Loading...
1d. Amendment to City Code, Chp. 20, Sec. 1259, Concerning Electronic Reader Board Signs. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.2271100 Fax: 952.227 1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.2271180 Fax 952.2271190 Engineering Phone 952.227 1160 Fax 952.227 1170 Finance Phone: 952.227 1140 Fax 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227 1120 Fax: 952.2271110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227 1400 Fax 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.2271130 Fax 952.2271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.227 1300 Fax 952.2271310 Senior Center Phone 952.227 1125 Fax 952.2271110 Web Site WIiW. c i. chanhassen. mn. us LoL - MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I t!JtfP July 24, 2006 DATE: SUBJ: Adoption of Ordinance, Chapter 20 Chanhassen City Code, Zoning, regulating electronic message centers ACTION REQUIRED A simple majority vote of City Council members present is required to adopt the amendment regulating electromc message centers. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 6, 2006, to review the proposed changes to the code. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the amendments with some minor modifications to c1anfy the ordinance. The Planning Commission minutes are attached as item 3 to this memorandum. The one issue the Planning Commission held dealt with the lack of established brightness standards for electronic message center signs. The proposed amendment regarding electronic message centers was removed from the agenda for further review and was to be brought forth to City Council separately. Staff has continued to research this issue and has established additional standards regulating these SIgns, specifically, light intensity, size and location. The proposed ordinance amendment is attached for approval. According to McKay Data Systems Inc. an electronic message center becomes visible in daylight at 5,000 to 6,000 Nits. At night the same sign will appear to the human eye to be the same brightness at 5 to 10% of the daytime intensity. A nit is a unit of lummance equal to one candela per square meter (ccllm2). It is often used to quote the brightness of computer displays, which typically have a luminance of 200 to 300 nits, and LED displays, which have a typical luminance between 1000 nits (indoor) and 5000 nits (outdoor). (Source: Wikipedia, http://en. wikipedia.orglwiki/Main_Page) The City 01 Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Length Of Visible Light - This is defined to be the time of Civil Sunset minus the time of Civil Sunrise. (Source: Weather Underground, www.wunderground.com) When this item was presented to Planning Commission it included a section requiring a minimum 125 foot setback from intersections. To adopt this portion of the proposed amendment would create several nonconforming signs throughout the city which contain electronic message centers. These signs include Walgreen's, Market Street Station, Klein Bank and the recently approved Chapel Hill Academy monument sign. This section of the ordinance was designed to create traffic safety guidelines. Planning Commission approved the proposed amendment with a 125 foot setback from intersections. However, this requirement may be overly restrictive, as such, staff is recommending the required intersection setback be reduced to 50 feet. A 50 foot setback combined with a 10-15 foot wide boulevard would give a required setback 60-65 foot from intersecting roadways. This change would only leave Walgreen's as a sign with a nonconforming setback. In addition to the attached ordinance amendment staff will be recommending the adoption of the above definitions at a later date. These changes further clarify the ordinance as well as address issues that have been occurring as part of development review, therefore, staff is recommending approval of the amendment. RECOMMENDA TION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance for Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code amending section 20-1259 (2). ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 20, Zoning, Chanhassen City Code. 2. Ordmance Summary and Definitions. 3. Letter from McKay Data Systems to the City of Chanhassen dated June 23, 2006. 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 6, 2006. g:\plan\jm\code revision\2006 revisions\electronic message centers\executive summary.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20, ZONING CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-1259 (2) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Motion signs and flashing signs, except electronic message center signs, time and temperature signs and barber poles which may be permitted by conditional use permits (see sections 20-231 through 20-237), and shall comply with the following standards: a) No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. b) Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and CiVIl sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. c) Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. d) The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. e) There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within fifty feet (50') of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right-of-way lines) or within one hundred twenty five feet (125') of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constItutes a traffic hazard. f) Electronic and non-electronic message center space used on a sign shall not exceed a total of forty (40) square feet or twenty five percent (25%) of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. g) Electronic message center signs shall not be located in agricultural or residential zoning districts. 1 Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of July, 2006, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) g:\plan\jm\code revision\2006 revisions\electronic message centers\ordinance document.doc 2 CHAPTER 20 CODE REVISION Proposed changes shown in bold print Sec. 20-1259. Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited: (1) Advertising or business signs on or attached to equipment, such as semitruck trailers, where signing is a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary or permanent basis. (2) Motion signs and flashing signs, except electronic message center signs, time and temperature signs and barber poles which may be permitted by conditional use permits (see sections 20-231 through 20-237), and shall comply with the following standards: a) No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. b) Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. c) Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. d) The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. e) There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within OR@ hURdp@d tiY@Rtj' fiy@ fifty feet (~ 50') of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right-of-way lines) or within one hundred twenty five feet (125') of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. o Electronic and non-electronic message center space used on a sign shall not exceed a total of forty (40) square feet or twenty five percent (25 % ) of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. 1 g) Electronic message center signs shall not be located in agricultural or residential zoning districts. (3) Projecting signs, not including awning or canopies as defined in this chapter. (4) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed on the roof, facia or marquee of a building provided it does not extend above the highest elevation of the building, excluding chimneys, and provided: a. Roof signs shall be thoroughl y secured and anchored to the frames of the building over which they are constructed and erected. b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the periphery of the roof. (5) Wall graphics and design treatments depicting corporate logos and company symbols. (6) Temporary signs or banners except as permitted in section 20-1256. (7) Signs which are placed or tacked on trees, fences, utility poles or in the public right- of-way. (8) Bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. (9) Billboards. g:\plan\jm\code revision\2006 revisions\electronic message centers\ordinance summary and definitions.doc 2 ~~~ems Designers and Manufacturers of Programmable LED Displays 7050 County Road 101 East, Suite 100 Shakopee MN 55379 952-496-0952 800-676-2529 Fax 952-445-7528 www.mckaydata.com 23 June 2006 Josh Metzer City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Metzer: Thank you for your interest in establishing brightness specifications for LED variable message signs from gas price changers, time and temperature units, hospitality pricers and variable message signs. McKay Data Systems has been manufacturing these types of signs for over 23 years and early on we saw the need for controlling the brightness of the LED signs because people would adjust the sign to full brightness and leave it that way day and night. The sign is much too bright at night under those conditions. We would suggest the following parameters for your ordinance. Daytime - bright sun = 5,000 to 8,000 Nits. Dark night - 5% to 10% of maximum daytime brightness. A LED sign becomes sunlight viewable around 5,000 to 6,000 Nits. At night, that same sign will appear to the human eye to be the same brightness at about 5 to 10% of the daytime value. We believe that this control should be designed into the sign so that it cannot be changed by software or external manual controls. The automatic brightness control should provide multiple steps of brightness to allow for cloudy or dim ambient light conditions. This is especially true because of the lower light winter conditions we sometimes experience in Minnesota. The brightness control needs to have a short time delay so that the sign is not affected by headlights so that it flashes bright and back to dim quickly. Sincerely, Stan Leicht Vice President CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 6, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7 :05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, Kevin Dillon and Kurt Papke MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Deborah Zorn STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Debbie Lloyd Rick Dorsey 7302 Laredo Drive 1551 Lyman Boulevard PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18. SUBDIVISIONS. AND CHAPTER 20. ZONING. CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. As you stated this is a public hearing for amendments on Chapter 18, which is the subdivision ordinance and Chapter 20, which is our zoning ordinance. The first one. I did hand out tonight some revisions based on the City Attorney's review. So there's new ordmance that correspond with those revisions and then there's some background material that goes through it. We last did thIS in November of 2005's amendment so it's been a little while. For Chapter 18, as February of this year we had a discussion about including standards for retaining walls, and we finally as part of this process we're bringing them forward. As the eXIsting subdivision ordinance requires that they provide grading plans and we just expanded that to say that if they have retaining walls that meet the standards, MnDot standards for retaining walls for the larger structures, and that retaining wall's over 6 feet in height, located within 10 feet of any public way shall have some type of barrier provided so people can't walk over there and fall off accidentally. Papke: Mr. ChaIr, are we going to hold questions until the end or in process are we going to work this thing? McDonald: We'll hold questions until he's done with his presentation. Generous: Okay, fences or berms shall be installed no closer than 18 inches from a sidewalk or trail so that bikes don't run into these fences as they're going along. Landscaping between stage retaining walls be of low maintenance because they're very difficult to access and so you don't want to have to try to figure out how to get them repaired. And then instead of stating what materials can be used, we put the prohibition. Only smooth face concrete. However we would Planning Commission Meeting - June 6,2006 permit it stamped or patterned concrete which you see on a lot of new construction. We also wouldn't allow masonry which is used as mortar to hold it together. Railroad ties or timbers. The second amendment to the subdivision ordinance, and this is one that has a change is currently our, as part of our subdivision review we make developers extend infrastructure to their property line. It's inferred in the ordinance because it says you have to provide it for all the lots. However we wanted to make it clear that the city could require it be extended to the end of the project, so that's what this is. However we did strike the last clause in that so that it's, the developer is required to install public improvements, including but not limited to sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, and urban streets to the property boundary and we have put a period there. The City Attorney was concerned that the City Engineer would have too much discretion so. So that, with that we are recommending approval of adoption of the ordinance for Chapter 18 and that's the new one here. And I don't know if you want to ask questions on 18 and then get into 20? McDonald: Yeah, I'd rather go ahead and cover them one at a time so that we can be a little bit more spontaneous in our questions. Does anyone, council members have questions. Kurt? Papke: Yeah, I had a couple on the retaining wall. A lot of mine had to, you know me. I always are kind of a stickler for ambiguity. The retaining walls, you don't stipulate whether it's supposed to be at the top or the bottom of the wall. Generous: For the fencing. Papke: For the fencing. Generous: It should be at the top. We don't want people to fall off. Papke: So we should probably spell that out because otherwise, you know if I'm trying to impede access, and also there's kind of two scenarios. Either the sidewalk is at the top of the retaining wall, or it's at the bottom. Generous: Yeah, and if it's at the bottom you don't really, you're not concerned about people falling off it. Papke: RIght. So in that case is there no fence required? Generous: No. No fence would be required if the sidewalk publicly is at the bottom of the retaining wall. Papke: So we should probably call that out. So It sounds like, so it sounds like we only need a fence if the trail or path is at the top of the retaining wall, and there we all need it at the top. Generous: Right. Papke: Okay. And then the only other one I had is the last one there. We don't really spell out, is this for all streets? Some streets? I mean what. Or is it kind of self evident that the 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 watermains and so on. Where are they supposed to take them to if the, if I have four different streets that end at the property line, where do I have to take water and sewer to? Generous: To seal the next adjacent property is what the intent is, and we'll know if as part of our overall sewer plan, where the sewer line is supposed to go to service specific areas. So as part of our subdivision review we tell them where they need to put that, and so we will determine where. In some instances we may, if it's a cul-de-sac we're not going to have that cul-de-sac extended to the property line. Papke: Right. Right. Aanenson: But I would agree there's probably some ambiguity that we should clarify. To the property line and where it determines future extensions are needed. Something like that. Because it may be in two places, you're right. It may be one, and it might not even be a street. It might be a property to the south. Papke: Yeah. Yeah. That's all I had. Dillon: On the retaining wall it prohibits smooth faced concrete, in parenthesis (poured in place). How about smooth face concrete jus like a pre-fab nature? Generous: Well if it's smooth face, no. But it would have to have some type of patterning on it. Like the pedestrian bridge it has those fake rock things. Aanenson: Or stamped, yeah. Generous: Or stamped. Something that's stamped in it, so it could be a panel too. Dillon: Because you know lots of times with highway over passes, you know they've got these retaining walls of these pre-fab concrete square looking things, rectangular hooked together and they're kind of unsightly, and you know they're not poured in place. They're poured somewhere else and then put in place. Generous: Well and the poured in place isn't necessarily as part of this ordinance. That was just an example. Aanenson: Right. I think again it might be, you could almost just take poured in place out because really the intent is... Dillon: Smooth face concrete is probably sufficient. Aanenson: Yeah. Dillon: That's the comment that I have. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 Keefe: Question on retaining walls. Definition of retaining wall is, do we have a minimum height on that? For retaining wall. Generous: There's no minimum height. If it's over 4 feet then you have to get it engineered under 4 feet. This is more, this is part of the subdivision ordinance so we're not going to apply it when the property owner comes in. They're going to have that section of the ordinance that says, if it's over 4 feet you have to have it engineered. Keefe: Right, and so in this case this just applies to a new subdivision and there is no minimum attached to the height. In the retaining wall and subdivision. Generous: There wouldn't be but usually we don't see small. Keefe: Right, I mean I don't, do we intend it to be that way? Aanenson: We talked about that. We did talk about whether we wanted like 8 feet. If we had to go 15-16 feet, that we do two walls instead of one. Keefe: Right. Aanenson: We did have that discussion and I think we decided to take that out but we always evaluate that with each one when they come in. Typically they're harder to engineer and we've tried to work, our first choice is to try to reduce as much of the retaining wall as we can. You know as we move in some of the development areas in the city now, it's been more challenging topography, especially as we move south. So there will be more. Keefe: I guess the question is, it says all proposed retaining walls must be shown on the plan. At what point do we require them, I mean to have retaining walls? I mean is there specific design standards who call for them to put in our engineering standards which all for them to have retaming walls? Is there a definition on that? Generous: Well that's more what the engineer's determine. Where it works to either reduce the grading. Usually when we require it, it's to preserve some natural feature. Aanenson: To save trees. Those sort of things typically, but we did talk about that and I think... Keefe: So this would be any retaimng wall which is either, the engineer would call for or the CIty would call for irrespective of height. It's just any retaining wall? Generous: Yes. Keefe: Okay. That's all I have. McDonald: Can I follow up on that? Where do the MnDot standards come into play here? Do they have anything to do with when you do a retaining wall or whether it's one level or two levels or anything like that? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 Generous: They're just part of the engineering design for a retaining wall. So if you're going to build it this high and hold back this much, this is the setting that you have to put it in. Aanenson: But I think Commissioner McDonald is right because I think we did talk about that when Alyson said that, and MnDot has a standard if it's so high then they want so much separation between walls and I think that was one of the directions that we talked about. I think that's what you're... we did talk about and we should clarify that. Maybe give a little more specificity to what that MnDot standard was. But I think there was a separation in height. McDonald: Yeah, because I thought when we had this discussion, that was why we went with that because they had studied this and talked about back fill and separation and how high above you could actually go before you needed to do a step or something. Aanenson: It is kind of a, it's a very topical issue right now because as we said, a lot of the development's we're seeing, they have retaining walls. If we said you couldn't have a retaining wall, we'd actually be doing some taking because people couldn't develop. So we're trying to find that balance of providing safety and minimizing, yet having some sort of standard in place. McDonald: I have a question that goes back to the blocks. When we looked at this before we looked at several pictures where they have the smaller.. . blocks that stack up. Are we talking about those type of blocks? Generous: That would be, they're moving towards using those bigger blocks now because they're more efficient. McDonald: Okay. Because what this is really aimed at is developers, not people doing something in their back yards. Aanenson: Correct. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. And if no one else has any at this point I would open the meeting up to public comments. Anyone wishing to make comment, please come forward. Seeing no one come forward, I close the public meeting. I'll bring it back up for the commissioners for discussion. Let's start with Mark. Kurt? No? Papke: Are we going to vote on these chapter by chapter or are we going to go through all the chapters or? McDonald: We'll go through chapter by chapter. Papke: So do we vote on the first. McDonald: Yeah, we'll do 18 and then we'll move to 20. I have no comments either. At this point I'll accept a motion. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 Keefe: I'll make a motion planning, Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. McDonald: Can I have a second? Undestad: Second. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. McDonald: Staff, will you now give us a report on Chapter 20. Generous: Chapter 20, Zoning. The first one is in Section 20-58 and it's just a grammatical change. When we have multiple criteria, they are plural so these criteria, rather than this and people actually hold us to this one criteria so we're going to make that change. Section 20-73, and that's the information I handed out tonight. It's actually the City Attorney told us that we needed to revise both 20-72 and 20-73. And I've provided a strike through and bold format. Basically he said adopt these state statutes which requires that for non-conforming uses that you have a period of one year to replace them. And then secondly if it's destroyed by a fire or other perils from natural disaster you'd have up to, to the extent no greater than 50% of it's market value, then you have to get a building permit within 180 days. That's probably the biggest change. Right now our ordinance gives you 2 years for that but it doesn't specify other fire or other perils. It just says natural disasters. So that was what we were originally starting to amend the ordinance to and he came back and provided us with all this language about the State statute. So 20-72 deals with all non-conforming uses and structures. 20-73 is just non-conforming lots of record and what we did is took out the first, the old item (a) and actually that's something non- conforming uses and structures because it really didn't apply to the lot. The lots, the non- conforming lots you can develop them as long as you can meet all the other code requirements. So we are, and then I also attached the actual section of the State statute so you can see the line that's in. It's pretty faithful to that except for instead of municipality you say the CIty. There are thmgs that we go beyond the ordinance and we can require the non-conforming's can be superceded by approval of City Council but our ordinance can be a little less stringent than the State statute but not more. So for, if someone tears down their non-conforming structure, they have a year to replace it. We couldn't say you only have 6 months to do that for instance, so that's the big change there. Next one in Section 20-645, the council had some concerns about the closeness of the setback in the RLM districts between single family detached housing. We're coming back with a 5 and 10 foot setback requirement. 5 from the garage and 10 on the other side. Or if you have two garages together, a minimum of 15 foot separation between structures, so they've got a little more separation in there and that's what that change was. 20-905, single family dwellings. This is one we've been having difficulties with the new construction where people come in and they'll show a house plan and they'll have a patio door and nothing outside it and they'll be at 25% impervious and we say, well you can't do that because you're going to put a patio on and that will put you over. And they said no, no, no. That's not going to happen so this then is, if you show that on the plan, we're going to assume that there's at least 100 square feet of impervious area, unless It'S connected to some structure. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 Aanenson: And again this has been a kind of buyer beware issue that, and you get stuck with the problem because the builder turns the problem over to the homeowner. As soon as they get in, they want to put the deck and the patio in because they don't want to come through the mud to come into the house and they're at maximized at impervious. And legally they can build to the maximum but then it's forcing them, the homeowner, without their prior knowledge when you're buying, to get a variance and we don't want to be the bad guys so we want the builder to show, do a better job of disclosure about they're putting in a patio. That there's a minimum patio but there's a minimum expectation that they're providing some sort of space. Keefe: So just clarification. This in effect says 100 feet less than the 25%. Aanenson: Correct. So if for some reason. Generous: For each doorway or access point. Keefe: Oh, for each. Generous: Unless it's connected to a, show us a sidewalk that's going up to the front of the house, a stoop or some other improvement. Also to further clarify that, we also said and this under 10 by 10 area has to comply with all the setback requirements. Aanenson: We've had one where the, the patio door goes right up to the setback so then you're forcing another variance. So while we can't, the ordinance right now as interpreted by our CIty Attorney, we can't stop that but it's really not you know for the homeowner to understand on that issue and we try to take that burden away from them. McDonald: So this really forces the discussion of a variance up front. Aanenson: Correct. McDonald: Where they come to us with either the subdivision plans or. Dillon: If they don't, what if they just have you know, it's not on the plan. You assume 10 by 10 and they don't build a patio so it's a house without a patio. And then the homeowner wants to do something that's bigger than 10 by 10, will they then have to do the variance? Aanenson: Yes. Generous: If they exceed the site coverage or setback or whatever. Aanenson: Because right now we're havmg all kinds of funny little things happen. People trying to leave off front sidewalks, you know things that make the house inferior, whIch we don't think is the right approach. They should design, or get a bigger lot. Pick a different lot for that home or make a different home size instead of trying to make it inferior. So yeah, it happens. Sometimes people don't put a patio and the next buyer doesn't understand it. Because if they say 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 we'll have the buyer disclose it at the sell. Well it might not happen with the first two years. It might be sold and then someone else gets stuck with the problem. It just creates a lot of ill will. McDonald: Next. Generous: Okay, next is 20-909. Outdoor storage. Again this is one where the City Attorney objected to our language. He said, well the way you're changing it, you're going to permit storage in front yards because you took out that setback requirement. And then if you go to the overhead, so what we did is drafted this revised ordinance. Revised language that says continued storage of boats, all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and trailers may be stored in the side or rear yard behind the required front setback if owned by the resident or owner, lessee of the property and subject to the following. Such storage may not extend beyond the front of the principle structure. On corner and double fronting lots the front of the structure shall be defined as a side access by a driveway to the public street. And the illustration up on the screen just shows the area in blue would be all that area that would be prohibited from having storage of trailers and it's up to the setback and specifically then we had the bottom lot is a double frontmg lot and it showed that you'd have to meet the 30 foot setback on both ends, and then you'd have that whole middle area that you could store in. On the top right corner it shows a corner lot. Or in the top left and how you have to meet the 30 foot setback on the right side that's farther back from the property line so you could have a storage area right next to the structure there or on the other side, but on the north property you're not, I assume the 30 foot setback to the house and so they would have to be behind that structure, so they had a limited area. But thIS is, we've been getting complaints about people storing things in front yards and the neighbors seem to object to that quite a bit so we wanted to make it clear that it has to be behind the front of the house. Because under the existing language, if the house is back 50 feet, after the first 30 feet they could put a trailer in. Because that's required front setback. So that's the change to outdoor storage. Next change is Section 20-1019. This is on fences and we're adding a section on bluffs that we, they have to maintam the structure setback from the bluff for fences. It can't be in the buffer yard or the 30 foot setback. There are concerns at the top of bluff that any alterations are going to start erosion issues and so this is more a health, safety issue for us. Next is SectIOn 20-1124. This is the parking standards and Sharmeen had brought this back when we looked at that apartment building on 10 1 and our old standards required one enclosed stall and one parking stall and that was adequate and so we're just moving back to that. We looked at other communities and our ordinance seemed excessive and we haven't had parking problems for apartments. So we're recommending that it go back to the one stall enclosed. McDonald: Can I ask you a questIOn on that before you go on? The thing that brought thIS up was that development that's going in over on 101. With this new ordinance would they now have, be able to meet that requirement? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Section 20-1255. There's two sections. These are signs that are people are able to put out without a permit and so for development they could have 3 or 4 different signs put in the 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 front of it. We want them to consolidate that if they're going to put them up, but also that they, we don't get a proliferation of signs. Especially if you get multiple developments in an area. So when we have the construction sign and the project advertising sign combined and then you get the bigger area for the construction advertising and you can split it up however the developer wants consistent with what his contractor would like so. Section 20-1259. This is, right now we allow motion signs or electronic message signs by conditional use permit but we didn't have any standards and so we tried to come up with standards. We had Josh had reviewed other communities. Most communities don't allow them. We have, and you know so that they have a purpose and, but however we don't want them to be a safety issue so we don't want the flashing signs in there and we don't want it to cause, be excessively bright. We want to have a separation from residential neighborhoods so that you don't get the light into the house at the night. We did contact some companies to see what the standards were. Originally we had a maximum nit that we were going to propose in here but they say that changing technology, you know may be superceded right away so you don't want to do that. You just, you don't want it to be excessively bright. And again, if it's a sign, we don't want it scrolling around and distract people while they're driving. They have one message out there and then it can change over time. And then the standards for it. Finally we would prohibit an agriculture or single family residential zoning districts. McDonald: Can I ask you a question about bright. It sounds as though it becomes kind of a subjective. Shouldn't there be a, what's the standard? Who's to say what's bright? I mean if you go out and tell a guy his sign's bright, he's going to tell you no, it's not. Generous: We've had that issue before and if we get multiple people agree that it's bright and we have them, there's ways to reduce the intensity of lighting without actually changing the sign. McDonald: Why don't you want to go with the standard? If you're saying that. Generous: Well because, the standard, the average brightness I believe was 5,000 nits and with new technology and they're making that measurement more, they could make it more brighter. I don't know the technical, the details on that and so. Aanenson: How about it be something that we can look at. . . McDonald: . . . setting us up for a problem there. Generous: When It was origmally drafted that was one of the things I was looking at and they you know, they said the recommendation was that we not adopt the standards but we can get more information on that. Aanenson: And that was the sign company that recommended that. Generous: And then in SectIOn 20-1267 also deals with signs and our ordinance says you have to provide individual dimension letters but we don't have any, what's the minimum dimension and so we're just putting this, and this is about an average minimum that we see. Usually the individual letters are bigger, 4 to 8 inches but when they put a panel in, we say well you can have 9 Planning Corrumssion Meeting - June 6, 2006 the panel but you have to stamp letters and how big. Is it 8 inch enough? No, that really doesn't provide the differentiation that you want to see so half inch was like I said the minimum that we've been seeing on these panel signs that are coming in now. And that's it so staffs recommending approval of the revised ordinance which is in the stuff I handed you today. And incorporated those changes that I talked about from the city attorney and with that I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you have. McDonald: Kurt, you want to start? You have any questions? Papke: I just had one simple one. On the fences and within the bluff impact zone. It's not clear to me, could you explain how a fence could be inside the, or inside the 20 foot bluff impact and not be within, it just sounds like it's redundant. Couldn't we just say within the 30 foot. Generous: The 30 foot. We could actually eliminate the buffer. Can't be in the buffer if you have to meet the setback, you're right. Papke: Yeah, it's just confusing because they're both in there. That was the only comment I had. Generous: OnginallY that was intended to where the wetland ordinance which allows you to set it within the setback, but it has to be out of the wetland buffer. But that has, the Forester said you know that wasn't a really good idea to get any encroachment into that area. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: For the section that deals with the storage of boats, all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, etc, and they can't be In front of the principle structure. I mean would it be practical or you know politically even feasible just to say they can't be, or they only can be stored behind the house and not on the side at all? Aanenson: Well go to your map real quick Bob and just show you where the problems are of being on a comer lot. Generous: Yeah this one they literally. Aanenson: This one right here, if you wanted to store something on this side of the house... this one too, It'd probably be more practical to do, if you wanted to do some side yard storage. Generous: A lot of people will put the driveway in and then they have a turnout to park their trailer In that area. Dillon: And I think they're an eyesore myself but I mean that's. Aanenson: Yeah, we did a survey of this a number of years ago. Came up at council regarding so many, because we have so many lakes, especially in summer people want easy access to get their boat in and out. That seemed to be a problem and there's a different section of the code that 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 talks about RV's because sometimes people park an RV for a day or two in the front yard. That happens. So it's long term storage of boats, especially in the summer. Or in the winter it reverses and it's a snowmobile where people want easy access where they, as Bob just showed you on that, they can kind of slip out the driveway and have it in that part of the side yard. It' s kind of a good neighbor. When we went through a different ordinance that we proposed, I think it went to the Planning Commission. We talked about, when we talk about canopies. We had people trying to do boat canopies. Those also can be an eyesore. Some subdivisions have ordinances. Their homeowners association has standards also that restrict how those apply. That they don't allow those so this is, for those areas that don't have that regulation. Dillon: I was thinking more about the snowmobiles out there in the summer. Aanenson: Yeah. Or both tied up in the back yard all winter. Yeah. Dillon: Right. I mean I. Aanenson: We could pass that point on. I think that. Dillon: I understand that. Aanenson: That would bring a few people to argue. Papke: There's a lot of people that store boats. Dillon: I don't know. I mean I, I know it's impractical for a lot of people to do it anywhere else. Aanenson: Right, and that's what we're really trying to put, at this time of year we get a lot of complaints in the spring about people don't always put it in the back yard and people are trying to sell their house and they you know, and that's, so we just try to say at a minimum screen them. And some people do nice fencing along the side to screen them a little bit more. Landscaping and just try to create that uniformity. Papke: I've got kind of a related question. I have a neighbor who has a berm in the front yard and he regularly parks his boat in his driveway off to the side but you can't see it as you drive by. And he'd be prevented from doing that. I don't know, do we want to say anything about viSIbility? But then that's kind of a slippery slope. Aanenson: It is. Papke: If I have a pine tree in my front yard, then you know in theory nobody can see it. Aanenson: Right. We've actually had that a lot too where people have actually tried to slide them underneath pine trees so you can't see but the one neighbor still can across the street and it's all up, it's really, what we discovered with the carport thing, there's, every neighborhood has a different tolerance level and it's just a fact in the CIty. There's just different tolerance levels 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 and people have different expectations so they try to be really consistent. Some of the older neighborhoods have different rules. Papke: What's the enforcement like on this? Who does this get reported to? Aanenson: Some of them go through the CSO's. The Community Service Officer and some of them come through us. Generous: Through planning. Aanenson: To planning. Dillon: That's the only comment that I have. Keefe: The message sign shall not be located in Ag or single family. Do we consider limiting them Just to the Central Business District? Aanenson: Yeah, well you know the other thing if you look at, we have Office InstItutional, for example you just looked at Chapel Hill. I mean I think that was when we originally looked at LED signs, that was kind of the intent that they would be kind of more message boards. You know like the high school when they've got activities. The schools or community centers, those sort of things would have it. And then we kind of started. Keefe: Feels more urban, you know. Aanenson: Yeah, well and you know more people using them. Walgreen's. All the banks pretty much have them now, so it's kind of proliferating out. Keefe: Of downtown, right. Aanenson: Yeah, right. But the school district, that was an issue we had, we talked about how to minimize that at night so we, the Planning Commission recommended that that, and that hasn't gone to council. That will be on for the Ith too. Limit the hours so it's not bright at night because it's more of a residential feel but that's, in 01 zoning district it isn't a problem because it's office institutional right here in that zoning, yeah. Keefe: You know it says it can't be distracting to traffic but I mean they're so eye catching, I don't know how they can't be distracting. Generous: Well the flashing is the thing that we were mostly concerned with. Aanenson: That might be something that, yeah if you wanted us to look at it for hke. McDonald: But I thought the purpose of them is to catch your eye. Keefe: Well they do a good job of that. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 Aanenson: Yeah, so whether it's commercial or what, you know you can kind of take two approaches which we talked about whether It'S, who uses it. What type of uses do you want to assign those to or what zoning district. Keefe: So where do we have them outside of the Central Business District? Papke: We just approved a landscaper in southern Chanhassen. Aanenson: Yeah, that was an issue. Yeah... Keefe: I mean you just see this sort of, you know once they get them all over, then we end up becoming. Aanenson: That's a valid discussion. I mean if we want to continue to have them. That's what we looked at capping the square footage on and you know you said something, maybe you want to restrict to more limited. Undestad: Personal opinions. Papke: Just kind of a personal antidote, I mean I think they get more distracting as you get older. I was visiting my mother recently and she was complaining about all these signs and how they're so distracting. I think It'S, part of it's attention span and as our population ages, all of us old farts are going to have more and more of an issue as we get older with this stuff. Aanenson: Just more things coming at you. Papke: More things commg at you to confuse your eyes. Keefe: Well and you know, we're sort of at the beginning of these new SIgns coming into Chanhassen and we're all like, if we let them go, we're not going to be able to go back. Aanenson: Right. Keefe: Once they're in place, they're in place. Aanenson: And I thmk it's a good time to talk about that, and that's why we put it on. It's like it's really something, do we feel like that's something we want in the community? Undestad: What else is coming when the freeway comes through and. Aanenson: Right, right. Right, do we want... Papke: It just seems like in the downtown business district, I mean you've got movie theaters. I mean it's just reall y fittmg, but you know, along Pioneer Trail. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 Aanenson: Let me back up. LED's are only permitted under conditional use. These would be the standards. But you can't deny a conditional use. You can only do it, put standards to mitigate the impact. Square footage and that sort of thing but so, so that might be something you want to change too, or to look at because, and that goes back to what you were talking about. Maybe there's just only certain instances you want to do. Some ofthe conditions on the conditional use is, I think even on the bank they're asked to do community messaging. Such as the February Festival, those sort of things, that we ask them to put some of those things on too. Keefe: If we were to limit this to the Central Business District, and it's under conditional use correct? They come in and apply for a variance to the conditional use permit or? Aanenson: They can always apply for a variance. Keefe: So they could come in and still apply for a particular sign that could be in another zone. Aanenson: And we believe. Keefe: That would be a variance to the conditional use, is that correct? Generous: If the standard was adopted. Keefe: Yeah, if the standard was adopted as such. Aanenson: Yeah, because I do believe the movie theater was given a variance to, I think it was the height of that LED sign and the nexus to that was that the Planmng Commission and the City Council felt like, because that was the only movie theater in town, that there seemed to be some relationship that that might be one loud sign that made some sense so that's why that one got approved at that height and that big. Keefe: Well you know if we're sort of in the middle of an industrial park or something along those lines, you know why wouldn't we allow a variance in that situation? I just feel a concern if you start seeing them along every retail comer. You know commercial use... Aanenson: Yeah, I think we were too. It's a lot of distractions. Keefe: Right, and I don't necessarily, I don't know. Maybe somebody else has some thoughts on this? McDonald: Well one thing I was wondering, what other communities have got standards on this? Has anybody really done any look? Generous: As part of this we did look at some communities. Like I said, most of them prohibit. Eden Prairie said they prohibit it but, we've seen them out there so we did, we did look out there. Most of them don't have standards. They just say you can do it and. Aanenson: Or they're approved with a variance as part of a site plan or whatever. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 McDonald: Well I understand the intent is that we don't become a Las Vegas where everything is just neon signs and everything but, if we make this such that we're going to have a lot of variances, we're going to have a lot of people probably coming up here and how in the world do you begin to judge because you hurt a person's business because they can't get everyone's attention. I mean that will be the big argument. Aanenson: Well I thmk, in the fact that we already restrict the size of sign proportionality to building size and that sort of thing already, I think there can be some reasonable regulations on that. McDonald: Yeah, we're okay I think as far as size and everything, but if we start talking about where you can go. Now central business district and those kind of things, what's the central business district? You know it can, it is changing. Aanenson: It's a zoning district. It is a zoning district, yeah. It's the most intense one. Keefe: I mean they're limiting it here by saying you can't do it in.. .so they're selecting that. And that was my point. Do we want to select where they can go? McDonald: Well there's so many ways to look in a particular area. If it's more residential than it is business... Papke: Right now in single family though, I mean it kind of opens up for multi-family or RLM. Aanenson: Flashing the rent. You know vacancies, yeah. Keefe: How many zoning districts do we have? 15 or 16? Something like that. Aanenson: Yeah, you could put all residential instead of saying single family. That might be more appropriate. McDonald: Well I guess I'd be more in favor, at least right now we've got something. And we're probably going to have to look at everything on a case by case basis and then we'll learn from that. We can make changes from there but at least this will give us some control. Isn't that what staff feels is that at least we can say. Generous: Well yeah. We have some standards if they come in bigger because right now it's a conditional use or nothing. Undestad: Yeah, but we can't deny conditional use so... Generous: Just put reasonable standards. McDonald: But at least we can put standards on, we've got that. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6,2006 Keefe: So many we amend this to say all residential zoning districts, instead of just single family. Generous: Or just single family. Keefe: Right, for all residential zoning districts. Because then that would leave what, CB? Generous: Well commercial and industrial and office. Keefe: We'd have commercial and industrial office. So it's a fair compromise. All residential. McDonald: Well at this point then I would open the floor for publIc comments, if anyone wishes to make comments on this particular Section 20. Please come forward to the podium. State your name and address and address the council. Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm here about Section 645. The RLM district. McDonald: Was that 20-645? Debbie Lloyd: Yes. Sorry. Point 5. I don't know if you have the present ordinance in front of you. I'm sorry I rrussed getting here earlier. That presently for single family dwellings there is a 5 foot setback for the side yard. For the two family dwellings and the RLM district, there's a 10 foot and for townhomes or multiple family units there's 10 feet. So really If you change the ordinance, you're affecting the two famIly dwelling and the townhouse and multiple family dwellings. Is that correct Bob? Generous: No, this would only apply to the single family. Debbie Lloyd: Well according to the code that I just printed off the internet it says the side yard is 5 feet. Generous: Right, for single family. This is subsection 5(a). There's a 5(b) and a 5(c). Debbie Lloyd: Right. 5(b) and (c) is what Ijust mentioned. Generous: Yeah, those apply to 2. We're only applying this to the single family section. Keefe: This is to 5(a). Debbie Lloyd: Right, and what is the change? Generous: We're adding. Aanenson: Increasing it. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 Generous: Increasing the setback to 10 feet on one side and 5 on the other. Keefe: So you'd have 15 between. Aanenson: Making it greater. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, making it greater. Aanenson: Yeah, for the single family to be a little bit more consistent. Kind of traditional home. Debbie Lloyd: Right. Undestad: So we're not changing it... Aanenson: That's correct. Debbie Lloyd: Oh okay. Aanenson: And that came out of the feedback, when we did the last subdivision. The first subdivision we did on the RLM, they've agreed to the 5 and 10 and then the council wanted us to address that. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. Good. I misread this. I thought, yeah. Aanenson: It's okay. Keefe: That's why we have the questions. DebbIe Lloyd: Well because I didn't want to see any more reduction. Particularly because we do allow parking between units and single family homes. You probably discussed that. Aanenson: Yeah...some of the storage and stuff. Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, and because the community too likes to keep some green space. Aanenson: Yep. Yep. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Seeing no one else come forward, I'll close the public meeting and I'll bring it back before the commissioners for discussion. Mark. Undestad: No more here. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2006 McDonald: Dan. Keefe: I've already discussed it. McDonald: Okay, I have no discussions either. Looking for a motion. Dillon: Motion to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code. McDonald: Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Dillon moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Chanhassen City Code as noted with the changes discussed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. McDonald: Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Papke: How about the dropping of the single family, or yeah, the single family piece? Generous: For the LED signs. Keefe: For the LED SIgns. Do we need to add that in? Generous: If it was clear, would you incorporate that? Aanenson: So noted. With the changes. There were a couple of them. McDonald: We did discuss those and you dId agree to. ..Okay, so noted. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 16, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 18