residential district and
then pick up all the rest of the language in (b) .
Erhart: Yes, except why wouldn ' t you want to have setback graduations
' apply to RR and A-2 as well? If a guy' s got a 2 1/2 lot , he ' s got no
reason to put a 1, 000 square foot building up 5 feet away from his lot
line. He has less reason than anybody.
Emmings : It' s tough to coordinate through all exceptions. Can you
think of something to do here Barb or do you think we ought to table
this?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 9
Dacy: Number one , the original intent came out of that David Obie
conditional use permit. You wanted to prohibit big buildings in the RSF
district. As far as in the RR and the A-2 area , in the current
regulations, someone could put an accessory building 5 feet from their
rear lot line . Do you want to limit not only the setback but the size
of an accessory building in the RR and the A-2 districts? This is
beyond the original purpose.
Erhart : Just change the last sentence in paragraph (b) to say, a
detached accessory structure shall not exceed 1, 000 square feet in the
RSF district .
Dacy: So you want to keep the graduating setbacks for RSF, A-2 and RR.
Erhart: The other districts , in the multiple family and we don 't want
to get into that because sometimes you have multiple garages for
apartment buildings.
Dacy: This is getting to a point where I think the Commission should '
give us direction on what they want to do and then we ' ll come back.
We' ll rework this .
Headla : Let me ask a question . Why did you say rear yard?
Dacy: I was saying, under current regulations you can 't place a
structure 5 feet from the rear lot line.
Headla: If you go along Minnewashta Heights there are some beautiful
homes there and as far as I know, their living rooms are facing the lake I
which means the front of the house. What' s your definition of a rear
yard?
Ellson: The one facing the road is the front yard . '
Headla: What happens in the. . . the property that you were going to
develop at Lawson' s . . .and you ' ve got lots on Minnewashta Parkway and on
the main road on the other side.
Dacy: A double frontage lot? '
Headla : Yes . Is it clear in your minds what a rear yard is and a front
yard? I 'm not sure I know.
Dacy: In a double frontage situation, technically you have two front
yards.
Headla : I look at Minnewashta and Minnewashta Parkway and people live
facing the lakes and that ' s the front yard. That ' s one thing I want to
make sure we. . . '
Dacy: We can add that too. What it would be if it ' s a double frontage
lot. That' s one item. The next item is , just for the RSF district, is
what (b) says there, is that what you want for the RSF? Just limit it '
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 10
to the RSF?
' Emmings : That ' s what I recall us sending up. That' s what I remember we
were in agreement on, at least at one time.
Batzli : You need to add , or equal to, in there somewhere because
somebody is going to come in with a 200 square foot job and you ' re not
going to know what to do with it. Your first , structure less than or
' equal to 200 square feet.
Ellson : The only other thing I noticed was if it' s greater than 200
square feet, they will be located 15 feet. No closer than 15 feet.
Isn' t that basically what we wanted? They can have the garage next to
the house if they wanted could they?
Erhart: What' s the side yard setback in this case? 10 feet? Does that
make sense.
' Dacy: Yes .
Erhart : So it ' s okay to put 1, 000 square foot building 10 feet from the
' sideyard?
Dacy: You can put your house 10 feet away. So , then what do you want
to do on A-2 and RR districts?
Ellson : I don' t think that there ' s a problem. Maybe you ' re thinking of
the future and maybe possible problems so I can understand that but . . .
' Erhart : I think you have to allow bigger buildings in the A-2 district .
' Ellson: Right. I don ' t think we should combine it all with this thing.
It sounds like what you wanted to do was accomplish this for the
residential single family. I think trying to combine it with the other
is just going to make it more confusing .
Erhart: My thinking was that the graduated setbacks though could have
ve
some merits in the larger lots as well . You' re proposing this to go
into the accessory structure, isn ' t that what you ' re proposing this goes
in? Into the definition of accessory structure? Your whole proposal is
based on this being wording for the accessory structure. So it can
' apply to all districts .
Dacy: Right, and I wanted to get direction on what you want for
residential districts so then we can say that and also say what you
' originally said for commercial and industrial .
Emmings: You still have us confused over uses and structures I think
too?
Erhart : The question I 'm getting to, in an apartment complex in the
high density area, an apartment complex where they have a garage of 47
' garages in it, basically if we do this , we' re saying that garage has to
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 11
be 15 feet away from the lot line. Do we understand that?
Ellson: That will say that.
Erhart : Is that okay? '
Dacy: That ' s up to you. It would be best , from an administration
standpoint, if we had one consistent set of rules for all rural
districts . That' s why we weren' t really happy about the graduated idea
because it just adds one more quirk into the scheme of things. You need
to decide. Does this apply to multiple areas? . . .
Erhart: If you're looking at me as to what I would recommend for the
rural , I think I like the graduated. If it ' s good for the RSF, I think
it' s good for 2 1/2 acre lots too. The only thing is that I don't think II
you can limit it to 1, 000 square foot buildings. Dave, don ' t you agree?
There's a lot of 2 1/2 acre lots that have large buildings.
Headla : We were talking before, just in our area , and there ' s lot of
open land. . .
Erhart : I don' t think you can limit the size of the accessory building
in the RR or A-2 area.
Headla : People who have got 10, 15 to 20 acres and beaucoup land out
'�. back.
Erhart : I think we can limit them to not put these buildings 5 feet
from the property line and that ' s happened to me and it seems silly for
a guy with 2 1/2 acres , in fact we encourage that , to put his house 10
feet from the property line even though his lot was 200 feet wide.
Thank goodness today we' re not doing that anymore . '
Dacy: Then what we get from that, first of all you were saying you
don ' t want to limit the size in the RR and A-2 area but you do want to
impose a stricter setback? '
Erhart : Yes . -
Dacy: We' ve got direction on that and we can come back with revised
language because I think you ' re right, you ' re going to end up going t
back to each individual district .
Emmi.ngs: And clear up this accessory use business too. I think
basically what you have here is what we wanted and not all of a sudden
it 's gotten broader. I suppose you might as well go and reword it all
at once.
Dacy: Do you want us to look at the height issue? '
Headla: I think that should be a consideration to look at. See what
you' re comfortable with.
Planning Commission Meeting
' February 3, 1988 - Page 12
Ellson: What is a pole barn, or whatever you were saying, and the
' Y Y g,
height of those.
Erhart : The height thing , I was thinking of just the RSF district. I 'm
thinking of third acre lots . I think that's where we ' re trying . . .
Emmings : There, couldn' t we limit it?
' Headla: How many places do we have, like around Lake Minnewashta where
you have 10-15-20 acres that are RSF? Is that just a unique thing?
' Dacy: Primarily around in your area and some land of Mrs. Anderson and
the Carlson' s lot.
' Erhart : I think those are the areas we ' re trying to prevent someone
putting in a 5, 000 square foot building because we anticipate in the
next five years , because if it' s within the MUSA line and RSF, somebody
is going to subdivide this land and what you don' t want is selling 5
' year old , 5, 000 square foot steel building right in the middle of this
now subdivision. So I think that' s what we' re trying to prevent. Even
though it may seem restrictive to Dave.
' Headla: Could I put up a 5, 000 square foot pole barn on my property?
Dacy: He' s zoned RSF now and whatever 30o of your rearyard is , is
acceptable. Again, that was the whole basis . . .
Headla : That shouldn ' t be right because alot of that land is going to
be developed and that would be an imposing structure for the whole
neighborhood . I don' t think that ' s right .
Dacy: At the next meeting we ' re going to get a request for a 12, 000
square foot building .
Erhart : Are you understanding that this is creating limitations on your
land, do you still agree with what we ' re talking about?
Headla : Our area is just a unique area . If it was general , I 'd say we
' should take a much better look at it but if it ' s just in our area, and I
think that' s going to be developed very shortly, I just don ' t think it ' s
right that we should allow one building . . .like another barn like I ' ve
got. Put up another one that size . . .
Emmings: First of all , we' re talking RSF. Can someone on a 15, 000
square foot lot come in with a pole barn?
Dacy: Our current ordinance says that he can build a detached accessory
structure up to the maximum area 30%% of the rear yard . So they have to
meet that. If it' s a pole barn and it meets that, then we have to issue
a permit.
Erhart : The rear yard is half of 15,000 is 7,000 times 30, it could be
a 2, 100 square foot building . I think this is pretty good here. I
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 13
think it does what we wants it to do. The only other issue is i.f Y ou
want to tie it in architecturally and I just can ' t imagine someone
building a house and putting an accessory structure of 200 to 1,000
square feet and not making it architecturally similar .
Headla : If we would say you couldn ' t build over 800 or 1,000 square
foot building, it can not be sheet metal pole barn construction. If we
knock that out, wouldn' t that make it more compatible with, if somebody
is going to invest that kind of money, I can ' t imagine somebody giving
up an accessory structure. . .
Dacy: You have a point there, once they are building a building, you
would assume that they would probably put a garage and we would assume
that they would use the same materials or wood or brick or something .
It 's a matter of desire on the community's standpoint as to how far do
you want to go to regulate what a private property owner can do and what
materials that you want to use for an out building . It' s an option.
What I thought, in the past we have not regulated it because sometimes
development can have private covenants address that. So far Chanhassen
hasn' t taken that extra step to go that far in regulating aesthetics on
accessory buildings. It ' s not unusual though for commercial and
industrial districts . 1
Headla : How about if we say, anything around 1, 000 square feet has to
be . . . '
Erhart : I think we' re all agreed that we want them up to 1, 000 square
feet. There seems to be a hesitance to put an architectural limit on
this thing . What is the adverse effect of us to start dealing with
architectural controls?
Emmings : . . . the public health, safety and welfare and aesthetics ,
legally we can control things that effect the public health, safety and
welfare . I would say, if you said something like it has to be
architecturally, and I don ' t know what the language should be.
Architecturally consistent . . .
Erhart : I was thinking in an area from 200 feet up to 1,000, building
the structure so it' s aesthetically or architecturally matches the
principle structure. Later on this evening we' re talking about
controlling architecture in the industrial area aren' t we?
Dacy: In the commercial and industrial . 1
Erhart: How is that any different?
Dacy: It' s different because cities have more say as far as design in
the industrial parks and commercial and industrial acreage. I think it
is important, the single family detached home , that ' s at the top of the
pyramid. That ' s the highest use and that ' s kind of like traditionally
accepted that your home is your castle. With commercial and industrial
uses, there are more impacts as far as water use, traffic and lights ,
building separation and aesthetics comes in. . . To me there is a
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' February 3, 1988 - Page 14
difference.
Emmings : I can see if you want to go higher . If you want a garage
separate from your house or a second story or something like that and
' you' ve got a house . I don ' t see any reason to want to limit that .
Erhart: What ' s the highest conceivable? 20 feet?
Dacy: Again , the height issue, we can come back with some facts on
that. I hate to make a statment on that now.
' Headla : Why don' t you make a recommendation on that. What I 'm
thinking about is, our in our area, if that gets developed, you've got
one building 40 feet high, that ' s going to stick up like a sore thumb so
' why don't you take a look at that and give us something .
Erhart : Also look at your wording in paragraph 2.
Dacy: That' s the way it' s written now.
Erhart : I think it could be a little better if it was broken down into
two sentences .
1 Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to table the item revising Article VI ,
Section 5, Accessory Structures until staff can come back with
additional information and suggestions regarding the setbacks and
building sizes. All voted in favor and motion carried .
REVISE ARTICLE VI , SECTION 12, FENCES AND WALLS , TO PROVIDE FOR
' REGULATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF BARBED WIRE FENCES.
Emmings : Again , there' s no one here from the public. Are there any
questions or comments from the Commissioners?
Headla : The fences that are in now, that are barbed wire, they can sta y
there right?
Olsen : Yes .
Headla : Can they repair them and update them?
Olsen: Yes .
' Batzli : I guess I 'd like to propose that we reword the proposed
sentence to make it consistent with the paragraph that it ' s going to be
joining. I would propose that rather than the way it' s worded , I
propose that we say, fences utilizing barbed wire in all commercial and
IL industrial districts shall require a conditional use permit, to make it
consistent with the rest of the paragraph.
I
r
•
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 15 1
Batzli moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission n recommends
approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the Fences and Wall
section of the Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance
(Article VI , Section 12 in Ordinance No. 80 and Article XXIII , Division
5 in the proposed ordinance) as follows : '
Section 20-1024. Barbed Wire Fences :
Barbed wire fences are prohibited in all residential districts . Barbed
wire fences are permitted in the agricultural districts .
Add the following sentence at the end of the section (Section 20-1018) '
regulating commercial and industrial fences:
Fences utilizing barbed wire in all commercial and industrial districts
shall require a conditional use permit.
All voted in favor and motion carried .
DELETE ARTICLE VI, SECTION 4, TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES.
Dacy: I don ' t have any comments other than what was presented .
However, we did receive an application last week for location of a
temporary use on the Natural Green property. So we accepted the
application and because this ordinance was not approved, we had to
accept application for it . So at the next meeting , you will see an
application for a temporary use.
Emmings : What is the temporary use they' re proposing?
Dacy: They want to put a mobile home on the Natural Green site for
temporary office space.
Erhart: An office for what?
Dacy: For the Natural Green offices .
Erhart: I thought Natural Green was moving . '
Dacy: Yes , they did find another site in Chaska but they are currently
using the existing home for office space and supposedly according to the
owner , it' s very cramped in there and they wanted some extra space for
another year. In March of 1989, they will be completely out of
Chanhassen .
Headla : Did you have any restrictions on locations?
Dacy: No. Again, we' re in the process of writing the staff report and
it will be at your next meeting .
Emmings : Are there any comments on this proposal , to delete this
section?
II
Planning Commission g m sszon Meetzng
February 3, 1988 - Page 16
1147 I Batzli : I 'm just curious as to what other cities do around Chanhassen.
Do they have this type of use permit?
I Dacy: Not to my knowledge. For example, we have Eden Prairie ' s,
Minnetonka 's and Plymouth's ordinances on file and I think this
temporary conditional uses did exist in our 1972 ordinance. It was just
a carryover into the new one. The City Attorney wrote that in but not
Ito my knowledge have I seen it in adjacent communities .
Batzli : But the Attorney's opinion didn ' t necessarily say it was
I improper as it would be costly to fight it out in court , if I read that
right?
I Dacy: Right. I think it' s really way, in some cases , to circumvent the
ordinance. If you look at temporary conditional uses and under this
request then, you could propose almost any type of use in any zoning
I district and then it becomes an enforcement problem and sometimes
temporary becomes permanent and maybe the property owner can claim
investment into the property and go after us on that. So I guess that' s
where the counsel comes in.
IErhart: Why are you recommending this?
IlLc Dacy: We' re recommending to delete this section .
Erhart: You ' re recommending to delete the entire section that allows . . .
You ' re saying that a guy can put a temporary. .
IEllson: No, we ' re saying they can ' t do it .
IErhart : They just can ' t do it at all . Oh, okay.
Dacy: We' re saying either the community looks at the use and includes
it as a conditional use or a permitted use . It ' s either permanent or
it ' s not.
Emmings : We don ' t want temporary uses . It ' s just like that book store .
I I don't think anybody saw any benefits for retaining this section, as I
recall .
Batzli : The only benefit is flexibility but perhaps at the cost of
mucho denari.o for the City.
I Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to delete the section
rgarding Temporary Structures and Uses (Article V, Section 4, in
Ordinance No. 80 and Article XXIII , Section 20-903 in the proposed
ordinance) . All voted in favor and motion carried .
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 17 1
ADD SECTION 26 TO ARTICLE VI , SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS TO REGULATE 1
CONSTRUCTION OF METAL BUILDINGS.
Dacy: The language that' s proposed, I 'm not particularly happy with, to 11
be honest with you and the City Attorney said that he was going to
suggest some alternative language. I talked to Jim Wildermuth today on
the phone and he alerted me to the fact that Eaton Companies are now
making wall materials whereby you could have a masonary facia , sheet 111
metal , insulation and sheet metal again so he 's saying that there is a
form of construction out there that does use some type of sheet metal .
Then it is hung on steel frames and so on. That provides better
insulation qualities to the building . His opinion was , the City should
not go so far as to prohibit the use of metal or sheet metal in actual
construction but merely limit the facia or the exposed material . In my
comments I addressed that second alternative. The recommendation was
based on the first alternative prohibiting utilization of metal
construction completely but given Jim' s comments today, it seems like
the state-of-the-art building, that may change so it may be best to go
with option 2 and just address what the building looks like.
Emmings : So now you' re basically proposing to allow use of metal
construction without exposed metal . Is that correct?
f Dacy: Right .
Emmings : Do we have any buildings in the commercial or industrial area
that have exposed metal?
Dacy: No , not to my knowledge. We do have buildings that have metal
construction that different facia .
Headla : Exposed metals, you ' re talking like walls? '
Dacy: Right. I 'm sorry, the only one that we would have is Gary
Brown' s mini-storage. This would, if Gary Brown walked in after this
was approved, he would not be able to build his metal buildings .
Headla : I thought of that and I didn ' t understand that . How would this
knock his off?
Dacy: It would knock out Gary Brown' s proposal because he basically,
all his building ' s were, were pole barns .
Headla : But isn' t he on the fringe area?
Dacy: Yes, but he 's zoned business fringe. He is commercial .
Erhart : Isn ' t his approved already? '
Dacy: Yes . I 'm just saying , as an example , if he never requested . . .
Ellson: They' re saying if he wants additional , could do it because he
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 18
already some either .
II
Dacy: Right . If he came in for expansion beyond what he has approved.
IHeadla: I like your intent but I tried to think of other wording too .
Batzli : Again , just echoing that sentiment , I started thinking , what
I about conceivably aluminum siding that really doesn ' t look like metal?
Or the metal around windows? Or metal fire door? Your wording doesn ' t
allow any exposed metal but you' re going to have a lot of exposed metal
in things like that.
IEmmings: You can think of somebody designing a building that ' s not just
an ordinary building where they want to have structural components
I exposed or something like that where it would be consistent with the
design or whatever we want to allow.
IDacy: Which option?
Ellson : We like Option 2 I think. To allow metal but just so somehow,
with some exceptions , especially the face. I don ' t think we ' re going to
I prohibit all metal construction , especially after what you said about
Eaton and things that are certainly being done in building.
It Dacy: With that direction , we could come back with a better sentence .
Erhart: There are a lot of bui.
ldzngs that are just glass and metal .
Beautiful office buildings .'
Dacy: Maybe the sentence should read , there shall be no construction of
pole barns in the commercial or industrial area.
IErhart : That ' s it . How do you say that .
IDacy: That ' s the intent .
Emmings : Maybe that ' s the way you do it . Maybe you say something like ,
the intent of this is to avoid pole barn type construction and not to
I limit the use of things like aluminum siding that don' t appear to be
metal .
IDacy: Right, so that will give us flexibility in interpretation.
Emmings : And I 'd specifically put in pole barns. Just go right ahead
Iand say it. That ' s what we' re talking about .
Headla moved, Ellson seconded to table action on Section 26 to Article
IL VI , Supplementary Regulations to regulate construction of metal
buildings. All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 19
ADD SUBPARAGRAPH 20 TO ARTICLE IX, SECTION 2, GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR
SIGNS TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CEMETERY SIGNS.
Emmings : There is still no one present from the public. Are there any
questions? '
Batzli : I have a question. Are you holding cemetaries to a higher
standard than anyone else in the entire City by making them go through a II
conditional use permit if their sign in fact complies with all the
requirements for the district in which they are located so they would
only need a permit?
Dacy: Actually, cemetery signage isn' t provided for anywhere right now.
The location of the two cemetaries are in, one is in the A-2 district
and the other one is in the RSF district . Under the signage
regulations, the only thing that's permitted are development
identification signs and house numbers .
Emmings: I think it' s quite the contrary. The cemetery down here came
in with a sign proposal and we all sat here and said gee, cemetaries
really are different and they really ought to be allowed more latitude
with their signs . Our whole focus has been to restrict the use of signs
everywhere and here it was a place where we felt like they ought to have
a little more latitude. We thought the only way we can keep our finger
N.
on what they' re doing is to require a conditional use permit. It really
was to give them more latitude , not less .
Batzli : That answers my question. I was curious if for instance, I
didn ' t know where they were located but if they were in a business
district. They' re a sign and they comply with the rules for that area .
Emmings : They don ' t need directional signs . '
Batzli : If all they had was a little 2 x 2 square foot sign that said
cemetery. I imagine that would be permissible in a business district to
have a sign advertising who you are. So if that ' s all they were going
to put up, they would still require a conditional use permit?
Dacy: Right, because most cemetaries have the entrance and the gates '
and they' re more extravagant .
Emmings : That' s not really his question. His question is, if they
comply with the sign ordinance. If the sign ordinance applied and they
met the conditions of the sign ordinance , would they still have to come
in for a conditional use permit , is what he' s saying .
Dacy: As written , if it was located anywhere , yes , they would have to
come in for a conditional use permit .
Emmings : But the fact is . . .
Ellson : We'd let them have a nice one like, I think I was reading the
Minutes, engrave it or rout it.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1988 - Page 20
C
' Emmings : That isn ' t the problem that we face. The problem we face is
they wanted more than the sign ordinance would ever allow anybody else
to do and they aren' t in the commercial area .
Dacy: I think they' re only permitted as a permitted use in the A-2
district . That one next to St. Hubert ' s may be non-conforming . I think
' that ' s the only place where we allow them as a permitted use.
Batzli : If that ' s not a problem, I guess I would just propose that we
again reword the proposed new section to read, signage for cemetaries ,
in all districts , shall require a conditional use permit.
Emmings: Why don' t you go ahead and make a motion. Does anybody else
have any other comments?
Batzli. moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
' approval of the Zoning Ordina;nce Amendment to include Signage
Regulations for Cemeteries as follows ( Section XXVI , Division 1 in the
proposed ordinance) :
Section 20-1277 , Cemetery Signage. Signage for cemeteries , in all
districts, shall require a conditional use permit. All voted in favor
and motion carried .
ADD AN ARTICLE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REGULATE BURIAL OF DEMOLITION
' DEBRIS.
Emmings : You' ve asked us to table this item. First of all , do you want
any comments from us at this point in time?
' Olsen : Sure .
1 Emmings : Why don ' t you tell us a little bit more about what ' s going on
here because this thing has gotten bigger too.
Olsen : It began again , at the request of the City Council to look at
' construction where there' s an existing building or whatever and they
want to bury it on-sight . There ' s no requirements or regulations for
that so they want the City to have some control on that. That list
that ' s on the back page of the report is the State ' s regulations and we
transferred the ones that are applicable that could also be used within
the City. Right now we still have to work with the other departments to
' figure out who ' s going to enforce this . What the permits are going to
be. Definitions . Things like that so we still have some cleaning up to
do.
Erhart : Where do you think we' re going with this? Right now anybody
can bury anything? Where do you think we' re heading on this?
Olsen : To keep a little bit more control on it . To make them so they
have to receive a permit. So we will know what it is there.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 21
1
k
Erhart : Right now I can bury wood . ,
Ellson: Concrete , you name it. Somebody else could buy that property
and not really know what' s under there . I
Erhart : You' re certainly not thinking about eliminating burying of
concrete and boulders?
Olsen : We don ' t want to eliminate it. We just want to tell them where
they can put it. Just so we know where.
Erhart : Have we had some trouble?
Olsen: Not too much that we know of.
Emmings : What about things like, I know when I built my house, they
took down some real big trees and everything, and had great big stumps
left . I think they buried , this talks a little about demolition . I
think that meant of existing buildings . Do you care about other stuff
that might be there that they buried?
Olsen: That ' s when we get into that definition and we' ll look at that a
little bit closer .
Dacy: What ' s exempt? Burying your pet dog? The key word here is
demolition.
Erhart moved , Headla seconded to table adding an Article to the Zoning
Oridnance regulating Burial of Demolition Debris. All voted in favor
and motion carried .
REVISE ARTICLE VI , SECTION 21, ANTENNAS AND SATELLITE DISHES TO LIMIT A
SINGLE FAMILY LOT TO ONE ANTENNA AND ONE SATELLITE DISH.
Olsen : Staff already has some changes to this . Mr . Headla pointed that
the way it reads , right now you could put a car antenna, radio antenna
on the house so what we actually meant there was the radio antenna
tower . That' s what we meant to restrict to one per lot.
Emmings : So you want to insert the word "tower" after antenna . '
Olsen: Then satellite dish , that can remain the same. Also , a question
was the ground mount . You may recall the ground mounted vertical
antenna, the Roy Barke' s proposal . It wasn' t the large tower that the
antenna was placed on but it' s just a pole that ' s stuck in the ground
that acts as just an antenna. I was speaking with somebody in the town
who has all these and he was saying , they' re temporary. You just stick
them out there and they' re usually no higher than 20-23 feet but I just
wanted to get the Planning Commission' s feeling that they wanted that
also to be limited to one.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 22
C
Emmi.ngs : Has that been a problem here at all?
Olsen: The first time I ever saw them was when we visited Roy Barke' s
' site and he had one . Again, they' re temporary. We have to come up with
a definition also.
Headla : I ' d like to see you wait on that one . I 'd like to see
reworded, forget radio antenna and just say antenna tower and put a
maximum square foot area of the antennas they can have.
Olsen: Yes , he requested that before and we tried to come up with some
numbers .
' Headla : Who did you ask?
Olsen: I called all the different antenna places and people who use the
' radio antennas because it depends on where you want your signal to go.
Your antenna could be a million different combinations .
Headla: But as you drive down, like Powers Blvd. and you consider the
antenna over there , I think the real intent is to control , put a maximum
square footage and how many antennas can you stick on this tower . Right
now it ' s unlimited . You could put up 15-20 square feet of antenna and I
don't think that ' s what we want.
Olsen : The tower itself, if you limit it to one tower , there ' s only a
' certain amount of antennas that you can put on.
Headla : Yes , you can put up 20-30-40 square feet on that one tower .
Olsen: I have not been able to come up with a good number .
Headla : Have you talked to any hams?
Olsen: I 've talked to several and then I also talked to the companies
that manufacture them.
' Headla : Those probably aren ' t the hams but I would think , how did they
respond?
Olsen : They agreed that you could limit it to the towers but that the
antenna would be very difficult to regulate because they' re all
different . They' re all different sizes .
' Headla : The only one thing we' re regulating is maximum cross section
area .
Olsen : Again , I could not come with a definite number . It was a number
that we could pick and then next week we could get somebody who had 5
square feet more and they need that because they want to speak to
Russia. I can still look at it again.
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 23
C
Headla : I think it' s incomplete without putting a maximum cross section
area on the antenna .
Emmings : I think what Jo Ann is saying , any number she would come up
with would be arbitrary. '
Ellson : Maybe you should say, in relation to the house it' s on or
something like that. You don' t want it to be huge and ugly is what
you' re really concerned about , right?
Headla: To me antennas aren' t particularly good. In consideration of
other people, on TH 101, remember there we had where he wanted to put I
two. They were quite concerned there about how that would look, the
aesthetics of it. I just think that' s a parameter that should be
controlled with a maximum. Maximum only. '
Emmings: Part of the history here , and maybe it was in here and I just
don' t remember right now but we keep getting these requests for towers
and then we ' re told everytime that we can ' t deny it . Although we have a'
conditional use process to go through, the area has been pre-empted by
FCC regulations and we don' t really have any control over it at all .
This was an attempt to start to get some control on it. If we can't sayll
no to an antenna or tower , maybe at least we can say no to two . To
there being two towers on a lot. I think that ' s how this all kind of
came about . We' re not sure that we can even do this . It' s kind of a
gray area .
Olsen : I think by giving them that one tower is giving them reasonable
use. I guess the question again is, do you also want to regulate those '
ground mounted vertical?
Ellson: Just say the towers plus the ground mounted will just be one . I
They use them basically the same way.
Olsen : Those are temporary and the satellite dish and antenna tower ar
permanent. They have the concrete base.
Headla : Until we see it as a problem, why would we even want to get our
hands into it?
Batzli : It would be a way to circumvent the ordinance . Just put in
temporary ones and they can use temporary ones permanently.
Headla : It becomes a problem with any control .
Batzli : Then it' s too late . '
Emmings : Now these temporary ones , what do they do with them? Do they
go out and put them out for one day?
Olsen : The people I was talking to , they were saying they put it up
during the winter because in the summer there' s too much static and it'
just an additional antenna rather than having to mount an antenna tower
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 24
It works as an antenna without having the tower .
r .
J Erhart: It' s an antenna field. You can achieve the same goal as having
one long , high antenna . You can achieve the same goal by having the
multiple, small antennas as having a high tall one.
IEmmings : Would we want to say something like if you have a tower , all
your antennas have to be located on the tower?
IOlsen : It might be the same if they used the ground .
Emmings : What do you want to do?
Olsen : I could look into them a little bit more and maybe we could say
two ground. Two antennas aren' t that bad.
IEllson : I think you should say a number too so they don' t go down and
someone has 5 in their yard. One probably isn ' t very obtrusive but . . .
I Batzli : I 'd rather limit it to one, whether it ' s temporary or permanent
myself.
IOlsen : They can always go through the variance process if they want .
Emmings : So basically, you want to go ahead with what ' s proposed here .
IF Are there any other comments or discussion?
Batzli : I guess I 'm under the impression that the word radio is deleted
and the word tower is inserted after antenna .
Olsen: I think that we should separate antenna towers and also specify
ground mounted antennas .
I
Ellson : That would allow them to have one on their house and then put
one on.
IEmmings : I don ' t think so .
I Ellson : You ' re saying you want one and let it be the house or the
ground?
I Olsen : You want either one tower or the ground?
Batzli : That ' s right. That ' s what I 'm proposing .
I Ellson: I think you should let them. Especially if in the winter they
can get more Chicago stations or something like that. You do pick up a
lot more in the winter and they probably can just put it out there for
1(... the winter and enjoy it a little bit more.
Batzli : We just got rid of our temporary use permit and here you ' re
trying to do temporary things again.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3 , 1988 - Page 25
Ellson : I 'm saying they can have one of them. They can ' t have 5 of
them in their yard . '
Headla : Does this include TV antennas?
Olsen: That wouldn' t include TV antennas .
Batzli : Do you want to reinsert the word radio? Radio antenna tower to
differeniate from TV? It appears that 's how the section does it. It
deals with satellite dishes , television antennas and radio antennas as
three separate entities .
Headla : Then you could put a facsimile tower and microwave tower?
Batzli : It sure looks like it according to this ordinance. Well , we
can exclude television antennas specifically. I would say antenna
tower, permanent or temporary and excluding television antennas, would
be a friendly amendment .
Erhart: I ' ll second that amendment .
Emmings : Any more discussion? '
Ellson: Read it again. I'd like to hear what it is again.
Emmings: As I understand it, it will say there shall be no more than
one satellite dish and one antenna tower , permanent or temporary and
excluding television antennas , per lot in residential districts .
Batzli moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment to revise the section
regarding antennas and satellite dishes (Article VI , Section 21 in
Ordinance No . 80 and Article XXIII , Section 20-915 in the proposed
ordinance) as follows :
Add the following and renumber the existing six paragraphs :
1. There shall be no more than one satellite dish and one antenna
111
tower , permanent or temporary, excluding television antennas , per lot in
residential districts.
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and motion carried .
Headla: I think they should put a maximum number and/or sizes of
antennas on the tower .
Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearings on the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments. All voted in favor and motion carried .
L