02-3-88 Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSTON
WEDNESDAY, FEBRARY 3, 1988, 7:30 p.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I
a.
zoning ordinance Amendment to conduct a comprete codificationof Ordinance No. 80, the Chanhassen Zoning 6rdinance, asamended, and to consider revising certain sections oi saiilOrdinance No. 80 as follows:
Revise Article V, Section 5 (5)(3)
6 (5)(3) to state 125 feet.and Article V, Section
d
t
Revise Article VI , Section 5, Accessory Structuresprovide for setbacks for various sizes of accessorybuildings.
Revise Article VI , Section 12,vide for regulations regarding
f ences .
Fences andthe use of
Wa11s,
barbed
to
to pro-
wi re
Defete Article
Uses.
VI , Section 4, Temporary Structures anal
Add Section 26 to Article Vf, Supplementary Regulationsto regulate construction of metal buildings.
Add subparagraph 20 toProvisions for Signs tofor cemetery signs.
Article Ix, Section 2,require a condi tional General
use permi t
h
Add an Arti.cle to theof Demolition Debris.
Zoning Ordinance to requlate Burial
Revise Article VI , Section 21, AntennasDishes to limit a singIe family lot toone satellite dish.
and Satell ite
one antenna and
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OPEN DISCUSSION
2. Comprehensive P1an, Tlansportation Chapt.er, Mark Koegler.
MI SCELLANEOUS
3
NEW
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
BUS I NES S
ADJOURNME NT
Discussion.
b.
s.
CITY OF
EH[NH[SSEtrI
P.C. DATE: Feb. 3, 1988
C.C. DATE: Feb. 22, 1988
CASE NO: 88-3 zOA
Prepared by: Dacy/v
STAFF R=PORT
Fz
o
=(LL
ko
hJF
@
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Conduct a CompleteCodification of Ordinance No. 80 and to ConsiderRevising Certain Sections of Ordinance No. 80.
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY s
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:N-
S-
E-
w-
WATER AND SEhIER:
PEYSICAL CHARAC. :
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
ZOA,/Cod i f icaEion
February 3, 1988
Page 2
B ACKGROU ND
Codif ication
Recommenda t i on
The city cornmissioned a municipal code corporalion to review arrof the city codes and review confricts beEr,veen our codes andstate and federal laws. At the conclusion of that review ana inconjunction with the city-Attorney's reviere, .ii-.f- ttr"-! fiiordinances have been codified and organized into on" uoor-"6 tnutthere are no duplications from on. oidinance to another ordi-nance. ft is anticipated. t.hat the City Council will ippi""" t",first reading the new codified ordinanie at the feUruaiy ZZnameeting. Because any.rype_of zoning ordinance "il;a;;;l i!qoj.r."a pubric hearing by state raw, the 6ommissi.on wirr ue-con"id"rirgtswo issues:
I. Codification of the Zoning Ordinance.2. Specific language amendments.
ANALYS I S
The Zoning Ordinance is identified as Chapter 20 in rhe proposedcode Book. The codifiers have rearranged the organiztaion it tneZoning Ordinance slightly in comparisoi to the oiignally adoptedZoning ordinance in February, lgb7. The overlay distriits suchas the flood p1ain, shoreland, pUD and wetland iistricts, havebeen placed prior to the listings of the specific zoning
'iistricts. There were arso som6 other min6r sectio, ."i.r.rrg"-ments regarding the standards for conditional uses in theAdministraEion and Enforcement articlei however, the overail for-mat of the Zoning Ordinance remains intact. There were nolanguage changes done by the codifiers.
Although the proposed Zoning ordinance within the code Book willbe slightly different than Ehe newspaper versions that weredistributed in rhe south shore weekiy-News in neoruaiy, 'isBz, th"City can reprint the newspaper into Lhe modifiea formit.Further, because there have been a number of changes in theZoning ordinance since February of 1992, it. woufa-ai.ciite -a
revised printing anyway. The il-anning Department has found t.hatthe nerrspaper version has been very uiefui to give i" it,u -je""."r
public and developers.
Planning staff recommends the planning Conmission adopt t.hefollowing rnotion:
'rThe_Planning Corunission recomrnends approval of the proposedcodification of rhe zoning ordinance ii cnapter 20 i; ai;-;;o_posed Chanhassen City Code.',
A
ZOAlCodification
February 3, 1988
Page 3
Specific Zoninq Ordinance Amendments
Revise Article v, Section 5 (5)(3) anil Article V, Section 6
(5) (3) to state l-25 feet.
The City Council at the January 11, 1988, meeting agree.l with
the Planning Commissionrs recommendaEion to reduce the 1ot
depth requirement for single family lots from 150 feet to 125feet.
Planning staff reconmends the Planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion:
"The Planning Commission recommencls approval of the Zont ng
Ordinance AmenCment to revise the lot depth requirement forsingle family lots from 150 feet to 125 feet IArticle V,Section 5 (5)(3) and Article V, Section 6 (5)(3) in OrdinanceNo. 80 and Article XII, Section 20-515 (3) and Article XIII,Section 20-635 (3)l in the proposed ordinaoce.
Revised Article VI , Section 5, Accessory Strucutures, to pro-vide for setbacks for various sizes of accessory buildings.
The Planning Commission recommended that an accessorybuilding be limited to 1,000 square feet in size in the RSFand R-4 Distri.cts. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance permits
accessory buildrngs five feet from the rear Iot 1ine. TheCity Council at the January 1L, 1988, meeting felt r.hat a
11000 square foot accessory building r"ras too large to belocated five feet from the rear lot 1ine. The City Councilrequested staff to review typical accessory building sizes
and provicle a graduating setback for ilifferent sizes ofaccessory buildings.
Accessory buildings can be built into two types. The firstis a storage shed which ranges from 8' x 8r Eo I2r x 12'andthe second is a pole barn which can be designed to almost anysize. Staff is proposiog that 200 square feet be the maximumsize for an accessory building be located 5 feet from therear lot line. Any accessory building over 200 sguare feet
must be located 15 feet from the rear lot line. The 200 feetthreshold separates storage sheds f rorn the larger pole barns
and garages.
B
Recommendation
t6ZOAlCodification
February 3, 1988
Page 4
Recomme ndat i on
to
A detached accessory structrrr
30t of the area of any rear y
structure Less than 200 squar
occupy not more than
detached accessoryin size shall be
t
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Lhe Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to revise the regulations regarCing
Accessory Structures (Article VI , Section 5 in Ord. No. 80
and Article XXIII, Section 2C-904 in the proposed ordinance)
as follows:
a A detached accessory structure except a dock shall be
locateC in the buildable lot area or required rear yard.
No accessory use or structure in any residential district
shall be located in the required front or side yard.
$
b e. ma
ard.p,placed at minimum 5 feet m any rear lot 1ine.
reater than 200 s qua
A
re feet
line.
or
the
detached accesso
in size sha1l be
ry st.
In no case, hower/er, sha
Ee t I any detached accessory struc-t from any rear 1ota
ture exceed 1.,000 square feet.f
ntial district, no accessory building
ruc 1be erected or construcLed prior to
nstruction of the principle or main
may be erected simultaneously. "
1,1 Tk
c. In any
&,
Revifor
st
er
bu
t
SE
re
\
ec
.l
Article VI, Sectiongulations regarf,ing
12, Fences and Wa1ls, to provide
the use of barbed wire fences.
c$
C
The City Council at the January 11, 1988, meeting agreed with
t.he Ptanning Commission's recommendation regarding prohi-
biting t.he use of barbed wire fences in residential , commer-
cial, and industrial districts and Lo permit barbed wire
fences only in the agricultural di,strict or in the commercial
and industrial district trith a conditional use permit.
Recommendat i on
Planning staff reconmends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planni:rg Commission recommends approval of the zoning
Ordinance Amendment Eo amend the Fences and Wa11s 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:
4
"4$
&
zOA,/Codificarion
February 3, 1988
Page 5
Commercial and
a
Section 20-1024. Barbed Wire Fences:
Barbed wire fencesdistricts. Barbedcultural districts.
proh ibi t.ed in a1l residentialfences are permitted in the
are
!rire agrr-
Add the followino
( Section 20-I0I8 ifences:
sentence a e end of the sectionregulacommercial and i ndus tr ial
D. Delete Ar
Recornmenda t ion
industr
cooditi
tf.LVf, Section 4,
nces utilizing barbed wi re wl ailAse permit.,,tu11v
t i clle t^J?emporary Structures and Uses.
Currently, Article vI , Section 4, provides Ehat temporarystruct.ures and uses to be locat.i In-r-i"t ieitbia the city::::l:: a remporary conaitionii-u"."p!r.r.. As some of rhemembers reca1l, the City.Attorney tral-i-'proofem with thissecEion in rhar it confiict"-;iai "IIII rrr. civen rheAttorney's ooinion. i! i: ..."r^.nJJi inat tnis secrion bedeleted from the Zoning ordinance. -ini" i."r" was originallyconsidered in coniunsgi"" ;ia; -;;" t",niJ.urv book sroreapplication in th6 ,ural area'-";;;r;iT;rrhs ago. At Ehar,Lime, the Commission. eras concerned as to whether or not e1i_mination of rhis section ;""iJ-iiIniiii""o.. remporary useslike chrisrmas rree rot saies-r;-;;;: Temporary ourdoordisplay or" materials are permittea in-itre comrnercialdistricts as conditional uses. -tt,.-diiy Council in the pasti::.,3:l:3.the conditi;;.i-;;; p..iiI'pi""ess ror christmas
I:iil;l:r";:li";:'"*''"nds the Plannins commission adopr Ehe
"The Planninq Commission recommends approval of the Zoningordinance Amendmenr ro det;;;;;;-;";[i;" resardins remporarystrucrures aod uses (Ar!icte v; a.;ri;;"4, in ordinance No.
::r:::.ot.tcle xxrrr, section io_s03-i; the proposed ordi_
Add Section 25 Eo Articl,e vI, Supplementary Regulations toRegulate Construcrion of Merai B;iiei;;;.
The City Council acreed that the Zoning ordinance should beamended to provide for. archirectural sianaards to prevent theconstruction of metal buildings in-itr" -I"^*ercial
andindustrial areas. Meral bui ld irg;Zp;i"-Uarns are typically
I
E.
ZOA,/Codi f i cation
February 3, 1988
Page 6
used in E.he single family districts and consist of suchbuildings as tool barns from Sears to agriculturaL storagebuildings.
The primary objective of this amendment was to prohibit theconstruction of metal buildings in commercial and industrialdistricts. The Commission should be aware that there areexisting buildings in Chanhassen along West 79th Street thatutilized metal wal1s but applied a different facia. This wasdone in an attempt to minimize building costs but alsoachieving a pleasing exterior. Originally discussed by theCommission was prohibiting any type of metal buildings orexteriors in the office, commercial and industrial oistricts-The city does antici.pate challenges to this ruling irom per-
sons who are located in the downtown area and are going to berelocated to another portion of Ehe corunercial or industrialdistricts. The Commission has two options:
From a planning standpoint, the elimination of metal
construct.ion completely would be the best alterantive i;)
terms of proper enforcement of building codes and improvement
of exterior appearancei however, an option is available to
the city to Ehose potential land owners who '*ould seek a less
costly al-ternaEive for building.
RecommenCa t ion
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt. thefollowing motion:
"The Planning Commission recommen,Js approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Arnendment to add a section to the Supplenentary
Regulations (Section 26, Article VI, in Ordinance No. 80 andArticle XXIII, Section 20-920, in the proposed ordinance) tostate as foIlows:
Section 20-902. Metal Buildings. Struct.ures located iathe Office and Institutional, Business, and IndustrialDistricts shall not have metal exteriors or be of metalconstruction. "
I
2
F Add subparagraph 20Provisions for Signs
Cemetery Signs.
to Articl-e
Require a
IX, Section
Conditional
2, General
Use Permit for
Prohibit the utilization of metal construction.Aflow the use of metal construction, however, no expossedmetal shall be permitted in office, comrnercial andindustrial districts.
This issue was raised during consideration of the sign
variance request for st.. Hubert church for the construction
ZOA,/Codi f icat ion
February 3, 1988
Page 7
of the cemetery gatelsign to be located along West 78thStreet (see attached Planning Commission minutes). The
Commission direci:ed staff to come back with a recommendation
as to hoi, the ordinance should be amended to accommodate for
cemeEery signage.
Recommenda ts i on
Planning staff recornmends the Planning Commission adopE the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Ordinance Amendment to include Signage Regulations
Zoningfor
the pro-Cemeteries as fo
posed ordinanceJ
,, i7
sectton /{o-Iteries,/shal1all di/strict
llows (Article Xxvf, Division I in
i ^g(hr{u\,f /
277, Cemetery Signage. Signage for ceme-permit ina conditional usea*?
Add an article to the Zoning Ordinance to regulate burial of
demolition debris.
The City Council at the January 11, 1988, meeting agreed with
the Planning Commission recomrnendation regarding t.hese regu-
lations. The City Council also requested staff to investi-
Eat.e wheLher or no! debris could be permitted in berms.
Planning staff requests that Lhe Planning Commission table
this item since we are still working i{ith other members of
city sEaff to determine the appropriate process, review
periods, fees, etc. The regulations are included however in
an attachment.
G.
H.Revise Article vI, Section 21, Ancennas and
to limit a single family lot to one antenna
dish.
Satellite Dishes,
anal one satsel I ite
The City Council on January II, 1988, agreed with the
Planning Commission recommenalation !o limit the installation
of the number of antennas to one per lot in all resiCential
districts, and wanted to Iimit Ehe insEallation of satellite
dishes also to one per lot in residential districts.
Rec omme nda t i on
Planning staff reconmends that the Planning Commission adopt
Ehe following motion:
"The Planning Commission reconunends approval of the zoning
Ordinance Anendment to revise the section regarding antennas
zoAlcodif ica Eion
February 3, 1988
Page 8
and saLellite dishes (Article VI , Section 21 in Ordinance No.80 and Article XXIII, Section 20-915 in the proposeCOrdinance) as f ollorrrs 3
Add che following and renumber the existing six subparagraphs:
1. There shall be no more than one satellite dish and oneradio antenna per lot in residential, districts."
ATTACHMENT
l-
2
3
4
5
6
City Council minutes dated January 11, 19gg.Letter from Roger Knutson dated September 11, 19g7.Planning Commission minutes dated September 23 , tgg7.Planning Commission ininutes dated oclober 29, 19g7.Planning Commission minutes dated November 4, 19g7.Proper Burial of Demolition Debris.
ta
Don Ashvrorth: You could do it.a week fro.m today, a Saturday, whatever youcltoose- r'm just suggesting that a speciar would probably E u"tt"r. iitr,..that or start at 5.30 - 7:a0.
City Courcil tteeting - January 1I, I98g
CONSIDERATION OF MISCELT,ANEOUS ITS'S FOR AMHIDI,IENI IP THE ZONING ORD I NANCE.
Courcilman Johnson: I think werre getting kind of, we've decided on aprocess. we lrent for it ard then at the ereventh hour now lret re trying tochange our process ard do it srightly differentry. we say werve goi a
-whole
hardfuL of cardidates that we could, each of th€m equatry erelr wiir work out.I. believe r'm going to go arri say. we ought to get tliis o"". ,itn, -.gp"-ini
these. three peopre anl get on with business. i agree tte process piluury r.not the best process we've courd have done. r thilk with ihe r.rql-ser;tio.,
9f peopler- werre going to -have good, capable people doirg tte j oU.- W"
-"* 9.tit over with arrl we can change the prodess ori ati ttre coi,nissi-ons, r*r ut ,rrthe commissions ard decide on a process. r don't think we srroura'ao trrattonight. tet's just get this over ryittr ard go on with business
councilman Johnson movedr. courrirman Geving secorded Eo accept the pranning
commission's recommendation to appoint Annette Elrson, eriaiBatzli and Jimwildermuth to the pranning commission. A1r voted in iavor "*."pi lr.yoi -
tlami l ton wtto olposed and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: I think itrs arl pretty crear and straight forward- werre notdeciding on these tbings, it's just discussion right?
Barbara Dacy: what staff would desire is direction from the courcil eitheragree or disagree witl: the pranning commission's recommenlations on the eightiterns so ke cluld go through the g:bl ic hearing process.
I'layor Hamilton: Okay, the first one is the I5O foot lot depth. TfEcommission agreed tiat the rot depth should be reduced to t-25 feet. whatts
mag ic about I25?
Barbara Dacy: Ttre 125 requirement was what was originarry proposed in theintiar discussions of the zoning ordinance ard r.ras increaij di:ring review.oi/er the past year werve had a number of variance requests to th" i50 foot rotdepth requirement so the commission asked that we go back ard relook at thatrequirement and based on information from other communities plus a rook atvarious subdivisions, the @mmission agreed that tlre most imiortantrequirements are the rot area requirements and Ehe rot width requirements arxl
lhe ro.t depth requi rements was not as important. The advantage of the reduceddepth is that j.t uould allow design flexibility for subdivisj5ns.
Councilman Boyt: I disagree. Werve got Shadowmere, Saddlebrook, CurreyEarms, Kurver, they've all conformed with us. I think that the etannin!commission made the comment, arthough it currently didn't carry the dayi thatthis hasnrt been on the books very rong. rhat we have prenty 6f exampies of
[:eople beirg able Eo live with it arrj hardly enor:gh timE to throw it tut. rthink tl,t it's very important when we design, when 5:eopre design layouts ofproperty, that there be distance between them ard their neighborl. liost homes
I
27
rtTrufvuai4
_tIt
I
:{:.1
City Council l4eeting - January 11,
have tle windows on tie front ard back of their home arri that's where vre needthe greatest distance. we bave a setback from the road capa.bility ard we needdistance from Ehe neighbor who's going to be behind them. tSO flet gives
them 25 more feet of distance.
Councilman Horn: Just to respord to that, I think you,re assumi.ngarchitectural styles and I think that,s tfE idea of this is to alltw somearchitectural flexibirity. you're assuming a traditional house with a frontyard ard back yard. Some housirg has tte wirdows on the sides ard I thinkdepending on tie tl/I)e of style used on a particular lot, this gives you someflexibility on doing that. I agree with the concept of having space between.I think thatts vrhy we have density. I think this gives peopte morefJ-exibility.
1988
Courcilman Johnson: Itre only com$ent is we,ve got a 30 foot rearyard setback
which means ttey can put on a I25 foot lot, tbey can put it at 95 feet back so
they only have 30 feet in their baclqrard but at I5O, it doesntt necessarily
guarantee anlthing more. The 30 feet is the only thing that guarantees it. I
wouldn I t r.Jant anyth ing sllaller than 125.
Itlayor Hanilton: So you're 50 feet away frcrn the neighbors.
Courrci lman Johnson: 30 in tle front ard 30 in the rear. yes, therets 60.
Minimun, the closest they will ever be is 50 foot to their neighbor. I don't
see 125 as that bad of a problem. they'll bave to have an awfully h,ide lot toget the 15,0g6 at L25.
Mayor ttamj.Iton: I guess I've never been afraid to see my neighbors. I don,t
think 125 is bad. Ttey're just people.
Barbara Dacy: the only clmment I was going to give was, with tlre reqr:i red 90
feet of frontage, by necessity to get to *E L5 rg6g square foot area, you're
going to tnve to end r4r with 167 feet of lot depth anyway. llaving a shorterlot depth, again just allows some flexibility in those cases that you still
receive a mj.nimum amount of lot depth, or reasonable amount of Iot depth but
we're going to have to make up for that in ttrc lot width. So again the lot
area ard the lot wj.dth are probably the most importanE as far as maintaining
separaEion frcrn side to side.
Mayor llamilton: I'lI just poll each of us on these items so tlEt rrill
probably give them an idea of how we all feel. Just to give us a yea or nay.
@urEi lman Bol.t: I'm against the Planning Ccrmission recofimendation.
lrayor tlanilton: So that's a nay, correct?
Courci lman Boyt: I gather .
Councilman Horn: Yea.
ttI
I
eL
t
t
(
Councilman Ceving: Yea.
{
-iI
@unciLrEn Johnson: yea.
l4ayor Hamirton: Ard rrm yea. Itte next one is the barbed wire fence. Barbedwire fences ard fences in general. I just had ore question. How about aferce with a barbed wire at the top?
Jo Ann Olsen: that is prohibited right no$, to commercial buildings. you
canrt have the exposed barbed wire...
l4ayor tHnilton: you can't have ttre barbed wire fence on top?
_ti
I
I
Councilman Johnson: You can't tEve a E foot tall fence wi.th two a&itionalfeet of barbed wire?
Counci lman Geving:
board up?
Donrt we have that over at Hanus' where werve got the flat
lrayor Hamilton: I think so.
Counci lman Bo!.E: Tfrey ought to take it down.
Jo Ann olsen: this again is in the residentiar. rhe industriar and commercialit's a corditional use permit.
Courri lman Johnson: They can have that in those wj.th a conditional usepermi.t? I know theie are cert-ain government. regulations for certain tlpes ofinformation to be secured behind certain items that we may erd up havi-rig to dothat at some building.
I4ayor Hamilton: You are yea or nay?
C.ouncilman Johnson: yea.
trayor Hamilton: yea.
@unci lman Gev j.ng: Yea.
Courcilman Horn: Yea.
Councilman Boyt: Yea.
I,layor Hamilton: the next one is accessory buildings not to exceed L,UO6 feel.
Councilman Bol.t: I think that vre need some sort of sliding scale here. Withthe 5 foot rear l-ot setback, whj.ch is I think what we have now for accessory
buiJ.dings, lhe prospects of an 8A0 or L,606 square foot, 5 feet back isfrightening. I would suggest ttnt we have something along the lines of 5 foot
setback for up Eo something Like 200 square feet which would be a smallgarage. Maybe l0 feet for something foot setback or something between that
ard sqre larger size and 30 feet fox 860 feet in building.
29
City @unci I l4eeting - January ll , 1988
:,.i>"'
City CourrciJ. l,teetj.ng - January 11, 1988
l,layor tlamil ton: I tbink this is a maximun. Thatrs vrhat you're saying isnrtit Barb and Jo Ann? ltris is a max so each one is going to have to-be iookedat on it's orur merit. Aren't they corditional uses an)4ralp
Jo Ann Olsen: !b.
Malor }bmilton: So then each one on each piece of property is going to beIooked at though, whether or not it's...
CourEi]man Boyt: !b.
Courcilman Johnson: Itrs permitted use.
Jo Ann O1sen: It also has that 30t of ttE area...
l4ayor tlamilton: lbw !$uld you address Billrs concErn then?
Jo Ann Olsen: Ale ]/ou talking the sLidirg setback?
Courci lman Boyt: Irm saying that if you have a certain size outbuilding, that
can be within 5 feet. If you have a larger outbuilding, you need to befurther away from that erd lot line. At 30 feet, which ii our existing depthfor a house, I would think an outbuilding could be 900 feet or L,A66 feet orwhatever but we shouldnrt allow a large outbuilding thatts any closer than we
would allow a house to be of cunparable size.
Barbara Dacy: I think an o[Dortunity that we could investigate would be
l-ooking at typical size, I guess $rhat I would call a Sears Tool Building andget just a rough idea of what the snaller ones are versus a larger garage
ttzpe ard potentially propose something to the planning @mmissi.on forconsideration. Anything gnaller than 500 square feet, it shall be set back 5feet frcm the lot line, is that what ]rcu're saying?
Councilman Boyt: l.lo, I'm saying if itrs srnaller ttan 2A by Lq, I don't knowthat thatrs magic, I think you're goirg to fird whatever this outbuildirgsare ard a snall one of those should be 5 feet and as they get larger they
should be further back.
It
t
t-
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 ofvariance requests r^rith 350 versus 300 and at 4 feet. insLead of 5 feet. so one
drawback of the zonirg regulation is trying to make sure that rrhat werreregulating is actually wtEtts out there.
Councilman Boyt: Thatrs where your honework will help us.
Counci lman Ceving: I think lfi6e qoare feet is large. Ihat's a bigbuilding for residential outbuilding.
Mayor HaniLton: I would gruess there probably aren'E any.t
3g
l
rt'
City Courcil l,reeting - January 11, I98B
oounci lman Geving: There might be some but r think L,0a6 is way too large.Alrs got a farm, ma1&e he )mows.
Al Klingerhutz: r know there are several of tlrem that have r,20a on 2 r/2acre lots but ]rou'll rEver see 806 qr a 15,000 square foot lot.
Courci lman Geving: Staff recfimerded g00.
@uncirman Horn: r think too l.u get into, to unierstard what Bir.r was gettingat,.r think if ]rou start getting into something tike that, -ti,"-.Jiiniltr"tion
of it becomes very tough ard veiy.confusing to -know whether they,re conformingto it or not- rhe other thing wtrictr mighf even be a bigger i""i" trr"'-tiri ",ttnt werrl be addressing ratei, is the a-rchitecturar stfie. ri r.o
-G".
o.eof tlEse slears metar urrraingj, it r "".. . ,.1ghbor r,i otl*l i" Gf rgfeet alray flcm my }ot rire a rot more than t wou-rd ouject t6 I rs by rd ,ood*
:.tru:turg of . some tlipe that brerded in so r don,t hroi ttut tn. ai"L..e i"the totar criteria here.. r think.rdhat werre trying to s"r .i i"-"r;l;inethat won't be obnoxious to the. neighbor. this onry add-resses o* poi.ntiurissue ard that can get even sticki6r.
l,tayor Hanilton: [€trs leave this one until staff can bring it back.
Barbara Dacy: you ,,Dur-d hrant us to pursue looking at the graduated scare?
!,tayor Hanilton: Right, and then bring it back.
councirman Horn: Arxl r think rook at other criteria rerati.ng to how obnoxiousit may be in tlre architectural, styling.
l€yor Hamilton: The next i tsn is treated r,rood. yea or nay?
Courcilman Johnson: I agree with the Conmission.
Courrcilman @ving: I agree.
Councilnan Horn: yea.
Counci lman Boyt: I,m okay with that.
l4ayor Hamilton: yes, that's five. Anateur radio to$rers.
Councilman Bo!.t: I have a note here that sal.s tr^ro towers, one dish. I thinkthat given some of the concerns that werve Gd earlier, some or-trre--peopre wnowantcd Ehese antennas, that two might very werl be reasonabre. r think'whatthe Planning Commission was suggesiing wai one? we had a fellow who was inh".: -il _tF last year who talked- abouf no, u"ry irconvenient it "." uJ to, ittoould limi.t his use. If therers one back ttrer-e, is tr,o that;"h-,-;;i
councilman Horn: we're tarkirg permi tted use. They can stirl come in urrlerthe conditi onal use.
',. !3
tII,
itI
3I
t
t-f.},-,'r
City Courci1 t{eeting - January ll, l98g
l,tayor tlamilton: plus, according to the EEC, can we li.mit to one? Irm notsure that v{e even have t}p right to control.
Roger Knutson: Tle regulations are not tremerrlousry clear. After sorneanalysis of it, I think we have a good argument thal we can regulate the
ly*bo. as Iorg as we give thern reasonable use of the airways. We've askedthem _about it, I guess Jo Ann asked them about it, arrl they will rot tive youa definitive answer.
lrayor liarnilton : Clark, yea or rEy or qamnents?
Courri lman Horn: I agree with one.
Courcilman Geving: I agree with one.
Courrci lnan Johnson: I'11 agree with one.
Mayor fhmilton: I was wordering if you could clari.fy your wording here alittle bit or maybe that r{iU get worked over but it wlsn't clear -to me thatit was just one IEr househord in aLr residentiar areas. It almost seemed rike
lrou grere saying ore house in one residential- area could have an antenna. I.mokay with one.
L
Counci lman Johnson:
on that tower?
If you tEve a radio tower, can you have multiple antennas
t-Courci lman Boyt: Oh yes.
Councilnan Horn: It's just massed right?
Counci Iman Johnson: Because the back end of tlre section says, or one
irdividua.l, antenna in all residential, districts.
Jo Ann olsen: You can have a lower with individual antennas throughout thelarge to$rer.
Barbara Dacy: One point of clarification, would the Council also want thedishes? That's one per lot also.
Counci lman Ceving: tetts go with one.
Mayor Hamilton: ttle next item is the demolition debris disposal.
ccfiments on this one yea or nay?
courci lfian Jobnson: I,m totally for it.
C-ouncilman Craving: Yea.
Courci lman tiorn : yea .
Courcilman Boyt: What's point 2 mean?
Jay, any
32
I
t-
1
City Counci I Meeting - January 1I, 1988
Councilman Johnson: ltpre's a tlpo in there. It shouLd read from the lowest
elevation of the landfill, if I remember the state regulations correctly.
Instead of the lowest hj.gh water elevation. In other words, the bottom of the
debris lardfill should be 5 feet above the $rater table.
CourEi lman Bo].t: Okay, tten I'm assum irg that when they're burying this it's
beloq, the frost level. I see nothj.rg that irdicates that in here-
@urrcilman Johnson: I ttror:ght there was a minimum cover in this state. there
was a 4 foot cover required. 2 foot cover?
Courci hlan Botrt: It needs to be below the frost level.
Mayor Hadlton: Vfiy?
Courri lman Boyt: Because eventually lncu'll see it on top of the grourd if
it's not belon the frost Ievel. It seenE like a sinple thing to add.
Mayor ttam j.Iton: I disagree. tltEn )rou do berming, one of the best things to
do in bermirg to make the berms work ard to make the trees that you Plant on
berms grovr, 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 ard developers, they aII say the same thing. You can require them to
put all the berm ard all the trees ard when they get done, the trees will all
be dead because it does not retain hEter.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know exactly how a frost heave works on a berm but
when you take a flat piece of grourxi and you txlt something above ttre frostine,
eventually it $rorks out to the grourd level. Just 9o ard pick q> rocks in tte
field in the sPringtime.
tlayor tlamilton: I think boards and thj ngs are gojng to decay. I donrt know
if concrete rrculd work it's rva up. I suppose like a rock.
Counci lman Johnson: Concrete will work it's q,ay back up.
CrunciLman BoyE: we're talking 2 feet deeper here. rt vJould seem to me,
given what they're going to use to bury this stuff, that another 2 feet that
keeps it belol'r the grourd is worth the effort to do that.
Mayor Hamj.lton: I dontt IEve a problem with that as long as we put in a
."itiop that sal6 wheo youtre berming, they're allowed to put some demolition
d&ris, or however we want to term it, in the berm to make the berm liveable
for the trees.
Courc i lman Geving: As long as the debris can decay-
Mayor Hamilton: so c.ould you bring that one back to us too. I think e'erre
ali in favor, it just needs to have a few adjustments. 'Ihe next one was the
architectural exterior stardards.
I
I
Counci }Illan Boyt: l.lo coflment. Yea .
33
i. U r-z
City Council l4eeting - January 11, 1988
Councilman Horn: Yea-
Courcilman @ving: Yea.
Councilman Johnson: Yea.
Mayor llamilton: I'm okay with it as long as it states here, the provision
eliminates the construction of metal buildings, pole barns ard encourages abetter appearance ard we donrt start getting into the architectural exterior
design of homes ard other things vre donrt need to have anything to do with.
the next one is lot width regui ranrent for cul-de-sacs and flag tots.
Councilman Johnson: there are some occasions where I am for some flag lots
and werve got some very unique circumstances here. the Centex circrnnstances
would be a couple of lots nestled in behj.rd the pord, the !,retlard ard the topof the hiII there. I sometimes see that the flag lot used in very small
moderation, I'm not sure if it should be totally prmitted but I don't thinkit should be totally excluded. I guess in the cases Itve seen and have been
able to justify in my mird enough of a hardship that, I guess here they say
have a hardship. the first part of it sourds real strict. It should not be
Prmitted ard Irm personally for permitting a flag lot under shown hardship.It has to be a tolrcgraphical reason for j.t. The reason canrt be to save
concrete ard put in smaller streets ard be able to put a whole burch of houses
out back with only having one circle. that's not a hardship. ltEt's my
corment there.
Councilman Ceving: I agree. I think the only thing we need to do here is
charqe the word ing a little bit on the line here. Flag lots shall not be
permitted unless there is a hardship ttnt exists ard I think that's fine, soI agree.
erunci l"nan Horn: I agree. I think flaq lots should stay in.
Councj Iman Bo!.t: I liked Option 3 on page 7. It Ieaves some things to be
vrorked out about arc length but f think what werve done in fact is to approve
homes that have a 90 foot width at their building setback line. We've donethat all year, so that !"ould be the optj on ttEt I would support.
ttayor Hamilton: Personally, I think there are instances where flaglots are
necessary ard so long as we can stj 1l tnrdle that issue, I'm comfortable withit. Is that all you need?
COUICIL PRESENTATIONS :
Courci]man @ving: I think lbdd should handle the z;p code issue. you,re
more familiar with it ard you're ready to give us scnre information.
Todd @rhardt: Don ard I have been worki.ng with getting alt the people
outside the Chanhassen zip code district ard have come r4) with 934 addresses.I've given DaLe a copy of those. What Ird like to do is go through herq Ibriefly printed it tonight ard I'd like to make some corrections ard we wiIImail tJEt out to you, tte C.ounci Imembers tomorrow. You have a meeting here
t
I
34
t:
D^vto L. GR^NNrs - I874-1961
D^vrD L. Ga,rNNrs. JR. - 19l0-1980
VANCE B. GR NNTS
V^NCE B. GR^NNF. JR
PATRrcx A. FAr.x.Er.!
D^vrD L. GR^NNrs- III
RocEa N. K,\ursoN
hw OFFrcEs
Grarvvrs, GnauNrs, Fannsn & KNU-rsoN
PRotEsstoNAt Assocr^roN
Pofl Ornct Box ,7
40J NoRvEsr BANK BUTLD|NG
l6t NoRTH CoNcorD EX(H^NGE
Sormr Sr. P^uL MNNEsor^ ,rO75
TELEPHoNE: (6 I 2) 4tr- 166 I
September 11 , 1987
TELEcoptra,
(612, 4t5-2159
DAvtD L. HAeMEyEi,
M. Crcru^ RAy
ELUoTT B. KNErsor
MrcH^tL J. M^yEl
Ms. Jo Ann OlsenCity of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drj-ve, BoxChanhassen, Minnesota
147
55317
Dear Jo Ann:
of
use
You asked me to review and comment on Article VI, Section 4the Cj.ty's Zoning Ordinance concernj.ng temporary conditionalpermits. Minnesota Statutes S 462.35i5 providei in parti
Duration. A conditional use permj.t shal1as long as the conditions agreed upon arenothing in this section shall prevent theenacting or amending official controls toof conditi-onaI uses -
remain in effect
observed, butmunicipality from
change the status
Conditional uses may be approved by the governj-ng body orother designated authority by a showing by the appl-icintthat the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will-be satisfied. The standards and criteria shal-1 incl-ude bothgeneral requirements for a1I conditional- uses, and insofaras practicable, requirenents specific to each designatedconditional use.
The Cityrs temporary use permit does not comply lrith eitherreguirement. Having been granted a ,,temporary peimit" anapplicant could argue that the time Iimitation was prohibited bystate statute and that they have the right to continueindefiniteLy. our response would be thaa if he or she is correct,then the enti-re permit was void from its inception. A court wouldhave to sort out who is correct. This concern can be elimi-natedin advance by repealing the provision.
RECE:'''=3
sEP r4 1387
C]TY OF CHANHASSEN
tt4rkril(atT#z
RE: Temporary Conditional Use permits
t
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEET I NG
SEPTEMBER 23, L987
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:45
---d-rt{e n ns PRESENT: Steven Emm i ngs,Robert Si.egel, t dd Conrad and Dav idHeadla
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:Barbara Dacy,
Tim Erhart, James Wildermuth a Holra rd Noziska
Olsen, Asst. Ci tyCity Planner;City Eng ineer
J AnnPlanner and Larry Brovrn, Asst.
PUBLIC HEAR I NG:TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE
UI A BOOK STORE IN HER HOME LOCATED AT
ERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
q GALPIN BLVD. WHICH IS ZONED
Rasers, w e right next door to her and we wer
8t=2;AGR ICULTURAL ESTATES,MARIAN SCHM I T
Public present:
Mr and Mrs. Lawrence Raser 82L pin Blvd .
Barbara Dacy presented the staff re rt on thi.s item.
parki ng.If therers going to an awful lot of parking with that? There'b een before v,rhere theyive had c mpany and theyrve used our drive$/ay forpark i ng. They had about. a 40 f ot motorhome in our driveway one diy when)-we came home.
Conrad: How close do you J- i.
Thatrs our main concern.
Mr. Raser: Right next door
a have a retail store in her house.ther thing we were hrondering about
Mrs. Raser:just kind of
Conrad:
tobea
We t re th-'
wonder ing how she
Then a
I
Do you thinkgreat use but
i E's
to her ?
going to be a negative impact.? It'sou think it's going to be a negativedo . not goin
rmpac t?
r ight nowMrs.
as it
Raser:
is.We donr t
We get an ul 1ot of traffic.
kn w. There's enough traffic out. Lhereav/
Mr. Raser: ...whichr-i , 'that is agricult.ural land there and that,s whapeople are buying the r homes.
Mrs. Raser: Thereand they closed h
s a time rrhen DaLe Wanaker had a business out therut.o
Emmings moved, Sifavor and motioni
gel seconded to close public hearing. AII voted inarried.
Conrad: A lit e bit ofIn essence,s she been
ba.ckgr_ound. she operated the bookstore in toevicEed because of the downtown aaaurafop*".rt .>
n.
.m..
(
Planning Commiss j.on
September 23, Lg87
Meeting
Page 2
Dacy: That's correct. The ci.y had a lease with her to operate thebookstore out of Lhe old town hal,. she was given notice !s requirea uythe lease' she had been looking ers"rh-r" and no longer in chanhassenbecause commerciar rent rates ii a retail center is fairry expensivecompared to the size of her operation. io. she,s continui;g to look inExcersior and orher areas bur rn the *.u.,1-i#'-nJJ#';";:;;oiary permit.
Conrad: So we don't know how temporary it is.
Dacy: She has i nd icatedCity policy has been not
up to a year and I also related to her that pastto approve anything beyond a year,s time.
conrad: so Barbara you do not feer that the circumstances of her leasenot being renewed because of the do!.rntown redevel0pment, .re-extenuating::ffilr"j;:i",i"".1.. wourd fit inro rhe accepted *".i.,= ioi gJ.-.,ting her a
Dacy: I may have mv own p_ersonaL opinions- As a planner, I,ve got tointerpret .he ordina-nce and ue ouiective with .rr".v "u"".' tiere may beanother case within the next ,nonti lnlt wants a temporary use.
Conrad: But because she was in a circumtance because of our downtownredeveJ.opment, that dcesn,t ="uV Vou .t ifl in tfrisZ
Dacy: I canrt make a recommendation based on those facts. Imake a recommendarion. based on what-the orAinance says and theimplications Eo the ciEy for s..;;*g'l Eemporary conditionat
have to
legal
use.
Emmings: I basically agree with the staff,s position on this. I feelthere shouldn,t be a book-store in u p.l".te home. I d;;,t -;""
any ideah,ha E temporary means and I dontt thi;k we should al Iow it even on atemporary basis. I guess if they told us they had a leasl but theycouldn't get into the store and iney knew they were going to be abre toget in 5 weeks or somethi ng, rhan r'ro"lo.loot ar it ti-iieiJnLry but itdoesnrt even sound arr thai, it sounas rike.it,s ""air"rv plssibre theyeron'!t find a place to rent and $re *uy ="" tr,ii- tni.g'in-.iu"Io. a rongtime. The other rhing that xlna oi-jntlrested me ii ln.-fu"r thar sheapparentry selrs some kind of materiars for peopre wtro
-.i"-I.tive in AAand is the onry source of those *aterl .rs.tocairy unJ r-runi.d to askrrhat part of their business rhat ruas uui ttrey,." noi ;";";;-.n.wer tho sequestions- In light of that, I guess rm juit oppo""J-Jo -i-t-
siegel: r don't feer. tha. rre shour.d do anything out of the ordinary asfar as a condiEionar use permit in this case eirher but l don,t know ifwe should reacE by removing the provision from tr,.-.oning Jioinun"". Theprovision for Eemnorary condiEional use permits r 9"iii..'*!iL aur"n ro.regitimaEe r".soni ".J'in.i"iJ
-i'" -triJi"'are
zoning ordinance for suchthings like christmas tree rots and seasonar tvp" 6p"i.!ionl-,rtrer" tr,"yI:?:i:".a temporary condirional.use p"i.it. I donrr Ehink we shouldeI!mrnate Ehat. kind of opportunity bicause I don,t """ liiut i.n Ehe same
.{
l i9ht as
report.
'i'
I\
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23, I9g7 - page 3
this kind of an appl ication but otherwise I ag ree ,ri th the sta f I
sounds so cold andparties understood what
Headla: Irm sure glad I'm not a business person in this tot n. werve gotsome cold brooded people here. r kind or iire tne woiJini-oi tr,"temporary conditional use permit. rt reaves some human factor and aplace to talk about it. wi evicted -it i"'p.r"on, pulred out lheir rease.
Dacy: If you could avoid the term evicted. Itimpersonal but we had a Iease .g.""rn.nt -"o bothwas going to happen.
Headla: Apparently we had a viable business person in tirs town, thelease ran out and novr werre in a position we don,t want !3 dO anything toh:rp. saying brack is black and ,t,ii.-i= white. r think it can be more-than that. ..give them an easy turn them around and that motorhome, Irmglad to see some kind of, t wJs hoping the other person r.rould be here.rrm torn now with those. types or aigurients becaus6 it" ""t-.ty factor isso important. I don't l<now which *iy r;a vote right now. ,. V.i'i"".- -any idea how much traf f ic goes in tnere no w, of that s Eore?
Dacy: Based on thepotentially I thinkintensity operation
information that she relayed to me, forshe said L ox 2 cars every hour. it i.but we had to address a lirger issue.
a per i oda low
where you're coming from with that recommenda Eion .
in the oLd townbusiness exi.st before she located
correct. I do not know where she was Located prior
HeadIa:
Siegel:
hall?
Head La:
render if
I can see
Didntt her
Dacys I think Ehat'sto that horrever.
Siegel: She entered that agreement knowing Ehat $ras a redevelopment areaand that Iocation was going to be used for historical purposes so sheknew it $ras a temporaiy situaEr"n *h"n =n. aia the leise'so iE,s not rike-she didn't have an opportunity to 100k for other places to rocate duringthe interim. f donrt see it is a cold biooded aci. She knew that theredevelopment was going Eo occur evenEually and in the near future whenshe moved in.
Do hre have any idea vrhat_.,r.ould happen to the services theyshe canrt operate out of her homi for a while?
Dacy: f understand that she,s continu ing her search to Locateother communit.y. I only have Eo assume ih.t she "t"rJh;;;..discontinue thaC until she could find another place. -- ---
Emmings: Could she do it by mail?
ln some
((
Planning Commission MeeEingSeptember 23, :-9B7 - page 4
Dacy: Probably not but again, the chanhassen situation we,ve got a rotof commerciar deveropment coming in- we approved two commercial stripcenEers and the one over aE the Q-superette but unfortunatery those arehigh rent in the commerciar cen tLr s ior the .ir. oi t.r'o!-e-iation so wedid try and work wiEh her.to say wefI, you could try this'piace, thisprace a-nd this place but the ecdnomics ind the mark6t downiown now canrtaccomodate her.
Headra: rf we were to approve something for rike 3 to G months, wourdthere be a problem with terminating that?
Dacy: The advantages of that would be that you would allor., her tocontinue for a limited amount of time. The Sisadvantage would be thatthere. is always that potential of asking for an extens-ion and I guess yourun that risk with every time period that you establish.
Headra: r guess rrd like to see them have it for tike 3 months only
!3c3use :l .y q? s.e.rve a useful purpose ro the communiryand if you riakert 3 months, that's a. big red frag that they,ve got to get out there andhussle and get something lined up. anythinj Uey6nd ti,"i, -ti,.V can kindof sit back and bring business in ther6 and- inc6nvenience the-neighborswhich we shouldn't be doing.
conrad: r don't agree that we shourd alrow the conditionaL use. r thinksimply the proximir--y to the neighbors with a retail operation overshadowsany kind of obligation to keep her in business. I Ehlnk in Ehisparticul,ar circumstance, if the circumstances were different and maybeeven if they were here, there m ight be more information for me toincorporate in my thinking but right now, r think because of her croseproximity to the neighbors, her potentiar hours of operation for a retairuse, f don't think thatrs appropriate in this particular district. Interms of what lega1 counser has directed, I guess rn kind of naive inunderstanding t.he legal imprications of the variance or the conditionaluses. It seems to me to be a way that vre can review certai.n uses on asituation by situation.approach and r guess m not sure r want to givethat up at this point in time but I don't understand the state statutethat. we're operating under and therefore if it's totarly out of order, rguess ere should get rid of Ehat but in Eerms of what Bob is saying, tnoieconditional uses make sense and therefore r donrt know that r wouia liketo see this conditional use struck from our ordinance. Maybe $re shourdtake, Steve you've got a little bit of insight on the legal aspects ofthis, what do you think?
Emm i ng s:
ord i na nce
II doesn't see:n to me Lrhether or notin fronE of us anyway, is it?
we keep tha t in our
Conrad: No. Itrs what we recommend the staff to do.
Emmings: r agree wiEh Bob but I think, looking at what the At.torney,swritten here, that once you granE a Eemporary permiE an applicant c;nEhen argue that the time limitaEion is protriuited uy state statute. Then
Emmings moved, sieqer seconded that the pranning commission recommenddeny the request for a temporary Condilional Use permit #g7_16 basedthe Attorney's opinion.. alr voied i; i;;o. except HeadIa who opposedmotron and motion car r i ed.
to
on
th€-
Headla: I think wiLh aof 3 months.small busj.ness we should extend it for a maximum -
Conrad: Barbara, in terms of the ordinance, the Eemporary conditionaluse permit, r quess I wourd Iike stafi lo ..riew it furtrrir-ina bring it -back to us for modif icario.", ;it;ilo-.,. o. elimination.
m."
Publ ic present:
Represen E j ng AppI i cantApp I icant's Arch i tec t
Barbara Dacy presented the sEaff Report on this item.
ii
Planning Commission Mee t j. ngSeptember 23, l9g7 _ page 5
they- have the right to continue indefinitely and now you,ve got a rearbattle on your hands because no$, yourve- g-o_t to say, okly then we rearry -can,t issue these temporary permits at aII.
Conrad: Because they're not temporary.
!^r.lnS:r. _ Now you've .go.t for sure yourre going to go to court and that Idonrt think we want that. An easy ,"y-to-..roid thit, this thingconflicts with the use in thut ".'". .'.ra tr,ut." enough for me. rf theyhad some concrete plan. r guess ,ir"t--rotrr..s me is- r don,f see anythingconcrete from them that th-ey plan to have this real-ly J. -. -t.*po...y
duration. rt Iooks to me tik6 ii,s-" -.rlry marginal business, and that,s-not for me to judse but it's such a marginar uir"irl."-lrrl-J tney can,taf f ord to pay ren' _out of shat tt,"v *ur." out of the business. werr, onceI see that ir conflicrs with the zloning in rhe ur;;,-;;;;;t rhink rrve _got any choice. rtrs not like christ*.! t.."=. r think the christmastree example is a qood one. . There yoo fn", they,re not going to erant tobe selling christmis rrees in j;;;.;;: you knor^r it,s going to have alif e of it's own if you. can reasonariy put a two r.reek limitation on it o:-month or vrhatever but this i"",t tt.-lu-.e character to me.
Dacy: Maybe the suggestion is staff can work with the Attorney, maybethe proper vehicre is a conditionar uie pernit. Maybe there,s some othetvehicLe ro ar-low for rhe tvpes oi-us"r-tir"l n"-ri;;#-r;;;ji. uu. asain,yes you,re right, that,s really not the rssue.
Harold Kerber
Charl ie Combs
.-i
Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 23, ]-ggT - page G
Conrad: Before we open itbusiness sign is what?
up for public comment, a ground 1or./ profile
thaE_ is directly attached to the ground and is nono larger than 24 square feet in area. An exampleI think the Redman project sign is integrated intoChanhassen office compiex sign right n"it to tg 5.
would fail that requirement because it,s more than
Dacy: And if you look at the definition of a signsays pole structures. We look at that and said itprofiJ.e sign, it is an elevated sign. ihat,s thea crucial planning i tem.
Dacy: That is a signtaller than 5 feeL andwould be, for examplethe ground area. The
Conrad: And this one5 feet hi gh?
SiegeJ, i Towards TH 5?
Harold Kerber: yes.
Therets sti. lI
could be u s eci.
it
isn't
a lot of room toward the
in Eheis not
issue.
ord i nance
a ground
I know it
Siegel moved, Emm ings secondedfavor and moEion carried.to close public hearing- Al1 voted in
Headla: I agree ',rith the Slaff's recommenda E i ons .
siegel: -Maybe just some general informational comments t.hat r wourd riketo hav.e for my own knowledge. ThaE's a very smarr cemetary with limitedcapacity and no area for growth, what is t.trl capacily-;;-ii now and whatis the poteotial?
Harol-d Kerber: It,s hard to sav-highway, about 100 feet yet tha't
Siegel: I guess thatts one of the questions I have aboutis don't you know the strrus of thai right-of-way? Doesany kind of right-of-way situat j.on wirit the railioadZ
that pro pe r tythat get i nto
Harold Kerber: Towards the back, no. t,re,re talking about the front.
Siegel: But rrhat is the capacity of that area for a cemetary?
Harold Kerber: Right now therers stirl lG0 loEs availabre. Eventualrywerll need more land or go to the froot. rs thaE going to be commerciarIand or can it be used for cemetary?
sieger: r guess my opi nion wourd be Lhat there would be no availabreland for extension of the cemetary.
Harold Kerber: We couldn,t come around towards the railroad?
Siegel: I don,t knosr. Barbara, do you knoer?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23, L}BT - page 7
Dacy: you could occupy the land thatand the railroad. That's your land.
you own between West Tgth StreetIf t.hey \4anted to expand thecemetary, that,s f ine.
Siegel: Is j.t owned for cemetary
Dacy: yes.
Siegel: And how much land are you talking about?
Harold Kerber: About 4 acres.
Dacy: That sounds fairly accurate but itrs zoned office insti.tuationar.
Sieget: Does this structureon West 78th Street?
Purposes?
go around the cemetary or is just fronting
sieger: r have a concern here, if that were to become a cenetary today, -it wouldn't be. If they.came in with i proposal to make a cemetary atthat location, it Drobabry wourdn't be g'ranted because of the nature ofthe business indusiriar ".*ai;;-;o-rii ionaering hrhether Ehis is sort ofconverging the potential qrowth of it in an arei that is .".iry -no I'n. i",:to be suitable for a cemetary location.
HaroLd Kerber: It,s about 2 L/2 actes of land
sieger: And there'|s about 160 available p10ts left in the existingarea?
Harold Kerber: ...lhey,re already plotted out.
Dacy: Itrs under the St. Hubert,s CI:urch ownership now. They cancontinue to rocate more prots within ttaE area. we looked at thisrequest merery saying we want an entrance into that ii...ni"ttis is forthat particular structure.
Dacy: It's just frontingfeet behind the property on I.Ies t 78th
line.Street anci wilI be Iocated l0
Harold Kerber: AIso on TH 1g1.TH 101 .
The cemetary also goes all the way to
Dacy: I'm sorry, when I said West Tgth street, I meant TH IOI. Itrsthe north side of the property. rt will be located arong !,ies t TBthstreet which on that pirt is tu fOl-
The question of the poles, I think
. it fenced very nicely as they haveit might be, with Ehe pole going op,
SiegeJ,:
and have
whether
itrs
done
how
a good i deahere but I
many feet ?
to sign itquestion
Dacy: About 15.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23, L9B7 - page 8
Siegel: I guess from my own personal standpoint, I don,t see that as areal attractive thing to put in there with potes and Ehat kind of thingdue to the fact that itrs very close to our downto!rn bar district r.riththe very possibility of vandirism and that kind of thing occuring to iton a regular basis. I'm thinking of, generally you thinl of vrroughtiron.cr something like. that haviig i'r6t -o.. stabirity especiarry in apublic area. Usually they put up-r.rrought iron in ruraL areas forstability purposes. -r juit-que.iion -"ri.tner the pole will have alasting effect aod whether tfrere might be problems with it from avandalism 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...
S1:q"l: I,m not questioning the walI, I,m questioning thewill be erected from the wail and tfrai entrance there andit is in a real publ ic area. It's not 1i ke iE,s situatedrarmtancl so there,s going to be a Iot of access to it fromfrom juveniles to. . .
to have
street
pole thatthe fact t.ha tout in
everythi ng
Paulyrs and.rnd they, re
Harold Kerber: Access to the cemetary you mean?
Siegel: You're in a downtown area so you're goingthe Riveria and the other bars are rigi-rt across thegoing to be there I guess and stay thJre.
Harold Kerber: l,re,ve got signs across the street. of wood structure.
Siegel: And you haven,t had any problem with Ehat?
Harold Kerber : No.
Siegel: Thatrs aI1 I have.
Emmings: I like the pIan. I think it's very appropriaEe. I think it,sgot a certain character to it that's appropriate to where lt is as par-t-of the downtown redeveropment. I think it all.fits very niceJ-y and rmar1 for alrowing it. r guess my only hang-up is how to do it for otheiones that come arong- Rather.than granting a variance, and r think ilisvery easy to do that because it is and it i sn't. It's very easy todistinguish this from the other things that we see in the inoustriarof f ice area down there and I don't have any problem witn trrat but thatmakes me thi nk we ought tso set it in a sepa rate category because itrealry isn't a hardship situation so r don,t tike granting a variancefor tha E reason bur rrm not real happy wi rh this r a nq u;g; aio t feer wealmost ought to deal with cemetarys maybe at some fuiure- meeting. itr"-things I see, Ehis sign rhaE they've gor, it,s got " iiitiu-inspirational message on it and that,s fine. We r.rouldn,t vranE to see
t
Planning Commission Meeting
September 23, l9g7 - page 9
some kind of promotional message up there and I don,t knou,that means- it's ha-rd to imasiie r'o*Lioav purrins a sign ";-:t.t:il"I:::-thatrs going to *i?d..,rp Uein{ offensiu" to me but it,s possibl.:--;";;:seen a lot of weird things. we see a 1ot of weira thinjs here and youstart rhinkins are rhey going to righJ it o, ar"-ih"y-;;;; ro put sisnfup with r ighEs or r ig.hi it =i*. *.yi'*L ..y erant Eo have contror tha te'ay' r feer almost. it's more rike'a condiiional """ 1vp. ot a thingwhere, if we could just take a lool "JLu"n one individ-ialIy and sayyes or no but as a matter of general intent, say they ooqhl to U"alrowed ro have a sign of thii rinJ, ,ii.tever ttat ,-e".rsi ,J"r"!o"""those are my concerns. I !,rould be willing to uf iow lti-" on" ao goforwa-rd but r guess r.re ought to .uvu" tr.ve an ordinance amendment -,tbrought back ro us as a separare t-opic ana r guess
'd rike i'J iio* uait as a conditional use.
Conrad: The top of the sign is something made out of wood? I
Dacy: That's correct.
:":fii;..i:d the messase is carved in the wood? ro you knowredse, it,, l
Harold Kerber: It,s L0 x LO or g x 8. I
Conrad: It's2xL2.
Dacy: And 3 x 12 posts. -'']
Conrad: What does 3 inch by 12 inch mean? :Dacy: ?he person rvho designed this has now arrrved.
charLie Hoops: rf you guys have any questions, my name is charrie :Hoops, Irm a parishioner over there.
conrad:Weiredia1oguin'gab-outth3requeSE3nCijust'forinformation
clarification, whaE you've designed, .i"^l_o:_.= y-o.u,ve qo. goii;-;;J.,.r,"diagram rrve got sayJ 3 inch by-r2 inch posrs. what d6es lhut *"..ra
CharIieHoops:3inchesthickjusttogiveitenoughstabiIityto
actuarry the cross *:Tb... on top ro rorg-hly rz inc-rre's' ,"ij."'irat, 3 inches'thick soins up Eo hold the horiiontar m6mol:.- il;';-..;:I=*I. rooring;:J.:"?i..i;"",il"..J""""#""ijjJ".. of rusErc rn narure rhar he rhoushr i
Conrad: And the top part is made out of what?
Charl- ie Hoops: Timber also-
Conrad: And the message is carved in?
t
charrie Hoops: Routed in, that's correct so it rear.ry wourdn't staod99t: .rt basically would be something that if we put u- brown stain onthat it mighE darken out where the r;tters u." "o- it,s iusi-9ot a brownto dark brolrn tone. Something thatrs not going to reafiy stand outor something's that yourll notice if you stand close to it and it...
Conrad: I Iike the fencing portion of this. A gate type structure. Ithink that's nice- the .entryway itself, I guess Irm with Bob, I kind oflike wrought iron and whate-ver'uut i1-nink "here L j;st aonri' want it tobe something that's going to detract from the "..u- "ni i;;."= my sensei: i!t-s.not going to betrict fro. tt. u.Lu. Therefore, I think weshould be granting this. Irm interest"a in St.r"rs commeots in terms ofhow we treat these in the future. A".L".u, erhat do you think about aconditional use?
Dacy: I think thatrs a good idea.
Conrad: That makes sense to me.
Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the pranning commission recommend toapprove the Sign Variance RequesE #g7-6 based on th" ptan suUmitted inAttachment fI. AII voted in favor and motion carried-.
Conrad: As a footnote to that, if SEaff could bring back to us theirrecommendation as to how $re can control lhe cemetar-y use of signagethrough the use of a conditional use permit.
Planning Commissj.on Meeting
September 23, L987 - page Ig
PUBLIC HEA R I NG:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO I NST.\LL ATOWER ON PROPERTY ZONED .q- 2 ,AGRICULTURAL ESTATES ANDCR 14 (PIONEER TRAIL)AND EAST OF THE CH I CAGO NORTHWESTERi."-TRACKS NEAR THE BOU N DA RY BETWEEN CHANHASSEN AND EDEN PRAIRISPECIALITIES.
PubIic Present:
I8O FOOT RADI O-mcErED Si-ETE
RA I LROAD-;-----=-"'=__"'-L, U & L
Mr. aod Mrs. Dave schmidtkeMrs. Robert Ti sch l ed er
AppLicant
185 Pioneer Trail
Jo Ann Olsen presented the sEaff report on this item.
Dave Schmi-dtke: I guess it was pretty weII lined out in the staffreport. If there are any questions.
Conrad: So nothing to add to the staff report?
Dave Schmidtke: No, it covers everyth j.ng.
Mrs. Tischleder: you say there's a road going in on Ehe corner?
OF
Planning Commission
October 28, l-g9]- -
{
Meeti ng
Page 29
{
(
Erhart: yes.
right outs ide
noney for TH
Dacy: It's the devetopers.
Erhart: I don't know. Somehowri.ght nor^r that he can get some
Siegel: We might as welldoesnrt go through Chaskajurisdiction.
Erhart: Anyway hers the Carverjust get a resolution, Iet's do
Because they came out and did that sightChanhassen Hi1ls and al1 of a sudden, they10I and aII of a sudden they do.
improvement
never had any
he feels with some
fund s .
appropriate pressure
try it. You've got to remember that TH 101so itrs a single community effort within this
County Commissioner and if we couldit.
DISCUSSION.
Conrad: Basically what staff wou
and then some direction as to, dohere? Why don't we take them one
Barbara Dacy presented the
requ i rement.
ld like on these items is our opinions
we proceed? Ho$, do ere proceed fromat a time.
report on the 150 foot 1ot depthstaff
Emmj.ngs: I mentiooed last time I thoughL that as the lot widthsincrease, and I thought maybe the sideyard setbacks ought to beincreased or there ought to be some attempt to center that. I guesswhat I had in mind what someplace, if you,ve got a development in andif you've got 175 foot vride lots or 15O foot wide Iots orlomethinglike that, someho$, it seems that if there,s a house built here andyourve got an open Iot for that house to come in and build within I0feet of that lot line and decides to Ieave the other side of his lotcompletely open doesnrt seem fair to that neighbor.
wildermuth: rt depends on what he does with it though. rf he bu i lds atennis court over there or something like that, swimming pool.
Emmings: r guess what I'm thinking abouE is if Im the neighbor that'sliving here, if we all have nice rride rots and he comes in and decidesfor whatever reason he wants his house as close to mine as he can getit, I'm not going to be very happy about that. Irm not going to hlppento Iook at that- Now the neighbor on the other side may be just ashappy as can be but I'm not going to be too happy. It Jeems to me thatmaybe there ought to be some kind of a sriding scale so that if yourremaking the rots wider to try and give it a kind of a look so the housesare a 1i tt Ie further apart, why let this guy build all the way ove rnext to the lot rine within r0 feet of it so maybe if you have, r don'tknow. Maybe if you have lgg fooL lot, maybe you leave them at 10. Ifyou have 150, maybe you increase it to 15. Just a little biL more just
*Ttfttbtta,T*#
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - GENERAL
i
Planning Commission l.{ee t i ngOctober 28, L987 - page 30
to provide nore of a buffer to
Siegel: Do r,re have a lot width
Dacy: yes, itrs 90 feet.
Siegel: 9g feet so yourre not
Dacy: No. Lot eridth is later
the people who are already there.
requ i rement?
suggesting that we change that?
on.
t
{
-{
SiegeI:Iot.
Siegel:
var iance
entryway
Dacy: You mean a flag lot?
Where you just have enough room for a driveway to get into a
betweento t.he
Siegel: So his depth wo uldlot?be from the road then to the back of his
Ho rr, does that affect the strange shaped lot srhere we grant abecause of the shape of the loi. we just created a 50 footto a 25rgq| square foot lot. you knoi what I,, t.iXi"g-iboute
Dacy: If itrs going to be that large, Irm sure that the 'depth is goingto be werr in excess because the thioat of that rot, the io'root stripis going to have to open out .into a larger area for their frag portionif itrs 25,699 square feet and that. woult certainly r ,roofJ-tnink wouldbe excess of I50 feet. Is that erhat you're asking-?
siegel: No, lrerl rrm asking about it in the context of a subdivision.rf .itrs obviously going to affect the Ewo lots on either t$ro sides ofthis .entranceway and the configuration of those lots. rn other rrords,we m ight have two g0 foot and i a0 foot entryway to a larger rot beh i ndit. obviousry the rot depth wourd be measured from wherei The roadwayor the back of that lot back in the back corner?
Dacy: The ordinance.defines lot depth as the average distancethe front property Iine abutting the gublic rignt_oi_r"y Li"frear property line.
Dacy: Right. !{e're going to be talking about flag lots and theproblems that they pose a little bit later.
Headla: stevers got a point there. I'11 give you a first hand exampreof that. Here's my property and the neigibors-property goes likethis. They put up a barn, and we're talking iusi imagineiy but thisthing is like L2D by 50 and we're 10 feet away from the ri-ne. rf youlook at the watershed_ coming off of there and the sno$, and my fenceline is right on the tine, it used to be the' f;;;-i; aorn," it rii="=havoc with the trees. rt just doesn't seem right that they should beable to put a building Iike that. If they were within the laws, Ithink we should control something like that and r^rhen you mentioned a
i
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 28t L98't - page 3I
sliding sca1e, I think that's very appropriate.
Dacy: I hate to do this sometimes but when I r.rorked in Florida we didhave a-n -ordinance provision for sideyard setbacks. If a tot widthexceeded Lgg feet then the side setf,ack wourd be rgt of the rot widthbut at minimum you had to have g feet as a side setback. r think thatgets at what you're trying to do however there are trdo "uuiion..ypo i nts that I want to ahrow on that. one is f rom an en fo rcem en tstandpoint. rt poses problems because it r.ras one of those details thatgot. rost in the process in the number of buirding permits every monthto be looking at 10t of the 110.9 feet is l0.l s-o ihey've;ot to have10 feet on either side of the rot. The second co.meni thai r would
It"y-._ i-" if you do have lI0 or L20 foot wide lot, yo, ,ooia-n".r" .buildable area width of lgq feet and rrm sure the-re,s going :o be someisorated cases that some peopre are going to cramp ali to one side. rthink the norm is that people tend to center their homes on the rot.so there is a mechanism to do it. From a staff's standpoint we,re kindof leary because of enforcement and monitoring aspect. That issuecomes up on another item that werre discussing.
Emmings: I guess my reaction is enforcement is a totally separatequestion. My notion is if that,s what people wilI do anlway, thenwill' never be an issue and we donrt have to worry about lt but if
,, there, then you protect. In that one case where the guy comes inI is going to be.abusive, yourve got a reason, somethin! io point atsay no you canrt do that.
irit's
and
to
Conrad: I dontt know what abuse is. I'm having a tough time withthat- r Eearly understand what you're saying but if ,-e har" a sideyardsetback of 10 feet and somebody meets tnJt, we obviously feer that r0feet is not an abuse of the neighbors property regardreJs of if theother side is 90 feet and this side is la, it's .firr uy oidinun"" ,ufelt that it's good e-nguSl for everybody in the communiiy. Somebodygets the advantage of having 90 feet of sideyard but stiil theordinance has protected you by the lg feet.
HeadLa: I think you,re trying to rneasure somethingabsolute terms without stepping back and looking aipicture. My situation there, they've 90t about 5g0probably within 10 feet.
in str ictly
the overa 11feet, they're
arbitrary and you've got a lO foot sideyardme erhat great compelling logic that maie that
Conrad: Letrs do a coupJ.e things. Letrs sort of take a, here in terms of should we -h_ave staf f proceed i.n allowing\--change from our current ordinance? yela or nay on that?
Conrad: I would just hate to
seems real arbi trary.
Emmings: Yourre sayi ng
setback now and you telLanything but arbi Erary.
get into ratj.os and stuff like that. It
straw pol I
the depth to
{
i
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, L987 - page 32
Erhart:We're talking
To whatever
anyway?
as long as they meet 15,000 square
t
{
Emm ings:
feet-
about 125
they want
Dacy: No, vre I re
Erhart: I im in
Emmings: yes.
Siegel: Yes.
Conrad: Me too.
saying a
favor of
mininum of 125 feet.
that.
Wildermuth: We felt at the time when this ordinance was put intoplace that there was a val-ue Eo_ having a deep Iot aLont;i[n tneminimum o.r L5,.gga square foot lots. -r don,t think we,ve tested itenough, given it a fair shot to change it noqr. Maybe 6 months from nowor 4 0r 5 subdivisions from now if it turns out to be an issue in everyone, that the variances a!e coming at us from right and r.il o., ..,r.ryone, then yes I think we better Iisten to what,s going on.
-{\
HeadIa: Ir11 9o for 125:ertainly would nake his
based on what Mark Koegler said last time.planning a whole Iot easier.It
conrad: rt looks like consensus is to go ahead and draft something andP3:". it. by the City Councit. Jim, my o-nty tnougnt is, I hear you and Ill_1lf !f.::".var.id yel 9l rhe other rianJ, -when you think abour aPnysrcar r-ook of a neighborhood, when you pack lhe houses Eogether andtheyrre or:ly 2g feet apart, to me that iook-s crammed regardless of howdeep the rearyard is so r think council was talking auo-ut give peopreopen space in their rearyards but r think therers itso som-etning co tneappearance. r think the frexibility to all0w developers to use theland a little bit easier. so, iErs a yea on that oni. rn terms of thescaled ratio, that seems real complicaled Eo me but Tim, r.rould you liketo have staff $rork on some kind of a way to move that setback?
Erhart: Nay.
Emmings: Yea.
S iegel : yea..
Wildermuth: f donrt care.
Headla: yea.
Conrad: And Irm a
/ donrt care so why
-\- implement .
nay so we have tvro naysdonrt you draft someEhing
and three yeses and a Ithat might seem easy to
i
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 2A, L9g7 - page 33
{
(
Eence Ordi nance.
orsen: Pretty much arr rce did nas just to add into the fence sectionof the ordinance to say that the usJ of barbed wire fence isprohibited.
Conrad: How do you feel about that Dave?
Headla: Nor., that.s any fence, barbwire thatrs in place now is okay?
O1sen: Right it would probably be grandfathered in.
Erhart: werre talking about no barbwire in the residential areas?werre _not tarking about agricurturar? werre not tarking about fencesused for horses in agricultural areas?
Olsen: Itrs not in the agricultural. In the residential area.
Headla: Where do you draw the line there? The people where we werearr_ classifieil agricurturar tax wise but yourve goC us risted asres ident i al .
OIsen: You i re zoned residential.
igirdermuth: what about industrial where yourve got a cycrone fence$rith a strand of barbwire? I think we should talie a LooX at it.
Olsen: Itis not permitted right now anyway.
wi ldermuth: r think we shourd take a rook at it because we may 9etsome kind of a business in town that has a very high securityrequirement and we ought to do something about it.
Emmings: r didnrt understand the ranquage of the proposal because runderstand nhat you're propos,ng. you say the use of barbed wirefences is prohibited in the residential districts for any use otherthan agricultural purposes. What. !.rould it be permiEted tor?
olsen: rt courd be used for agricultural purposes in the agricurturaldistrict.
Emmings: No, that,s not vrhat that says though.
Erhart: Yes, you need to go back and focus on that. rtrs rearryconfusing.
Headla: Steve, if I put cattle on my property, I interpret that as Ican put up a barbwire feoce.
Emmings: can you have cattre anyplace thatrs zoned residential.L
{
Planning Commission Meet i ngOctober 28, L987 - page 34
{
{
Erhar t :
Headla:agricultural.
it says residential. The language is
Olsen: No you're not agricultural. yourre zoned
Head 1a :
Olsen:
the A-2
barbwireitts not
My tax says Irn agriculture.
We want to make it clear that in the agricultural district, inand unsewered areas where agriculture is a permitted o.", Ih".afences- are permitted. In tlhe si"gle i"*ify districts ;;.;;'agricultural, itrs not a permittel use.
I'm
No,
Emmings:_ Are you saying that barbwire fence will be prohibited inresidential districts period? Then you need a period and you need toderete the rest of thai sentence. Tien it says'ii ;;";; used in theagricurtural area and r guess it arready says it, barbwire fences arepermitted in the agricurturar district ihen- used'roi- agiicurt,rruipurposes and r rdas just r.rondering if we ought to put i-n there or justput in, for active agricurtural p"urposes or uses. The thought beingthat we would then have a way. to 9 o-. I take it peopll aon,t fiX"bar-bw.ire and my thought was, if sdmebody wants t'o r,irl,-r-l.,rt do you usebarbwire for? Itrs al$rays for cattle and horses? AIright, so if
'-
!l:y:r:.soing ro.have thit use io the "gii;rirri"r .i""]"tn.tts fine\ :ut ret's make it. almost rike a conditional use in th. i"n." that asrong as you're using it for cattle fine but if you,re going to quitusing it for cattre, you ought to take thaE bar6wi.. ott of there. Arewe that much opposed to barbwire that we'd Iike to do somethiog likethat? r personarly have no feelings about it on. *iy oi-"ti,. other.
Erhart: I agree with Dave. when you get into the residential arearrm opposed to it but there,s an .drruniuge in the rur.l ii". even ifyou have horses because for the money .o-n.trainEs you,ve tot, yo,
"unprovide a lot bigger area for your h6rses for a roi Iess ioney spent ona fence. There's a real advantage to it. r thi;k riJ ue"cu."rurwording it so it doesn'!t get inte-rpretted rater that horses are notagricultural therefore itts not useable on horses.
confusing.
residential.
any ex isting stables j.n
Those horse stables over
Siegel: Does this anticipated change affectthe residential area? I can think of o.r".there on CR 17. Right up by Shorewood.
conrad: pa t. Jensen?
SiegeL: Pat Jensen stables.
Conrad: Shers gone. Moved out west-
SiegeJ.: They wiIl be informed of the change or wiII they begrandfaEhered in if they are barbwire?
{
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 28, I9O7 - page 35
(
Olsen: They would be grandfathered in.
Siegel: In a situation like that, wouLd we inform them anyeray just sothey might do it out of their olrn goodvrill?
Olsen: What we'11 do is just send them a notice to alI people withhorses
Conrad: Jim, your concern?
wildermuth: what about a company coming into chan Lakes rndustrialPark. Letrs say they process precious .-et"ls or sonethin! and theyrve9ot to put up a cyclone fence stranded with barbwire on t6p cf thefence. Are you going to tell them they can't do that?
Olsen: It does specify what kind of fences can be used in theindustrial park.
Dacy: rtts prohibited in residentiar and commerciar and industrialdistricts. The use of barbwire fence is prohibited in the commerciar.and industrial areas.
wildermuth: That's not what r wourd like to see. r uould rike to see
,. 1t _9!!ion1I fo...your industrial area for exampte. you may wanr to putL jl mlnrmum hetght.
Conrad: That rdould probably be a good way to do it.
Olsen: We've got a maximum of g feet in the commerc i a I.that has to get a conditional use permit.
Head1a: If 've left it as you suggested, no barbwire fencing, could aconditional use permit alrow them to put barbwire at the g ioot level?
Olsen: Not irith that language. you need to tell us r.rhat you want forcommercial and industrial.. They are arl0wed to go to g fe'et orbarbwire may be considered in commercial and indu;triai iieas tnrougtr aconditional use permi t .
Headla: Maybe that's a good way to do it.
wildermuth: r think thatrs good to do it as a conditional use permit.
siegel: Have we addressed the fencing requirements in commercial- andindustriar districts within the context of the fence ordinance?
Dacy: Yes.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
{I
Anyth i ng ove r
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on Accessory Buildings.
{
Planning Cornmi ss ion lleetingOctober 28, 1987 - page 36
(
Erhart: I like the concept and I think I $ras the one that started outw.ith this thing. I thinli it's a good approach. I r,rould just questionthe example erhere someone comes i., w".,ii.rg, he,s in a residential areaand owns a big rot and wants to build a four stall detached garage withcedar shake roof and it's beautiful. He's going to spend $lS,ASI.AA onthis garage and r think we need to accomodaie t-hat q"|- -r'd- rike tosee us raise the 8SO to L,4OA but limit the height oi ,t.t.r", $ray youdefine the difference betereen a steer barn in a residential area and abeautiful detached garage. Thatrs the only concern I have.
Emmings: r donrt know how you're going to do that because if you ar10wthe size, I think erhat the person -"too-""" to build it out oi, yooarenrt going to be able t.o iegulate that.
Erha!t: Canrt you make aesthetically similar tothe house? I should say architectur;Ily similarstructure.
Erhart: I think any number, BA0 or 1,400 is goingproblem we had with the 50 foot by 30 foot or how
HeadIa: That $ras like I00
one you really rrant t.o stay
eI iminate that one .
the
to
ma in structure onthe pr imary
Emnings: r actually went through the same process. r thought a 3 cargarage is very common today. I thought aboui building one and iE,s 22by 35t which i.sn't far from the staidard size, thatiJ iei =quar. reetso that fell within the 800 so r was kind of comfortable with the 800myserf but r agree with you, if somebody wanted it to be a four carr garage_ and they were going to do a ,ice Job, r really ,orian,t have any\ :bjections to. that. I don't know how you can draw that line inIanguage in there. If they can think 3f sore*uy to d; ia; that wouldbe fine.
by 5g
lotr.
to el,iminate thebig was that barn?
thal he $ranted to put in. That's theThe height is a clear way to
Erhart: Even 50 by 36,whatrs that size? 50 by
small Menard,s steel shed.1,500 squaEe feet.
thatrs
30 so
Like a
tha tr s
Erhart: I lrould thiok that BS0serve to cover that 30?.
aod 1,46A, anywhere in that range would
Emmings: What kind of ametal ba rns ?
height m j.nimum would help to get rid of these
r
Ernmings: If we can get away with saying that it will bearchitecturally consistent with the principar use, that would be nice.
Headla: you're talking about these rohr sheet metal buildings and rowbarns, they, re all portable.
(
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 28, L981 - page 3Z
Erhart: And yet you could stiLl put a nice 3ceiling I would think.car garage with a 2g feet
Headla: I look at the height of my house, it isn,t that high.
siegel: How many square feet existed in that infamous st. Louis parktreehouse? probabry Bgg to 990 square feet? okay, we better considersome types of these kinds of things. you're tarking about the barntype of house structure and yourre talking about height and squarefootage here.
Erhart2 At 1,490 square feet?
Siegel: No, you,re talking about yourre Eryingof structure in size in relationship to the rearmay not be dimensional a part of a personrs planstructure.
{
t
Headla: What I was thinking, the only time peopLe put up thosebuidings like that, they like to hide -for dump [.o"i" co;ing in,construction trucks. Like on mine, r have a 12 foot openin; and Ehatrsmandatory for good sized equipment but if you Limit it to 26 feet,youtre going to knock out the sheet metal 6uildings.
irha r t:
period.
Erhart: In the first p).ace Ehe ordj.nance
9arages.
to restrict that kind1ot. But the rear lotfor detached accessory
doesn't allow detached
I thought we qrere talking about limiting height to 20 feet
siegel: That means no buirding courd be taller than 20 feet? I don'tknow if r go along with that for every apptication in the world. r cansee your point and rrhat youtre trying to achieve but I can see somestructures coming in-here for permits, especially for the larger piecesof property. Irm talking about a deLached building on the Iot.
Dacy: No, it says if you have a certain style house you have to attachyour garage but you can have detached garages.
Erhart: I agree that we should
Siegel: We already have. ?herepermits for detached garages.
Erhart: So we don't get into problems.ake out the rearyard and just call it
Dacy: Werenrt you saying, we,re talking specificall.y about Eherearyard area and somebody is going to build a four tar garage, it,sgoing to be detached, itrs going to be fairry crose from the side orthe rear of the lot.
allow detached garages.
have been people in here asking for
with horses, I thjnk you should
accessory bui ldings.
i
Planning Comruission Meeting
October 28, L987 - page 38
{
t
Dacy: I think the original intent of Ehis was if somebody had theSears.buildings that it could be placed as near as 5 feet to the rearlot line but yet ere wanted to put some type of area.
Erhart: But then this guy with a 5 acre 10t can walk in and put a barnin front of his house and-say it's not in the rearyard. when you get a5 acre lot, itrs going to be difficult.
Headla: Tim has a point.
Dacy: Thatrs why weire proposing a gg0 sguaEe foot maximum. Like the
l::.?: ll?lrll 7a_you,re sayins it,s s acies but there was singteEamlry rots in shorerdood and this area courd be subdivided.
Erhart: Irm just saying, donrt talk about rearyard at all.
Headla: The Lawson property, which is the front yard and rear yard?Yourve got double fronted lots.
Olsen: The street frontage side of the lots are the frontyards.
Headla: WeII, hers got two s.treets.
conrad: lrhere did the 5 come from? 5 feet from any rear rot line?
Olsen: That's in the ordinance right now.
Conrad: That seens close to any lot line.
Wildermuth: It seems too close.
Conrad: It does and I don'E like that.
Siegel: I don.t see why you,d- have a problem with that. Why do youthint somebody is going to buird theii house facing their yi-rd to therear?
Conrad: Itrs just 5 feet is this far.
Siegel: Yes but the other guy has 5 feet so yourve got l0 feet.
this barn or roof will hi.t theConrad: The vrater from the
neighbor I s proper ty.eaves of
Dacy: It was consistenE with whatthing that was new in this was the ordinance a 1so. The onlyTrying to establ i sh a
the older
30? th i. n9.
maxlmum
Erhart:
common .
area.
I think a
i
lot of Ehis accessory stuff, I think they're fairly
r
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 28, L9B7 - page 39
{
Conrad: Accessory
Thatrs the typicalIs that r ight ?
O1sen: Yes and the tool shed.
structures are garages right so garages are covered?accessory structure that we're talking about novr.
(
Conrad: so whatever, we have to make sure that whatever restrictionsare not really restricting a garage.
siegel: That arso says that provided no detached accessory structureshall be placed nearer than 5 feet from any rear lot line. I,ve gotone thatts closer than that.. rt's my pump house for the swimming-poorand it doesntt affect my neighbor ac Jrr. And r'm sure there are a rotof people on smaller Iots who are going to be faced with similarcircumstances. If they put in any kind of detached accessorystructure. It doesnit say a garage. f guess thatrs where Iim havingprobrems i.rith that because it says no detached accessory structurebecause it covers too many possibiLities or arl the possiuirities.
Emmings: Permitted accessory uses in RSF, therers garage, storagebuilding and there's a bunch of others. Arso like a kenner. Those arethe kinds of the things that are permitted.
Conrad: I originally didn,t like the 800 feet thinkj.ng that they're
Jarages but I guess Irm comfortable with the 906 and I could bepersuaded to go up from 800. r guess r'm noE really concerned thaE itfits the character. what r donrt want to see is a fiumongous buirdingout of context in the residential area and r think it suie seems rik6,whether it be 800 ot L,406, we'll probably ruLe that out so I don'tcare which number we pick.
Emmings: what would be theI0 feet?
sideyard setback on the accessory buiJ.dingZ
Conrad: So, r.rho would like to go along with a larger than 8g0?
there a typical diroensions for a 3 stall detachedworkshop area at one end?
Erhart: I rrould. Is
garage with a little
Emmings:
yOU lrrant
Erhart:
Emmings:
Erhart:
Conrad:
we go up
Youive got 12 feetfor your shop.
How. deep is it?
20 is minimum and
Thatrs 1,056 feet.
What should we do?
to L,2gg?
per stall, per car stall and then $rhatever
they are Lypically 22 ot 24.
I
Should we round it off to l,g06? ShouId
(
Planning Corunission MeetingOctober 28t L9B7 - page 4g
{
t
Erhart: Soa backyard,
Emmings: So we don't
Dacy: It' s in there
are our
L3,5AU.
l:rl: :u, you so dovrn a ror, say yours that reasonable and that,. fliis quarter ofonly have asquare feet.
really need the 30t.
for smaller lots.
smallest lots?Erhart: what
Conrad : It I s
Dacy: Therefeet.are some existing lots that are g,ggg or g,qgg sguare
SiegeJ.:
ratherIots to
.I.:, J'* reaIly worried with settingstick with_ a percentage. We've got tJotry and yield the maiimum or ev6n the-
any size on it.
many different
minimum.
Id
si zes of
Erhart: But if you stick. with this percentage and then some guy comesover with I50 by 20 foot barn.
Siegel: Why not leave it 308?
Conrad: Letrs leave it at L,ggg.
Emmings: Do people lrant that 308 referred to in there too?
Conrad: I donrt like the 30t. Itrs not meaningful to me at aII andthat was my biggest problem with this whole dea1. The 3Ot does notmean anything Eo me.
Emmings: out of Ls,ggo sgyul. foot rot, say half of it was yourbackyard, is that rea"onabre? o" yoo-irrink it wourd be harf of it?It certainly wouldn, t be bigger ttrin-ttat.
Conrad: The straight percentage doesn,t $rork for me.
olsen: r think the reason that $re have that percentage is just for thebenefit of small lots that donrt have L.TAA foot.
Conrad: Okay, I buy that. fnstead of the gO6 we can put in the l,OgO.we can leave the 308 in controlling...
Olsen: Small lots.
Conrad: Right and werll up the g0O square feet to 11000 and we,llchange the 5 feet from any rear rot rfne. - o;;;y';"1i..." .,o support{ Eor by change Eo 5 feet.
Emmings: Maybe you ought to leave it in for a just in case.
i
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 28, L9B7 - page 4l
Emmings:
Siegel:
Conrad: I say 10.
Emmings: Especially wherethat you buy at the store.
Siegel: Even a gazebo in a corner of:ome in here because they can't put itown fence because you,re going to make
Lg. Why not?
is 10.
theyrre setting up these small metal sheds
Emmings:
Conrad:
Conrad:
you want
Headla:
imposing
Conrad:
IittIe
{
ol sen :
we have
Cha ng e
I think
If theto do.
lg.
5.
it to 10.
it should
side
lg
I think it should be
be too. If the side
is
or
why vrouldn't the rear yard be 10? What doTg,
q2
siegel: r can envision a rot of situations in smarl rots where you,regoing to have problems with that kind of requirement. rE's fine forthose that have r5,o0o square fooE rots and -rarger but you-down tothose under that size and werre going to have a rot of ieopre in hereasking for variances on their rear t6t rine relu i i ","L"t-"- il. accessorybu i Id ings.
(a 1o t. They're5 feet from the
them put it I0
going to
fence?feet in?
have to
Their
But why should you put iton the neighbors.so close Eo the Iot line? ThaE's
Siegel: A gazebo is imposingfeet from them minimum.
on their neighbors? you're actually 20
Emmings: Why?
Siegel: Because there would be I0 feet on their side.
?herers some validity in whatstructu res. Letts take another
TREATED WOOD.
Bob says
vote? 5
Eerms ofL6? 5's
in
or
conrad: Does anyone want to do anythi ng right now?
Basically what I said isall the information.
those o ther
win.
Ereated wood in the groundI can come up withstick it in Ehe ground and
Headla: yes. I don,t think we should allowunless they show us that it's not harmful.
/ sonething thaE can be very dangerous. I canLre have no vray of controlling it.
Ietrs not do anythj.ng right now until
t
Planning Commission Meetingoctober 28, L987 - Page 42
{
(
Olsen: !{hen we put a boardwalkthatrs being used.
Headla: So somebody
wood ?
Conrad: What is the alternative for treatedtreated wood in the $retland...
they cantt show right? They can,t show that
to show that it's not dangerous.
They are sending me
I think we
i.nto it-ought
that arethat t hey
Wer re
wood? If we dontt use
Conrad:it's not
How do they sho w,
dangerous.
Headla: I think it,s up to them
Olsen: --Irm investigating havingsome addresses of Iabs who can do
some tes tstests.do ne.
Headla: Yes but r think the vendor or the maoufacturer of that productshourd be doing the -testing and pay for it. r donrt think we shouldspend one penny verifyinq ihat. -r -thi;k it's up Eo the manufacturer toverify that it is not dangerous. f,ife tnis ,o.a,- rtV-.uiii-*" Oo.Vthat in the ground? Thatis protriUitea. We have to fraul it away.Thatrs a situation I really aet sq\^rimish.
Wildermuth: Rather thao take this issue on ourselves,to be pressing for the EpA or some state agency to Look
Olsen: They have looked aE it and concluded that ...
Headla: Do they tist it by product, the manufacturer?
in, we don't see the type of wood
really can use just about any type of Ereated
Olsen: Right. Itrs alI treated with three major chemicalsused- in the pressure treated woods and they have not foundare harmful.
Conrad: Are we talking about treated wood that is in the water?not talking above ground, sre're talking about below ground?
Headla:-. That was my main colcern where people wanEed to put inboardwalks over wetlands with treated wooa in the water.
l. Conrad: f.rhat.- roa rd wa 1ks ?
Headla: Cedar poles, oak poles. They tast what, 2A to 30 years.
Ol sen: Or metal.
Conrad: Is that a hardship?
Wi ldermuth:More expensive.
typically are ere talkingThat's what broughE it on
about? Are !.re
was boardwal ks
about
wetlands.
talking
through
Planning Commission
October 28, L987 -
t
Meetj ng
Page 43
(i ra..*otr,,
Conrad: We
Wi Idermuth :
Olsen: The EPA said they didn't
di f ferent combinations.
be able to point to some Stata Statute.
specifically do, there are L,6A0
issue here.
in water
saying 5 or
Aren't we just spinning our wheels j.f we...
canrt provide it's harmful.
We aren I t going to
wildermuth: At this point all $re can conclude is there no
Headla: I disagree. I think we should say no treated woodperiod. Are r^re going to get our backs against the waII by1g feet clearance, no vray.
Siegel: Hor., are you going to police that though?
Headla: I guess the same way you would police the 5 foot.
Conrad: When would we have an opportunitydonit allor., treated wood in the water?
Siegel: No but how are goiog Lo police it as a community? They can goto Eden Prairie and buy their treated wood. yourre talking about abigger question than just what one municipality can do. i think it'sfine if we alert the concern, if we have one, to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and maybe it already has been or others should voicer concern but why shouLd chanhassen not allow treated wood without thecapabilities of enforcing it?
Headla: I think you can enforce jt. Just remember now werre onlysaying.like putting treated wood posts in the wetlands. When somebodycomes in to put a boardwalk over the wetlands, that's when we explainto them that they can use treated wood as the actual walkway andeverything. You just can,t put treated wood dorrn into watei.
Siegel: Thatrs for new construction?
Headla: Oh yes. Thatrs all we could do.
Conrad: At what point in tirne would we have controlwas treated erood or not?
on know i ng if it
Olsen: A lot of those docks we don't even know about.
to te}l anybody that ere
OIsen: Like a weEland alteration perrnit.
Conrad: Probably only in the wetland aLterat ion permit process. Wesay you canrt do it. you,ve got to have a dock or you have to have aboardwalk.(
{
Planning Commission
October 28, L987 -
{' Siegel: Can ere as
construction?
Meet j ng
Page 44
t
Dacy: That was the issue that rre were just discussing. If a nationalagency and the state has not found whether or not it is harmful, for usto have a basic ordinance or legar justification being reasonable andso on, if that were challenged.
Emmings: Meaning the health, safety and public welfare, does it iftherers noE any proven harm?
Erhart: I think if some agency or some group came out, anybody, eventhe university oE a doctor camL out and slid treat"d wood is hJrmful inwater then r think werd have an excellent, good reason to make thisordinance. whether or not we could enforce it. Just to make thatstatement but the fact that no one, if we canrt find some even semi-official agency to do that.
Headla: What about that treated wood at a construction site? whycanrt they? why cantt we bury that right at the construction sitlzLike right next to your house.
Erhart: YourEe saying we canlt do that now?
'{eadla: Right.
Siegel s We cantt?
a community dictate the materials used in such
Emmings: Who says?that come from?
Irm not arguing with you, I just wonder where does
Headla: I knew you were going to ask megoing to have to look into it more.
that too when I started. I'm
AMATEUR RADIO TOWERS
conrad: Herers $rhaE r'd like to do. Letts defer this issue Jo Ann atreast until Dave can- find an agency or somebody saying it's negative orletrs look at it in 5 months. rn the interim, if we can in the wetLandalteration permit process hi.qhly recommend that treated wood not beused in contact rdith rrater, let's highly recommend it. I donrt knowhow you get that word out but in your contact with them, r think thatwouLd be at least some temporary th ing.
Olsen: Itrs a hot issue right now and I think it J.s beinginvestigated.
olsen:
s i te.Irm essent j.a11y saying let's Ijmit it to one radio tower per
{
Planning Commission Meeti ngOctober 28, l-9g7 - page 45
i
I can put a wholetotrer and thatrs r.rhatdo that. I don't knowcut it. I thinkon their neighbors if
telephoneintrusive
(
Emm j ngs :
Conrad: I
I agree.
a9ree.
Erhart: I agree.
Headla: You can put many antennaes on one tower.bundle, I can put 2A to 3g square feet up on onethat one fellow I think he wis really angling tothe right wording but I think this r6ally doesn'tthere's- 1 Sogd way, people can really be imposingwe word it this way.
Olsen: I Iooked at your concerns. Itrs reall-y difficult to put al.Iyour antennaes because they're so different and varying in sizes andsometimes you they are closed up and then they are -ext-ended whentheyrre used- That migit be getting more intd what the Fcc is tryingto prevenE the cities from doing and allowing them to at leastcommunicate. when yourre limiting them to tdat one tower, it may behard to come up with a maximum size but vre can look into it.
HeadIa:
area.
I really think that,s the way to go. Like 12 feet maximum
{:onrad: Itrs jusE alI relative though Dave. It's Iike j.s apole uglier if it's got 3 wires on it versus 2? The poJ.e isto begin with and that,s ljke 90? of Ehe impact and the wire.
Headla: Some of those t.hings pretty obnox ious.get
inConrad: I just don't know how the heck you can regulate Ehat.
Headla: I donrt either.
DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL.
Emmings: To me, isn,E is a separate thi.ng maybe? One thing we oughtto do is regulate the number of towers and then maybe ," ,u-nt to go astep beyond and regurate what'is on it to Lhe extena we're abre to butvre do[tit know how to do that so at least this is taking the first stepin regulating the number of towers.
OIsen:
control
the data
The next one was from City Counc j. l-, they wanted to have someover.demolition debrj.s disposal. I pretty much took a lot. offrom the Minnesota pollution control Agency.
Conrad: Yes, it sounded Iike it was exactly or the way I read iE,$rhat have sre done? Why do we need this?
Olsen: They don.t regulate those.
SO
f
Planning Commission Meet j.ng
October 28, L987 - page 45
{Conrad: Those are
OIsen: No, those
Conrad: And we I ve
ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIOR STANDARDS.
Barbara Dacy presented
standards.
just recommendati ons ?
are conditions if iErs 15,000 cubic
adapted it to a smaller space. Any
yards of open.
commen t s ?
y so you know whatrs going
looks f ine.
Emmings: Yes, the key is the permit obviouslon where and you can regulate it. I think it
Erhart: rt sounds good- r think the thing we have to think about is rthink peopre building industrial prants heie are not willinj to pay thesame. kind of price as.thev would in Eden prairie. rt,= Ju"i a thought.I think it's a lot easier for us to price ourserves out of industriarjobs- rt's a rot easier for us to cirried away with Eden prairiebecause Eden prairie has such high minimums. r'm in favor...that wedon't find ourserves in the posiiion where we.re adversery affected.rrm just saying r don't think we have quite the luxury J-ra.n prairieto dictate some of these things.
-{
Jonrad :I think it's okay.
LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS ON CUL-DE-SACS AND FLAG LOTS.
Barbara Dacy sEated tha t
ha 1f and hour and asked
meeting.
had a presentation that would easilythi.s item be tabled unti. I the next
she
that ta ke
PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS FOR I987
conrad: Point number one on the goars, increase communication bet$reenPranning commission and public such as encouraging attendance byreporters from local newspapers, regular artictes. How are we Soingthat? Thatis the one I really r.ranted t'o focus on.
Olsen: We really didn,t start doing much on that untit recently.
Conrad: what other things will encourage reporters from the paperhere? Whatrs the strategy and I guess I havLn,t hit an objective?
Olsen: I think we just wanted to let people know about what washappening before it gets to councir. when a subdivision was approved,let it kno!, that it is in the process.
the staff report on architectural exterior
-L
t
Cornmission Ueeting4t L987 - Page 23
PLann i ng
Npvembe rr(
Noziska: Have you run some projections on that little sketching thatyourve got there as far as what that means to chanhassen in the way oftaxes and etc. ?
Tom Hamilton: The building would generate about 95,6gg.AA. Just theone building werre rooking at right- now. rf you increase the uses andr haven't had a chance to tark to the assessors to find out what kindof changes you would put on that property but it would increase thetaxes. If I can get the informaiion for you, IrlI see if I can talk tothe assessor.
sorts of things are important parts ofobviously you have more knowledge of and
because it just plain
aI ternative.
Headl.a: To me r^rerve had severalIiked it was very reasonable. I
have done.
wouldnrt get used. I think thatrs a good
{
Noziska: AIl thoseconsideration which
understanding.
OPEN DISCUSSIONs LoT wIDTH AND FLAG LOTS
Ba rbara
Conrad:
Noziska:
there-ri9ht.
Dacy presented the staff report on Iot widths.
What do you Ehink? Keep it the same?
It doesnrt seem like therers any consistent guidanceItrs rrhatever anybody or any part j.cular community feels
out
is
conrad: r guess r just get the feering werre not gaining anything bychanging the ordinance right now.
situations
donrt what
where flag lots, it lookselse the developer could
Dacy: One example, or at least I fett that a fLag lot was and avariance was deserved was on the shadowmere subdivision at the end ofthat cur-de-sac. They had kind of a hammerhead shaped cui-ie-sac andif they wourd have builr the cul-de-sac and createdthe iot tines soyou couLd get the 90 feet across, it wourd have meant a retaining warrof 22 feet in height and x amount of cutting and firling anJ so on butif they can achieve the same number of rotJ but do ressiamage to thetopography, and the topography r thought in that instance was the bestreason to do that- other examples, there was controversy in the creekRun subdivision on yosemite and then hre talked a lot abo-ut !his j.n t.hecentex and curry Farms development. There are 2 0r 3 flag lots arongthe steep slopes and cul-de-sacs arso. The commission feit that in [.hecreek Run example that _it was pushing a rine that he's trying to get anadditionar lot out of there. r think the councir went ar6ng with thattoo.t
)T/7?////ilr7#
{
Commission Meeting4, 1987 - page 24
r
Planning
Npv embe r
(
siegel: Barb, wourdn't you find if you had a standard arc $ridth thatyou wourd avoid some of those kind oi things lu"t u""ur". oi tne costof construction? They wouJ.d have to Ue pt-ann-ea u"";;ei;; io tir.topograhy of the land ald meet the requirements and we erourdnrt have toworry about variances for flag 10ts oi that kind .i itr.g. --rf you hadan equar distance arc around i cu1-ae-sic and waniea-to .ii"" up them tobuilding- odd shaped cul-de-sacs to take furr advantage of every squarefoot of land.
Dacy: To me thatts another way of enforcing it. you can establish a40 to- 45 -foot 1ength along the arc or the curve of the cul_de_sac, youwould end up rdith a gg foot lot r.ridth .t tt" setback f irre. -ff youincrease that, then your lot wiattr-gets-bigger. to *L-tiut," 1r"tanother way of saying you have to hJve gg ieet at the ".i-Uu"x. yes,establishing a distance along the cuive ot tn" arc arso srourd eliminatethe frag rot option because -you're u.iuuii"i,ing a minimum width at thecul-de-sac and not saying, .y6u. could go-dorn t-o rs r""i-unJ-9o back outan$ at.the.building setbac)i rine r am-at-the 90 foot rot vridih. whilewerre talking about flag lots, strouiJ i *ou" onto Ehat?
{ oacv: - werre grad we tarked about it because a coupre deveropers come'in and say this 90 foot thing at the building setb'a"L iin. i.ridicurous- you forks are t6o restiictive but after vre carled aroundto other conmunities, we find that that,s not the case. --
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on flag lots.
Enmings: Do you have a minimun width?
Dacy: Technically right now werre just saying everythingfeet and you have to abut on the stieet. If you wanted toput a sentence in the subdivision ordinance that said if ito be created it shall have a minimum width of x feet UuJif you hrant to get that definitive at thj.s point.
Emmings: The only thing is if you're looking at itspace- for future possible street. Is there anythingflag 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 wayit is and rhe other Ehing we might d-o is just Ji.;;;]i.g lors in rheordinance and say ere donrt rike them for fhese r.u"-o"= r-;t we recognizethere are certain. places where they might be.;,;.p.i.;" as a variance, and list those things. I think those are reat gooa- points that you'* nade there.
Conrad: We should make a decision on this while we,re1:. Is there any reason to change? Does anybody wantOkay, werll keep it.
as
in
talking aboutto pursue tha t?
has to be 90you couldf).ag Iot isI d on't kno w
preserving yourthere about
{
Planning Commission Meet i ng
Ngvember 4, l-9g7 - page 25
Noziska: So that vrouldnrt totally close the door but it would...
Emmings: It rdould show that we.re predisposed not to Iike them butthere are certain cases where ,e w-i1r look at them because that willhelp us remember in the future too. And lre $rant to say, when we do it,we will.proba.bly want to have a minimum widttr oi, r ao'n;t inor. youmay want to give an easement or something oveE more land to be surethere's enough space there to build a ro.d in the future.
Conrad: I like that. I'm comfortable with keeping it the way it isbut putting in some rationare for any variance to tte conditional use.
Dacy: Okay, then lre can bring that back.
The Planning Commission reviewed the City Council meeting update.
Tim Erhart arrived at the meeting.
Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meetj.ng.favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned
(
AIl voted inat 9:40 p.m..
I Submitted by Barbara DacyCity Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
t
1 The f i11
d i spos a1
areas:
and trench areas of a demolition debris landfacility are prohibited within the following
a
b
al
e
I00C feet
pond, or
300 feet
regional
wetlands
withie 50 feet of the property line
water mark on a 1ake,
taken, if necessary, to control
from the normal highflowage.
f ror,r a stream
flood plain
2 Dumping of demolition debris shall be confined to assmaLl an area as practicable and with appropriate facili_Eres Eo contrne possible wind blown material within thearea.
The demolition landfill shall be constructed and covermaterial graded so as to promoCe surface water runoffwithout excessive erosion.
Surface water drainage sha1l be diverted around and awayfrom the landfiIl op6rating area.
3
4
5 Effective means sha1l berodents and vermin.
6
7
Adequate dust
The site shallvided means.
control on the
be adequately
site sha1l be proviCed.
screened by existing or pro-
Within one month after final termination of a site, thearea shall be covered i,rith at least trt/o feet of compacieaearth. material, graded to a minimum two perceot sloie topromote surface water runoff without excessive erosion. -
a. The finished surface of the filled area shall becoveled and maintained with adequate topsoil andseeded to provide suitable vegeEation immeAiaieiVupon completion, or immediately in the spring on-areas terminated during winter conditioni. ifnecessary, seecled slopes shalL be covered !vith strawor similar material to prevent erosion.
b. Prior.to completion of a demolition landfill site,rhe City shall be notified in order that a siteinvestigation may be conducted by the city st.aifbefore earthmoving equipment is removed fiom theproperty.
8.
fivfafuWb
(c)
After completion of a demolition landfill site, adet.ailed description, including p1at, shaIl berecorded erith the City and County Registrar of Deeds.
The description sha11 include general types and Ioca-tion of wastes, depth of fill and other informationof interest Eo future landowners.
d If the completed site is to be cultivated, t.heintegrity of the finished surface sha11 not bedisturbed by agricultural cultivation activities.cultivated, a sufficient depth of cover materialallow cultivation and Eo support vegetation sha1l
maintained.
An engineering report including:
(i) General information.
(ii)
If
to
be
9 P1ans, including a permit applicaEi.on, engineering report
and drawings, shaIl be prepared by a registered engineerof Minnesota. Ten complete sets of the plans shal1 besubmitted to the City offices. The submitted plans sha1linclude the following:
A completed permit application form.(a)
( b)
Site analysis, including consideration of each
item in number 2 of these guidelines, surfacefeatures, type and availability of cover material
and any existing refuse deposits at the site.
Proposed operating method and procedures.
Estimatsed construction time schedule.
Completion date.
Description of the materials that will be buried.
s howi ng :
( iii)
( iv)
(v)
(vi)
PIan s
(i)
( ii)
( iii)
( iv)
Location of
Description
Location of
Grading and
debris to be buried.
of tlebris to be buried.
burial site.
erosion control -
J
3030 Harbor Lane Nonh
Bldg. ll, Suile 104
Minneapolis. MN 55447-21 75
6r255$1950
10:
FRC!!:
IDIE:
9]BJ:
MEIIORANDUI
P)anning Cqunissian ard Staff
l,lark Koegler
Jantrary 28,
v
1988
ltansportation Section - Cdnprehensive plan Update
1. Introduction
2. Description of existing Elsteflr
3. Issues/qfstem deficiencles
4. Iliaf fic assigruent zones
5. Planned imFo\renEnts
6. Reammenled systems
7. Ermdiqral and juisdictional classifl€tldr
8. Airports
9. ltansit including tI{f
10. I{@leflEntatlon
At.the. rast Planning Commiss ion meeting, we reviewed corridor studies andmaterial on functionar classification. -At rwEsday's neeting, ,r" -r-rro r*"to accomplish three primary tasks: conducting a Urilf .""11r, "rtransporta tion goals ard poLicies, revien of new plan (Eteriar anc- aiscussionof planned imprcverEnts.
Pri?f to commenting on each of these topics, I irould like to review theoutrr.ne of. t,he Transportation chapter so that you can keep each of thesections .in t_heir proper sequen-e. The Traniporta tion ln"pi.-. of tn.Conprehensive Plan will conta in ttre folLoring 10 se&ions:
JAN 2 g t9B8
cl rY OF CHAN!,ASSE\I
VanDorerr
Hazard:
Stallings
Adi6.g{l-..rln-l
Section 6 was reviewed at the last nEeting and Sections 1-3 will be revierped
an Februry 3, 1988. Ite renaining sections will be part of the completeddraft of the Transporta tion c*Epter to be presented anl di scussed on February
17, 1988.
Goals and Policies
At the beginning of the Comprehensive PLan Update process, we corducted a
review of qpals arrl policies for each of ttE Planrs ma icr sect.ions. Since it
has been a while since that occurred and new members have recently been
appointed to the Ccrunissicr, it may be helpful to again reviery that material.
Attached are the goals and policies for the Transporta t.ion section which
oonta in mcdifications reguestd bV the Planning Ccnrnission.
f{ew Ma teria I
The Transportation chapter is being completely rewrltten. Iherefore, all
material in the old plan will be totally replaced by new text. Attached
material addresses the introduction, &scription of ehe existing system arxl a
discussion of issrEs ard system deficiencies. These items wilL be reviewed in
order to obEa in the Ccrnmissionrs irput.
qlanned System
The Transportation section of the Cqnprehensive Plan is a c.crnbination of an
update of the 1980 Plan ard the synthesis of informa tion containd in the Year
2005 Land Use aod Transportation Study prepared in 1986. the year 2005 Plan
conta ins a nuflber of well conceived recqnfiendations tha t. are being used in the
Cornprehensive Plan U@te. For the benefit of the Cqnmission, $e will briefLy
present some of the Plan's major reccrnnendations utilizing transparencies on
the orerhead projector.
t-1
I NTFODUCT I CT.J
Transportation is an issue that f:tces almost al 1 Chanhassenresidents on a daily basis. l"lost of the =ommunity,s residentsworl: outside Chanhassen's boundaries. Virtual 1y alI resicientsreLy on personal aLlto.nobi les for daily trsnsportation-Thrre+ore. travel to ernployment combined with shopping trips,entertainmEnt and other travel nEEds rEsults in first handexperience and t{nowledge of the local and regional roadviaysystem.
Over the past 5 - 7 y.ears, this +irst hand knowledge has resultedin increased +rustration Frith thE road network. Trunk Highweys5, 7 and L69/2fZ currently have design defitrientries and./sr areoperating in ei:trE|ss of reasonable capacity. The solution toChanhassen's tran5portatitrn concerns lies with a variety ofagencies intrluding the trity! HnDOT, Earver Eounty, Hennepincount'/ and the .r'retropor i tan council - chanhassen's transportationplan Eeeks te coordj.nate the e++orts o+ tt e== iq"I.ies anOoutlines a local plan for the improvement o{ Iocal arid regionalconditions.
Do regional politres preclude future transportation improvernentsin Chanhassen? The answer to this -qui=tion is no_ The bas:.s ofthe I'letropolitan Eouncirs rr-ansportation plan is thattransPortation priority rnust be to maintain those +acilities thatserve exi-=ting development in t_he urban g,E|rvlce area. Thenorthern portion o{ chanhassen Iies within the urban servr.cearee. Additionally, the plan retrognires that +unding will benecessary to i.mprove the minor arterial system (T.H. S) in theregion-
The transportation system is inseparable from Chanhassen,s IandLtse pattern- The development o+ commerci.al! industrial andresidential areas .nust be integrated by the transportationsystem. As new developrnent trontinues to take pIace. traffic
Ehanhassen's transportation plan is prepared under the +ra.neworkoutl ined in the transportation seEtion of the HrtropolitanDeveltrprnEnt 6uide- The l4etropolitin Development 6uide j.s astatement of regitrnal ptrliEy and since it has a ,najor impact onlocal poiici.. it r.s valL[ab].e to identi+y current regionalthint':ing pertaining to the transportstior, =y=t=*.
The ovErall objective o+ the regional highway plan as identifledin the Metrtrpol itan Devetoiment Euide is to maintainappro::irnatelv the :"T: level of reqional eccessibi. lity thatpxists at the present time. congestiBi-"ni.h -i=-"-'I".i.J*
,n=existing systr r"rilL . also U= -pr=i""t in the future svstem.Removal o+ tronqestion hrs been aeter*i.,ei to -u"-"Ioioir."a ,,infpasibte due ro capital ;;d il;J' ctrsts. The ttetropolitancouncil also bel j.eves that " .r"g";;;;i-a."" svstem woul.d producenegative iftpaets Dn trinsit .i="g=-"*i i.h would ,nake it moredif f i.cult to serve tne trsnsii o;;;;""1 troputation.
t-2
impacts will need to be closely monitored and analy=ed.
Al thor-tgh the pr i ,nary mode o+ transportati. on +or Ehanhassenresldents is the pri.vate automobi Ie. other rnodes are alsoutili=ed. As a result. the transportati.on section addregseg masstransit whitrh intrludes ride sharrnq. van pools, busses andpossibLy light rail transit. Non-motori.=ed modes! specificallywalking and bicycl.ing are addresised in the trail section of thisplan which is +olrnd within the recreation chapter.
Chanhassen's existing street system consists o{ a series of local
streets. col Irctors. minor arterials and rnajor arterials.
Exhibit 1T portrays the road syste.n and {unctional
trlassi+itrstions that existed in 1?ElO. Thi.s information was
derived +Fom a LiTt update o+ the city's 196E} Comprehensive
Plan. ExhibiL ?T shows the current roedway system, speci{ically
noting the improvements that occurred from 19Bt) ttr 1?E}7.
The existing street network intrILtdes approxi,nately 75 miles of
roads. B+ this total . 957. are paved Nith a permanent sur+aEe.
Figurr 1T inditrates the distribution and location o{ the existing
system sl-rr+atres. These +igures do not include the .:O ,niles o+
State and Eounty roads which are maintained by 3urisdictionsother than the City of Chanhassen-
Figure 1T
Existing Arterial & Collector Streets
From To
Lanes
Travel edCl ass RoI.l
150
'150
66
150
200
'150
100
90'100
66
100
83
100
100
'150
66
66
66
Hwy. 7
Hwy.4l
Hwy.4l
Hwy. 5
Hwy. 5
Hwy. 5
Hwy. 212
Hwy. 169/212
Hwy. l0I /'169
Co. Rd. II7
Co. Rd. l7
Co. Rd. l7
Co. Rd. l7
Kerber Dr.
l,ll. 78th st-
I{. 78th st.
Hwy. l0l
Lyman B lvd.
t.lest Limi t
North Limi t
Hwy. 5
Uest Lim'it
Co. Rd. l7 North
E. Border Sec. l3
t{est Limit
l0l- 169 South
212
North Limi t
North Limit
Kerber Dri ve
Greenwood Dr.
Co. Rd. l7
Co. Rd. l7
Laredo Dr.
North Limi t
Co. Rd. l7
tlorth Limi t
Hwy, 5
South Limi t
Co. Rd. 17 North
E. Border Sec 13
Henn. Co. Li ne'l0l -169 South
East Limi t
South Limit
Co. Rd. l7
Kerber Dr.
Greenwood 0r.
Hwy. 5l{. 78th st.
Laredo Dr.
Hwy, 5
Hwy. 212
East Limi t
IA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
I'1A
MA
MA
c
c
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
(to be update d)
DESCRIPTION OF EX ISTING SYSTEI'T
Street
o
v
a
a -?
a!
a.a.oLaoo
a
a
a'a
aaaa
Exhibit 1T
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
M II{NESOTA
Existing (1980) Functionat
Classification
III lntermediate Arterial
OOO MinorArterial
-
Collector
_l
_lra-lI r
I
-Nlt =
{J
o
o Ia
I
oO,-..O-
___ _t ._ "_
aD
aao oao
a
/
!rL-Ft-<=---.
t-3
a
--+-
.-/
I
i
- -+-
J
\)
ir-\,
I
A
1l B C
!r
U E
I
,/^l
F!r tli
la.
3
ltr
--'--r
Il tl !t-IMI ll ii lr
I
I
I
I
t
L
L
L
L
L
3e$T
ililiirlll
dTY tr
Cf,/AN{ASSEV
Exhibit 2T
! ---..1---l
=n
=.____.1
-=l-____-.]
;
In
-
=I-l-- J
4
q
6
7
Existing
Road System
lmprovements - 1980-1987
,
_I
t-4
I
2
I
--+-
I
-r-I
rtr tiitl
t-5
Chanhassen has di+ferent policies pertaining to ronstructionstandards *or urban versus rurar strrets. urban roadwa\,= arerequirEd to deditrate Ee +eet of right-of_way {or Iocal sireetsand a 38 foot wide pavEd area is required. Fural roadways arc!also required to have bitu.ninous surfacing i.n a ?4 foot widthcontained within a 6O. foot right-of-way. Eurrent city policyalso allows the construtrtion o+ privatp driveways proviain! sucfrdrives do not servE rnore than +our single +amily residences] Insutrh cases! 6O feet o+ right-of-way ii required with f_he roadwayconsisting of a =B +oot wide gravel surface.
I SSUES,/ EYSTE M DEFICi EIIC I ES
The +untrtion 6f a transportation plan is tofuture needs but also to analyzr exi.stingappropriate sol Lrt i ons. Frequentlyr existi.ngrelated to +uture needs. As a result. agiven area can re.nedy exi.sting deficienciesfuture nEeds.
In eliamining Chanhassen, s existing transptrrtation system, agenera). probl em i s rradi I l/ apparent. The systern provi desadequate north./south arcess in terms of facility locations Uutis de+icient in east./west routes. In the northeastern part ofthe city. T.H. 5 i.s Located j.E mi. les from T.H. 7, This comparEsto ma>:irnum spacing o+ one mile {or north/south routes in the samegeneral area.
Issues and system dEficiencies can be cateqori=ed into threetypes o+ conditions: l) intersEctions. 2) roadcapac i tylconnect i ons and J) jurisdictional ."iiin"t'tV. Each ofthese topics are addressed individually.
Intersect i ons/A Ch anhassenintersections that currently arrsurnrnary Bf theEe occurs as fsllows.
contai ng
Experi enc i ng
a nurnber
Frob I ems.
cl+
A
1' trentral Eusiness District Access - Downtown chanhassen has anidrntity problem due to a latrk of coordinated visL(al andvehicular actress +rorn T.H. S! which sEtrvErs as the prr.naryconnetrtion to./f rom the metropolitan area. This problem isparticularly important due to Chanhassen,s role as a na;or Twintrity entertainment center. rrnprovernent
=
-.,,rr.J"tii i"u=IiIv ,"i r rsigni+icantly al leviate this situation. ThE addition of a newnorth/south entrance into the downtowri area west of existing T.H.1Ol will greatly improve access_
2. T.H. 5/Urest 79th Street/T.H. 1(11 _ Tra.{f ic forecasts wereprppared +or the intErrsection of r-H. E/trlest 79th street /T.H- rol(see appendi.x). At the West 79iLh Street intersection.si,gnif icant turn ,novements include: exiting traf{ic +orm 79thStreet, through volumes on T.H. lot and le+t turns from the south
not only accommodate
problems and to pose
problems are closEly
specific action in awhile providing {or
BA
--l
!
o a''
1
I
-t--
C E F rlr
3
5
ttl Il rl!r-IM!l?l rl lt
I
l-
t
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
I
2
3e$
l!;li -t--
4dTY OF
o{AltFtAssE J
Exhibit 3T
System Deficiencies
O lntersectio ns/A c c e ss
-
Qspssity/Connections
A JurisOictional Continuity
i
_i
-_-.1
.-___.1.t
-_l+
=J
I
=
fa
a
-)
--_.,]
7
t-6
,
II
I
I
6
T-
-tg
td#
Iri ,tttiitl !til
t-7
to West 7?th Street- The capacityindicstes that it would operatE atrepresents stable operati on.
anal ysi s
a I evel
of this intersection
o+ service E which
At the intersection of T.H. 1O1 and T.H. S, significant turnmovement volurnes inclutde left turns from the north to T_H. E,through traff i.c on T.H. E and re{t turns from the east to thesoLrth on T.H. 1O1- The intersertion iE expected to operate at alevel of serviee E with both the proposed upgrading of T.H. 5 andthe provision of double left turn lanes on the north and eastapproaches. Level o+ servitre E indiEates that the trafficvolumes through the intersetrtion are at capacity. Specificproblems in this area inclLrde the following!
T
Capacity probtems at T.H S/T-H. l()l_
- Potenti.al difficutties for selectedlol/trlest 7?th Street i n I i ght of overal I
Capatri ty prob I ems
statr k i ng
at T-H. 5 and Dakota Avenlre.
distance on the
Limited Heaving distanrp for vehicles comingH. 5 tr-rrning left into !,lest 7?th Street.
turn movements at T.Htra{f i c vol Lrmes.
from the east on
=. T.H. 5./Dakota Avenue - West ZAth Street/T.H. 1Ol _ Ananalysis !{as conducted o+ the west TAth Street,/T.H. 1O1intersection which assumed a minor realignment to provide a morEldirect move.nent f ro,n north r.H. ror to T.H. 5. signi+icant turnrnove.nents include left turns +rom Tgth Street to thr north EnT.H. 1{)1 and through volumes on T.H. fol. Aoproximately 65pertrent of the through volumes on T.H. 1Ol at this location aFetrips ps=sing through Ehanhasssen. This system would operate ata level o{ Eervicr E which represents a capacity trondition.
Specific problems in this area include the folLowing:
Li mi ted
The need for condemnation +trr the
Ti ght currvature o{ T. H. 1(:}l north
north approatrh.
real i gnrnent of T.
of T. H. 5.
H. 1(r1.
- Intersection spacing and Location.
- lJsage o+ T.H. 5 by T.H. 1Ol through tra+fic.
4. T-H. S./CSAH L7 - As continued developrnent takesdowntown Chanhassen! pro5ections indi.trete a siqnificantat the intersetrtion of T.H. S and CSAH 17_ Limiteddistance on thE n6rth approatrh could result in queu€lsthe intersection o{ West Tgth Street and County Road 17.
place j.n
probl em
stacki ng
bl ocki ng
ma_;or probl em wi th thi. snorthbound Minnewashta
5. T. H. 7./Minnewashta parkway
intersection is the angle with - The
whi trh
Farkway joins T.H. 7- As
eastbound tra++ i c on T.H.7
7 to solrthbound l"l i nnewashta
6. T.H. 5/Lone Cedar Lane
traffic on Lone Cedar Lane
restricted by a hi I I .
a result! it is difficult to identi+y
snd turninq movements from eastbound
Farkway are cLtmbersome.
The siqht di.stanEe +or southbound
Iooking west along T.H. 5 i5
7. T.H. S/Lake Ann Park Access - The access to Lake Ann Park i5
direEtly off o{ the north side o+ T.H. 5- Left turn movementg
either into or out of the park are hazardous due to the volume of
tra{fic on T.H. 5- Fark users +requently encounter signifitrant
waiti.ng periods in exiting the Parkr particularly at Peak hours'
In the future! aEcess to the park may be realigned off of trSAH
L7.
intersection. a blind curve
H. 101 .
a. T
ex i sts
-At
curve
this
ofT
9. Pi oneer
for traffic
T. H. 101 .
H. 1r) 1/96th Street
due to the verti traI
Trai 1 and T
on Fi oneer
H. 1Ol - Sight distance problems occur
Trail due to the vertical curvature of
1O. T.H. 1O1/Chicago Northwestern
intersection, the roadwaY Passes
howeverr the width and angle o{ the
oncoming vehi'sles.
11. u.s-
soutthbonnd T
due to heavy
Rai Iroad Tratrks - At this
beneath the rai. lroad trackst
bridge mat{e it hazardoug {or
for
improvements to this
safety. Heavy tra+fic
ar ea.
?f?/f .H. 1o1 - This intersection i5 hazardous
H. 1Ol tra++ic desiring to turn eastbound ontB
tra+f ic vol Ltmes.
t?. U. S. rbS-?l?lI .H. 1Ol - Recent
intersection have signif icantly improved
volumes continue to pose Problems in this
l3.BlLtf+trreekDrive/Chicagoandl.{orthwegternflailroadTratrkg-
Eluff trreek Drive was imProved by the trity o+ Chanhassen in
L987. This improwement along with the addition of lights and
warning arms has greatly imProved safety in this area' The
intersecting angle of the roadway and trachs stil1 1!mits clear
sight distance. This situatj'on ,nay be comPletely resolved in the
fuiure i{ the railroad eithEr digcontinues use of the tratrks or
is abandoned.
Road Ca oaci tvlC onnections: Deficientrres 1n this category
excessive vol uaneevident due ts caPacity problerns created by
due to conneEtion pr(]blems. Capacity problems arE also cause
a Iack o+ proPer lane channelizationr lack Ef signali=atio
due to the frequency o+ access€rs. Specifitr examples of
ci.rcumstanceg include the f ol I owi ng:
are
50r
dbv
nor
such
1. T.H. 5 - T.H. 5 is the transportation backbone of Chanhassen'
UsersofHiqhwaySareawartthatexcessivecongestiononthis
t-8
t-9route dops not otrcur only during peak hours- portions o+ T.H. g
are (trverloaded +or Lrp to I hours per day. Approximately 7..)OO to715OO vehicles per day is used to justi+y a four lanr f ErEility.In 1985. T.H- 5 tri.rried SOtEOO vehicles per day at Chanhassen,seastern border. T.H. 5 i.s also Lrnique because it carries"reverse com.nuting,, patterns. Employment opportunities inchanhassen attratrt workers who traver westbound during the,norning hours and eastbound in the Evening. This moiementcounters chanhassen residents who work in other Locations in theTwin trity arpat most of whitrh lie east of Chanhassen-
Problems along T.H. E witl be compounded in upcoming years due togrowth patterns along the corridor_ Exhibit 4i portrays thegrowth of ?4 hour traffic vol Lr.nes along T. H. =. Wf tni.,Chanhassen, the average annual rate of daily traffic growth bysegment ranges f rorn .6 to 4.S percent per year.
A!- !h" present time, T.H. E is being improved. Ey 1?9O. T.H. swill exist as a four lane divi.dea trignway from a point iOOO +eeteast o+ Chanhassen's east border to T.H. 494. A fSef Iettingdate is scheduled +or replatrement o+ the C.H. St.p & p. Railroadbridge south of. the Chanhassen CBD. Also scheduled is thetridening o+ T.H. S to four lanes {rom west o+ CSAH 17 to thepoint =.OOri feet east of Chanhassen,s eastern border.
Improvements that arE! currently underway will rigni+icantlyimprove csndititrns on T.H. i. It is extremely important in thefuture that the City continue to monitor funding Ievels to ensurethat current pLans are irnplemented. Additionally. the futurE+unrtion o+ T.H. 5 is dependent on the tronstruction o+ npw T.H.2l:. trl i thout new ?1:. T. H- g wi I I agai n U" q.,i.i iy or=.capaci.ty. even r+ith the implernentation o{ plinned irnprovements.
2. T.H- 1O1 - Trunk Highway lol is classified as a temporarytrunk highway and as suEh. it has not retrei.ved appropriations forany if,pr.vements with the exception o+ absolutte rninimLtmnecessities. Fecpnt State Legislation calls for Hennepin Countyto accept 5urisdi.ction for T,H. 1o1 within county boundarles.Since a substantial portion tr+ T.H. 1.:,1 is in Earver L-ounty Rndchanhassen specif iEally! iurisdictional and +unctio"ir .""tir,,_rrt,are major concerns that could have major consequErnces +or thecity. The jLrri.sditrtional proble,n is +urther compounded by theneed for T.H. taJt improvements. The highway has signi+icantalignment and geometric proble.ns particularly south o+ f.H. =.;. Fleasant View Road - pleasant View Foad serves as the onlyeast./west connection between CSAH l7 and T.H. 1O1 in northernChanhassen. The existing roadway aIignment is inadequate inseveral areas. Sharp cl-rrves. garages located at the right_of_wayliner hidden driveways and frequent vistas of Lotus Lake whitrhserves as a distraction. all. trombine to create potentiallydangerous conditions, previous efforts to i,nprovr pleesant VieHRoad have been unsuccessful . As a result, the inadequacies ofthis rol-lte wil. l continue to intensi+y in the future as traffic
(E
Ea(!
3oc
.E
E;
fD:
C.-tgo
(!IF
i.-
I
a
O
v,c
E
.L
gy
(r(D
(D
coo
o'=o
E.=
o-o
E
at'oE
=os(J
=
.9
'a
t!t
.oI(D (d<u o/)
tr., E o6
o
(tro
r0,300
(9,800)
Ir0,r00l
r_1,-q gQ
fi,500
(11,200t
1t0,7001
r2,500
TH5
t2,400
fir,500)
Ill,oonl
12,8 0 0
1r,0 0 0
( r2,100)
Ir2,^0ol
13,8 0 0
rHs
12,200
3,000)
I14,100J
t5,500
21,0 0 0
(21,000)
123.2001
25,500
24,s00(----)
[33,2001
3r,90016,0 0 0(l7,700)
IrB,ro0I
20,500
4.5%lyt 3.6%lyr 3.5%l yr 4.8%lyr
TH 5 Av. Dally Tralllc
000 -'t980
(000) - 1982
[000] - 1984
000 - r98 6
rf
Sourco: Barton-Aschman Aasociatea, lnc. - SW Corridor Tranaportation Coalition
ttllllllllll
Exhibit 4T
I
o
2%l yr 1.4!f,1\tt 0.6%lyr 4.2%tyr
TH 5 Z4-Hour Traffic Volumes West of Mitchell Road
tllr I
t-11
volumes cont i nLte to i.ncrease.
4. CSAH 17 - Col.rnty Foad 17 currently extpnds south to LymanBoulevard. In the {utlrre, it will be possiblr to extrnd theroute south to Fi.oneer Trair. south of Fi.oneer Trail. +urtherextenEion is not feesibte due to existing devElopment and extrenevariations in topography. Therefore, chanhassens only reasonableopportunity +or a +unctional north/sor-rth minor arteriar routeIier in the imProvement of the T.H. lO1 trorridor.
5- Leke Riley Boulevard and Kiowa Trai I - on the western Eide ofLake Filey, two neighborhoods developed with ter,ninatinq trul_de_
accErss to the area aE well as the provision of emergencyservi ces.
t. CSAH 17 - Eounty Eoad 17 serveB as one of ChanhassEn,s majornorth/south routes. t^rithin the city, this routE has adEquateriqht-o+-hray. siqht distanEe! grades and setbacks to mai.ntain a45 to 50 mj're per hollr speed timit. North of chanhassen,however, this road takes a different form as it enters Shoreyloodand Excel gi er.
Jur i sdiction I Cont i uity:Chanhassenwhich pass through the trommunity andEecauge these routes +al I under acontinuity problems tren occur. RoutesChanhassen include thE fsllowing:
contains a nuanber o+ roadsinto other municipalit j.es.
variety of jur i sdi rti ons,o+ particular interest to
to CSAH L7. The routethe northern portion o+tra{fic.novement.
In Shorewood. Carver County 17 beromes Hennepin trounty B?. Tightsetbacks! poor sight distances, individuel drivey{ay aEcesses andrrdured speeds exist in this area. As a result. theeffectiveness of CSAH f7 as a northern atrcess t" i_H. Z i=diminished once it crosses Chanha=sen,E bordrr.
?. CSAH 117 - CSAH 117 is veryfunctions effetrtively unti I it
Chanhassen where it's alignment
si mi. I ar
r each es
rrstri cts
A. T.H. 5 - Issues pertaining to T.H. E have been previouslypresented. The 5urisdictional trontinuity of T.H. E is elitremelyimptrrtant to Ehanhassen. Chanhagsen r+ill need to continuallyflronitor t"lnDot plans for this route as welI as the desires ofad5acent ,nunitripal ities to rnsure that r.H. s continues to+unction at the highest +easi.ble level of service.
VanDorerrHazard: ,'
Stallings",
&.rl*t.Art*!.rLfr:
3{x)0 Harbo. Lano North,
Suite 104
Minnoapolis, Minnesota 55.t aI
612/553. 1 950
UEI{ORANDOI.I
10 Chanhassen Planning Ccnmission and Staff
FRCtt: uark Koegler
DAIE: Octotrer 14, 1986
SUBIECT: TransporEation Chapter Orenriew
Goals ard Policies
V'
The 1980 Comprehensive Plan contained one goal statement and a number of
supporting policies related to Eransportation. It is recommended t.hat the
Planning Cornmission review Ehese statements for concurrenc€ or rnodification.
The follor.ring staeernents are general examples from the existing plan.
o Coordinate existing and planned transportation facilities and their
caDacities with lard us€ types ard densities with particular emphasis on
land develognent in the vicinity of interchanges anl intersections.
Prcfi?cte safe ard convenient access connections between the higlnuay syscem
and major commereial areasi industrial uses, and residential
ne ighborhoods.
The City should cooperate urith the MeEropolitan Transit Cormission arr:l
other plblic ard private carriers in order to provide future transit.
service Eo arrl erithin the comwrity.
Eor proposed develooments, ttre City will require decailed circulation and
access plans which depicL tlre impact of Lhe proposed development on both
the existing ard future Eransportation systems.
Through t.he development review process, the City will strive to
discourage development from occurring within the designated 169-212
corridors as well as Iimiting access to collector streetsr minor
arterials, intermediate arterials and principal arterials.
o
o
o
o
ocT 1 6 1986
clTt oE CsRnxnsseat
o
o
Ttansporta tion Cha pter
1. To provide effective solutions for current issues such as T .H. 5 access,T.H. 101, and County Higlrray l7 /jgth Street.
The uodate of the transportation section of the cannprehensive plan will be
scrnevrhat. different from the otlEr sections. The transportat.ion se;tim of the1980 plan contained a review of the existinq iy"t". i""irJinq tn"identification of deficiencies and a major streeds jran wni-n r-ocusea onfuture needs.
The transportation chapter is unique because in essence, substanEial portionswere recently updated. rn August of lgg6, the HRA crenpleted a transporEaticnplan which €ocused on a large section of the city. The plan ,rnicr, nascranpleted by Benstroof anc Associates rnc. was assenbled to *"ef the followingobjectives:
Within E.he Urban Service Area, Chanhassen wilI coordinate theconstmction ard maintenanc€ of hard surfaced local streets, collectors,and arterials. Within the Rural Service Area, the City wi1J. provide andmaintain a transportation system consistent \riah the needs ofagricultural lard uses.
To ensure that the future roadway system, including I.H. 2lZ, provideseffective accessibility for the aornto,wn area.
To deverop a definitive rand use/transportation plan which is rearisticanl achievable in meetirq lono term city objectives and which accountsfor:
- Soc io-econqn ic projections- General alignment of major roadoays- Desiqn Eype of najor roadways- toca lions of ma jor intersections
To develop a funct.ional classification system that meets regionalcriteria ard needs for throlgh and local traffic.
To develop a jurisdictiornl classification system that responds Eo:
Chanhassen wilI coordinate efforts with Eden prairie and otherappropriate jurisdictions to ensure that Higtnrrays 5 and 101 cont.inue tofunction effecEivelv.
- Policies of involved go\rernmental units- Neds for funding of capital and operating expenses- f4aintenanc€ of functional integri!y
To reach agreement with irpolved agencies regarding major erements of theIard Use and Tfansportation plan.
To simplify and expedite future decisions
developnenc and traff ic.
2
3
4
6
7 by the City regarding
As the ciLy's qtrovrEh forecasts do not ac@unt for full developnent within
the Metropol i tan Urban Senrice Area and thus will occur aE some future
date, it is appropriate Eo plan the roadrr,ray system based upon the City's
forecasts.
B. Inadequate design ard Lack of continuity for T.H. 101
C. Potentially significant congestion on T.H. 5, causing both
difficulties for traffic operations on T.ll. 5 and congestion on
major cross streets
The preferred roadway sYstem can resolve these identified deficiencies,
rcet City objectives, ani prwide effective traffic operations -
Sigrnificant components of the preferred roadliay sYsten incfulde:
An interchange on T.H. 212 at T.H. 101
Realignment and improvements Eo T.H. 101, including ocnstruction of
a new intersection with T.H. 5 west of DakoEa Avenue- In
conjunction wit,h this int.ersection, the existing ful1 movement
access at Dakota Ave. would be cbnverted Eo right in/out only.
A new roadway connection be Eween T.H. 5 arxl west 78th SEreeE ( l'lain
Street) at the weseem end of exisEing west. 79Eh Street which would
improve access Eo Downtown and relieve congestion aL T.H. 5 and
Great Plains Bculevard.
Realignment of west 78Eh St. at its intersection with Cormty Highray
17 to lnsure adeguaEe stacking distance between Ehis intersection
and T.H. 5.
4
5
A
B
c
D.
Mn/DOT and Carver County staffs understand the deficiencies of Ehe
presently ptanned roadvray system ard coflcur with the conceptual solutions
provided by the preferred roadway system. Additional analysis of the
feasibility of specific cesign solutions is necessary.
Principal cqrclusions of the sEudy include:
1. The City's socio-economic Eorecasts for the year 2005 envision greater
gro$rth than t'leEropolitan Council year 2005 forecasts utilized by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for analysis of the T.H. 2!2
corridor.
3. The presently planned roadway system $ould experience three siqnificanE
deficiencies by Ehe year 2005:
A. tack of clnvenient direct access to Downtohm Chanhassen frcm T.H.
212
A
7.T.H. lot should be a designated minor arterialroadway. The iurisCiction over this roadwayState neeCs to be resolved ex@it.iously given
T.H. 101 arrd necessary improvements required to
and should not be a local
by eiEher the County or
the important. funcEion of
the roadway.
8. WesL 78th St. ( County Bigtmay 17) should be a City street, principally toallow grre.ater_city crcntrol over the desigrn and usage of r,tain sLreet in
con junction with Doivntown developnrent.
9. The city shouLd work closely with Carver county and Mnlmr to faciritateimprementation of the improvements necessary f6r Ehe preferred roadwaysystem. As specific roadway plans evolve, the City should takeappropriate steps to acguire or reserve the necessary right of way.
The HRA plan will mrnprise a major portion of tt* u@te of the transporEationchapter. _The Plannin-o Conmission wilr need to review Ehe material it'containsand provide input on any necessary modifications. Additionalry, ttre planu@te wilr include sections! not covered in the HRA plan such as a iiscussionof transit and policies on local road improvementa in the ceneral n-urir useReq ion.
\
The Rural Servi ce Area shall be preserved asagri cul tural area and as a trans i ti onal zon eto accommodate future urban growth.
sp-11
an'intended
Encouraqe the devel oDment of addi tional
i ndustri al uses in order to bal ance thetax base.
commerci ai and
Cornmuni ty' s
Encourage the further enhancement of the downtownrrea through the utilization of appropriate design
techniques.
Provi de conveni ent acces s to the downtown area in-
cl uding trans i t faci 1i ti es and to emphas i ze pedestri an
movement in and around the center.
Chanhassen wil I encourage the oreservati on and adaot.i vereuse of structures of historic and architecturalsignificance.xTransportation
GOA L
POLICIES
Create a multi-modal transportation system whichpermits the safe, efficient, and effective
movement of peopl e and goods.
Provi de a I ocal transportati on system whi ch i s con-sistent with the plans and programs of the County,
Metropol i tan and State systems as wel I as wi th theoverall growth pol icies of the City of Chanhassen.
Transportati on facil ities shoul d be pl anned and
des i gned to be archi tecturai ly and esthetical ly
compatible wi th the surround i ng envi ronment.
Encourage mu1 ti p 1e use of ri ght-of-way areas
accommodati ng vari ous modes of transportati on.
Tho roug hfa res and major routes shoul d be pl anned
so as to reduce confl icts between externai traffic
and I ocal traffi c while mi nimi zi ng the disruptionor division of the logical pa tte rn of devel opmentin the community.
Combine streets, highways, mass transit, terminals,
and parking faci I i ties into a coo rd i na ted transpor-tation sytem.
Provide fiexibi lity for additions or modificationsto the transportation system by basing right-of-way
requirements on an evaluation of future transportation
needs.
sp-12
As a pa rt of pl att i ng,provide for dedi cati onstreets consi stent with
Ci t-v cr cii;an33s.
eac h devel opment shoul dand i mprovement of publ icthe standards found in
Nei ghborhoods shoul d be pl anned and de s i gned tolimit or di scourage throLgh traff .ic.
Sufficient setbacks a nd/o r bermi ng shoul d be des i gnedi nto . al I devel opment projects adjicent to majorpubl i c roadways.
9oof9inate existing and planned transportationfacilities and their capacities with iand rs. typ.sa.nd densi ties wi th parti cul ar emphasi s on I and -'
development in the vic.in.ity of interchanges andintersections.
Prornote increased development of bi keways andpedestri an faci I i ti es i n order to conseive energyresources and assist in the abatement of pol l uti6nand congesti on.
P roma te safe and convenient acce s s connectionsbetween the highway system and major commercialareas; industrial uses, and residential neighborhoods.
The C i ty shou ld cooperate r.1i th the Metropol i tanTransit Commission and other public and private
ca rri e rs in order to provide iuture transitservice to and within the community.
In major areas of employment and commercialsufficjent pa rki nq and transfer areas shoul dvided to meet the needs of mass transit.
a c t i v i ty,be pro-
The City will continue an ongoing maintenanceprogram in order to maximize the community,s invest_ment in transportati on f aci li ties.
For proposed developments, the City rvill requiredetai I ed circulation and access plans which'depictthe impact of -the proposed devei opment on bo th theexrsEtng and tuture transportation systems.
City
occurri ng
TlriguSn tne deve I oprxent rev i e_w prbces s . thewl tt strtve to discourage development from
{
L
s
I
sp-13
yitlil the designated L6g-Z1Z corridors as yrel I asrrmr:rng access to co I I ector streets, mi nor arterials,i ntermedi ate arre!"iais and p . i n. i p i i '
a r t e r i a i s .
]hq 9ity wjll inplement roadway design standardsand rnspection pi.ictices which'insure proper con_struction.
Chanhassen shoul d requi re s i dewal ks a ndlo r trai lsin commerical, i ndustri al and med i um and highdensity residential areas; adjacent to scho6ls
and_ other public bui I di ngs; and al ong one side cf
co lI ectors and other high vol ume roads.
The City-wilI support Federa I , State, Metropo I i tanand local efforts directed toward ttr6 iimety con-struction of Trunk Highway L69_ZlZ.
Chanhassen wi I I coordi nate efforts wi th Eden pra.i ri eand other appropri ate jur.isdictions to i ns ure thatHighways 5 and l.0l co;rtinue to f unctio-r effectively.
tlithin the Urban Service Area, Chanhassen will co_ordinate the construction and mainieninie of hardsurfaced local streets, co lI ectors, ind-arteri al s.t.lithin the Rural Service Area, the City will provideand maintain a transportation system c-onsisteirtwi th the needs of agr.icul tural i and uses.
.l
l
Community Facilities
GUAL
POLICIES
PromiJteCity bui
extended
maintenance progranfacilities to insure
The City should contain community facilities andpubl i c servi ces necessary to protect and enhancethe heai th, safety, and wel fare of al I Chanhassenresidents.
Chanhassen shou ld conti nue to coopera te wi thCarver County Library System in the provisionlibrary services to the community.
the
of
Continue to make meetinq space avai lable to Cityboards and commissions, civic groups, homeownerassoci ati ons , and other commun i ty organi zati ons .
Provide faciiities, equipment, and man potrer toi nsure adequate fi re protecti on.
Provide appropri ate levels of pol i ce protectionand emergency medical service consistent with theneeds of Chanhassen residents.
an CngOin'.1
I di ngs and
use.
for al I
thei r
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 22, LggG - page 44
f1
-\ hou=.. He had counted on the rentar income. put the house on the marketand sold it. somebody e..se has bought it and r dontt know what theiraspirations are noL, but it is the n6xt one dovrn the rine that creates theprobreD and unress you have a mechanism to ia.ntllv tn.1 tnut i".naccessory building and have a special use permit of- "o*. type saying youhave to have so miny parking "pu"u" ind tnLy have to ue rrere and you haveto have randscaping buffers -roi the neighbois u"a ito=. r.ina oi tiri.g;l'ithas the potential to get out of hand.
neighborhoods as single familyfamily and who is not. Motherlin_a rental of a non-relative is not.and not get so hung up about
Erhart:
_
But if you are designing theseneighborhoods, canrt you define ito islaw is family but a brother is not andCan't you define the use in those termsdriveways?
{
Koegler3 The issues I -have brought to you tonight are not as- applicable...but ,-*:_old prouaury'ue i",o-i"" not io-l;ty;; know wCouncilrs position. is as.part ot- tte paoa".". Next time around twill take a shot at putring togethei i housing arirt-oriilc-h r,m su- critiqued quite "1:""1y:. Hopeiurry we witl piri-l"s"ti;Ji tn" g"ndiscussions at that meeEing.-.-.- v-- Conrad: Anything etse? Transportation? |l'\! Koegler: I don't tfri_nk.I. really need to go into that in any detai is a memo there and I think thd only thing that I was going to por'
i
hat thehen were wiII beeral
iI. Thereint out,
Koegler: I donrt know. - I really question the legality riqht now ofdefining famiry. The whore "on.-"p€ of iamiry has - been' .i,"iq i ng so much innot only ptannins but..in .legar jirgon also i" ln" -r";a l;;;". r don,t havethe qualification realry to -.orrit o'n ttrat. The way the census bureau evennow 100ks. rt used to be family units and now it is trousenora" to a rargedegree because we have so many Singte peopte. riving together or significantothers or whatever ir might oe so tneie has been .-r.t'.-;i;;;ge there that r:il:..J:?: ;rr..::..,.iiiriona1 nor. il-Janymore. r think it does in many
Siegel: ft sure is a can of worms.
Conrad: It is complex. The averaqe age in Chanhassen is 3I years o1dright? something Iike that =o ,"'i" not going to have.t tr,i= point intime, the mother-in-raw issue i= not goiig t5 u" " i.uii.y one for another5 years so when we revise the Comprehe-ns;.v-e pI;; in-; y;ars, those of youwho are still here, you can addreis it. I guess I feel based on thepopuration age righLnow that it is not a h6t item for me and maybe in fiveyears it will be as the average age gets order. Have $re generalized thisenough Mark? I reaIly So appieciite-your perspective on keeping things inthat r.,e know we rearry need-.^ r rea1ly do rike that. r donrt like togarble it up with. stuff that aetuses it. rt interllr" -ru itn the quarity of
:1._::1";.:oaIs rhar we wanE and makes it arl rook a iltli. bit hrishy_vrashy
{
Planning Commission Meeting
October 22, 1985 - page 45
Dacy: Isnrt itparticular formpeople there but
expenses.
Conrad: Which are vrhaE? We have a track.
Dacy: Bi ll ions.
{\
the transportaEion is a bit unique from the other sections in that the HRAnakes those transportation plans for a significant portion of thecommunity. we wirr be weaving that into -the comp pian and there is somematerial there that just summarizes the high points and I think tnere isreally no discussion that we need to bring to your attention.
Conrad: What are you going to do on bus service? Anything? Does busservice out here have any merit because we have u n"r-"y"t6m service, areyou going to weave that in somehow?
Koegler: Yes.
conrad: rn tarking about rail service out here. we do have a rairroadtracks that goes through and it.has _always fascinated ne that we reaJ.rydon't push anything. r-am intrigued by, r know wayzata or somebody is'9oin9.to have light rair service, cornmuter servicel and r am intrifuea uywhat it rrourd take for chanhassen to be a little bit aggressive in;;;;i.glight rail. Any thoughts along that line?
Koegler: My reaction is that it is an extremely rong range concept forthis area- we followed the LRT issue quite croiely ina tliere were fourcorridors identified. and those were prioritized an& the only one thatrearry showed significant ridership was the university ave.rr]e corridor.
Conrad: Isn,t Hopkins going to get, they are not on a...
Koegler: Nothing is real definiEive on that and we haveabout jobs and housing uniEs and things and to be quitethink the r idersh ip is anywhere near what it would havesomething like Ehat.
the theory that it is so capital intensive for thatof transportation that ere don,t have the ridershipeven then that Coesn,t even begin to defray those
been talking ablunt, I don'tto be to support
lot
and
capital
conrad: Alr you are doing is pushing t.he service out further from Hopkins.rf there is a train c.oming this way, dropping peopre there then they 6an uedropping people off here. r do know thal it-il costly but i guess on theother hand, here we sit on the outskirts of the twin cities and we have arailroad track going through our community and we are playing around \4rith169 and TH 5, we have good mass transit potentiar and it g-oes downtown.Hor,, many people are working downtown? A whole bunch thal is why we haveEhe bus service to bring people downto$rn.
are saying, to call theThey made an attempt to
, Dacy: It may not hurt Ehem, if I kno$, r^rhat you
{. ra i I road Eo see what are their long Eerm ptans.
r\
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 22, L986 - page 4G
vacate a certain railroad throughfor the Iine through Chanhasseni
downtown work.
Eden prairie.
We have to use
what does Ehe future holdthat anyway with our
conrad: Maybe it is just me and r do rearize that lre don't have a bigpopuration that is detcending on that rair but on the ofhei trana, at somepoint' r don't know- r ao rike the idea or havinj a rnu"J-t."n"it that isfocused on rail that takes it downtown. tt is herl.
sieger: -.could you get an update, r think that r.ras mentioned before, aboutthe studies that were done -on the Iine alI the way out to Chaska, I5_17years ago they actually had demonstrations- niaeis,-poiiticar people tookthe trip out to see .the s-cenery ana i-ttrinf th;a-i;':-""i- "..t of dead.somebodv said that they decid6d to scritctr this pr.;i;. iiis tracx and goto wayzara with it inst-ead uut r trr i-ntc lt r,"" to io oiit-tie aevetopment.They are discouraqing deveropment, on-- lnl southerest corridor. The Metcouncir is not heipiig wrttr itris -s."ti"i of the metro area.
Koegr'er: The Regionar Transit Report is a wearth of information right nowand we will get some update info.i,ution.
conrad: r think that would be good. There are a rot of words on thispiece of paper that r don't undJrsiana.- Functionar crassifications andstuff like that that I don,t una"rstani.
Koegler: I r^,ould .ug_?"=! that it is appropriate to hold that lack ofunderstanding until.y9_go through it n!'xt iime and r "iir
-rlr" tnut .t.".as to vrhat all the different "af"gori""'*"..r.Conrad: cood. Thanks Mark. The next neeting is?
Olsen: November 5th. We've got Nelson.
conrad: with alr thoes exceptions. As r read the Nelson dear, r don'tknow as though I vrant to deai with it and that is obviouslV wny it didn,t
;:S;"."J"tr.:."rcr,rt would you brins it to us i;;;;";"i!1.irr thar many
Dacy: r guess we rook at it as r", e would terl the devel0per that if youe'ant to pursue it to the commission fine but our positiori wouro berecommendation of denial 0r recommendation of app-roval witn arr tneseconditions. our position wourd be if tre wants io take it to the commissiondespite our particurar recommendation that is fine and ttJ r. his right.
Conrad: When I see so many changes, so many variances, so many exceptions,the planning commission "a-n't reJcu'to that many and we,re gorng to turnhim down, we're qoing to Eabre it and as rong as you "r" "o,nirunicating thaEto him, he has the right to come in here uuf r w6utonii t,.".'a.urt withEhis tonight the way it was done. ttreil was nothing r courd read in to.There hrere so many problems.
J
PLANNING COMMISIONERS: Nann has purchased a new computer.
Unfortunately, problems occured with the printer. She
was only able to print the first half of the minutes.
The Conmission shoul-d review them anyway in case thereare any major corrections. Thankyou for your patience.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMI SS ION
REGULAR MEETI NG
JANUARY 2q, L988
Chairman Conrad ca I led
MEMBERS
Con rad ,
MEMBERS ABS ENT :
STAFF P RES ENT :
City Planner
the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette ElIson, LaddPRESENT: Tim
Brian Bat z 1i and David Headla
Janes Wi Idermuth
Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALT,OW A 12 SOUARE FOOT ON-SITE
DIRECTIONAL SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFEICE PARKDISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAST, NORDQUIST SIGNS(DATASERV) .
Public Present:
,Steve Hertz
Bonnie Wagner
Ann Rolling
Nordquist S igns
DataServ
DataServ
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report oo the sign variance request.
Steve Hertz: frm lrith Nordquist Signs. I.le have done past work withDataserv and I think the main emphasis here is, their intent to comein with a uniform sign program. They do have approval to put up afreestanding sign identifying their corporation which carries on theirIogo and their letter sty]e. They went so far as to take it one stepfurther and look at their directional situation and design somethingthat would coincide with that. This goes back to what they have attheir main corporate offices which are in Eden prairie. so in takingover this site, they wanted to follow through with that and create auniforrn sign program. I thilk you'11 see by the design of the signagethat it is not overpowering - The maio inte;t is to m;ke somethin!that's easily legible as people drive through the site. Again,I think it needs to be emphasized is the fact that the sit6 is verylarge and there is going to be future development on this site.Presently the letter sizes there are 2 L/2 inches on the upper case sowe're not looking to advertise. we're looking to identify ind directtraffic. At this point, are there any questions that I can answer?There are also representatives of Dataserv here that would rike to
spea k .
Conrad: Maybe we']1 have some questions for you later on Steve.
Bonnie wagner: rrm representing Dataserv here tonight. r wonder ifwe could refer back to your overhead of the actual iacility and the
3c99!:, or the approach to the building? In viewing the access to thebuilding, we feer that this presents to us and our iustomers and to
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMI SS I ON
REGULAR MEETI NG
JANUARY 20, L988
Cha i rman Conrad called the meeting to
PRESENT: Tim Erhart, StevenBrian Batzli and oavid Headla
order at 7:35 p.m..
Emmings, Annette EIlson, LaddMEMB ERS
conrad,
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFE'PRESENT:
City Planner
James Wi ldermuth
Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALT,OW
DIRECTIONAL SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP,
DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE
(DATASERV) .
A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-SITE
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK
EAST, NORDOUIST S IGNS
Steve Hert z
Bonnie wagner
Ann RoI l ing
Nordquist S igns
DataServ
DataServ
Jo Ann orsen presented the staff report on the sign variance request.
steve Hertz: rrm with Nordquist signs. I,te have done past vrork withDataserv and r think the main emphasis here is, their intent to comein with a uniform sign program. They do have approval to put up afreestanding sign identifying their corporation which carries on theirlogo and their letter style. They rrent so far as to take it one stecfurther and look at their directional situation and design something"that vrould coinciCe with that. This goes back to r^rhat tiey have at-their main corporate offices which are in Eden prairie. s6 in takingover this site, they wanted to folrow through with that and create auniforn sign program. r thi:rk you'11 see by the design of the signagethat it is not overpowering. The main inte;t is to m;ke somethin!thatrs easily J-egible as people drive through the site. egain,I think it needs to be emphasized is the fact that the sit6 is veryIarge and there is going to be future development on this site.Presently the letter sizes there are 2l/2 inches on the upper case sor.re're not rooking to advertise. we're rooking to identify-lnd directtraffic. At this point, are there any questions that I can answer?There are also representatives of Dataserv here that would Iike to
spea k .
Conrad: Maybe werlI have some guestions for you Iater on Steve.
Bonnie wagner: Irm representing Dataserv here tonight. I wonder irde could refer back to your overhead of the actuar iacirity and the
3c99!:, or the approach to the building? In viewing the access tobuilding, we feel that this presents to us and our 6ustomers and to
f
the
Public Present:
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 29, 1988 - page 2
Conrad: Not yet. Thank you
conpany in Chanhassen. We'11a comment on this subject.
our shipping and receiving people a hardship in that you have toby-pass- the buildiog on TH 5 and then you hive to iaentity how toapproach or to actually access the building. so you pass the buildingon TH 5 and then you turn left and then just after ucbonal.ds you haveto turn into the left, which is not visible to you. you have totravel some way towards the entrance of the uuitaing and as you enterthe front of the building, there is a very limited, small visitorparking rot- vIe do not rrant that to be a thoroughr.ray. we do not wanttraffic to go throuqh to the front of the office] ri:at's maintainedstrictly for a small visitor situation. so the traffic has to f ror.,through the road, around to the side of the building. At that pointwe have to identify to them where is employment pariing. Where do yougo for shipping and receiving so we're proposinq that thesedirectionar signs are necessary to us anc to the community because if$re don't direct this traffic appropriately, you have residential areasimnediately next to the property of Dataserv so lre want to eliminatejams, confusion and get the traffic in and out of there asappropriately as we can and as quickly as we can, as a matter of fact.
We are planning to move our headquarters to the Chanhassen site in thenear future so we expect, $re are experiencing a great deal ofemployment growth. Werve outgrown the Eden prairie facility in just ayear and a haLf so vre expect to move into Chanhassen, probably about
309 people immediately and then our future plans are to move ourexisting headquarter base into chanhassen and buird and construct newbuildings and have a campus environment, if you will. So we feel thatthese signs will be necessary and informational at this point and willbe utilized as r.re grow. We,re hoping, if it's possible, then we canactually utilize our existing signs yet out of the Eden prairie siteif they conform and if they are maintained along our identity. Any
ques t i ons ?
Bonnie.
open it We' re
up to
pleased
a nybody
to have your
e ls e vrho may ha ve
Erhart moved, Headla secondedin favor and motion carried.to close the public hearing. A11 votedThe public hearing was closed.
Headla: whatrs the address of DataServ in Chanhassen?
Steve Hertz: 190LI Lake Drive East.
HeadLa: So Lakeland Drive, if someday turns offgoing to make a left hand turn at Lakeland Drive.were finding in the other business.
Bonnie Wagner: Irm sorry.
Headla: Wouldn,t somebody coming inturn off of TH 5 and as they go dohrn
trying to find Dataserv would
nord Dakota, theyr re going to turn
of TH
The
5, they're
same as they
Planning Commiss ion Meet ing
January 2A, L988 - Page 3
on Lake Drive, since that's your address. So, the sheet I have herehas one directional sign there. Maybe they vrould make a turn there$rhich would be a logical thing to do. I think the sign ordinance isgood. I don't see where we're working a hardship and I do support theStaff rs pos it ion.
BatzIi: I think
Attorney for CPT
to Dataserv.
I need to abstain
and worked on the
on this matter
transact ion to
I was an
the facilities
s l nce
Iease
on-site
Counc i I,right?
Olsen:Thatrs right.
Ellson: I agree that they probably do need signs but I think the
recommendation of just taking the company name and logo off and
keeping the height of the arrows and the direction exactly the saxne
would probably accomplish the same thing, so I pretty much agree withthe staff recommending to stay with the smaller size.
Erhart: The ordinance states that we're limited to four on premise
signs no matter how big your campus is. Currently, the signs at the
CPT building are 4 foot? Do they have signs at the existing building?
No signs at all? There must be a reason fcr your requirements beingdifferent than CPT -
Ellson: frm correct in that we're just
ones- They're also looking at off-site the
the
there are no signs at
were there prior.
different than CpT
talking about
which goes to
Bonnie !{agner: They maybe had signs prior butthe site at this time. I do not know if they
Erhart: No Ifor s ignage?
Ann Rolling: we feel thethere is no direct access
problems CPT had. . .
mean your requirements are somehow
Apparently dramatically d i fferent.
access to the building is confusing based onto the building. We don't know what
Emmings: I think the signs are not unattractive and they don'tparticularly bother :ne but they don't conforn to the ordinance. Irmnot persuaded by the notion that because it's a larger site, you needlarger signs. I think that's kind of a silly way to set up anordinance. So if you have small sites you put up smalI signs and bigsites, big signs. You nay need more signs, but I don't think you needbigger ones. I don't knov, if you've had a chance to look through ourordinance and see whatrs required for us to f ind, in order to grant avariance, but those factors are laid out and I didn't hear anythingsaid that would convince me that it would be appropriate for us tofind that a variance would be necessary. So I too would support thestaff recommendation on this.
Planning Commission Meet ingJanuary 29, Lggg - page 4
Erhart: I guess thehave something, runwould be the numberany more questions.
only question I had wasit proportional to it'sof signs, not the square
maybe if we're going tosize of the facility,footage. I don,t have
conrad: r agree. r think r courd have been persuaded on the nunberof sisns because of the size of the facility.' r ;;;;; the only thingI vrould r?is9,4 square feet for directionai "ig";-i"-"ilif pr"ttysmalr.. r'd ray it out and 100k at it, and from a car and from 40 feetaway, itrs not a big square footage for_signage fo. aii..tional signs.r courd be persuaded to rook at rhe ordinaice-a"d ;";i;;-iiat aspect!9 ".y.4 feet might not b9_big enough in general for Chanhassen fordirectional but r don't think that'; g;in; to t,"rp-voo"in"ir,i"particurar case. r don'it think it ne5ds to be 12. rt courd be 6. rtcould be 7 but the L2. I kno!, r.rhat you're doint. vou,ve-lot sign=that.are-useful right now and I undeistand that-ttuii" a-gJoapractical business decision_and they'd be attracti"" "ign3. hJe havean ordinance that werve applied to itl our current busiiess parkresidents and so far.we !ii9.n,t heard, staff corre.t ..,-"" haven,theard a lot of negative feedback aboui the sizint. --n.""""., if ere do,I think we could take a look at that issue and make sure thatdirectional signs and the sizing is afgropriate for the businessname' -!v.e'|re. not. tryinq. Eo penarize anytoay ror tryint to-iIrr" trafficaround but in this particular case, ,i "o,o."nt would be, I feelcomfortabre with the ordinance. r think it courd r" .it.i"a if youtold rne that it's not big enough to really move the traffic but Idon't think chanhassen wourd c6me back wiih. 12 f;.a-;i;;: rhat,s mypersonal feel ing.
Ann Rollinq: I had a question. They layout of the sign would be,erhat r.re have for the existing buildings, li.ke. a s.rruie ilot "ign,the actuar. area that the sign takes ui is the "u*" "'... ttrat we rrave.t'le're- just. utilizing the face. the fice carries "tirigti-'i"$rn to theground rather than trdo poles holding up 4 square feet.
Conrad: I{hat's the interpretation of that Jo Ann?
olsen: you do the size from the face of the sign. Not necessarilyfrom the highest poin.t. Erom the poi..-you donit measure. you justmeasure the face of the signs.
Ann. Ro11in9: I guess what Irm saying is, we,re utilizing that arearather than...create clarity una '."=it,"tica1ly pl"r;i;;:, -"
Conrad: What ere're trying to do in Chanhassen is, we certainly wantto advertise the good membeis of the tusin"ss .o.rrn i [y.'-i! , ," nottryins to restrict that but ,.,." -ri=o-frying to ka;;-iign"J. rro*being everyplace and if we keep "o,n"-xiia of constraint on it, thenone, aesthetically it looks belter, but tero, everybody,s noi competing
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 29, 1988 - page 5
with everybody elsesaving money in thegeneral feel ing is
Headla: I think we 'dwe a l lov, one company.rationale.
trying to get bigger.and better signage. ActuallyIong run for our business friends. I think myfrm comfortable with the ordinance as it is.
Conrad: I think the deal is Dave, werd have to take a look at theordinance. r don't know that a variance is appropri.i" in'-tt i" "u=..r think taking a rook at the ordinance is the onry thing and r thinkas our friends from Dataserv go to city councir, tmaybe [rre councir cangive you a feeling of whether they feei that a reviiion of theordinance would be appropriate. I^Ie'!re arways happy to take a rook atthat. I think that's the solution.
Erhart: Do we currently limit the height ofOn premise directional signs? Some guy couldperhaps even higher? Maybe even 1g ind stilfThey could put it on the top of his buil<iingpertains to the question that rras asked aboutsignage. The factis, somebody could walk insign and we wouldn't neerl to look at it.
be send ing the virrong
Then another one can
signals
come in
to those people ifwith o ther
these directional s igns ?put up a 12 foot high orbe at 4 square feet.if they wanted. Thatusing the feet ofhere with a 12 foot high
Headla: There would have to be a particular need for that though.
Erhart: But we couldn't deny it though.
Emmings: Why !,rould somebody do that to themselves?
Ellson: If it wasto see it.
Emmings: They I reit.
a directional sign for a car, it'd be pretty hard
trying to put it someplace where people could see
Conrad: I think the premise is it's got to be a functional sign.this way for shipping. co that way foi receiving. co this way ifyourre an employee. We have to meet that need so functionally, wehave to meet the need of moving the traffic the right way. I thinkcase could be made to me that you need more than 4 square feet to dothat. I could relate to that problem but I can,t reiate to thisparticular s ituat ion.
Go
a
Erhart: Irm not trying to relate to this. I could agree that itmight be that it should be a little bit bigger. The issue that comesabout is, on one hand the intent is to not make the sign any moreobstructive than or aesthetically displeasing as possi6le. r,Ie havethe ordinance allows them to go, we greatry iestr-ict the size of asign but we don't restrict the height and lo me, the height is just as
Planning Commission t{eet ingJanuary 2q, ]-9gg - page 6
Conrad:
that we
Bonnie Wagner: We are
Conrad: Okay, anymore
Were
were
we reviewing the sign ordinance?going to do that?
f have a holeat the who Ieof using the
Wasn I t there mention
as a
of abut maybe, wethe s ign
by
staff will
vrcn I t be aprobably be atbeLter idea
important as the size. So aII I'm saying is, we sort othere. There probably is a couple g;'oJ--.".=ons to Iookordinance. Size and height ana'i" ;;;i., the questionlegs and how does that relate to the treignt and size.
Dacy: yes, in the upcoming months so this could be incorporatedpart of that revi ew.
Conrad: ft doesnrt help Dataserv right now. Itrs sortunfriendly welcone t9. t-he. "om*rnity-itit yor,re hearingrrill do that. we witl take a 1;;k'.t"i;ust as eire reviewordinance in the next couple months io-.rXe sure that...
Ann Rolling: Do you know when that,s going to be because for thearnount of money that weJre spending, f-guess I,d like to maybe holdoff on that. we were p.ranniis ;; ;;"i.; p"opi.-i,ito-tiJt.,,[iiratnsthe end of February or },tarch, -our waitiig to see what happens.
Conrad: We donrt harre a specific time to review do $re?
Dacy: After the meeting that wilt take place on Monday,have a better idea as fir as tt," ii*"'-J"hedule but therepublic_hearing schedr.rle in Februa.y o.-1f.."n. It vJouldthe. end of March, beginning of afiir.- we strould have anext week on the schedule.
Emmings: There's one thingI . understood it right. Dosrgns and are using them athere? Are these brand new?
I
you eluded to, and I'understand that youanother facility and
m not surealready ha ve
hran t to mo ve
these
them out
propos ing
co mmen ts
brand new signs,
or questions. Is
yes.
there a motion?
LOTS
OF
OF
PUBLIC HEARING; SUBDIVISIOII OE 2.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILYON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE TAIIiiV.'NEiiDENTIAL AND LOCATED EASTAND ADJACENT TO MINNEWASHTA PARKWAV'APP";OX T U AT ELY I/2 MILE NORTHHIGHWAY 5 , SCHwABA_wr NCHELL , appiiCa-r.iri .
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the planning commission recommenddenial 9f tlg sign varian"" ,"qu;"a io-permit t2 square footon-premise directionat signs. alL voteit in f. rro r -Jx""p t -ilt
r l i "toabstained and motion carried
Planning Commission Meet ingJanuary 2A, I9gg - page 7
El1ie Schwaba
Kevin Winchel lEarl Heather inton
Jim Borcha rt
App I i cant
Applicant
7 351 Minnewashta
7 33I M i nnewashta
Public present:
Pa r kway
Pa r kway
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this subdivision request.
EIIie Schwaba: There, is one other thing that I,d like to mention.There is an existing. home. on tn" p.opeiiy and our intention is to domajor renovation to that home. ri's'in-br"tty much mediocre repair3ni :..to upgrade that home to the vaiue'ot the nevr homes that willbui It.be
Earr-Heatherington, 7351 Minne'.rashta parkway: My property runs at thecomplete east side oI tfe property in question and also the north endof the property. It,s-int6reitin| to ,iot" tf,ut the court here caughtthe fact that it is only 2.19 acr6s. It,s not 2 )./2 acres. In thePlanning Commission's wisdom, fron 19g0 until 19gg, you have approveda total of 33 subdivisions in this area. rn these subdivisions thereare various number of units and various gross acreages involved witheach- what d 1ike. to submit to you th;t in armosi ^ri-'instun."s orall of these unirs that have been ipprov"a irn"E 'iiagl-itii'tte vastmajority in almost every case, the 1ot sizes that have been approvedare of a l/2 acre or greater. I'd 1ike to submit this is yourdocument and rrve done the mathematics and r'd rike to subirit it foryour review and to check these figures out. In the case of theproperty that has just recentry been developed in the last couple ofvears called Maple Ridge, on Mapre shore Drive, there are 13 singlefamily homes locaLed on 7 acres which i.s an average layout per home of23,455 square feet. 2L,786 feet is a ha1f.n a"re and I'a iiXe tosubmit these. I,m sure that the gentJ.ernan that developed thatproperty would have liked to put more lots in there. t"ty point is
:.rnply that yourve got a situation here with an odd p..-..i of landthatrs been obviously divided in such a manner as to meet theordinances period. Lot I, 15,0II square feet. Lot 2, L6,ggg. Lot 3,22,98L. Fine. The house sits on 25,435 and Lot 5, which is almosthard to believe that one r^rourd put a 1ot in there like that. r don'tkno\,, what kind of house you could put on it, 15,q3L- My point is thatit does not lend itself to the neighborhood. rn every -ca-se, ar1 theIo,ts that are north, south, east and west have at 1ea3t I acre or moreof property. They are beautiful homes. Itrs a nice area. I havenothing against Mr. Fisher selling the property to developers andputting in nice homes but I do belive that it'i probably i g fotparcel and not a 5lot. Again, I'd just like to submit this to thePlanning Commission. perhaps you have done this, perhaps you haven,tbut it really shoers the numberi of square feet in iff yor.'developments that you've done in the rast r0 years and it shows quitegraphicalry that what you've approved is mostly half acre and above
Planning Commiss ion Meet i ng
January 29, L988 - page 8
19ts. Even in high density family areas. Like Near Mountain.Therers 153 acres there with 30g iingle and multi family ano yet ttratcomes out at 21,638 square feet. Even in a high densitiz area and thisis. certainly not a high density area. And I think .tim iorchart, myneighbor to the north would like to say something.
Jin Borchart, 7331 l4innewashta parkway: Ird just like to echo whatMr..Heatherington said. Another majoi concern of mine is thedrainage- At this time-we've got .1t th" water irom'-lrapie - niagethrough our property and it's onry a 12 inch cutverf ;;;;irq throughthere and it can handle the water that Maple Ridge dumps on us but ifvre get any more water, we are going to have volurie froir my rot and theHauser's lot. There are four lots there surrounding this- property andwe're alr over an acre. we r./ould like to see nice homes buirt therebut that number I lot, you can,t put much more than i ;;.;;" on thatby the- time you get your setbacks-. Like Jo Ann said, it,"." is a verysteep hirl there and they're probably going to n."" i"-jo-about z5feet off the back of there so the property-Iine, we,." doing to haveto look- at, if you put a house on it,-I know the 1ines ii"'-o.urnpretty but can you actually build a house on these lots.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to crose the pubric hearing. Arr vote.rin favor and motion carried. The public heaiing was closli.
Erhart: Hord does Mr. Volder get to his house?
Jim-Borchart: He goes through my property. Hers got an easement overmy dri veway.
Erhart: -.And you're the center lot. At the beginning of the report,the subdivision ordinance states that there strirr ue-no-aii."tvehicurar or pedestrian access from individual lots to-"oiii"tors,arteriars, limited access highways. This i. . "oii".io..--io* do yousquare the proposal vrith that?
olsen: There is an existing access and the only other alternative isto provide pubric street access and the adjaceni p."p".tv'--ners arenot in favor of that so it would require c6ndemnaiio" pr6"".alng=.
Erhart: _Just forget the other people. Why would this five lotsubdivision require a private sLr"Eta .rhai's here? rhe oiher lotshave.nothing to do with it. That,s the ordinance. wt,y-uiJ.,,t ,"looking at a pran that has a street foi those rive houiesi
orsen: The layout of the land, r believe the access to Minne$rashtaParkb/ay is from the rear. To put another street right through themiddIe...
Erhart: Are we asking for a variance?
Planning Commiss ion Meet ingJanuary 29, 1988 - page 9
Olsen: TechnicaIly, that's in the subdivision ordinance.interpretted it, ii there was no oth;; option, that there_ for them to be serviced from a collector, we vrould pursue
The way vre
was a waythat.
Erhart: Hor^, far apart are those two proposed driveways?
- Olsen3 About 180 to 2gg.
Erhart: And in our zoning ordinance, whatrs the minimum distance?
d r i veway
Olsen: We dontt have a separation. For driveerays?
_ Erhart: No, for streets.
Dacy: Thatrs in the A-2 district vre have a recommendedseparation.
Erhart: I guess I look at this and t think there isr I don,t know.r guess r'11 have to think about that. r,rr pass it io steve but r
- !..p thinking that we've just gone around the ordinance not facing thefact that maybe you can'!t put five lots on here. Maybe you do need acul-de-sac and it's a four rot subdivision. r'rr pais t6e questions
_onto steve- r had one more question. what kind of a tree is that?
Headra: l4apre. That one right there by the mairbox is Maple and itrs
_one of the top probably 30 magle trees along Minnewashta parkway.
Erhart: Sugar Map le?
Headla: Yes.
hre would encourage anyone
Emmings: r don't really have anything here. r think that they aretrying to put a lot of houses on a smarl piece but it does meet the
-ordinance and we certainly can'!t deny it because it does meet theordinance. r don't knord about the drainage problem but r think that'sto be taken up by, that concerns me. His concerns about the drainageproblem and it also concerns me that he thinks <irainage has increas6d-over his lot as a resuLt of the work on Maple Ridge. But if that,shappened, you have recourse there. They c-an't chinge exisiing
_Crainage patterns and if they have, you should talk to the Ci[y.
Jim Borchart: r have a retter from the city Engineer right before heleft. Nothing happened when the new engine6. .jr".
Erha rt :cutt ing
Olsen:
that.
Boy, I just can't imagine why
down a Sugar t'rapIe tree.
I have contacted the nee, engineer and he will follow up on
Planning Comm j ss j.on Meeti.ng
January 20. 1988 - page I0
Emmings: Other than that, I think it meets the letter of the
ordinance so in some vrays we can't deny it on that grounds. The roadsituation really does concern me. r drive Minnewashta parkway nearlyevery day and jt's curvy and itrs particular curvy right there.Therers one entrance already and I don't know if another oners goingto make a big difference or not. I guess I just donrt know but- it -
might be better. I thjnk jt would b6 better to have a 3 or 4 Lotsubdivision with one entrance rather than the two. That's all r'vegot.
Ellson: I had a question about that tree also but one of therecommendations was that it be cut down and yet the engineering reportsaid that maybe with proper grading it woul-di't necessirily have tocome down. r thought it was a nice looking tree too. Thal caught myeyes when r went there. Like these othersl it obviously Looks iixe -
they're trying to do as much as they can on a smarr amount of space.You certainry can't brame them. The ordinance is there that allor.rsthem to do that so r guess r canrt take away from that but 100king atthe lots around there, it did seem like a nei.ghborhood that had rearlybig yards and what have you and it didn't quiie necessari ry fit r{iththe homes right around it but r suppose from the standpoini as the waythe ordinances are, they are certainly within their rights.
Batzli: I donrt have any additional comments from those made.
Headla: I want
beautiful tree.
to hear the rationale again for cuttjng down the
OI sen :
see to
Headla: we cut down a beauti.f ulwerre wiLling to put jn anothernorth. That's inconsistenE.
I,Jhen we went out wjth the engi.neer, itthe south of there and it was suggested
vras real ly difficult tothat that be removed _
ljne of sight but thena Ijttla ways to the
of wording, that webe stated, theyThat tree and theaffecting the linethatrs right Eheref a hi nderance so
tree to do a
d r i vesray j ust
orsen: we wilr be wiL1i.ng to rrork but it tooked from the prans thatlhey are shifting that and perhaps they can crarify thjs, rut jt rookslike they are shifti.ng rhi.s driveway a 1i.tt1e bit io the so;th andvrhat werve learned from the forestei, jf you cut jnto r^rhere the rootsystem is, the tree i.s going to eventually die anyway. r gu"ss ii;sdifficult right now before we really see the de - iar" i[ and perhaps grade esort of evergreen thatrs next to it.
Headla: I guess I donrt even believe in that typemight be able to work out plans. I think it sfroufOwill work around that tree. That tree wjIl stay.limbs are high enough, I just cantt see where jL's
of sight. You don't say anythi ng about the maj lboxby the driveway and that maj lbox can be much more o
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 2S, !988 - Page 1I
I'm in just total disagreernent of destroying that tree. It'sinteresting, Mr. Heatherington disagreed with the acreage. This isthe second time in tvro meetings where we get variations in what'sstated. The person who comes in is proposing for the land and then
:::: ::.-ti: ::"::':?' il, ;:i,'?"?i,.HnrB 6.=€B,EuBhr?rB, "?rtnBh"t?and things are slid around enough, f can't verify the dimensions a
,qIIctaII. I just don't believe those two lots meet 15,000 square feet. Ialso feel that five lots are inconsistent !{ith that immediate area.
Yourve got some beautiful homes and to have five homes there, dumping
them onto the parkway is ludicrous. Especially with two drivewaysIess than 90 feet apart. Yourre proposed northern driveway and thenthe next dr i veway?
Kevin Winchell: Theyrre about 100 feet, yes.
Headla: It's 90 feet to the center of
those t$ro driveways are way too close.
the driveway.
Thatrs all I
I just think
had .
Conrad: This gets me into my favorite issue and that is, what has
been eluded to when lot sizes are out of sync with the neighborhood
and Irve never won because basically the ordinance says 15 rgqT square
feet.
Headla: If they have it.
Conrad: They have enough feet to move lot lines here to do that.
r gues my concern still is, it's not really in sync with the
neighborhood and it doesn't have to be the half acre or acre but r
think we've always tried to make things kind of reasonabfe. But over
the last year we haven't been able to do that and I think we've had a
very strict interpretation of the ordinance which has said if they
meet the mininum, that's it. And Jo Ann, obviously that's stiI1, if
the minimum is 15,0gA and it's not in sync with the neighborhood?
olsen: You have no justification for denial.
Conrad: Although wetre very interested in neighborhood continuity.
Werre very interested in transitions and zones and thatrs why we plan
to get things in sync. we still can't change that L5,gqg foot
minimum. That is it.
Erhart: Letrs pose the question to Steve and to our ne$, member here,
both being attornyes. Maybe that's a bad thing to do but it would
seem to me, like many other sections in our ordinance, that in
addition to the strict L5,gTq square feet for this particular area, we
could add a paragraph essentially that would say to the effect that if
it is determined that surrounding houses are of general lot size
larger, at the Cityrs discretion or a formula or something. Somesubstance in the ordinance that \.rould allow us to apply larger lot
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 2A, 1988 - Page 12
sizes in those areas where the surrounding lots are Iarger.
Emmings: Or naybe doing it in those perculiar cases where you're
filting in. Where you've already got everything built up and someone
takes a large parcel and divides it do$rn, then it must conforln to the
neighborhood or at least come closer than the ordinance requires. The
problem I think on a deal like this though is that right acrcss the
road itrs a1l open land. Last week we sar{ a master plan for the otherside of Minnewashta Parkr,ray on the north and it was just a whole messof smal1 lots, which is probably kind of whatrs going in there now andis probably $rhat the future holds. If that continues, down that sideof the Parkway, this isn't going to be that out of keeping with thatkind of a plan. Right now itts out of keeping with what's on the eastside of Minnewashta Parkway but it may not ultimately be out of
keeping with what will happen across the road from it. The otherproblem you get into is, how do you ever get a transition? Ifeverythingrs got to be in keeping with the surrounding property, howdo you ever get a transition? Itrs a big question.
Conrad: I don't knor", that there are formulas. werve got a lot ofplaces in the sewered district where we have 1ot sizes ranging over anacre. I think very close to my house are a whole bunch of houses with
one acre lot sizes and we $rere concerned about what vras going to be
filled in when somebody wanted to subdivide but we really never cameto a solution. There's not a good formula for doing that. Will you
allow half acre? Will you a1Icw a third of an acre? I donrt know
that there a reasonable solution to that. I don't know that therers a
formula that we can come up with-
Emmings: You also don't want to, there's sort of a naturala
progression here that maybe you don't \^rant to interfere with. lJhere
people go into a rural area and they buy 10 acres and then someonedivides their 10 acres into 5 acre parcels and somebody does one of
those into 2 \/2 or they do them into 15,696 square foot 1ots.
Eventually that aIl becomes kind of a, through this resubdivisionprocess, becomes kind of a highly or much more densely populated area.I don't know that you want to necessarily stop that sort of natural.
Headla: I think you've got a special case here. Did any of you get
chance to drive down the driveway and look at the proposed cul-de-sac
and then see the steep grade? It isn't that you've got 15,000 squarefeet and it's all flat.
Emmings: What cuI-de-sac? I don't know what you're talking about.
a
HeadIa: Proposed cuf-de-sac Lo the eastgoing down that driveway and you look at
has a real effect on that property.
of that proPerty, If you're
the steep grade, to me that
Conrad: How so? '/'Iha t does it do?
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 29, 1988 - Page 13
Headla: It makes the property shallower. It just
property like 15,000 square feet. Thatrs out flat.
a property a Lot sma1ler. The affected use of that
smaller. when I look at that and the whole area in
area, I just see itrs way out of context.
isn I t useful
I think it makes
1ot is a lot
that immed iate
Erhart: Referring to your conment, how do you make the conversion
from a large lot area to a small lot, I think for one thing streets
are lines. A subdivision across the street could be 15r000 square
feet where as one on one side. That's a natural line. The other one
is you could write it such that it might make a statement to say that
if 5gZ of the lots adjacent to a subdivision are over 26,690 square
feet, then the subdivision should be 26,666 and saying 2q,966 being a
half acre, that's the largest. What that does, of course, if you have
one area and they're aII over 2A,gAg aod the next one, if you have
5gZ, ix only takes two sets to get down to the smaller one. It does
give you a way to gradually go from the targe lots to big lots. So
again, you'd have to think this through but the idea of somehow
measuring the lots so if half of them were under 2g,g0g square feet,
then it wouldn't collide. I think you might irant to try some examples
and it might solve the problem. Just to summarize quickly, I think it
has been a problem here in the last year where we have been forced to
put in small subdivisions, or small lot subdivisions actual1y. It's
the bigger subdivisions that have come in with Ehe 29,000 square foot
Iots which you really have to think about vrhy that is. Itrs telling
me that the big subdividers are doing a better job of putting together
neighborhoods. Tltey're more conscientious about it.
Conrad: They've got bigger areas to work with.
Erhart: Yes, but they've got more at stake too because they have a
longer term time at selling these lots. Anyway' in summary r vrould
agree that I think if there is something we can do, I think vre ought
to look at it and we ought to ask staff to come back with some ideas.
Conrad:there's something they can do about the ordinance?
Erha rt :
If
The ord inance, yes .
Conrad: It doesn't apply to the comments- We will direct to staff
because that's a real pet issue of mine and I have not got any
solutions to that because I think if we rernember on the Murray HiIl
where we rip out one house and put a driveway in and werve got people
who li.ved there for 1,600 yeaxs and then they're putting in 15,6AA
square foot houses in areas where they'te 45 1660 square foot lots- I
felt real badly in that case but we didn't have a solution. Anyway, I
think we should Iook at it but that's a different time and place- In
terms of driveway access off of Minnerrashta, try to give us some
guidelines. Staff is saying, regardless of our subdivision ordinance,
it is okay to put in two driveways or an additional driveway and we'vejustified that how?
Olsen: The way we've justified it is that we really did not see any
other option. we felt that one additional driveway was acceptable.
It Coes have good sight distance. The applicant originally could have
come in with five driveways and of course it wouldnrt have gotten
approved but by having just one public street, like Tim was suggesting
that cul-de-sac in there, is almost by itself the whole property.
Erhart: Why do you say that?
Olsen: If you draw in a cul-de-sac, limiting it to probably about
three lots. Yourre talking about 50 foot right-of-way and a very
large cul-de-sac. we did work closely with the engineering department
on what were our options with this and we felt that this was an
acceptable option.
Emm i ngs :
Iots?
Did you look at putting in a cul-de-sac and getting four
olsen: 'r.Ie looked at a cul-Ce-sac along here. Lot 5 again would still
have to have it's ovrn access. A street right in the middle of here,
it would do r,rhat the neighbors wanted, it would limit it one
additional lot or two additional lots.
Erhart: How wide your dr i veway?
OIsen: I bel ieve
to 29 feet maybe.
was
it's probably on ly,
Headla: This is another situation
cul-de-sac road and it's serving 5
about this before, it just doesn'tgo in there with a lot lower class
think so T im?
though, we wanted to go a Class A
houses or 4 houses. We talked
seem right. They should be able
road or cul-de-sac. You don't
How wide is
as shown on
the driveway then?
there, itrs about 10
to
Erha rt :
value of
The price of the lots would go up with a cul-de-sac. Thethe lots.
Olsen: tge did not look at an internal street coming from the Parkway.
We could do that and come back and have a proposed plan for that. Ifyou want to see how the site could be serviced by a public streetother than utilizing a private road. I got the impression that you
were talking about a cuI-de-sac.
Erhart: Let me finish what I'm thinking. I may be aLl wrong but I
l-ooked at the dimensional drawings in here and I just can not see whyyou can't put in just a real short street in here and a cul-de-sac andthey can provide an easement to go through that property so at some
PIann j.ng Commission l{eet i n9
January 29, L988 - Page 14
Planning Commiss ion Meet ing
January 20, L988 - Page 15
later alate if somebody
that street like we do
to hooks into that, at the end of
of cul-de-sacs.
else
with
wants
a lot
Con rad :
Erha rt :
You're saying, to service the property to the east?
At some point, it could be.
olsen: IdealIy, rre initially looked at approving that private
easement. At this time. . .
Erhart: Thatrs not the right place. I don't think that's the right
place and Dave r,rould agree thatrs not the right place.
Headla: Well, r kind of like that idea.
Erhart: Erom the no r th?
Ellie Schreaba: I don't think the road or existing private drive back
there r.rould be workable. The property ovJners are adverse to it and
would not cooperate hrith us so that gave us the only alternativ= which
was the two driveways off of Minnewashta Parkway- We did look
originally with our surveyor putting in a cul-de-sac- what happens
then is we lose so much land for building a cul-de-sac, we lessen the
Iot size and consequently we lose the number of lots that werre trying
to accomplish and in doing so, the whole basis of the purchase of
property, we're buying this property- now subject to our 1ot division.
We'ie feeling that based on our initial cost and the cost that we have
incurred thui far, if we have to lose one 1ot, e,e basically would have
to durnp the whole project because it iust doesn't make any sense in
this situation where it's so conveniently located to Minnewashta
Park$ray, to have to put in an expensive cul-de-sac. one thing too
that I wanted to mention is our intention is not to Put in inexpensive
homes just because these lots are not half acre. our intention is to
build houses in the same price range as the houses in the surrounding
area. As a matter of fact werve got a plan right now that werre
working on to put a home on Lot 5. A buyer has looked at it and is
intereited in Lot 5 which they felt was the most attractive lots. And
when we were working with the surveyors, they located that house
beautifully on that lot and it would be a house in the price range of
Headla: There's a main driveway there right now and if they could do
something, work off of that and then the other driveway, then I think
it's a $ron-eron situation. I think the applicant can come off well
vrithout spending a lot of money but the surrounding area isn't going
to lose either. Itrs going to require negotiation with the neighbors.
Earl Heatherington: we $/ere curious as to would the surrounding lots
be assessed to turn that into a public road? A private road is behind
there now. If that was upgraded to a public street cul-de-sac, }'rhat
would the assessments be on our lots...
Planning Commission Meet i ng
January 2A, 1988 - page 16
the other homes in the area. sofelt these are what would work...we did look at alternatives but we
conrad: As you can telr, one thing we look at is future subdivisionsalso and the tendency is to take a look at one thing at a time andpretty soon you really chop up a neighborhood and if it,s notintegrated. Not that the neighbors want to subdivide because a lot offorks moved out here because they l-iked their rarge lots, but we findthat over tirne a lot of people do subdivide and sell off and that'sone of the points the planning Commission is hopefuJ.I-y, we can lookahead a little bit and anticipate sone of those cases and make surethat ere can service anybody that wants to subdivide and we do it sothat if there is some kind aesthetic, some kind of continuity to theneighborhood without reaIIy being totally chopped up.
Jim Borchart: Ige askec an expert on condemnation $rhen they approachedme and I shorrred them my land, I gave them auditor tax statements andwe projected ahead for 15 years which would be the normal length Iwould live there, and he said an easement would have to bring at reast$2LL,60g.gg fox the arnount of land they,re taking and he advised meagainst seJ-ling an easement at that amount. tte iaid I ,,rould lose inthe long run because of the value of ny house- So we,re looking at atremendous amount of money for a cul-de-sac. He said it would be verybad. I have a large house. It,s about S|OOA square feet novr. If youcut off that and the size of the house it wourd be diastrous. And heworked off a tax statement oot off ofany cther paper.
Emmings: f guess Irm just wondering, it seens to me, one of thepoints Tim raised is the fact that it would appear ti-rat it requires avariance to the subdivision ordinance as far ii trre driveways areconcerned and r donrt know if you're ready to make the case for thatvariance. Maybe ere ought to look at this again.
Conrad: Can you clarify where you,re looking at for a variance?
Emmings: under the appricabre regurations in the second paragraph,the subdivision orcinance section rz, 6.12 states there s-harl be- nodirect vehicurar or pedestrian access from individual lots tocollectors, arterials or limited access highways.
Batzli: fs there access in this case from an individual lot?
Emmings: It's aII one lot right now and there is one which isprobably grandfathered in. r donrt know why we have that ordinance.rt seems to me it prevents an awful lot of iccess. r rras surprised tosee it there but it is there but it is there and werve got to deart'rith it. . Right now vre have the case here for what the hardship is andI r^ronder is we we shouldn , t take a look at that.
Planning Commission Meet i ng
January 29, 1988 - Page 17
Conrad: So Steve, what would you Iike?at other ways of treati.ng this property?
standpoint?
like to have staff looka one access
Yourd
Erom
Emmings: Yes, look at the alternatives. Number one, could it beone access property and how could that be arranged and if theapplicant isn't happy r,rith that, what case can be made for givinga variance and making it a tvro or more access property. whatjustificat ion is there?
a
them
Conrad: Do you think you're going to, you reviewed this.
Dacy: I think the tabling motion idea would be in order and if Icould suggest to the Comnission that they suggest that the developercould note an alternate pl-an to create a small public street in thereand then bring that back to us for staff to evaluate and then \^re canbring it back to the Commission as Option #2. then the Commissionwill have two options to evaluate.
Headla: would
Right-of-way?
we have to insist
That sounds awfu I on a 50 foot road though?high for those few lots.
Dacy: WeIl, yes you would. 50 foot of right-cf-way, 2q feet wide
bituminous with concrete curb and 50 fooL radius on the cul-Ce-sac.
If you want to reduce that, then you're talking about another varianceto the subdivision ordinance.
Batzli: Irm not convinced yet that the language in this Section 12restricts it to having one l-ot for the entire subdivision. At firstflush, I read this as saying that you can not have individual lotshaving access to the collector and not only one driveway for theentire proposed subdivision. I read it as you can't put a driveway infor each proposed subdivided lot.
Olsen: The way we typically have interpretted this is to prevent
individual access onto like the collectors or the arterial.s.
Emmings: Then you're saying no variance is requ i red ?
Olsen: In writing the staff report, I did not feel that a
was necessary because tlrey $rere combining driveways. Three
driveway and t$ro off of that other driveway. Itrs up tointerpretation.
variance
into one
Batzli: It really depends on when you're Iooking at the individualaccess. Before or after the subdivision occurs. Thatrs certainly thedeciding factor of whether you need one individual driveway for theentire proposed subdivision as long as you don't have individual onesafter the subdivision.
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 24, 1988 - Page 18
Olsen: It says individual lots.
to read afterBatzli: Which seems to me the subdivision has occurred.
Ellie Schwaba: What I was going to say was, if rre were to put in aroad in there, then we wourd need a variance because then we would notneet the lot size requirements. Then we'd need a variance for thelots so anything vre do other than these two driveways creates ushaving to request a variance. Based on our discussion with the CityEngineer and Jo Ann, we didn't have any variances. We weren,trequesting a variance so we would prefer, if we can, of having to putourselves in the position of having to ask for a variance, anA "omptywith the ordinance.
Headla: I donrt know if you,re familiar with that area but goingnorth from there, therers the one by vrhere the tree is and then thenext one is about a couple hundred feet and then another 90 feettherers a driveway, then about I00 feet therers the Maple Ridgedriveway, at the top of the hill yourve got another driveway and about50 feet from there you have Mann,s driveway. Now we,re Ioading inanother driveway. They're just too c1ose. Last meeting we werecomplaining about the Lawson property, we tried to reduie the numberof driveways on Minnewashta parkway. r think we're inconsistent. rfwe're serious about reducing the number of driveways, ret,s reduce ihenumber of dr i veways.
Conrad: Staff feels that
dangerous.
another driveway however, is not necessarily
olsen: This one r think has good sight distance. rt,s preferred overthe existing driveway. rn terms of meeting the ordinance they couldcome in with five 1ots. With four additional Lots with just oneadditional driveway, f guess rrre felt that that was as go-od as couldbe.
Conrad: I read
cul-de-sac plan that you
for us?
would rather not 90 back and prepare a
Kevin Winchell: I just don't think it will work.
E1lie schwaba: we pursued that initialry and it didn't work becauselike we were saying, we'd have to ask fo; a variance.
Erhart rnoved, Headla seconded to table Subdivision Request *gg_1the City planner's suggestions and bring it back to lo-ok at someof alternative to bring the access to Minnewashta parkway to one.This motion $ras later withdrawn.
Headla: Can I ask a question to the applicants?
per
k ind
Plann ing Commission Meet ing
January 24, L988 - Page 19
Conrad: Regarding the rnotion?
Yes. Now we can table it and review it or we could eitherit or deny it and it would go to the Council.
Elliw Schwaba: We would rather have you approve it or deny it and goto the CounciL simply because we have pursued this and a1l we're doingis wasting time. Because I don't know i{hat we'd go back tnd do. tellthe surveyors to redraw the plan and put us in a position of askingfor a variance and cone back to see you wiEh a variance. we don,tfeel we'd be going forward with this.
Conrad: In my mind the only thing we could do is $re either say thereis one access or there can be more than one. That's the issue that
r^re're looking at. If we feel there can only be one access, we'regoing to turn it down anC they'd welcome that so they could go to theCity Council with this thing.
Head 1a:
approve
HeadIa: Erom whatto the Council -
Erha rt :
Conrad:
Head La :
Headla
on the
I'11 withdraw my motion.
Do you withdraw your second?
Yes.
moved, Erhart seconded to denyplat stamped "Received January
the Subdivision #88-l as shown4, 19 88 ".
I hear, they'd rather see approval or denial and go
Dacy: Mr. Chairman, regarding your comment on consistency between the
application that we had further embarked on Minnewashta Parkway,
I just r.ranted to make sure that there is a differentiation in that
this property, it's onty means of access is from Minnewashta Parkway
and the additional driveway would only serve two homes. The
application that rre're looking at farther north, we were talking about
major stree intersections that would take traffic from other
subdivisions of 2q to 30 or more lots. So when Jo Ann lvas talking
earlier about the additional one drive\,vay, it was based on Ehe fact
that that would only be serving tvro homes and that the other
alternatives that we had Iooked at could not be implemented. That
being the alternative to the rear. I just wanted to clarify that from
the application we had last time.
Headla: But you made an issue that by putting in the main road upthat one easement, that you got rid of the other drivevray and you
mentioned that you rrere trying to get rid of driveways on the Parkway.
yrngtionDacy:we sav,
I aqree. I'm not chanqing that intent aE aII.thi6 as generating IesS afrount of traffic than I'm just sathe intersec
Planning Commiss ion Meet i ng
January 2A, 1988 - page 2g
proposed
Head la :
d r i veway
in the other application.
I think itrs possible for Lots 1 andto the north.
just nanted to follow up on that.
2 maybe to go to that
I think there are alternatives yet, that,s why I made that
So
one
your mot ion is
access.
to deny on the rationale that there should
Headla: Letts not increase
Dacy: I
Head 1a :
motion-
Conrad:only be
Conrad: And thatrs the samesecond in the motion?
Conrad: But the mot ion
the access to Minneerashta
rationale Tim that you're using on the
least these things are betterbe more useful for thehave to do is provide the
Parkway.
Erhart: yes.
Emmings: I guess the more I sit here and listen to lrhat staff,s gotto say and I think B.rl.l ,s reading of the subdivision ordinance isprobably right' r think my probr6rn is r con'!t like the subdivisionalg J'T tryins ro finc a wiy to rationarize t"r;i;; i.-alii'uot ,lhiltk i!.probably does meet the letter of the ordinances here and rdon't think r.re can turn it dorrn. on a ration.l;;;i;-;;y;:;.
Headla: A11 we're doing is rnaking a recommendation to the council.
Conrad: yes, that's alL. They can take this.
Headla: And I'd like to send them a signal., no.
Headla moved, Erha rt.. seconded to deny the Subdivision #8g_l as shownon the plat stanped 'rReceived .r.nour! 4,.1988r'. u.iJr. ]-einart anaElrson voted in favor of.the motion,'n**tng=, conrad and Batzri votedin opposition ro the motion .na .o[io"'-'faiie.i "iah-; ;;; ;;;".
::li::r so this is a 3-3 sprit anri this is a motion to deny. rt
Erhart: For the sake of the Council-, atto be_ moved for approval because it wouiOnegative comments. Because now wfrat-'youpos itive comments.
did fai1. Is there another motion?
waste of t ime.Erhart: That's just a
Kevin Winchell: I donrt seeIots access onto the parkr.ray
the existing driveway.
why we couldnrt set this up so all fivethrough the existing driveway or close to
Olsen: Then it would have
Kevin WinchelI: Why? Doesto have a road? Instead of
other . . .
to be a road.
the ordinance
having three
say for five homes you have
on one and two on the
Conrad: I don't think we'11 make it that eray.
Kevin I^iinchell: It Iooks like havingthe most reasonable thing to me. You
and you can't go to the street.
j ustcan't d r i vewayprivateone
9o
1S
off
going to bethe back
work hrith
there are
Dacy: The motion from the Commission failed andthe applicant between now and the Council meetingother alternatives ava i lab le.
staff will
to see if
Conrad: Werve never had this situation where we had this.
Dacy: It did happen once before at TH 7 and TH 41 three years ago.
Olsen: In the staff update, I usually pass on any cominents.
Conrad: I think from Robertts Rules of Order, we can carry this forthto City Council. werve conducted the public hearing. The Planning
Commission didn't really have a motion oo it. There was no one
consensus.
Dacy: The mot ion
conrad: But that
Jay Johnson: Move
recommendation.
to deny fa i led.
doesn't automatically say it lras apprcved.
to send it to the City Council without a
Conrad: Thatrs a good idea, thanks.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission sends no
recommendation on Subdivision #88-1. A11 voted in favor and motion
carried.
conrad: I do believe that our comments were pretty clear in
I dontt think we need to repeat why we voted as we did unlessfeels real opinionated. Dave, do you vrant to put a footnotethis to save the tree?
terms of
s o mebo dy
in on
Headla: The tree is mandatory. Itrs one of the top 30 trees.
Planning Commiss ion Meet i ng
January 26, 1988 - Page 21
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 26, ]-ggg - Page 22_
Ellie Schwaba: We always wanted the tree.
Headla: I can see why you want it. We've got to get to some otherpeople to realize the trees got to stay theie.
NANCY LEE ANT, PATRICK BLOOD, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE oF TH2r2 AND EAsr srDE oE TH 101 , zoNED BE, FRTNGE BUsrNEss DrsTRrcr:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT T'OR A CONTRACTORIS YARD ON 13 ACRES.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONS?RUCT A DRIVEWAY THROUGH ACLASS A WETLAND.
Public Present:
Nancy LeePatrick B tood
Jim SellerudeArt Pa rtr idge
Applicant
Applicant
730 Vogelsberg Road
5280 Hummingbird Road
Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on the Conditionaland Wetland Alteration permit -
Use Permi t
Iot of peopleike this. I doto go to theions and stuffthan 1 I/2 to 2
Patrick Blood: Just one thing I,d like to bring up. Athink. contractor,s yards and garbage trucks and-st-uf f Iwant-to make one simple-point. Our cornpany is tendingsmaller garbage trucks for customers wiih ioad restriitlike_ this so.a majority of our trucks will r:e not moreton trucks with a G yard packers...
Jim sellerude, 736 vogersberg Trail: r live at this rocation here andI, donrt have any problems with garbage trucks in oui n.ighb".f,"oa,
-thev- come through ar.r the time io r 6on't have "ny-;.;;;;; aoout that.My thought is that as the business fringe area, that you designated!!i:: it.seems an appropriare rime ro r;ke a rook.t ih; iionrus":ssues along here. Th_" State says right now you can,t have accesshere. because_rhey purchased. thisi lry-questioi t" iluir initi.rry ,.",if this apprication be granted, to e-nter on the "iH 2)-2 over heresomewhere. Right now- we're getting a proliferation-oi un-in".".seodensities of uses on here. it" p.6""nt routing of traffic on here,there's a no stop, access all aling here and I think we;ie jetttngindividual cars putling out along frer"-ana it's becoming-.oi.hazardous. The state doesn't se6m to re taking a read on it. r thinkas^a business fringe deveropment, this realry should be oriented to TH2L2 and r understand they don't want it comiig on off [ne-tii.angre uutr think all these uses shourd be corrected somewhere in here and havea nore Iimited access. I knov, you're just looking at one part. Itseems to have an easy solution to "ome'off fr".e-6it- if-yiu.[."pdea I ins with ind i vidi:a I parcel". u. -fi"i -fr. iiJ-ion'jit i;ni i"rl"
Planning Commiss ion Meet ing
January 20, 1988 - page 23
appJ-ications, you're never going to look at the problem, the overallproblem. I think the planning Cornmisison is the right place to beginthat discussion. This is just going to be an emorphous developmeniand this is one the gateways to Chanhassen. What do you want 1t tolook like? How do you want that traffic handled? As TH 212 comesthrough to the north, yourre going to have more traffic coming off ofTH 101 and I don't knov, when we'll have an intersection r.rith TH 2]^2but this sort of has a residential character on TH 101 right now. Butas uses continue to increase, maybe it,s Zg years off but there willprobably be a light rail transit station at this point. If the Countypicks up the line someday in the future, this is a key point wheretraffic is coming together. I think itrs an important time to take aIook all of that access issue and I think these people could bedirected, I think their original intent on the application was to comeacross here and it seems that it's an appropriate way to go. In termsof MnDot giving their approval for an access over heie, they'11 giveapproval anywhere. They pass it off to the City. They say, if yougive a permit, theyrre forced to give a permit. ?hey gave a per;itfor access over here. 1f someone was going to develop this land andit's an outlot right nov, that I own with another party, and the t'InDotsaid they'd give access there and they said they,d give an access irerefor this lot. Because MnDot has some access requirements, I don,tthink thatrs... As an interim solution, I think access could begranted here for a period of years but I don't know if that's a legalway of operating but permit access here that expires after a certainperiod of years and then direct a solution over this way. But notlooking at your ordinance to see how you're a'ole to deal with theissue but I think this piecemeal fashion, you're never really going totake a look at this entrance to your city here. people are cominginto Chanhassen for all sorts of reasons and here this is known as anotorious entrance to the City.
Conrad: You have some good comments. Mark, when you looked at the TH169 corridor, as $re are looliing at that, those types of concerns thegentleman brought up, do you feel they should be pursued in our studyor do they feel because werre trying to deemphasize this area thatthey not be pursued?
Mark Koegler: He brought up a couple good comments. Eirst of all, onyour second statement in terms of deemphasizing the area, thatstrictly is the approach the Comp Pl.an is taking because that,s whatin essence the l.retropolitan Council is going to be looking for. Thedocument as a whole wilI not be expressing the issue of expandingbusiness fringe operations. Whether contractorrs yards is necessarilyjeopardizing that or not. We believe it's a level of Iow enoughintensity but in general the thinking is not to make that area moreintensive. Kind of stepping on your first comment, the ComprehensivePlan and even these corridor studies are general information.Particularly the plan the corridor studies does is we bring it dovrn toa higher level of detaiI... Itrs more looking at a little more detail
Planning Commission i.!eet ing
January 29, 1988 - Page 24
and access issues. If you don't desire thatcertainly would be appropriate to handle ittype statement. How do you think we shouldbetter approach.
much deta i 1, itverbally. Just a po 1i cyhandle that, might be a
Headla moved, Emmings seconded tofavor and motion caEried.close public hearing. A1l voted in
Headla: How
here , tero ?
many people did you say were going to be here? Work
Dacy: Yes.
HeadIa:
correct
was under
not?
I
or
the impress ion that you stated tlro. Ilia s that
Nancy Lee: That would be people in the office.
Headla: I see you've got
room, office area, Iunch
more than tgro people.
a private office, waitingroom. It soun(is like it,s room,
going
recept ionto be a 1ot
blancy Lee: That $ro u 1dthe morn ing, get theirwith their t rucks -
the o ff ice. The driversroutes and then check in
be in
truck wouldio the
check in
evening
Headla: How many wouldsquare foot bui ld ing?
occupy the SuiIding? you,ve got what , 4,ggg
Nancy Lee: 3,559.
Headla: And how many peopre would be Ehere permanent in the buildinq?
Nancy Lee: presentry it's between I and L r/2. you're talking furlti,ne personnel, it.s between I and l/2 right now. There,s aLwiyssomebody in the offi ce.
Headla: It seems like a big building. you,ve got concrete walls,lunchroom and everything and onry two people. it just doesn,t seemconsistent- r'm looking at this, this is a busine6s rrinje- p:.ace. rtseems to meet arl the requirements but if sorneone vras to fake the sameplan and the same promise and put it up sornewhere on TH 5 0r TH rg1,why can't they go for a variance ana glt the same thing ippioved?r don't know if r'm for or against.it yet but that,s tie iind of thingand I want to hear your guestions just to see how you toot at it.
Batzli: They don't need a variance for a contractor's yard.
Headla: whatrs the definition of a contractor's yard?
Planning Cornmission Meeting
January 25, 1988 - Page 25
Dacy: A contractorrs yard is a use or an area where there isconstruction equipment stored on the site on an overnight basis orother type of contractor,s equipment stored either within the buildingor outside of the building. ?hat you have continuous overnightstorage. People come to the site, as in this case, the employees cometo the site. They pick up the driver of the garbage truck comes andparks his car, he gets into his truck, he leaves the site, he doesoperations off site, comes back at the end of the day and drops offthe truck, gets in his car and goes home. What the applicant isindicating tonight that there would be t to 2 ernployees staying in theoffice area to handle phone ca1ls, dispatch, etc..
Headla: By this yourre saying we aren't having people dropping offthe street?
Dacy: Right, no. This is not a retail business.
Patrick Blood: We put the conference room and reception office inthere, the plans when they were first. drawn up, the rooms were thereto be used. we put it in there for future use, for City Counciltswith their new mandates on garbage pick-up and just an office for
meetings if these occur. lle don't even know if they're going to occurbut the room was there and rather than divide it up into a bunch ofsmall offices or just use them for storage rather than a conference
room, that r,ras just the way we put it up with the possible intentionsin the future of possibly having conferences vrith people and thatrsthe only reason thatrs there.
Headla: If trucks coming south on TH I0I turn east, can tl'rey
east and do into the driveway or do they have to drop dolrn to
come back and make a left?
go due
turn and
Dacy: okay, you're saying when the trucks come south
under the tracks, to get into the site they'd have to
the site and the driveway is proposed on TH I0I.
of TH 101turn lef t
and
into
go
Dacy: No, that was an original consideration by the applicants.
However, MnDot came back and said that an access to TH 2I2 would
be eligible because they have purchased the access rights along
2t2 .
Headla: I thought vre
thought we were go ing
Headla: Okay, I was under the
they would look at it and they
were talking on TH 212. Boy, I missed that. Ito try and get it onto 'IH 2L2.
not
TH
impression then, to make application
stand a good chance to get it on TH
Headla: Why do you have a reception office? If you have a concreteblock here and a nice door and then you have this reception and anoff i ce.
Planning Commiss ion Meet ing
January 20, 1988 - Page 26
212. Thatrs not the case?
Dacy: Right. The app 1i can tthe problem is, MnDot is not
would
going
have to
to selI
buy those rights back andit to them.
Headla: Corning out onto TH 1gl, boy that's tough.
Dacy: We've taLked about contractor,s yards a lot in the last coupleof months aod thatrs been primarily in the A-2 and agricultural areas.?his area is zoned commercial. I guess if there is an example of hoera contractorrs yard should be done, I think this is an excellentexample. You've got a concrete block building, paved areas, berming,Iandscaping. Some of the same issues that the Conmission has beentalking about and debating on whether or not these are appropriate inthe agricultural areas.
Headla: I agree
101, that bothers
with
me.
everything you say but nov, that access on TH
Dacy: Itrs agreed. I don't think there,s any guestion that it is notthe best. However, given the low intensity of this use, between 4 to12 trucks entering and leaving with their primary direction is goingsouth on TH I0l to TH 212. Then the other issues of this .oart of thesite really screens that use the best. If you rnove it over to theeast, itrs a wide open viev, from TH 212 and it rea)-Iy can,t takeadvantage of the grades and elevations.
Head la :
east.
Headla: I hear you say the traffic coming and going andbut hor., do we know, is there anyvray vre can contro I that5 yea rs ?
I thought there was a possibility that they cou]-d go to theWasnrt there a service road there?
Dacy: If they did want to propose that, then you,re fighting theissue of more visibility of the contractor's yard from TH 2Ii. Theywould have to reoriente the septic system sites and so on. If I couldcomment on the gentlemanrs comment about the frontage road, as I notedin the report, that's an excellent idea and if the Commission wouldwant to add a condition whereby if this property is subdivided, thatthat subdivision appLication reserve right-of-way for evaluating afrontage road to be constructed. But again, our Attorney tells usthat we can only require right-of-way if it's during the subdivisionapplication and not a conditional use permit but the frontage roadconcept is excellent and that should be pursued.
it's rninimalin 4 years or
Dacy: One ofthe anount of
r{ou ld requi re
would be ab Ie
the conditions conta inedvehicles to 12 vehicles.a conditional use permit
to determine whether or
in the staff report is to limitAnything above and beyond thattherefore at that time the Citynot that would be an adverse
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 26, L988 - Page 27
impact on TH 10I.
Batzli: I guess I'd like to talk about the wetlands issue
here and the holding tank requirement. They receive waste
the garage area from washing. You're planning on requiring
prior to issuing building permits for the pumping of those
tanks?
a minute
water from
a contract
holding
Dacy: Right.
Batzli: Is there anyway we can somehow nake the continued
use contingent upon receiving additional contracts or are
require this person to get an eternal contract uPfront?
cond i t iona I
you going to
Dacy: I see what you're saYing.
the wording in the condition that
regular bas is.
Batzli: Yes. I guess I'm Iooking for something more
lines. I tike the concept that they have a contract
also like there to be a continuing obligation.
That might be a good idea to change
the pumping should be done on a
along those
upfront but Ird
Ellson: I noticed you diCn't have that
myself but you caught that yourself. I
road but you're salzing we can't do that
guess I was a little confused as to the
Dacy: ?he subdivision laws are different than the laws enabling
mun-icipalities to review conditional use permits. The subdivision
Laws c-reated by the State enable cities to.reguire.road right-of-ways
u"J to require things Iike parking dedication requirements. The City
Attorney iays that ihe conditional use permit application, you're only
iooking-at ihether or not that use is compatible vrith adjacent uses in
that district. We can not require right-of-way dedication along with
a conditional use permit. You can only do that during the subdivision
appt i cat ion.
had a question, you said the people come in the
take a truck. Do they come back for lunch and then
do they stay out all day long and then they come back?
Nancy Lee: They come back at noon and then leave'
ELlson: This probably has nothing to do with it but I was wondering
,ony ao you have more 1n the summer than you vrould in the winter and
[t ing" iix" tt"te What kind of seasonal that makes that happen?
Nancy Lee: It lras switched.
conta iners we're talking about
sites and it's the wintertime
El lson: Also, I
morning and theY
go out again or
26. I had that as a question
Like the idea of that frontage
at this point though and I
reasoning behind that.
We would have more containers. The
are the containers used at construction
that we may have some. We don't Iike to
Planning Commiss ion Meet ing
January 2A, L988 - Page 28
have them
the s ite.
in but when construction
In the summertime there
goes down, the containers arentt on
shouldn' t be any there.
EIlson: That's all I had.
Emmings: r don't have anything additional.
Erhart: I don't know where to start but IrlI take the opportunity to
say vrhat I have to say about contractorrs yards in chanhassen. I lvas
very much involved in our zoning ordinance. That was a major project
we had r^rhen I first joined the Planning Commission. I spent a lot of
time on it including sitting through with the Council every night that
they went over it and approved it. ?here are t$ro new members here,
there's a lot of it that goes over your head when your first on theplanning commission. Irve had two years to reflect on some of these
issues and one of them is this contractorrs yards. At the time I
didn't oppose contractor yards in the city of Chanhassen. r should
say in the rural area of Chanhassen because I really didn't lzetunderstand how they relate to that area. Today I firmed up my mindquite concretely on the issue and f strongly believe that they have noplace in the rural area of Chanhassen, which I'm the only person
either on the Council or Commission that represents that area. One isthat they have nothing to do with agriculture which is the existing
land use in the area. So I believe they are incompatible with that.
Secondly, is the agricultural area, the A-2 area in Chanhassen is
supposed to be reserved and allowed to increase it's residential usein a planned method. Again, contractor's yards has no compatibilitywith residential use. Lastly, I think in particular, Chanhassen <loesnot have the road system to support the kind of truck traffic thattsassociated with contractorrs yards and garbage hauling. particularly
TH 10I . lvhich gets us to this particular proposal and also into
another issue that I Ehink a lot of, when r,re made the new zoningordinance, created the new zoning ordinance, a lot of discussion
revolved around this business fringe district which t think you
opposed completeJ.y Ladd, at the time. I think, if I,m right, I thinkyou did, f hrould agree that we made a second mistake there. But Ithink we perhaps will get into that in a little bit in the discussionIater on when we talk about corridor studies and plans. It really hit
me today, this is the first time that I read anyplace $rhere the actual
MnDot has gone out of their $ray to restrict access along TH 212 inthat area. Nov, had that been known when we put this new zoningordinance in effect, I think that would have had a big impact aboutthe way the Planning Commission and perhaps the City Council viewedthis area down there. In fact, the way I interpretted that, they saythis is essentially 55 mph roadway. I live there so I know what's itlike. It is dangerous to turn on and off that and certainly TH 101 inthat area is no place to be promoting increased use by some commercialactivity. I canrt imagine why we erould go through here and allow acommercial activity where you have trucks coming underneath thatrailroail bridge. Itts ridiculous just for automobiles to travel in
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 2Q, 1988 - Paqe 29
both directions under that bridge. one has to stop before the other
one goes through. LastIy, again, you're dealing with this holding
tank situation and I'm sure that everyone has all good intentions to
make sure that nothing gets drained over into the creek but again, and
I don't agree with the Met Council often but in this case, they're
right in not planning for sewer in this area. In the first place,
it's below the level of most sewer Iines in the southvrest area.
Everything would have to be pumped up. I just think adding a holding
tank in an operation where trucks are washed, You're adding an
operation vrhere there's a lot of water use. I'm interpretting this
from the business and I may be wrong on that. Lastly, I guess just to
compliment my first comment, Eden Prairie doesn't allow contractor's
yards and I do believe $re do have a place in the City for contractorrs
yards don't we?
Dacy: We have a number of contractor's yards located in the A-2
District.
Erhart: I understand that.
Dacy: I'm sorry, whatts your question?
Erhart: we do have places in the zoning ordinance that do allow new
contractor's yards besides the A-2 District.
Dacy: Yes,
Erhart: we
contractor I s
in the rndustrial Park.
do have a place for the. Eden Prairie doesn't allow
yards in their rural areas.
Dacy: t,lost of the coaununities in the metroplitan area
contractor's yards in the rural area except as a sma1I,
woulil call them a ma and pa operation-
Erhalt: A family business. So I think
when we get to the corridor study but I
about contractor's yards as they relate
I ';n against it.
don I t aIlow
I guess I
I have a vrhole lot
think those are mY
to Ehis particular
more to say
comments
p roposa I .
conrad: You're against this
period so regardless of vrhat
anti-contractor's Yards?
because you' re aga itrst contractor I s yards
they could have proposed, you're just
I rrould
This one
vote aga inst any contractorts
in particular with the TH 101
Conrad: Because of traffic and because of access.
going too. It is a probLem with a vehicle that's a
going under the bridge. Not Irm sure the applicant
Thatrs where I was
I itt 1e bit larger
has said rnost
Erhart: Let me state that.
yard that cones before me.
thing and that br idge.
Planning Commission lleet i ng
January 2A, L988 - Page 30
traffic will be routed south and out of there, but I guess I vrould
see the north route would be acceptable anytime. People going uphilI. We don't restrict, what are the restrictions on the trucktraffic in that area? Are there any?
not
the
Headla: If they can get through the bridge, it's okay.
Dacy: TH 101 is used a Lot right now. Maybe to give you analternative to look at, another access alternative would have to bethat from the east there is a separate property between theapplicantrs property and the cold storage and vrarehouse site which isright here. There was a suggestion made, could they tie into thedriveway. That eras approved for the coLd storage and warehouse site.
They would have to obtain an easement from this private property
orrrner. Whether or not they r^rou1d get it, would be up to that propertyowner. So it comes do$ro to the City weighing several traCe-offs. you
can either limit the intensity of the use ooto TH lrl to 10 vebicles,
12 vehicles, hrhatever or you can look at trying to have the applicantbuy the access rights back from MnDot. you would look at a moresignificant wetland alteration permit to bring the road through thewetland area or the other trade off is locating use more in the openare of the site. It's one of those cases where one location affectsthe other and then a new issue arises. Aesthetics, screening, access,wetlands so that would be the alternative to what is proposed in thisapplication.
Conrad: '*lhen we d i rectedtraffic be routed certain
control that,
truck traffic to
ways but there's
l,'lerle volk 'is,real ly no lsay
we asked thatyou can
Enunings:
That I s not
Even if
going
your access is TH 169, they can stillto change the number of trips north on
9o
TH
up TH 10I.
101.
Conrad: Barbara, your opinion on access, assumi;:g that most routes,most of the time would go back to TH 1,69. What's your opinion onaccess coming out onto TH Lql? Is that a danger? I think almostanything on that hiII seems dangerous to ne. I drove it about threetimes today in the snow and it was not easy.
Dacy: First of a11, that driveway that is there norr, that's obviouslydone for access to the farm and the old homestead there. Their accesainto TH 101 is going to have to meet MnDot standards and as noted inthe engineer's report, they have to have a l/22 grade fox 50 feet andso on so that driveway location is going to be improved. coing northon TH lgl so traffic coming out of the site is going to be able to seetraffic coming from the south better versus the other way around. fthink coming south on that, you're really blinded going underneaththat railroad bridge so again, therets no question that this is notthe best solution. However, there are no other viable alternativesfor this property to have access to this site. As long as the
Planning Commiss ion Meet ing
January 26, L988 - Page 3I
intensity of the use is limited to what is proposed, I think it's
feas ible.
Conrad: Couldof paper?
you interpret what Dr. Rockr.rell scribbled on that piece
Dacy: Seasonally flooded emergent and scrub shurb wetland. Goodhabitat for small rodents and various species of migratory and
indigenous pelching birds. Refuge for pheasants and cottontails inwinter.
Conrad: Get down to the recommendation. Keep \"rhat?
Dacy: When she went out to the site, this is when there was aproposal for the driveway across the wetland area. Keep sridth
proposed driveway to minimurn. select area with fewest shrubs.Protect remaining wetland from impacts during construction withscreens. No s idecas t ing .
of
silt
Conrad: No sidecasting?
Dacy: Taking the material that is dredged out.
Conrad: Tim, it doesn't appease you that we're in the fringe business
district at all? It is a zone down there that is kind of commercial
in nature yet it canrt be used commercially because of sewer so itrs
oot Ehe hiqhwav
SppIicat iois th access rrithout sewer so you kind of look forat donrt need high volume off of that. This looks to
me like a low volume use in a district you're in.
Erhart: What Irrn essentially saying is that it's an agricultural area
and that business fringe area should never have been put in the zoning
ordinance and that we shouldnrt be allowing new commercial businessesin that whole area because therers no sevrer available. Barb alwaystell me when I ask, there wonrt be sewer for 30 years. This is the
one area where I actually believe her on. It could be 50 years. Ithink this is the area that should be, it got started, those
businesses down there died because it's not a good business area. Therestaurant's not open. It hasn't been for a couple of years. There's
been a used car lot and that's closed.
Conrad: So you'd like to
res ident iaI ?
see it restored to agricultural or
Erhart: I think we ought to just let it fade away.
Art Partridge: My question with the Merle Volk issue, R & W
SaniEation which is a much bigger operation, you allow that into r^,hatis essentially an agricultural area...A truck can use a public highwayunless there'3 a weight restriction.
Planning Commiss ion l,teet ing
January 2A, L988 - page 32
I
Conrad: As you can tell, werre still struggling with contractor,s
r..rd:.and use of agricurtural areas but your comments are $rerr taken.I believe this is a pretty good use of the area down there. It,s astrange area. It,s just a real strange area and I think I wasfighting to get rid of it altogether 6nce upon a time and r don,t kno$,if r rost the cause but whatev6r but r thini herers a case rrhere staffhas worked with the appricant to kind of hide the use. rt rooks likethe appricant has designed something thatrs kind of nice here and rdontt think that set a precedent foi any other contractorrs yaras. rthink my only concern is the traffic thit we generate rike r am withany contractor's yard. rf r think we're putting in 106 trucks or 50trucks, r think that is definitery not th-e poin[ ot it," .ont.."to.'"yard or what we $rant to arroe, but r think ri long as we ,ninimize whatthe appricant does there in terms of traffic g.n6.itior,-"i'-tt ink it,"not a bad use of the land.
Headla: Remember, if he has I0 trucks there, that means you,ve got 22vehicles entering and leaving everyday.
Nancy Lee: f want to correct that. We run one person per truck...
Headla: Hote do the drivers get to your place?
Nancy Lee: They come in their vehicle.
Headla: -So if you've got_L0. trucks, you,ve got 1A cars, so you,ve got20 vehicles plus tr{o people in the uuirainq,-youirr.-got'zi-venicres.r think that's an ar^,fur rot for that partiiurir inteis""tlon. rrtherers someplace with a better rine or sight, I thi;k-ia-wouro uemore appropriate but that's a 10t on that particurar spoi on ti-r ror.
conrad: r think we've sure tarked about this. we,1r open it up for amotion. rf there is one, if somebody makes i- r.r.r.rr.-.-ioaion, ,think there were some comments to be ciiscussed in terms of pumping thehordinq tank on a regular basis. The staff's 26th point uni maybe ifsomebody does make a favorable motion, we should te'tii[ing-auoutsubdivision and reserving land for future access but .m n6t t.rtingyou to make that motion.. -rl* jus saying if you ao go-"i'onj with thestaff's posture, we shourd inc6rporaie iome of these other comments.
Emmings moved, Batzri seconded that the pranning commission recommendapproval of the Conditional Use permit Request #SZ*fe io-op"r.t. "contractor's yard rocated north of and adjacent to in itz'zia east ofand adjacent to TH 101 based on the site llan stamped ;nu.ui.r"aDecember 29, L987" and subject to the foliowing ""ijiti"n"l-
Hours of operation shall be from 7 z6A a.trrioush-si[;;;;i";.iy (e,ork on sundays .*; nt8rfj39=P;3€, Mondav
PIann j.ng Comm j ssion Meeti.ng
January 29, L988 - Page 33
permi ! ted ) .
2. There shall be no
,)Any 1i ght sources
r j ght -o f -ways .
outside speaker systems.
shall be shj elded from adjacent public road
8.A plan for storage of flamnable and/or combustj.ble material must besubmitted to the Public Safety Office for approval.
Energency Iighting must be i.nstaIIed.
The driveway and parking lot shalL have surmountable concrete curb
and gutter.
9
Lg.
1I. The applj.cant shaIl submi t a landscapi ng plan jndicatjng
installatj.on of 26 six foot evergreen trees between the vehjcular
use areas and the public right-of-ways.
12. All septic systems sites shall be stakedthe commencemenE of any construct j.on. Any
will require reevaluatjon of Ehe sjtes.
and ropedtraffic
pr i or
these
to
s i tes
off
over
13. The applicant shall obtain
Department of Transpor ta t j.on
the perm j. t.
14.
I5.
permj t from the Mjnnesota
comply wjth aII condj tjons of
an acc es s
and shaIl
The approach onto TH 101 shall be a max j.mum of A.5Z grade for a
minimum distance of 50 feet.
Catch basjns shall be provided at the low pojnt of the drjveway
along with proper spi llways jn the parking lot. A revised plan
shall be submj.tted for approval by the Cj.ty Engjneer.
Calculations verify j.ng the preservatjon of the predeveloped runoffrate for the sj.te and pondj.ng caLculatjons for a ltg year frequency
storm event shall be provi.ded to the City Engineer for approval.
16.
4. A holding tank shall be installed to receive the rraste water fromthe garage area. The holding tank shall be pumped as necessary andthe applicant shal1 be requi,retl to keep a current copy of theirpumper contract on file with the City.
5. The building must be sprinklered.
6. The building must have a heat and smoke detector system with acentral d i spatch
7. Lighted exit signs must be j.nstalted at all exits.
Plann j. ng Commj ssion Meetj ng
January 29, L988 - Page 34
17. Check dams (Type II Erosion Control) shaIIintervals along aI1 drai.nage swales.
be placed at 100 foot
18.
19. Additional eros i onthe site. A rev i sedCity Engineer.
29.
Existing structures shall be dj.sposed of properly. tf debrj.s isbe burned, the applicant sha1l obtain a buining permit from theDepartment of public safety and the pollution control Agency.On-sj.te burial of debris is prohibited.
to
control shall be placed along the north sjde ofplan shall be submj.tted for approval by the
to stabi 1i ze
later than t$ro
rra ter shed
comp I y
All erosion control neasures shall be in place prior to theinitiati.on of any gradJ.ng and once in pJ.ace sharl remain ir placethroughout the duration of construction. The developer is rlquiredto make periodic revjews of the erosion control and make anynecessary repairs pronptly. Al-l of the erosj.on control .ea3u..sshall remai n intact untir an estabrished vegetati ve cover has beenproduced at which time removar sharr be the responsibirity of thedeveloper.
2t.
22.
23.
Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utiLj.zedaIl. dj.sturbed slopes greater than 3:1.
Seeding shall be disc-anchored and shall commence novreeks after slopes have been established.
All detentj.on ponds and drajnage swales shatl be constructed andoperational which includes all pertinent storm sewer systems to havethe ponds functional prior to any other construction o'n trr"-p.oject.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from thedistrict, DNR and other appropri ate regulaiory agencj.es andwith their conditjons of approval
24.
25.
27.
Any expansion of the bui. lding or12 vehi.cles used in the busi.nesspermit rev i ew.
parkJ ng areas or expansionshalI requj re a conditj onal
beyo nd
use
26.The site plan shal.L
east.
Should the subject site
requi r ing the necessaryconnecti.ons to the east.
be revised to shjft the bujldjng 2A feeL to the
be subdivided,
rj ght-of-way for City would lookfrontage road to
the
a
to
ma ke
CITY OF
THINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MTNNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I{EITIORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City PIan
DAIE: January 29, L988
er
SUBJ: Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendment Issues
last count, staff was directed to conduct further research onfoIIowing issues:
At
the
1.
2.
3.
Regulations for qolf courses in
Directional sign regulations in
Sect.ion 5.12 in the Subdivisionarterial and collector streets.
the A-2 District.
the Sign Ordinance.
Ordinance regarding access to
4
6. Discussion as to whether or noE cul-de-sacs
Ir.ffdfr &i[iilorr4 "*{,,W.}}"ffiattention either by Council members or by other
are:
5. Further discussion of the PUD Ordinance.
Regulations for fences in the tront yard.
and outiloor storage regulations
should contain
broughE Lo our
city staff. They
1n
I
2 Amendme n t sthe zoning
to wood. storage
Ordinance.
Unfortunately, we are unable to complete a thorough investigation
of all of these issues, but we have begun some investigation on
some of the issues. Below is the discussion regarding fences inthe front yard and the other it,ems will be presented to the
Commission at the next meeting.
Itlentification of pros and cons of transition residential
zoning districts.
Planning Commission
January 29, 1988
Page 2
Fences in the Front Yard
It is recommended that the Commissiondet.ermine whether or not staff shouldtion.
Attached is a memorandum from the public Safety Directorregarding the fencing requirements of residential 1ots. Fenceregulations are Iocated in Article VI , Section 12. The fenceregulations currently do not prohibit a property owner in fencingthe entire lot. The ordinance simply establishes the maximumheight of fence, the procedure to use when the fence is to belocated on a 1ot line and establishes standards for fences thatare adjacent to lakes or used in conjunction with a privateswimming pool .
In reviewing the research that staff conducted in preparing thefence ordinance, other communitiest ordinances were also silenton the front yard issue. Although the concerns that the public
Safety Director has indicated have not been able to be specifiedin detail, the concern appears to be the aesthetic appeaiance ofa 6 foot feoce on aII sides of a property, especially the frontwhen viewed from the street. This issue is simply a matter ofdeciding hovr much the city should regulate the initat lation offences. An option could be discussed where fences to be 1ocatedalong the front property line not exceed 3i feet in height. Thisis a compromise in that the property owner achieves preiention oftrespassing but in t.he alternative a more aesthetic ippearancemay also be achieved. please understand, however, thil what maybe "aesthetic" is subject to an individual's point of view. TheZoning Ordinance needs to be concerned about health, safety,welfare issues as well as aesthetic issues. If the Cornmisiion isto pursue this, it is recommended that the ordinance language bestructured to regulate fences along road right-of -r,,/ays ritherthan side 1ot line and interior lot lines. Typically, the sideand t.he rear lot lines are those lines where property owners wantto have a 6 foot fence to act as a barrier from the idiacent p.o-perty and to provide privacy. Although in the case of cornerlots, a 6 foot fence may be desirable for some who wish to blockthe headlights from passing traffic.
discuss t.his issue andpursue further investiga-
CITY OF
EEIflI{IifiEEEI[
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I have been getting a few coroplaints and suggestions these pastfew months regarCing the Zonin_o Ordinance section concerning fen-ces. There appears to be no restrict.ions on how mucn of youryard you can fence, including the fronr yard if that is yourdesire.
I hav3 been fieldinq solne cornplaints that fencing in the EroncyarC detract.s from lhe aesthetics oi the neighborhood. 'Ihe
suggestions have been to prohibit the fencing-in of a Eront yard.
What are your thoughts
Commission meeting?
and could this be broughi up at a Planning
*WtttttdTll
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
DATE: December 10, 1987
SUBJ: Fence Requ i rements/Res tr i ct ions
F
CITY OF
EEIf,NH,TSETN
690 COULTEH DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937- 1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Harr, Assistant public
FROM: Steve l{adden, Fire Inspector
DATE: January 20, 1988
SUBJ: Wood Storage
Item A should real "In afour (4) feet in height.
Safety Director
o)*
n regarC to Secrion 20.909, OutCoor Storage,e made to item five (5), Wood Storage.
I
b
I
an acidition should
2 An Item Dbe rernoved
t1otr would
Disease.
neat and. secure stack, not exceeding
should be rncluoed and shoulC read "Thef rorn all f reshly-cut Oak and/or Elin',.help reduce the spreaii of Oa.i< I{i1t and
bar.< sna11This a<idi-
Dutch Elm
41so, when recommendiitg irees for planting, recommend trees thacare as disease-resistant as possrole. For example, do not recom_mend locust irees as Ehey are very susceptible io canKers andwill die or dest.roy themsefves in a few years. Section 2C_123j_ B.
CITY OF
CHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
UE!{ORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
DAIE: January 29, 1988
SUBJ: City Council Update
On January 25,1988, the
for Hawks
City Council approved the following:
rIi 11 , Mike Klingelhutz.
Pub1ic Works Building
1. Final Plat
2 Conditional Use Permit for the
Expansion, City of Chanhassen.
3 Tabled the Wetland Alteration Permit for Eric Rivkin until theCity Atstorney could determine jurisdiction of Ehe cicy. Thecity cannot regulate channels beyond the ordinary high rrater
mark where it becomes public !,rater. Some of the Council mem-bers were against allowing a channel in the wetland and there
were several questions about the ultimate impact to Ehe
'retland and the lake. This item has been scheduled for the
February 8, 1988, City Council meeting.