04-6-94 Agenda and Packet AGENDA FILE
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRI\
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3,
Park One Third Addition, a Site Plan Review for a 54,720 square foot warehouse expansion for the
Press and a 10,315 square foot Kindercare facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day
Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park, located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road and
State Highway 5.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Amendment to the City Code, the subdivision and site plan review sections regarding landscaping and
tree preservation.
OLD BUSINESS
3. Sign Ordinance - Discussion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We
will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear
to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from
consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
P.C. DATE: 4-6-94
C I TY 0 F C.C. DATE: 4-25-94
CASE: 94-1 Site Plan
CHANHASSEN
94-1 CUP, 94-2 SUBr BY: Al-Jaff
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:1) Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of The Press
Building, and construction of a Kindercare Day Care Center, 10,315
Square Feet
2) Preliminary Plat to Replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd
Z Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition.
Q 3) Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Day Care Center in an IOP District
VLOCATION: North of Hwy. 5, West of Dell Road, East of 187th Avenue West, and
South of 77th Street West.
APPLICANT : Marcus Corporation The Press, Inc.
a' 10001 Wayzata Blvd., Ste. 100 18780 West 78th Street
Minnetonka, MN 55305 Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Industrial Office Park
ktldtf 69 CRy Administrator
ACREAGE: 13.64 acres 6►d^isrd___/ De/04-
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - 77th Street West/IOP e_=c. 3-30- y
S - Highway 5/IOP Dee St�7rted to Commission
E - Dell Road/Eden Prairie L- h - y si
W - 187th Avenue West/IOP DAt su'rrrtted to Cour"i
Q SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site.
(� SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site contains the Press Building along the westerly
w portion. The easterly half is undeveloped and vegetated
primarily with brush. The property is bordered by Hwy. 5
�— on the south and Dell Road on the east.
2000 LAND USE: Office/Industrial
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 2 _
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to construct a day care facility and expand the warehouse and press
room of the Press building. The site is bordered by 77th Street West along the north, Hwy. 5
to the south, 187th Avenue West to the west, and Dell Road to the east. The lot area of the
Press site is 518,000 square feet and the Kindercare Day Care Facility site is 76,372 square feet.
Both sites are located in an Industrial Office Park District. The site is visible directly from
Highway 5 and has full access from 77th Street West and 187th Avenue West. Access to and
from the Kindercare site via Dell Road is restricted to right-in/right-out only.
In an accompanying subdivision request, the site is being replatted into three lots, one of which
will expand the existing Press site to accommodate the proposed expansion, the second lot will
contain the Kindercare building, and the third lot will be reserved for future development. Staff
is not aware of any pending developments for the third lot. The subdivision request is a -
relatively straightforward action. Conditions proposed for review would result in dedication of
all required easements.
The site plan is reasonably well developed. The Press expansion will utilize scored concrete
panels, an identical material to that used on the existing building. Staff has requested that the
applicant provide elevations showing the facade after incorporating the proposed expansion. The
Kindercare building is proposed to utilize face brick wainscoting on all four sides accented by
columns, ceramic tile, a canopy, and has a pitched roof.
One of the advantages resulting from the expansion of the Press building will be the relocation
of the loading dock area. Currently, the loading docks are visible from Highway 5. The
expansion will relocate the docks to the rear of the building, and will face 77th Street West.
Parking for vehicles is located on the east and west side of the Press building, and south of the
Kindercare building. Vehicles will be screened by berms and landscaping materials from
Highway 5.
The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention that was paid to this issue
by the applicant. A variety of trees and bushes will be used. We are recommending that a
meandering berm of 3 to 4 feet in height be located along the southerly edge of the site, between
the parking lot and Highway 5.
Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the
Highway 5 corridor's image.
Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, without variances, -
conditional use permit and subdivision requests for this proposal.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 3
BACKGROUND
On June 19, 1978, the City Council approved a Planned Industrial Development Plan#78-5 PUD,
which included a subdivision that resulted in dividing 701,656 square feet into Lot 1, Block 1,
Park One (144,734 square feet), and Outlot B (256,922 square feet). Lot 1 became the site for
the Press Building which was approved as a permitted use in the Planned Industrial Development
Plan concurrently with the subdivision. Outlot B was reserved for future development and is
being proposed for subdivision into two lots with this application.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The existing Press building is situated parallel to and north of Hwy. 5. The site is bordered by
77th Street West along the north, Hwy. 5 to the south, 187th Avenue West to the west, and Dell
Road to the east. Access to the Press building is gained off of 77th Street West and 187th
Avenue West. The proposed expansion of 54,760 square feet will be located to the east of the
existing building. Kindercare is proposed to be located to the east of the Press building and will
have an area of 10,315 square feet. Parking will be located to the south and between the two
buildings. Direct views of the existing loading docks and parking area are currently visible from
Hwy. 5. The proposed addition will relocate the loading docks to the north of the building and
provide complete screening from Hwy. 5. Staff is recommending that a meandering berm with
landscaping, 3 to 4 feet in height, be installed between the parking lot and Hwy. 5 to provide
additional screening.
The Press building, including the proposed addition, is located 30 feet from the north, 100 feet
from the east, 120 from the south, and 65 feet from the west property line. The Kindercare
building is located 70 feet from the north, 40 feet from the east, 190 feet from the south, and 50
feet from the west property line.
Materials used on the Press addition will be identical to the existing building's scored concrete
panels. The applicant has been informed that elevations of the building, with the addition
incorporated into them, must be submitted for review and evaluation. The Kindercare building
will consist of face brick wainscoting on all four sides. The entry will have a canopy with
columns and ceramic tile detailing. The building's architecture is tastefully designed and meets
the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements.
The site plan for the Kindercare site shows the trash enclosure located southwest of the day care
building. The location of the trash enclosure for the Press site has not been shown. Plans must
be revised to show the location and submitted for review and approval. The trash enclosure shall
utilize materials similar to materials used on the main building. Any roof top equipment should
be screened from Highway 5.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 4
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Highway Corridor Overlay design standards.
Although they have not officially been adopted, staff has reviewed these standards to see how
this project meets the intent of the proposed ordinance. The purpose of the overlay district is to
promote high-quality architectural and site design through improvement development standards
with the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high quality
visual environment. The plan and design of the proposed development meets the intent of the
overlay district with the following features:
• The Press addition will utilize material identical to those used on the existing building.
The same is true for the color and height of the addition. The Kindercare building will
also be one story and the architectural style is unique to the industrial park but will fit in. _
The addition to the Press will be compatible with the existing building. The Kindercare
building will provide a variation in style through the use of columns and the pitched roof
element. Because the request is only for an addition to The Press, there is no room to
provide a pitched element. Also, a pitched roof would be out of character for the existing
style of the building. The Kindercare building is providing a pitched roof as well as a
pitched canopy. The Kindercare building must be moved 40 feet to the south to meet the
maximum setback of 150 feet. Both buildings are utilizing exterior materials that are
durable and of high quality. The colors of the Press building addition will be identical
to the existing building. The applicant must show the colors proposed to be used on the
Kindercare building.
• The new Press addition will move loading docks to the rear of the building, screening it
from views from Hwy. 5. The trash enclosure has not been shown on the Press site and
such shall be shown on the final plans.
• The site is level and minimum grading will take place with the exception of areas along
Hwy. 5 where staff is requiring a berm. The site is devoid of vegetation with the
exception of underbrush. The landscaping plan provides a variety of plant materials that
are massed where possible particularly along Hwy. 5. The berm and landscaping
materials will be a continuation of the existing berm on the Press site. The plant
materials are repetitious in some locations and variable in others. Proposed plant
materials are indigenous to Minnesota. A curb is required along the parameters of the
green space area. The applicant is providing a wide green space area between Hwy. 5
right-of-way and the Kindercare site. All planting areas are adequate in size to allow
trees to grow.
• The light poles are incorporated within the planters/islands. Staff is requiring a sign plan
which should include lighting method.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 5
PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
The City's parking ordinance for day care centers requires a design capacity of one stall for each
— six children. The applicant is providing 45 parking spaces. The total number of children
enrolled at the day care may not exceed 270.
The parking ordinance for warehouses requires one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area up to 10,000 square feet and 1 additional space for each additional 2,000 square feet.
The total spaces required for the addition is 32 spaces. The ordinance also requires processing
facilities to provide 1 parking space for each employee on the major shift. The Press employs
a total of 245 employees. These employees work in 3 shifts. Assuming all employees were
present at the same time, a total of 245 spaces would be required. The total spaces required
including the addition is 277 spaces. The applicant is providing 314 spaces which far exceed the
ordinance requirements.
The submitted site plans does not indicate any handicapped parking spaces. The Minnesota State
Building Code (MSBC) requires that such spaces be provide at the rate of one handicapped space
per every 50 spaces in the lot(s). This calculated out to 7 spaces for the Press and 1 space for
the Kindercare. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has specific requirements for van
spaces which currently are not part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the
Inspections Division, but should be incorporated into the site plan. Site approaches are regulated
by the MSBC, and are not detailed on the site plan. Curb cuts, width, texture and slope are
details that must be included on the site plans.
Landscaping is proposed along the south side, adjacent to Highway 5 as well as throughout the
parking area. This will provide screening of cars parked in the lot. Staff is recommending a
meandering landscaped berm, 3 to 4 feet in height, be installed between the parking lots and
Hwy. 5 to provide additional screening.
ACCESS/PARKING LOT CIRCULATION
Dell Road is a four-lane divided collector street. Access to and from the Kindercare site via Dell
Road is restricted to a right-in/right-out only due to the existing center median. The parking lot
configuration appears to circulate well with the secondary access from The Press. However, the
disadvantage is the new parking lot and access on to Dell Road will make it very convenient for
traffic from The Press to short circuit through the Kindercare site to get to Dell Road and on to
Trunk Highway 5.
The proposed warehouse expansion at The Press will involve relocating the existing drive aisles
and parking lots. The proposed drive aisle will be constructed to 24-feet wide. The site
currently has a number of semi-trailers parked adjacent to the drive aisles. With the anticipated
truck traffic movement, staff believes the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) should be a minimum
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 6
of 26-feet wide with turning radiuses on to 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the drive
aisles lying north of the main parking lot should be posted for no parking on both sides. Both _
driveway access points (77th Street West and Dell Road) should be constructed in accordance
to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail (see Attachment No. 1).
The 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the west side of Dell Road adjacent the site. The
applicant shall be responsible for replacing any sidewalk damage during construction of the site
improvements. The applicant should post security escrow (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the
amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration.
LANDSCAPING
The landscaping plan is very well conceived. The applicant is providing a variety of plantings
throughout the parking lot and especially along the perimeters of the sites. The plant materials
include ornamental conifer, deciduous trees, and shrubs. The Kindercare site will be the first site
an individual will encounter as they enter Chanhassen. Plantings, as well as the design and
material used on the Kindercare building, have been done tastefully. Staff is recommending one
modification to the landscaping plan. The incorporation of a meandering berm with landscaping
between Hwy. 5 and the parking lot area for both sites. The parking area for the Kindercare site
is setback 75 feet from the property line, which is in compliance with the Hwy. 5 corridor study —
requirements.
LIGHTING
Lighting locations have been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the
applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than '/ foot candles of light at the property line
as required by ordinance. Detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are
requested.
SIGNAGE
The applicant has not submitted a signage plan. One ground low profile business sign is
permitted per street frontage with a maximum of 2 such signs per lot. The area of the sign may
not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign shall be permitted _
per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building
wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 80 square feet. The applicant must
obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. One stop sign must be posted on the
driveway at the exit point of both sites. A sign plan acceptable to staff should be provided prior
to requesting a building permit.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 7
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
In addition to the site drainage for the Kindercare site, it appears a large portion of the east
parking lot for The Press is also proposed to be redone to accommodate future expansions. The
overall grading plan appears acceptable, however, additional storm sewers will be necessary to
convey stormwater runoff from the parking lot relocation on The Press site. The grading/utility
plan should be revised incorporating the existing or proposed storm sewer system. Detailed
drainage calculations for both sites (Kindercare/Press) should be submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval. The drainage calculations shall be a 10-year storm event.
Based on the grading plan, it appears site grading will exceed five acres in size thus requiring
permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and watershed district. The site will be served with storm sewers
that were installed in 77th Street West and Dell Road. These storm drainage systems convey
storm runoff to a regional stormwater pond located north of the site. Therefore, no additional
on-site ponding will be required as a result of this development. The development will be
responsible for the applicable Surface Water Management Utility fee in accordance with city
ordinance.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
The Kindercare site is proposed to be served from a watermain located in Dell Road. The plans
propose open cutting in Dell Road to tap the watermain. According to the City's records, an 8-
inch waterline has been stubbed into the site just north of the proposed connection. Staff
recommends that the existing water service be utilized and the open cutting of Dell Road
prohibited.
Sanitary sewer service is extended to the site from 77th Street West. The plans propose to
extend a 6-inch service to the Kindercare site along the west property lines of Lots 2 and 3,
Block 1. The appropriate drainage and utility easement should be dedicated on the final plat
along the service line. Since both the sanitary and water services lines will be private (not
maintained by the City), the applicable permits and inspections should be coordinated by the
applicant through the City Building Department.
MISCELLANEOUS
The plans propose installation of irrigation systems. The applicant should be aware the
appropriate permits and inspections will be necessary for the installation of the irrigation system
through the City's Building Department.
All boulevard areas disturbed as a result of site improvements should be restored with sod.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 8
EROSION CONTROL
The plans are proposing silt fence along the east side of the Kindercare lot to protect Dell Road.
Staff also believes it would be appropriate to install silt fence along the north property line of
The Press to protect 77th Street West.
A rock construction entrance is proposed at the north driveway access to The Press. Staff
believes the construction activity on the Kindercare site will also necessitate a rock construction
entrance at the proposed entrance off of Dell Road. Staff recommends that a rock construction
entrance be provided at the Dell Road driveway access as well.
COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT
Ordinance The Press Kindercare
Building Height 2 stories 1 story 1 story
Building Setback N-30' E-30' N-30' E-NA N-NA E--50'
S-30' W-30' S-120' W-75' S-190' W-NA'
Parking stalls 245/ 45 stalls 314 stalls 45 stalls*
Parking Setback N-25' E-25' N-25' E-NA' N-NA' E-30'
S-25' W-25' S-35' W-30' S-75' W-NA'
Hard surface 70% Not Provided Not Provided
Coverage
Lot Area 1 acre 11.89 acres 1.75 acres
* The City's parking ordinance for day care centers requires a design capacity of one stall
for each six children. The applicant is providing 45 parking spaces. The total number
of children enrolled at the day care may not exceed 270.
PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES
The City is requiring that park and trails fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are to be
paid in accordance to city ordinance.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 9
SUBDIVISION
The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to enlarge The Press site
to accommodate the addition and divide an outlot into 2 lots. The total site area is approximately
15 acres. The existing easterly line of Lot 1 (The Press site) is being shifted 115 feet to the east
to accommodate the proposed expansion and maintain the required setback. Lot 1 will have an
area of 518,000 square feet. Lot 2 is not being developed at the present time. It is proposed to
have an area of 62,000 square feet. Lot 3 is proposed to contain the Kindercare building and will
have an area of 76,372 square feet. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action.
Conditions proposed for review would result in dedication of all required easements. The
following easements are either illustrated on the plat or should be acquired:
1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeters of all lots.
2. Dedication of public right-of-way.
3. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along
the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer
seryice.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Day care centers are permitted in the IOP District as a conditional use. The following constitutes
our review of this proposal against conditional use permit standards.
GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city.
FINDING - The site is zoned IOP. The proposed use will not create any significant
or unexpected impacts from this use. It will provide a convenient location
for employees of the office industrial park to drop off their children.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan.
The use is also in compliance with the Hwy. 5 Corridor Plan although it
has not yet been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Both sites
meet the requirements of the design standards as discussed in the site
_ plan/architecture section.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 10
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will -
not change the essential character of that area.
FINDING - The site is located adjacent to a major highway and a collector road. It is
in the industrial district and as such, a day care center is fully consistent
with this site. Architectural standards required by the Highway 5 corridor
study and are being adhered to.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
FINDING - There will be no measurable impacts to the existing or planned
neighboring uses. This use will have traffic patterns that should combine
trips with existing businesses.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, -
police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer
systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the -
proposed use.
FINDING - Full city services are available to this site. Roads serving the site are fully --
capable of handling the access needs of this proposal.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not
be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services that staff is —
aware of. However, we do believe that there is always a need for a day
care center within any Office Industrial Park. The day care use is a good
auxiliary use for the industrial park.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise,smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents,
or trash.
FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons, property or the general
welfare of the area. Hours of operation, orientation of the building, and
lighting standards will comply with city ordinances.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 11
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from that
highway by a signalized intersection and a collector street designed to
commercial standards. There will be no direct traffic impacts to any area
residential neighborhood.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
FINDING - The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
FINDING - The site plan is well designed to provide adequate landscaping and
buffering from adjoining properties. The building is to be built of brick
accented by columns, ceramic tile, and a canopy. Consistent with
Highway 5 overlay district.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
FINDING - The site is being used for a day care type of operation which is consistent
with its designation. It will not depreciate surrounding property values.
On the contrary, it will add a convenient location for employees working
in the surrounding area to drop off their children.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
FINDING - The following is our review of conditions of approval and appropriate
findings:
a. The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering
with traffic and pedestrian movements
FINDING - The building is surrounded by a sidewalk to allow pedestrian movement.
b. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which
mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas.
FINDING - There are no adjoining residential areas.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 12
c. Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
FINDING - Staff will insure compliance with this condition prior to issuing a -
Certificate of Occupancy.
Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be
approved with appropriate conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: _
I. SITE PLAN REVIEW
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #94-1 as shown on the
site plan received March 8, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for The Press site and show
the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure on both the Press and Kindercare
sites. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. -
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide
a detailed sign plan for review and approval.
3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion
of the site, between the parking area and Hwy. 5. The height of the berm shall be -
between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate
of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These
guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide
the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping.
5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994.
6. The applicant shall provide elevations of The Press building for review and approval.
7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall
be submitted.
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 13
8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's
drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event
should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate
agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department).
10. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The
Press is being relocated.
11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the
Kindercare site off of Dell Road.
12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of
Dell Road will be prohibited.
13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking
lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West
of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no
parking signs.
14. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical
industrial driveway apron detail.
15. The applicant shall be responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk
along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of
credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All
boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod.
16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994."
II. SUBDIVISION
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2
for Park One 3rd Addition as shown on plat received March 8, 1994, with the following
conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance.
2. Provide the following easements:
The Press/Kinder Care
April 6, 1994
Page 14
a. A standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the
common lot line between Lots 1, and 2 and 3, Block 1.
b. Dedication of public right-of-way.
c. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat
along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension
of the sewer service.
3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city.
4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the access of off 77th Street West. The
easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement
agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement
acceptable to the City.
5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the watershed
district, health department, etc.
6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt -
fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press
is being relocated."
III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#94-1 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
2. Obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated March 25, 1994.
2. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated March 10, 1994.
3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 25, 1994.
4. Project Narrative Document dated March 7, 1994.
5. Plans received March 8, 1994.
CITY of
CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: March 25, 1994
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary and Final Plat - Park One 3rd Addition and Site Plan
Review for Kindercare
Land Use Review File No. 94-7
Upon review of the site plans dated March 7, 1994, prepared by RLK Associates, Ltd. and the
preliminary plat prepared by Eagan, Field and Nowak, Inc., I offer the following comments and
recommendations:
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
In addition to the site drainage for the Kindercare site, it appears a large portion of the east
parking lot for The Press is also proposed to be redone to accommodate future expansions. The
_ overall grading plan appears acceptable; however, additional storm sewers will be necessary to
convey storm water runoff from the parking lot relocation on The Press site. The grading/utility
plan should be revised incorporating the existing or proposed storm sewer system. Detailed
drainage calculations for both sites (Kindercare/Press) should be submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval. The drainage calculations shall be for a 10-year storm event.
Based on the grading plan, it appears site grading will exceed five acres in size thus requiring
permits from the MPCA (NPDES) and watershed district. The site will be served from storm
sewers that were installed in 77th Street West and Dell Road. These storm drainage systems
convey storm runoff to a regional storm water pond located north of the site. Therefore, no on-
site ponding will be required as a result of this development. The development will be
responsible for the applicable Surface Water Management Utility fee in accordance with city
ordinance.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
March 25, 1994
Page 2
EROSION CONTROL
The plans are proposing silt fence along the east side of the Kindercare lot to protect Dell Road.
Staff also believes it would be appropriate to install silt fence along the north property line of
The Press adjacent the grading work to protect 77th Street West.
A rock construction entrance is proposed at the north driveway access to The Press. Staff _
believes the construction activity on the Kindercare site will also necessitate a rock construction
entrance at the proposed entrance off of Dell Road. Staff recommends that a rock construction
entrance be provided at the Dell Road driveway access as well.
UTILITIES
The Kindercare site is proposed to be served from a watermain located in Dell Road. The plans
propose open cutting in Dell Road to tap the watermain. According to the City's records, an 8-
inch water line has been stubbed into the site just north of the proposed connection. Staff —
recommends that the existing water service be utilized and open cutting of Dell Road prohibited.
Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended to the site from 77th Street West. The plans —
propose to extend a 6-inch service to the Kindercare site along the west property lines of Lots
2 and 3, Block 1. The appropriate drainage and utility easement should be dedicated on the final
plat along the service line. Since both the sanitary and water services lines will be private (not —
maintained by the City), the applicable permits and inspections should be coordinated by the
applicant through the City Building Department.
ACCESS/PARKING LOT CIRCULATION
Dell Road is a four-lane divided collector street. Access to and from the Kindercare site via Dell
Road is restricted to a right-in right-out only due to the existing center median. The parking lot
configuration appears to circulate well with the secondary access from The Press. However, the _
disadvantage is the new parking lot and access onto Dell Road will make it very convenient for
traffic from The Press to short circuit through the Kindercare site to get to Dell Road and onto
Trunk Highway 5.
The proposed warehouse expansion at The Press will involve relocating the existing drive aisles
and parking lots. The proposed drive aisle will be constructed to 24-feet wide. The site currently
has a number of semi-trailers parked adjacent to the drive aisles. With the anticipated truck
traffic movement, staff believes the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) should be a minimum of 26-
feet wide with turning radiuses onto 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the drive aisles —
lying north of the main parking lot should be posted for no parking on both sides. Both driveway
Sharmin Al-Jaff
March 25, 1994
Page 3
access points (77th Street West and Dell Road) should be constructed in accordance to the City's
typical industrial driveway apron detail (see Attachment No. 1).
A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the west side of Dell Road adjacent the site. The
applicant shall be responsible for replacing any sidewalk damaged during construction of the site
{ improvements. The applicant should post a security escrow (letter of credit or cash escrow) in
the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration.
MISCELLANEOUS
_ The plans propose installation of irrigation systems. The applicant should be aware the
appropriate permits and inspections will be necessary for the installation of the irrigation system
through the City's Building Department.
All boulevard areas disturbed as a result of site improvements should be restored with sod.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lots
and drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for both sites (The Press
and Kindercare) for a 10-year storm event should be submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval.
2. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate
agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department).
3. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line of The Press adjacent the
grading activities to protect 77th Street West.
4. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the
Kindercare site off of Dell Road.
5. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of
Dell Road will be prohibited.
6. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along
the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sanitary
sewer service to the Kindercare site.
7. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking
lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West
—
Sharmin Al-.Taff
March 25, 1994
Page 4 _
of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no _
parking signs.
8. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical _
industrial driveway apron detail.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk
along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of
credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All
boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. —
jms
Attachments: 1. Driveway apron detail.
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer —
g:kngldav elpclparkone3.fpr
W
Z �'
O ►—
Z u) (7
a_Z I0 )--
LI J I- ti
I
- I4
4 '
W l
I
1j Of
W
° 440
ri011 a-
5
W 2 W
F- H ItC W
Q II
II
N a H�
a_ (,) 1111111111111 Li! • p J
Z Q O I W 3 J IQ f-
44
' I ~4 I
: Ww
�w u m J ID Cr }� - N
of
j to (� _OD
(D
Z I J
, ..q6
F- 3 g! U
IIIIII
L
- % ~ !ll
1.1.144INI � U
wig i4('
m /— wW o t
QCaw #� CC �` 0 Cr Cr) v� IM
31 00� ��� v� Z = cv A
o1 �a�
411
a �° o
F- _o'n>- m y — ,
EE V J II
Z Q ti
H Q'm ,
zze
o
U I
J
C ITY 0 F INDUSTRIAL
CILIIIIIASSZN DRIVEWAY
DATE 2-91 PLATE NO.
5207
r//fin eA, _ /
r CITYOF _
04. .
o. CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -
N.
MEMORANDUM —
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: March 10, 1994
SUBJ: The Press Expansion and New Kindercare Facility
Planning Case 94-2 SUB, 94-1 CUP, 94-1 SPR —
I have reviewed the plans and have the following requirements: "'
1. Submit utility plans showing existing and proposed fire hydrant locations. A
determination will then be made if additional hydrants will be needed.
2. In the new north parking lot, labeled "One Way", maintain a 20 foot wide
driving lane between parking stalls. This will satisfy the 20 foot wide fire
apparatus access road width.
3. Provide turning radius of fire apparatus access roads to Chanhassen Fire
Marshal and Chanhassen City Engineer for approval.
4. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
CITY OF
4,-
..,0
, , CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I
- FROM: Steve A. Kirchman. Building Official sC.{• (<
DATE: March 25, 1994
SUBJ: 94-2 SUB, 94-1 CUP & 94-1 SPR (Press expansion & Kindercare)
I have been asked for comments on the above referenced Planning Department application.
Background:
The existing facility was built in phases beginning in 1978 and continuing until 1992.
Analysis:
Because the building was built over a period of time and many portions were constructed before
the Inspections Division performed plan reviews, the City does not have accurate records of the
existing structure. In order to perform an accurate plan review of the proposed addition the
- occupancy classification(s), occupant load and construction type of both the existing building
and the proposed addition must be determined. These determinations will allow occupant loads
to be assigned , exiting requirements to be evaluated and construction requirements determined.
- Accurately dimensioned plans indicating the use of all spaces are needed to insure accuracy.
The submitted site plans does not indicate any handicapped parking spaces. The Minnesota State
Building Code (MSBC) requires that such spaces be provide at the rate of one handicapped space
per every 50 spaces in the lot(s). This calculated out to 7 spaces for the Press and 1 space for
the Kindercare. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has specific requirements for van
spaces which are not now part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the
Inspections Division, but should be incorporated into the site plan. Site approaches are regulated
by the MSBC, and are not detailed on the site plan. Curb cuts, width, texture and slope are
details that must be included on the site plans.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
March 25, 1994
Page 2
UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as amended by the MSBC was adopted by the City in 1987.
Consequently, the proposed addition to The Press as well as the Kindercare will be required to
be fire sprinklered.
Recommendations:
1. Submit a 1/8" = 1"-0" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and
use of all spaces on all floors.
2. Revise site plans to show site approach details and handicap parking stalls in compliance
with MSBC Chapter 1340.
Osafety\sak\memos\plan\press.sj 1
rrr,r1 1 erl 1N Ih.,fl itnn f•f .•, l IIu.•rEu c.1 --2oc.12e,c f)7. 75. 1 ?-•4 ttg2 r. .
I_nrx:►'., IT,IIITMnrd. D.11.Y & I TM /0PvtI, LTD.
J. '. ATTOPPJPYs AT Ownittlow,••
0 • -0,r t vvty LAW
1Y 4vOru. u.•w/•••
T...01.1•J •I•••1
0,• ..r.i Al•'.V N.,••r�Y
.t .. ,-. 1•r.4VAl •:1.••..
fC..1.• ..r;.�t
of 1 • a / 16r�i►n�t•�t e� rl►I a HP'. . n w.. e..
• i •.r •.•.,• A 7ano Yenv►* AVEHue ocp./TH 0.....(irk; • r•ua.•^•,
C•.
••?•••• 4' "fr bLnnMlflAToq 1•ryilERrfTA 66431•I1e1 I•xIJ eovaul
/Mar.•.,••• V•C41J1•,Mf
c'-ft .��±-. C!1t' TFllr11tP r 101171 11'111,11p0 J"..i J.
r• ..i.,...,J•
J1..1 J.on..i....a1V
1' ',;"tri• rAX(e191 IMA,1?1 DY.vI w t'••
;OF. • t Ii..; 41111 J t^nf
h..., •• V11.14• tris
OMgw,t ,MWO
, .r,....., /NDI•✓K t utter•..
1.1.,-•' 1, . •.,4•.• •7I
JI• ,•r, •.• ...• VON,0.VA•1•+
r
• .t'.•
I.+,t ^.••/ ..s•••••tv .• 1/44:.f• In•••••,,C••l
L 0.w101
11.•('1• •`S,.•.b,/• e'eOW/l
�.- •,. • ••'I'• w•r'+I•. ••nv
IV••:f
•:....ty JCIIIM O,•r•
I/lp r. •• .IWM,v yA•a •..rr
0.1.1•.1 •i. 41OA♦f,.NRMP v000042.40••: .•. ••"•' ••A(Amit,MYNO1O/WA
♦IMI VA v.:v re-.4•,r.egopts
1•rr-'II tVWwt.V,tvn•J•
rt, -r•1, ^r- 1994
—I', Don Chmi nl
Me lbere of the City Criirri1l•
Ci y of Chenhannen
. P. 1. PoX 147
Ch nItaesen, Minnesota t;FM7 - Ci11•1
Pe Pa t:n I'1 e.n Peiri ew pnd Prt`1 nt
—
Lot 4 and Outlot A, Market Square
PR r t-loyor Clamiel and Cnnnci 1 Members
Th, s le,ttrr is written on bebnif of I,ot.n" Pealf y Servicer, Inc. , to
identify and discuss the insueae hpfore the City Council with respect
—to the proposed development of Trot 4 and Outlot A of Market Square.
The application before the City Connci1 ie for site plan approval of
th prcpoeed development of Lot 4 and Outlot A; and replat of Outlot A
—ino Lot 1, flock ] market Square 2nd Addition. The replat of
On!] ot. A into a buildable lot iA in essence a housekeeping measure.
Al requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance have been met and the
_plnning staff and Planning Commieaion have recommended approval . We
kn w of no ieeues relRt•.ed to thin replat, and will therefore focus our
di cuesion on the request for, site plan approval .
—Site plan approval is requested for one building on each lot : an
of ice/r.etail building on Lot
4 ; and a Wendy's Restaurant on Outlot A.
Th. site plan, landscape plan, building materials and other- specifics
_mi h respect to the proposed development will he prevented to the City
Co ncil at the public hearing on March 2S, 1994 . The purpose of this
le ter ie to identify and diecuee the eten'lgrde which the Council must
ap •l y in its review of the prr,poned development .
Th 1 -te whi rh are proposed to be Oevel ore1 ern two of five lots which
tor. ether comprise the Market Pgnere Planned Unit Development .
I
Fro'i tnti III Iinrri�nn t.ni I fur ,,r II c1 ,-0oc724g x'. 25. 1 .1 1c:5' r . ,
LAWN, ITerr IA::, DAT_Y & I 1":ur1 .rN, LTD.
t v•'r non Chmi el
Mei-here of the City Council
to,rr-h 25 , 7999
FKIIP___2, -
i�n,.•. , ,pmont. of the entire PLD, Including Lot- 4 and Outlot A, for
ge4.era1 business purposes RP permitted in the "Pq, " General Business -.
Zeling Pietrict , WAP approved by the City in 1990. The City
selsequently entered into a "Development Contract and Planned Unit
re :elopment Agreement" with Market Square Associates Limited
Pa tnerahip, developers of Market Square, confirming that the uses
al owed in the Ar; District Are Allowed in Market P uare. The City
en )ant change the tnnPP allewerf in Market Square except by amendment of
th _ I'im Agreement , which can only be rims by mutual agreement of the
pm ties to this contract .
Th I'i!T) Agreement ee a}:liehee the permitted uses in Market Pqunr.e,
rA Oren site pl'in review of new construction, and sets forth the
st ndards for. Rite plan review of development on Lots 2 , 3 , 4 , and
Ottlot A. These stnndarde appear me specie'. condi tion 10N, on page
10 of the PUT) AgrQement. Following is a verbatim recital of each of
th 'le conditions, with a hri of explanation AA to how the proposed
dere] opment meets the condition :
"Outlot A shall net he devel.enerl n til it is r.eplatted. "
The developer le rerlatt-inq Outlot A an required.
"Any bni ] dings on 1,etc 2 , 3 , 4 , an-i Outlot A eha11 be designed -
with proper building mat'erinls PO AS to be architecturally
compatible with the shopping center. "
The de-eleper has designed the hni.] dings and selected the
building materials to be architecturally compatible with the
Market Square Shopping Center. In its review of the proposed _
architectural design and building materials, the standard
which the City Council must mesanre the buildings against its
the Ptanei:trd est forth in the contract : architectural
compatibility with the shopping center. The proposed -
buildings meet thin standard and must be approved as a matter
of contract between the parties .
"No additional access shall be prnvided to serve Lots 2, 3 , 4, and
Outlot A. "
The new buildings will access only the shopping center's
internal drives, as required by this condition of the PUD
Agreement .
-
"nnly one additional monument sign shall be allowed when hot 4 is
developed, and that sign must be identical to monument signage
allowed elsewhere in the Planned Unit Development . "
T ri,r+ 1 +lFl a!7 17 r,r r..:',!1 f.ell I Iltl,r:rrll l‘154 r. 4
-- I.APvi►1, ITorrMAN, T")AI v P' T ivr,nnr►i, LTD.
non Chi++ n1
reters of the City ro incil
MA 25 , 1994
The pian prorreecl meets thin requirement of the PUD
Agreement .
"barking reT,irementr fer the del'elnpment shall be satisfied
within the boundaries of said Lots 2 , 3 , 4, and Outlot A. "
The 1,ui 'ldings propose) will share parking. Together they
will exceed, within the bounderiee of Lot 4 and Outiot A, the
City' p parking requirements . This requirement of the PUD
Agreement: is therefore root .
Tn Addition to epecia] condition 10V, ep'rial conditions 10A and 10C
Of the rUn Agreement also contain lengneae relevant to the proposal
be ore the City Council . Special condition 10C provides, in part'
"Any reetenrenta Pro +oeed in the center are subject to a site plan
review procedure . It will he the developer' s responsibility to
_ demonstrate parking adequacy if it ie to be approved. "
Al tho'. gh this cnnr 1 +bion refers to restaurants proposed for
the evlrating Market Square shopping center, the developers
have neirerthoiess complied with this requirement by applying
for site pian review of the Penny's Peeteerant and providing
for parking in exceee of the City' s regvir.ements .
Sp eta]. condition 10A prey-Oee , in part_ :
"The aq.dlition of any drive-up windrows will regnire site plan
approval wherein it will he the developer' s responsibility to
dem6netrate that internal circulation patterns and parking
provisions will not he impacted. "
This language i.A si ani f icant: because it makes clear that the
PUD Agreement allows drive-up windows within Market Square,
provided that internal circulation patterns and parking
provisions for the shopping center will not be impacted. The
proposed drive-thru window for. Wendy' s will not impact
parking for the shopping center. The site plan proposed
provides all parking required by the City. The drive-up
window will also not impact internal circulation within the
shopping center or within the Lot 4/Outlot A development.
The developer has proposed several options for traffic
circulation. Since the Planning Commission meeting the
developer' s traffic consultant and the City Engineering
Department have agreed on a eit-e plan which provides for
adequate traffic circulation, as the staff report confirms.
This condition hiss also, therefore, been met.
rr.,r, I Ac"•rrl 'tr•'r11n11 1AI '. L1lif ;^rt1 4.1 Bar . 0'. . . t''' , 1�• r
II."PM. T1.'rl Ni' N, DALY ., Ltu'''p.rr;. 1.7T.
1tn"-n•- r•- ,- Chmi of
Tdn,m' rax of the Cl t.y Coi'nri.l
F!arrh 25 , 1994
Fare 4 --- —
T}, rl gnni ng Commi.sei on revs r?t.'c3rl the site plan for Outlot A And Lot 4
in two vary long rn tinges, during which the diecuesion ranged over a
wile variety of torics well beyond the issues before the Planning
—
Cr ,miseion and City Counril in the consideration of this site plan.
Th - Planning Commission ultimately recommended denial of the plan, on
a -3 vote, for the following four reasons : —
"Poor traffic circulation"
Ae mentioned sho-re, rhe eit:n plan has been revised since the
Planning Commission meeting to Address this iaasue. The
revis^r ci.tr, pJan provi.nr4A for aoocl traffic circulation, AA
confirmed in reports from the City Engineer and the —
devel.r r.r is t_rnrf i roneul tent- .
"T.lhether thio Plirnl .l hA one or two buildings on that site"
NAi t-h^r the Zoninrr ordinance, S'.Ihrli.vi Rion Ordinance, nor the
PM Arireemcnt a> Jowe the Planning Commission or City Council
to deny thie site plan request because eoTr one thinks maybe
there should be only building on the two lots. These are
separate lots . Ear•h is entitled to have a separate building
developed nn i t , previ del the building and the site plan —
comply with the stanriarr1P Prot forth in the PUT) Agreement .
"Architecture"
The Minnesota Court of Appeal a, in Ch'kee_v,Ci,.ty_1
MitlileAPOlis, 401 ra.W. 2d 408 (1987) , specifically held that
the City of Minneapolis could not deny site plan approval for _
a Hardee ' e restaurant on the ground that the architectural
appearance was unacceptable. Architectnral appearance is not
a grounds for denial of site plan review. In this case the
contract bet-ween the City and the developer, the PUD —
Agreement , specifically sets forth the architectural standard
for theme iota. since this standard is complied with, the
site plan must he approved. _
"Retail and commercial tire, questions"
The proposed uses on Lot 4 and O'ttl ot; A are specifically
permitted by the City Zoning Ordinance and the PUD Agreement .
Neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council can deny
site plan Approval because they are not sure they agree with —
the permitted and contractually agreed to uses.
The et andarris Apt forth in the PT.W' Agreeament for development of Lot 4
And n:ltlot A are vary specific. The proposed buildings and the site 'r
i —
f
from I nrr, /II Ira.`
r 1.1111 1 n '. I Illr :cr P Al2Ro6',`G.5 0'. 7 . 1,4-11 15!55 f'. A
i.ARM, Y7' 1.f1.1 A,\I, I_'•M_Y & IJ'IDURF'N, LID.
r11 rnr nnn C1 mt el
- wrIber.a of the City Council
Match 25, 1994
- pl in crmply with these condit i nnn to the letter. Tho deval oporra are
threfore entitled to approval of the site plan under their
r•^ tractual agreement with the City. The City does not have the
_ op ion of changing conditions which it contractually agreed to in the
rimAgreement .
Tb rt•reloper.e are also entitled to the City' e good faith execution of
- it rontractnal obligations . Attempte to force the developer to
ab n1on or change a pzrticulrr uae, develop more or fewer buildings on
thqe two 1ote, or change tha size or arr_hitectural style of a
building whi.rh complies with the PUD agreement by, for instance,
- delaying site plan approval, constitute a breach of the contract
between the parties for which the City would be liable. The City does
not' enjoy its typical immunity from liability for zoning decisions
- whol it ie breaching the terms of a contract . Thie is precisely the
ieaie which r_aueel the City of Minneapolis to lose a multi-million
do] ar judgment to T. I .W;
-- The developers of Mzrket Square have worked with the City to create
Mar ,et Square and look forward to working with the City to complete
the development of the last four lots in Market Square. They have
-. wor _ed hard to sell Outlet A to Wendy's and to identify and get
, pre iminary commitments from potential tenante for the office/retail
huiding on Lot 4 . The application for site plan review of these lots
WAR submitted in necember. The Planning Commiseien review was delayed
- her_ use of the Planning Commission 's work on the Highway 5 Task Force,
and further delayed because of a cler. iozl error in noticing the public
hea ing for the replat of Outlet A. City Council review, originally
- sch c1uled for March 14 , was delayed to March 28 to accommodate City
eta f . The City Council has everything needed to make a decision on
thi : matter Monday night . Any further delay in making this decision
__ could cause the developers roneiclerahle damage. We urge you to review
the applicable etandarda and approve the site plan and replat Monday
nig} t.
- The developers and their conp111tant'a will be at the meeting Monday
night to present the site plan and answer any questions .
-. SicLrei�y,
>i y fa! _-
- rote. K. Beck, for
LAPVTt7, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDT.R N, Ltd.
- kw
rvn . 1-rn.,
NARRATIVE DOCUMENT _
Kindercare
The Press _
SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBMISSION
March 7, 1994
Prepared For:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
Developer:
MARCUS CORPORATION
Prepared By: -
RLK Associates, Ltd.
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, MN 55343
(612) 933-0972
March 7, 1994
Site Plan Approval Submission
The Press - Warehouse Expansion
Kindercare Inc. - Daycare Facility
Dell Road and State Highway 5
Chanhassen, Minnesota
By:
Marcus Corporation
10001 Wayzata Blvd.
Minnetonka, MN 55343
REQUESTS
City review for site plan approval and replatting of a 15± acre parcel at the northwest quadrant
of Dell Road and State Highway 5, which will provide the following:
• Warehouse expansion of 54,720 sq. ft. for the Press.
- Rearrangement of East parking lot and entrance out of W. 77th Street.
- The addition of 16 parking stalls.
• Kindercare day care facility on a 1.75± acre parcel.
• 1.5 acre outlot for future development.
• Site plan, preliminary and final plat approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Press Inc., an office/warehouse facility has occupied the existing 15 acre parcel for the last
13 years. In order to accommodate an expansion of 54,720 sq. ft. the existing parking lot and
plat have to be amended. A replatting of the property into three developable parcels will occur
— with this application. A coauthorized site plan has been developed by the Press and
Kindercare, a nationally known company providing quality day care and children support
services. The proposed development will provide a new access from West 77th Street to be
utilized by the Press, Kindercare and a future outlot north of Kindercare. The rearranged
parking for the Press will enable landscape islands and a landscaped entry boulevard to be
installed. The proposed expansion of the Press will enclose the loading dock area, and will
architecturally match the existing exterior of scored concrete parcels.
Kindercare proposes to develop the corner lot at Dell Road and State Highway 5 according to
the attached site plan which identifies a 10,315 sq. ft. building, a 45 stall parking lot, children's
play area and impressive landscaping. In addition a right in/right out access is proposed on
Dell Road. This access will allow vehicles to access State Highway 5 at an improved
signalized intersection.
March 7, 1994 Page 2
THE PRESS - WAREHOUSE EXPANSION
Descriptive Narrative
Attached with this narrative are six plan sheets which identify the project location, proposed
site plan, grading/utility systems, platting, landscape plan and building elevation. The attached
plan sheets are: —
Sheet 1 Title Sheet/Site Plan
Sheet 2 Existing Conditions
Sheet 3 Grading/Utility Plan
Sheet 4 Landscape Plan
Sheet 5 Preliminary/Final Plat
Sheet 6 Kindercare Building Elevations
EXISTING CONDITIONS —
The site is currently occupied by the Press, a 186,000 sq. ft. office, warehouse, manufacturing
facility, and a series of parking lots which provide space for 298 vehicles. The intersection of
Dell Road and State Highway 5 has recently been improved to provide a signalized intersection
complete with turn lanes and a center median on Dell Road. An 8' wide bituminous
bicycle/pedestrian trail running parallel within the north right-of-way of State Highway 5 will
be maintained in its current alignment. The existing landscaping on the south side of this
parcel will be preserved and added to in order to be consistent with the City landscape code and
Highway 5 Corridor Study Objectives. The sidewalk on the west side of Dell Road will also be _
maintained and repaired if any utility construction disrupts it.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION _
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Second Addition lying west of Dell Road and North
of State Highway 5.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan which calls for quality -"
office/industrial development within this area of Chanhassen. Expansion of existing facilities is
to he encouraged wherever possible and a pooling of resources is being utilized in order to
coordinate the access, utility/drainage facilities and landscaping for the warehouse expansion
and Kindercare development. A day care facility centrally located among the existing
office/warehouse buildings will be a welcome land use for the number of employees currently
employed within a 1/2 mile radius of this site which is in the eastern portion of Chanhassen.
The proposed site plan will greatly enhance the northwest corner of Dell Road and State
Highway 5, acting as an eastern entry to the City of Chanhassen.
March 7, 1994 Page 3
THE PRESS - WAREHOUSE EXPANSION
Descriptive Narrative
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN SHEETS
Site Plan
As illustrated, the Press property will be rearranged to allow for the Kindercare parcel and one
additional parcel to be developed at a future date. The joint entry from West 77th Street will
provide a separation for passenger cars and truck traffic. The landscape entry islands will
direct traffic in a logical and aesthetic manner while increasing the number of parking stalls to
be consistent with the Zoning Code for the proposed 54,720 sq. ft. warehouse addition. Based
_ on the current division between office and warehouse functions, it is estimated the current
parking lot exceeds City parking code requirements by approximately 40 stalls. The proposed
landscape parking islands will enhance the image of the existing parking lot and provide
locations for overstory trees and light fixtures which will he relocated from the current parking
lot.
Drainage and Utility Plan
The parking lot for the Press will be expanded and surface drained from the south to West
77th. The proposed drainage pattern is consistent with how the site drains today. Once the
surface water is collected in the West 77th storm sewer system, it is directed to the existing
stormwater pond one block away on the north side of the Ver-Sa-Til building. The proposed
drainage system is consistent with the City's stormwater management plan.
The Kindercare parking lot will he surface drained to a storm sewer at the northeast corner of
the lot and directed to the storm sewer system within Dell Road. The Dell Road storm sewer
— system also drains directly to the stormwater pond north of Ver-Sa-Til.
Water service for Kindercare will be taken from an existing watermain located within Dell
— Road. At this time it is proposed that a new service be added which will necessitate an open
cut with Dell Road. If an available water service is known, the plan will be changed to utilize
the existing stop box. Sanitary sewer service will he directed to the North and tie into an
existing 6" wye within W. 77th Street. It is anticipated the future development of the lot north
of Kindercare will also utilize this sanitary sewer line.
Landscape Plan
The landscape plan provides for a very generous planting plan on the perimeter of the site
adjacent to State Highway 5 and Dell Road. The parking island landscape plan was developed
to coordinate the site lighting and overstory trees within the parking islands. The plant material
selected provides for a variety of ornamental conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs to create
_ colorful and enhanced landscape plan on a year round basis. The planting adjacent to Highway
5 has received special treatment in order to he compatible with the Highway 5 Corridor plan
and function as a entry statement to the City of Chanhassen.
March 7, 1994 Page 4
THE PRESS - WAREHOUSE EXPANSION
Descriptive Narrative
Lighting Plan
All proposed site lighting will either he relocated existing fixtures from the Press parking lot or
similar poles and fixtures with a downcast shoe box fixture to conceal all visible light sources.
The maximum height of all poles will be 25 feet.
BUILDING ELEVATION
Kindercare corporate headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia provided the architectural drawing
elevations to be submitted in this package. The facade will consist of face brick wainscoting on
all four sides and EIFS panel systems above the wainscoting. The entry will have a canopy
with columns and ceramic tile detailing.
The proposed Press expansion will match the existing architectural style of scored concrete
panels. The expansion will he warehouse space only and will not require windows or office
treatments.
:_. . gxia gra oA8 g
..
tr, ii ,.47.
Q, V r NY = �- W S x
m rC aim
a o o ororoo
• . •• • i...-. s is . g . •
. m�g_L N '�'•�a gN N SN. iHz �zi2N
•� • N -1 �N. Y CS C7 N
•
tr '
: 'r 4 ,A o
OWn' o
•
QDAY 'Aki-i-1oCs mV ,noa ze. ,,., o.-. nr-.(-•ror rot
't.mm v Qr as yr fiA NP sm soft z
f�A+•�� Au�+ R7w z� �y� .'oo mu+7� `J� oo � roaie � ro
M L1 -I 1 5 Co' . ., b�G M N. v N -1 t, �1 AA Ni X X
r..r 7�SmH A. b17 " f9r. H •n ��7�r+
It1"301i: rm Z 6 $t In pAo a r<aa ,
i►Na t m p I Nzwzp i i1 .
. - f't H 13mm N m � WN N --N1t7rSmnNi
,E�.7 V �1 hQ•� -A} N -.4 r- .WpN N (� �,yrf 1•�
n12 � � VIZNI� � M� W 1 rf~' yr ; fJ� N N2
Vin
� - DD2z �"N 7oH joss _ tsi
NJ 17t V) ea A D 0 ►�'' P
•Ny b
J.0 RW1 Cl H U Wy y P J CO WCa V g
Ag
Z
W tl
'ntA•
"` $mCm �� Prli
� P0ATZA
or�`. Qsoam(AM
VF+P28D � zdr
� r 2VI. o 100►� YY� `c G77V�� .' yb � rmm W• 2 �mrrrgg0AMMZ7Oly C7 0• m11m
a xi RI
^•t • Y
I
- 7400 g -
' M o 1
.........._ R12o m
,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING : 0.1111111.• oCD
o
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • �. - l.�r \ —
Wednesday, April 6, 1994 >, :o► 1 , ,
7:30 P.M. V "$' LpR i a
City Hall Council Chambers 0. % - W �--" -
4
690 Coulter Drive ; 191
Project: The Press Expansion and IKindercare Facility . A
in 411
1::::,. r` -
Developer: Marcus Corporation r
Location: Northwest quadrant of Dell HANHASS N
Road and State Highway 5. Nil : ..,NE£STATES ' lop _,
1//A// ��r+u W
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. Marcus Corporation is proposing preliminary and final plat to replat Lot 1,
Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third —
Addition, a Site Plan Review for a 54,720 square foot warehouse expansion for the Press and
a 10,315 square foot Kindercare facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day
Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park, located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road
and State Highway 5.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing —
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. —
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The —
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please —
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If
you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning
Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 24, PS y
1994.
t1
VV l
The Press, Inc. D. J. Bogema Frank Beddor, Jr.
18780 West 78th Street 18400 77th Street West 649 5th Ave. S.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Naples, FL 33940
Rottlund Company Randall & Julia Foote Fredric & Lori Silvers
5201 River Road East 7603 Kimberly Lane 7619 Kimberly Lane
Fridley, MN 55421 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Tandem Properties Waytek, Inc. DataServ, Inc.
_ 2765 Casco Point Road 7660 Quattro Drive Attn: Legal Department
Wayzata, MN 55391 Box 690 19011 Lake Drive East
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lee & Deborah Belka
7611 Kimberly Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED CONCEPT PUD
CITY OF CHANHASSEN _
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Wednesday, April 20, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to review a Conceptual
Planned Unit Development to rezone 82.6 acres of property zoned A2 Agricultural Estate to PUD
including 19.3 acres for office/warehouse, 52.9 acres for multi-family, 3.4 acres for ponding area,
and 7 acres for road right-of-way located south of Highway 5, west of Audubon and east of
Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen Corporate Centre, Highway 5 Partnership, Ryan Companies,
Heritage Development, Boisclair Corporation and RLK Associates. —
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
during regular business hours. —
All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions
with respect to this proposal.
Robert Generous, Planner II
Phone: 937-1900, ext. 141 —
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on April 7, 1994)
CITY OF
4
\\ CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM Action by city AdmInbtts>!or
rodcrttv+ ✓Z)WA
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director pets Su'.73ed to CommissioA
Bob Generous, Planner U
Datr 'u`""'t to Council
DATE: March 30, 1994
SUBJ: Code Amendment for Landscaping and Tree Preservation
BACKGROUND
Attached for your review and recommendation is the revised tree preservation ordinance.
Since our discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting, the ordinance has been
codified by the City Attorney. The attorney has made only minimal changes to the ordinance
that was discussed by you: clarification of the use of the matrix, specifying that one tree per
1,089 square feet of required canopy coverage (this equals the 40 trees per acre), and
referring sites plans, section 20-1178 (c), back to the subdivision section regarding tree
protection.
— The issue of staffing a forester by the city will be discussed at your joint meeting with the
City Council on April 20, 1994.
ANALYSIS
The draft ordinance attempts to move away from looking at the individual tree and to have
developers and the city concentrate on stands of trees and the forested areas. Additionally,
we tried to establish some guidelines and standards for the reforestation of barren properties.
Finally, we tried to provide disincentives for developers to remove viable stands of trees
through replacement penalties if existing canopy coverage was removed in excess of that
permitted under the ordinance.
In order to facilitate tree preservation, the ordinance requires tree surveys earlier in the
development review process. This requirement allows the developer and the city to get a
better understanding of the wooded aspects of a property before any development lines are
drawn. Additionally, the ordinance requires the developer to create a woodland management
Planning Commission
March 30, 1994
Page 2
plan for the entire project as a way to get the developer thinking about tree preservation as a
primary part of the development design. Not only will the plan provide specific preservation
criteria for the project, but it must also articulate the philosophy and reasoning behind the
woodland management plan.
The current ordinance, section 18-61 (a) (1) contains a list of trees that may be used for tree
planting. The Tree Board created another list of trees to be used to fulfill the requirements of
this ordinance. Of the two lists, there are 15 trees that are not listed on the existing tree list _
that are on the proposed desired tree list. Staff would suggest that these two lists be
combined and that a single list in section 18-61 (a) (1) be used.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the code _
amendment to the landscaping and tree preservation sections of the City Code as shown in the
attached amendment.
Attachments
1. Code amendment
2. Section 18-61of City Code
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING TREES AND LANDSCAPING
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Subdivisions: Section 18.61(d), Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is
amended in its entirety to read as follows :
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(1) It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural
environment through the preservation, protection, and planting of trees. The
city finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil
by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm water runoff
_ and the costs associated therewith, improvement of air quality, reduction of
noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase of
property values, protection of privacy, energy conservation through natural
insulation, control of drainage and restoration of denuded soil subsequent to
construction and grading, protection from severe weather, providing habitat for
birds and other wildlife, conservation and enhancement of the city's physical
and aesthetic environment, reforestation of open lands, and general protection
and enhancement of the quality of life and general welfare of the city.
It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide regulations related to the
cutting, removal, or killing of trees on construction and development sites and
to ensure the protection and preservation of the natural environment and beauty
of the City of Chanhassen.
(2) Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be
prepared. This survey shall include the species, DBH size, condition, location
of all significant, special, damaged or diseased trees on site. All significant
special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified by number on
the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage area(s) which
outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be included as part of the
survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall be cataloged with
the nature and extent of any damage or disease specified.
1
(a) Based on this survey and either site observation and measurement or
aerial photograph interpretation, the following shall be calculated:
1) Base line Canopy coverage
2) Minimum Canopy Coverage Requirements.
The following table shall be used to determine the minimum amount of canopy coverage that
must be maintained or provided on-site as part of the development. It shall represent the _
minimum canopy coverage, consisting of existing tree canopy and/or additional trees required
for the site. Existing wetland areas located on site shall be excluded from the calculation of
site area in the determination of required site coverage. If a forested area is to be dedicated
to the City for park land, then this area shall not be included in the base line canopy coverage
area calculation nor shall it count towards the minimum canopy coverage for the site.
Base Line Canopy Coverage
Per Acre
Comprehensive Plan _
Designation 80 - 10090 60 - 79% 40 - 59% 20 - 39% 19%
or less
Commercial/Industrial/ 28% 25% 20% 14% 10%
Institutional
High Density Residential 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%
Medium Density 40% 35% 30% 25% 20%
Residential
Low Density Residential 55% 46% 35% 30% 25%
Large Lot Residential 68% 56% 43% 35% 25%
Base line canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the development
application is filed with the city. Minimum canopy coverage is determined by using the matrix.
Priority shall be given to retaining stands of trees and undisturbed wooded lands over
individual specimen trees that will be incorporated into the development. No more _
than ten (10) percent of the canopy retention requirement may be met by an individual
tree that is not included within a designated woodland area.
2
For developments that do not meet the minimum canopy coverage, the developer shall
be required to develop a forestation plan to bring the total canopy coverage up to the
minimum requirement. Where existing woodlands are removed or there is a loss of
trees that would otherwise be used to meet the canopy coverage retention requirement,
_ the developer shall develop a woodland replacement plan. The replacement plan must
designate an area at least 1.2 times the removed canopy coverage area that shall be
planted with replacement trees for those removed. These plans shall locate additional
trees either as a continuation of existing stands of trees that are to be preserved or
create new stands of trees in desirable locations such as along roadway corridors, on
the north and west perimeters of the development, in common open areas, or adjacent
to park facilities.
The following criteria shall be followed in establishing minimum canopy coverage:
1) When planting trees, one tree shall be deemed to provide 1,089 square
feet of required canopy coverage,
2) tree must be from the approved list of desirable species (preference
given for trees designated as native),
3) no more than one-third (1/3) of the trees may be from any one tree
species,
4) trees shall average at least 22 inch caliper and may be a minimum of
11/2 inch caliper,
5) not less than twenty percent (20%) of the trees shall be conifers,
6) conifer trees shall average seven (7) feet and shall be a minimum of six
(6) feet in height,
7) plant materials used for the reforestation shall be of a similar species as
vegetation found on site,
_ 8) trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on
site, and
9) trees shall be from certified nursery stock as defined and controlled by
Minnesota Statute Sections 18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act.
(3) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas
and special trees. Special priority for tree preservation shall be given to areas
within flood plains, wetlands, stream corridors, wooded slopes, and along
collector and arterial roadway corridors. To facilitate this, a woodland
management plan, which may include preservation, forestation, and replacement
elements, shall be formulated by the developer as one component of the
development proposal. The woodland management plan shall be prepared and
signed by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other
professional approved by the city. This plan shall include the following
information:
a. Tree survey
3
b. Designated woodland areas
c. Location and size of replacement/forestation tree
planting areas
d. List of all replacement trees including species, caliper,
and planting method
e. Methods of tree protection
f. Location of all protective fencing
g. Special construction methods to be utilized
h. Location of all retaining walls
i. Statement explaining why replacement trees are necessary
j. Rationale for selection of replacement/forestation trees
(4) In single-family detached residential developments, the applicant must
demonstrate that suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a 60' x 60'
building pad (which includes deck area) without intruding into required
setbacks and easements.
(5) Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the
following:
a. realignment of streets, utilities and lot lines
b. consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of
ejector pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize
grading -
c. reductions in street width and right-of-way and increase in street grade
up to 10% when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree
preservation is directly related to the modification -
d. use of private drives in lieu of public streets
e. variation in street radius and design speed
f. modified grading plans -
g. within PUDs, the City Council may consider waiving minimum lot area
requirements and/or density transfers as long as it can be demonstrated
by the applicant, that tree preservation can be enhanced. In no case
shall overall project densities exceed what is allowed by the
Comprehensive Plan. The greater the level of preservation, the greater
flexibility will be considered by the city.
h. within PUDs, variations to building setback lines provided a minimum
twenty (20) foot building separation is maintained between buildings on
adjacent lots. The setback variations shall be established and recorded
as part of the plat approval.
(6) Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fences with
clearly marked signage specifying that the area is off limits for construction
activities, or other means acceptable to the city, prior to land preparation or
4
construction activities. Protective barriers must be located at twelve (12) times
the tree diameter at DBH from the base of the tree, the critical root zone, and
must remain in place until all construction activities are terminated. No
equipment, chemicals, soil deposits, or construction materials shall be placed
within the protective barriers. Any understory trees and natural vegetation
should be preserved within the boundaries of the protective areas. Where this
protection area cannot be maintained or would otherwise render lots
undevelopable, an alternate protection, mitigation or tree replacement plan may
be considered and approved by the city. This plan may include the use of
retaining walls, installation of aeration systems, requirement for post
construction deep root fertilization and soil aeration, or construction vehicle
ramp systems.
(7) At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect
designated tree preservation areas. Such easements shall be permanently
marked and signed as a conservation area with monumentation acceptable to
— the City. In single-family residential subdivisions, a monument is required for
each lot. In other situations, a monument is required for each three hundred
(300) linear feet of tree conservation area. Within designated woodland areas,
the City shall encourage the use of indigenous grasses and plant species to
more closely resemble a natural area. Home owners associations shall be
responsible for the maintenance of vegetation in common areas. Individual
property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of vegetation on their
property. The planting of trees in excess of those required by this ordinance is
permitted within the designated woodland area.
(8) During the removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking
of public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
(9) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot
be saved. These trees shall not be counted when computing the base line tree
canopy coverage.
(10) If any protected significant trees are removed or killed or there is a loss of
trees as the result of construction activities, the city requires replacement at the
rate of two (2) caliper inches per each inch of DBH of the removed, killed, or
lost trees. The replacement trees shall be at least two and a half (21/2) inches
caliper and will be species that conform to the List of Desirable Tree Species
for Planting in Chanhassen. No more than one-third (1/3) of the trees may be
from any one tree species. Other species or sizes may be used as replacement
trees subject to approval by the City. Alternately, at the city's discretion, if a
developer removes trees within a protected area, the canopy coverage area shall
be calculated for that area and a replacement area 1.5 times the canopy
coverage area that was removed shall be planted. One tree shall be planted for
5
each 1,089 square feet of required replacement area Trees shall be from the -
list of desirable tree species, no more than one-third (1/3) of trees from any one
tree species, average 21/2 inch caliper with a minimum 11/2 inch caliper, a
similar species as vegetation existing on site, and appropriate to the soil
conditions. Any replacement trees that cannot be planted on the original site
due to space restrictions shall be planted on city property at locations to be
determined by the city.
(11) Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required to ensure _
compliance with this section.
Section 2. Section 20-1, Definitions, of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by
adding the following definitions:
Canopy coverage shall mean the area on a horizontal plane that is located under the
crowns of all the trees on the site.
Critical root zone means an area twelve (12) times the tree diameter at DBH measured _
from the base of the tree.
DBH means diameter measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground). --
Designated woodland area means an area within a development that has been
designated in the woodland management plan as a tree preservation, forestation or -
replacement planting area.
Loss of trees means that any of the following may have happened: -
a. Grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of
greater than one (1) foot, measured vertically from the existing grade, -
affecting forty (40) percent (as measured on a horizontal plane) or more
of a tree's critical root zone; or
b. Utility construction resulting in the cutting of forty (40) percent or more
of the tree's roots within the critical root zone; or
c. Mechanical injury to the tree trunk causing loss of more than forty (40)
percent of the bark; or
d. Compaction to ninety (90) percent of standard proctor to a depth of six
(6) inches or more of forty (40) percent or more of the surface of the
soil within the tree's critical root zone; or
6
e. The pruning of a tree which eliminates forty (40) percent or more of the
canopy area of a tree; or
f. The complete removal of a tree.
Significant Tree means any healthy tree species measuring twelve (12) inches or more
DBH; Or any healthy coniferous tree measuring twelve (12) feet in height or more.
Special trees mean any large broadleaf trees at least 30 inches DBH, any large conifer
trees at least 20 inches DBH, any medium broadleaf trees at least 20 inches DBH, any
small broadleaf trees at least 12 inches DBH, rare or unusual tree species, or trees of
exceptional quality.
Tree caliper means diameter of a tree measured at six (6) inches above ground.
Tree trunk means the stem portion of a tree from the base to the first branch thereof.
Woodlands shall mean any groupings of significant trees with a canopy coverage of
one (1) acre or more, any groupings of 10 or more significant trees, or any grouping
of trees with at least one (1) special tree and where 25 percent or more of other trees
are significant trees.
List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen means the following list of tree
species.
List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen
Key to notations used: N = Native; Suitable for reforestation/replacement plantings
DT = Relatively tolerant to drought or dry sites
Size: (in terms of expected mature height)
L = Large (over 50 feet)
M = Medium (between 25 to 50 feet)
S = Small (less than 25 feet)
Broadleaf Species Size Notes
Amur Maple S Shade tolerant.
Acer ginnala
Norway Maple M-L Protect from sunscald.
Acer platanoides
7
Red Maple M N Protect from sunscald.
Acer rubrum Grows best on moist,
acid soils.
Sugar Maple L N Protect from sunscald.
Acer saccharurn Prefers moist, well-
drained soils.
Ohio Buckeye M
Aesculus glabra
River birch M Relatively tolerant of wet
Betula nigra sites
Shagbark Hickory L DT
Carya ovata
Northern Catalpa M-L DT
Catalpa speciosa
Hackberry L N DT
Celtis occidentalis
Hawthorn S DT Thornless varieties
Crataegus spp. available
Russian Olive S DT Protect from sunscald
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Ginkgo M Plant only male trees
Ginkgo biloba
Honeylocust M-L Protect from sunscald.
Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless varieties are
popular
Kentucky Coffeetree L DT
Gymnocladus dioicus
Black Walnut L N
Juglans nigra
Flowering Crabapple S Many varieties available;
Malus spp. check for disease
resistance; protect from
sunscald
8
Ironwood M N Found only under shade
Ostrya virginiana of other trees
Amur Corktree S DT
Phellodendron amurense
Aspen M N
Populus tremuloides
Black Cherry M N
Prunus serotina
White Oak L N
Quercus alba
Swamp White Oak L N Relatively tolerant of wet
Quercus bicolor sites
Bur Oak L N DT
Quercus macrocarpa
Red Oak L N Fastest growing oak
Quercus rubra
Black Locust L DT
Robinia pseudoacacia
Mountain Ash M Protect from sunscald
Sorbus spp.
Japanese Tree Lilac S
Syringa reticulata
American Linden L N A.K.A Basswood;
Tilia americana Relatively tolerant of wet
sites
Littleleaf Linden M
Tilia cordata
CONIFERS
Balsam Fir M N Relatively tolerant of wet
Abies balsamea sites. Shade tolerant.
9
White Fir M DT
Abies concolor
Tamarack M Tolerant of wet sites.
Larix laricina Only conifer that drops
its needles each year
Norway Spruce L
Picea abies
Black Hills Spruce M
Picea glauca densata
White Spruce L N
Picea glauca
Colorado Spruce M
Picea pungens
Austrian Pine L
Pinus nigra
Red Pine L N DT State tree; A.K.A.
Pinus resinosa Norway pine
White Pine L N
Pinus strobus
Scotch Pine M
Pinus sylvestris
American Arborvitae S N
Thuja occidentalis
Note: Other tree species may be utilized as part of the development subject to city approval.
Section 3. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL: Section 20-1178 (c) is amended in
its entirety to read as follows:
(c) The standards in City Code Section 18.61 (d) shall be used in evaluating site
plans.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
10
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994, by the City
_ Council of the City of Chanhassen.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on .)
—
11
§ 18-60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(f) Street arrangements for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hardship to
owners of adjoining property in subdividing their own land.
(g) Double frontage lots with frontage on two(2)parallel streets or reverse frontage shall —
not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have
an additional depth of at least ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the
back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage lots should face the front of —
existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots shall have an
additional depth of ten (10)feet to accommodate vegetation screening along the back lot line.
(h) Lot layouts should take into consideration the potential use of solar energy design
features.
(Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.5, 2-25-85)
Sec. 18.61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
(a' Required landscaping/residential subdivision.
(1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) tree to be placed in the front
yard. The type of tree shall be subject to city approval. (the city will provide a list of
species). Coniferous trees must be at least six (6) feet high and deciduous trees must
be at least two and one-half (21/2) inches in diameter at the time of installation. This
requirement may be waived by the city where the applicant can demonstrate that a
suitable tree having a minimum diameter of two and one-half (21/2) inches for decid-
uous and six-foot height for evergreen and four (4) feet above the ground is located in
an appropriate location on the lot. The following trees may be used to meet planting
requirements:
Primary Specimen Deciduous Trees Common Name
Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar or hard `�
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry
Quercus alba Oak, White`i
Quercus bicolor Oak, Bicolor
Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur .f —
Tilia americana Linden, American
Secondary Deciduous Trees
Acer platanoides `Cleveland' Maple, Cleveland Norway
Acer platanoides `Columnar' Maple, Columnar
Acer platanoides 'Crimson King' Maple, Crimson King
Acer platanoides `Emerald Lustre' Maple, Emerald Lustre Norway/
Acer platanoides 'Emerald Queen' Maple, Emerald Queen Norway
Acer platanoides 'Jade Glen' Maple, Jade Glen
Acer platanoides `Schwedler' Maple, Schwedler Norway
Supp.No.4
1010
SUBDIVISIONS § 18-61
Secondary Deciduous Trees Common Name
Acer platanoides 'Superform' Maple, Superform Norway
Acer platanoides `Variegatum' Maple, variegated Norway
Acer rubrum Maple, Red
Acer rubrum `Northwood' Maple, Northwood Red
Acer saccaharinum 'Silver Queen' Maple, Silver Queen
Betula payryiter Birch, paper
Betula pendula icciminta Birch, cut leaf weeping
Fraxinus americana Ash, White
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ash, Marshall's Seedless
Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis Honeylocust, thornless -
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis `Imperial' Honeylocust, Imperial
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis `Skyline' Honeylocust, Skyline
Gymnocladus dioica Coffeetree, Kentucky
Ornamental
Acer innala Maple, Amur
Amelanchier Serviceberry or Juneberry
Malus bacata columnaris Crabapple, Columnar Siberian
Malus (various species) Crabapple, flowering -Varieties:
_ Dolgo, Flame, Radiant,
Red, Silver, Red Spendor
Prunus 'Newport' Plum, Newport
Prunus triloba Plum, flowering or Rose Tree of China
Prunus virginiana 'Schubert' Chokeberry, Schuberts
Rhamnus frangula 'Columnaris' Buckthorn, Tallhedge
Syringa amurensis japonica Lilac, Japanese tree
Tilia cordata Linden, Littleleaf
Tilia cordata `Greenspire' Linden, Greenspire
Tilia x euchlora 'Redmond' Linden, Redmond
Conifers
Abies balsamea Fir, Balsam -�
Abies concolor Fir, Concolor
Picea abies Spruce, Norway
Picea glauca Spruce, White -
Picea gauca densata Spruce, Black Hills
Picea pungens Spruce, Coloardo Green
Picea pungens glauca Spruce, Colorado Blue
Pinus nigra Pine, Austrian -
Pinus ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa
Pinus resinosa Pine, Norway
Supp. No. 5
1011
§ 18-61 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Conifers Common Name —
Pinus strobus Pine, White
Pinus sylvestris Pine, Scotch
Pseudotsuga Menziesii Fir, Douglas
Thuja occidentalis Arborvitae ! _ -
Thuja occidentalis Techney Arborvitae..
(2) The tree must be installed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy or financial
guarantees acceptable to the city must be provided to ensure timely installation.
(3) All areas disturbed by site grading and/or construction must be seeded or sodded
immediately upon completion of work to minimize erosion. When certificates of oc-
cupancy are requested prior to the satisfaction of this requirement, financial guar-
antees acceptable to the city, must be provided.
(4) No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after development. On-site burial is
not permitted.
(5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the city
when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined by the corn-
prehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required
buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees
and shrubs and/or tree preservation areas. Where appropriate, the city may require
additional lot depth and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately
accommodated and the homes protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be
increased by twenty-five (25) percent over zoning district standards. The landscape
plan must be developed with the preliminary and final plat submittals for city ap-
proval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required.
(b) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and —
with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands
which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(c) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted except as approved in a subdi-
vision, planned unit development or site plan application.
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas.
(2) Healthy shade trees of aix(6)inches or more caliper at four(4) feet in height shall be
saved unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to develop the
site.
(3) Replacement of trees approved for removal by the city may be required on a caliper-
inch-per-caliper-inch basis.At minimum,however,replacement trees shall conform to
the planting requirement identified in section 20-1178(c)(3). _
Supp. No. 5 1012
SUBDIVISIONS § 18-63
(4) During the removal process,trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of public
rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
(5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be
saved.
(6) Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means
acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground
footprint of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur
within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start
of grading activity.
(7) Trees designated for preservation that are lost due to construction activity shall be
replaced by new compatible trees approved by the city. The city will require the
developer to replace these trees with the largest comparable trees that are commer-
cially available for transportation.
(8) At the city's discretion,conservation easements may be required to protect designated
tree preservation areas.
(e) Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required to ensure satisfactory
installation of landscaping requirements.
(Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.6, 2-25-85; Ord. No. 153, § 2, 114-91)
Cross reference—Landscaping and tree removal, § 20.1176 et seq.
Sec. 18-62. Erosion and sediment control.
(a) The development shall conform to the topography and soils to create the least poten-
tial for soil erosion.
ib) The smallest practical increment of land shall be exposed at any one (1) time during
development.
(c) Detailed requirements for each plat shall be set forth in the development agreement.
(d) Subdivision development shall conform to the city's Construction Site Erosion and
Sediment Control Best Management Practices Handbook, as amended.
(Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.7, 2-25-85; Ord. No. 178, § 1, 10-26-92)
Sec. 18-63. Drainage.
The natural drainage system shall be used to the maximum extent feasible for the
storage and flow of runoff. The following requirements shall also apply:
(1) Proposed drainage facilities shall have adequate capacity to accommodate potential
runoff from their entire upstream drainage area, whether within or without the
subdivision. The effect of the subdivision on existing downstream drainage areas
outside the subdivision shall be considered in evaluating the adequacy of the storm
water management plan.
Supp. No. 5 1013
CITY 4F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
DATE: March 30, 1994
SUBJ: Sign Ordinance
At the last meeting, a work session was held to review the sign ordinance. Staff has prepared
a summary of the changes and conducted some additional research in areas directed by the
commission. The following are issues that still need to be addressed in the sign ordinance.
At the conclusion of the work session staff intends to modify the sign ordinance to reflect
your changes and have the City Attorney review the proposed ordinance. At this point, a
public hearing will be held. Tentatively, we are proposing the April 20 or May 4 for a public
hearing.
1. Possible elimination of pylon signs along Highway 5.
2. A good design should be rewarded. A good design includes channel letters, back
lighting, choice of color and script or block lettering. The height and square footage
would be lowered. If good design is used, they could then receive the maximum size.
3. Search lights should be limited to two days and should be consistent with the noise
ordinance.
4. Trademarks. The sign ordinance can be amended to state the sign content can be for
identification only. The definition of identification can be name or logo only. This
would eliminate house of operation, etc.
5. Sign ordinance survey of wall area and window signs.
Wall Signs: range: 10 - 20 % of wall area
range: 25 - unlimited square feet
Planning Commission
March 30, 1994
Page 2
Window Signs: range 0 - 40 % of wall area
SURVEY: —
MINNETONKA:
Wall: Office
25 % of length of building
- 24 inch high letters for copy and graphics -
- 36 inch high letters for logo and symbol
Commercial —
less than 20,000 sq ft of floor area, 15 % maximum 100 sq ft individual business, total
signage of 150 sq ft
20,000 - 100,000 sq ft of floor area, 10 % maximum 150 sq ft individual business, —
total 240 sq ft
100,000 - 400,000 sq ft of floor area, 10% maximum 200 sq ft individual business,
total 300 sq ft -'
Industrial
5% of wall area, maximum 150 sq ft
Window:
Prohibited
BURNS VILLE:
Wall:
B1 - 10% up to 250 sq ft —
B2 - 14% up to 250 sq ft
B3 - 16% up to 300 sq ft
B4 - 18% up to 400 sq ft —
Window:
25% of window area —
EAGAN: —
Wall:
20% of wall area —
Planning Commission
_ March 30, 1994
Page 3
Window:
-' Not addressed
MAPLE GROVE:
—
Wall:
_ R-B, B-1 - 24 sq ft
B-2 - 10% maximum 100 sq ft
Neighborhood Shopping (25,000 sq ft) - 10% maximum 50 sq ft
_ Village (25,000 - 250,000 sq ft) - 10% maximum 150 sq ft
Town (250,000 +) - 10% maximum 300 sq ft
B-3, B-4 - 10% maximum 200 sq ft
Window:
25% window area for permanent signs
— Temporary signs are prohibited
EDEN PRAIRIE:
(Note: Byerly's signage: requested 431 and 376 square feet south and east elevations,
respectively; permitted per Eden Prairie: 425 and 335 square feet south and east elevations,
— respectively.)
Wall:
— Commercial:
15% maximum of 75 sq ft for wall areas not in excess of 500 sq ft
75 sq ft plus 5% of wall area in excess of 500 sq ft
Industrial:
10% maximum 50 sq ft
Window:
10% of window area
WOODBURY:
_ Wall:
General Business - 15% maximum 150 sq ft
Freeway - 20% maximum 150 square ft
_ Industrial - 10% maximum 150 sq ft
Window:
— 33% of window area
Planning Commission —
March 30, 1994
Page 4
COON RAPIDS:
Wall: —
Commercial - 20% of wall area (note: They felt that the 20% was to high)
Office - 10% of wall area
Window:
40% of window area
NEW BRIGHTON:
Wall: —
20 - 40 percent of signable area, depending on zoning, (exclude windows, doorways,
and area above the roof line) maximum 200 sq ft
Window:
25% of window area for permanent signs
50% of window area for temporary signs, this represents the maximum coverage —
PLYMOUTH:
Wall:
Commercial: 20% of wall area _
Industrial: 5% of wall area
Window: _
Prohibited
6. Height and square footage limitation of inflatable signs. Staff researched the
following standards for inflatable signs:
Average cold air inflatable roof top "hot air balloon" shape is 25 feet tall by 20 feet in
diameter at widest point. Bottom of balloon is approximately 6 feet in diameter.
Usually the lip on the edge of roof line can be between 3 feet and 5 feet high so if
you're standing on ground level looking up at display the lip could block about Va of
the display area. —
Cold airs use a "dry ease" blower (same as used to dry out wet carpet). It is
completely weather proof. —
Planning Commission
March 30, 1994
Page 5
Last, they use ropes that do not come out any wider than widest part of balloon.
*Also, special shapes (animals, shoes, bottles, people, etc.) can be any size. Every
special shape is different.
q_.
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner —
DATE: February 23, 1993
SUBJ: New Sign Ordinance
Background
For well over two years, staff has been working on changes to the sign ordinance. The original
draft was developed with a subcommittee that included a member from the City Council,
Planning Commission, and two Chamber members. After their recommended changes were _
incorporated into a draft ordinance, the Highway 5 Task Force and its subcommittee reviewed
the document. Their changes have also been made to the ordinance. After the Planning
Commission reviews and comments, the City Attorney will then review and codify the ordinance
in the city zoning ordinance. The City Council will then review the ordinance.
Analysis
Attached is the original issues paper for the sign ordinance as well as the proposed amended
ordinance. One issue that was closely examined was the relationship between the size of the —
building and scale of the sign. This section, "In all districts," has been rewritten to include a
formula for the size of the sign and the square footage of the building. Scale relates to
freestanding and monument signs. Monument signs are limited to a maximum of 10 feet in
height with 80 square feet in sign area. Freestanding signs are limited to a maximum of 20 feet
with 80 square feet in sign area. Both of these maximums would be for buildings in excess of
100,000 square feet.
Since this ordinance was revised, staff revisited the requirements for wall signs. The formula for
wall signs allowed for an 80 square foot maximum. This formula did not meet the desired
Byerly's or the Target development. Because Target is a PUD, the sign square footage was
addressed in the PUD standards. The Target sign is 207 square feet. Byerly's is requesting two _
wall signs; one is 431 square feet and the other is 304 square feet.
Planning Commission
— February 23, 1994
Page 2
The proposed wall sign standards is based on the same ratio of 15 percent maximum of wall sign
area, with at a maximum of 80 square feet. There now is a hierarchy of wall sign area that
relates to the wall sign area of the building and the size of the sign, the maximum of 15 percent
is still in place. The factor that has changed is the maximum area of 80 square feet which has
been increased to 240 square feet.
Pictures have been added to the definition section. This should provide more clarity to the
definitions.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and make any changes necessary and
recommend the City Council adopt the amendment.
Attachments
1. Proposed Sign Ordinance.
2. Memo from Kate Aanenson dated January 10, 1992, Issue Paper/Sign Ordinance.
ARTICLE XXVI. SIGNS —
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 20-1251. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.
A. Purpose —
The purpose of this sign ordinance is intended to establish an effective means of
communication in the city, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the city's —
ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and
traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and
private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign —
regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare,
aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to
communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: —
(1) establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity
to advertise; —'
(2) preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or —
illumination;
(3) ensure that signs do not create safety hazards.
(4) ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner —
that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists;
(5) preserve and protect property values; _
(6) ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally
compatible with the principal structures; _
(7) limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs —
which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
B. Findings
The City of Chanhassen finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the
public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the construction,
location, size and maintenance of signs be controlled. Further the city finds:
1. permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship, to the
image of the community;
2. the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public
health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community;
3. an opportunity for a viable identification of community business and institutions
must be established;
4. the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and
property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that
unduly divert the attention of drivers;
5. installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of
buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high
winds and an obstacle to effective fire fighting and other emergency service;
6. uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic
attractiveness of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and
growth;
7. uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs, which are
commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way, or are located at
driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of
oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also
adversely impacts a logical flow of information.
Sec. 20-1252. Permit and variance fees.
Fees for reviewing and processing sign permit applications and variance requests shall be
imposed in accordance with the fee schedule established by City Council resolution.
2
Sec. 20-1253. Variances.
The City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may grant a
variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or —
other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship;
provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit
or intent of this article. Written application for a variance shall be filed with the Planning
Department and shall be supplemented with reproducible copies of the proposed sign. The
application shall be processed in conformance with the public hearing requirements dictated for
variances in Section 20-29. No variance shall be granted by the City Council unless it has
received the affirmative vote of at least simple majority of the full City Council.
Sec. 20-1254. Permit generally.
(a) Except as provided in Section 20-1255, no sign or sign structure shall be erected,
constructed, altered, rebuilt or relocated until a permit has first been issued by the
city.
(b) The following information for a sign permit shall be supplied by an applicant if
requested by the city: —
(1) Name, address and telephone number of person making application.
(2) A site plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, building structures,
parking areas, existing and proposed signs and any other physical features.
(3) Plans, location, specifications, method of construction and attachment to
the buildings or placement method in the ground.
(4) Copy of stress sheets and calculations.
(5) Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site on which the sign is to
be erected.
(6) Any electrical permit required and issued for the sign.
(7) Such other information as the city shall require to show full compliance
with this chapter and all other laws and ordinances of the city.
Information may include such items as color and material samples.
3
(8) Receipt of sign permit fee.
(9) The Planning Director, upon the filing of any application for a permit,
shall examine such plans, specifications, and other data. If the proposed
sign complies with this article and other applicable ordinances, the city
shall issue a sign permit unless City Council approval is required. If City
Council approval is required, the matter shall be promptly referred to the
council for action.
Sec. 20-1255. Signs allowed without permit.
The following signs are allowed without a permit:
(1) Political Campaign signs: Temporary political campaign signs are permitted
according to the following:
a. The size and height allowed shall be consistent with the underlying zoning
district.
_ b. The sign must contain the name of the person responsible for such sign,
and that person shall be responsible for its removal.
c. Such signs shall remain for no longer than ninety (90) days in any
calendar year.
d. Signs are not permitted in the public right-of-way.
e. Shall comply with the fair campaign practices act contained in the State
of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 211B.
f. The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming
to this paragraph.
(2) Directional signs.
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The
maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground.
The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such
that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general
appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. The number of signs
shall not exceed four (4) unless approved by the City Council.
4
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is
confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be
inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign
shall be approved by the City Council. —
c. On-premises signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres
shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. The maximum height of the sign
shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of
directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does
not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general appearance of the
site from public right-of-way. The number of signs shall not exceed four
(4) unless approved by the City Council.
(3) Community Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a
religious, national, state or local holiday and no other matter, and which are
displayed for a period not to exceed forty (40) days in any calendar year.
(4) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of any automobile service
station only if such signs are affixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral
part of a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise permitted in that
zoning district. Motor fuel price signs affixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed
four (4) square feet in sign display area. When such signs are made an integral
part of a freestanding business sign, the sign display area devoted to the price
component shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total sign display area of the _
sign.
(5) Nameplate or integral signs not exceeding two (2) square feet per building and
does not include multi-tenant names.
(6) Non-illuminated construction signs confined to the site of the construction,
alteration or repair. Such a sign must be removed within one (1) year from the
date of issuance of the first building permit on the site, and may be extended until
the project is completed. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each street the —
project abuts. Commercial and industrial signs may not exceed fifty (50) square
feet in sign area, and residential construction signs may not exceed twenty-four
(24) square feet in sign area.
(7) Signs of a public, non-commercial nature, informational erected by a
governmental entity or agency, including safety signs (O.S.H.A.), directional signs —
to public facilities, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or
historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the like. Signs shall not exceed
sixteen (16) square feet.
5
(8) Rummage (garage) sale signs. Rummage sale signs shall be removed within two
(2) days after the end of the sale and shall not exceed four (4) square feet.
Rummage sale signs shall not be located in any public rights-of-way. The city
shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph.
The city may assess a fee in the amount established by resolution for each sign
removed by the city.
(9) Temporary development project advertising signs erected for the purpose of selling
or promoting any non-residential project, or any residential project of ten (10) or
more dwelling units, located in the City of Chanhassen, shall be permitted subject
to the following regulations:
a. Not more than two (2) such signs shall be allowed per project.
b. Such signs shall only be located along streets that provide primary access
to the project site.
c. Such sign shall be set back not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any
property line, and shall be firmly anchored to the ground.
d. No such sign shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from an
existing residential dwelling unit, church, or school which is not a part of
the project being so advertised.
e. Such signs shall not be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from
any other such sign located on the same side of the street.
f. Sign display area shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet, and the
height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet.
g. Such signs shall be removed when the project being advertised is one
hundred (100) percent completed. In no case shall such signs be permitted
to exceed three (3) years. For the purpose of this paragraph, the
percentage of project completion shall be determined by dividing the
number of dwelling units sold in the residential project by the total number
of units allowed in the approved development plan; and by dividing the
number of buildings constructed in non-residential projects by the total
number of building sites in the approved development plan.
(10) Temporary real estate signs which advertise the sale, rental or lease of real estate
subject to the following conditions:
a. On-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of the
premises upon which the sign is located.
6
1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per street frontage.
2. Sign display area shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet per sign
on property containing less than ten (10) acres in area, and thirty-
two (32) square feet per sign on property containing ten (10) or
more acres.
3. No such sign shall exceed ten (10) feet in overall height, nor be
located less than ten (10) feet from any property line.
4. All temporary real estate signs shall be removed within seven (7)
days following sale, lease, or rental of the property.
b. Off-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of
business and industrial buildings:
1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per building.
2. Such signs shall only be permitted in business and industrial
districts, and on property located within the same subdivision or
development as the building being advertised.
3. Such signs shall not be located closer than two hundred (200) feet
from any other such sign located on the same side of the street. _
4. Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet, and
the height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet.
5. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following the
lease or sale of the building floor space which it is advertising, or —
within twelve (12) months from the date a permit is issued,
whichever comes first.
6. Provide written permission of property owner.
c. Off-premises directional signs which show direction to new residential —
developments in accordance with the following. The intent of this
subparagraph is to allow short term signage, for residential development,
to familiarize the public with the new development.
1. Such sign shall only be permitted along major arterials and
collectors as identified in the comprehensive plan.
7
2. Only one (1) sign per intersection and one (1) sign per
development shall be permitted. Signs shall not be located in any
site distance triangle, measured thirty (30) feet from the point of
intersection of the property line.
3. Sign display area shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet and
the height of such signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet.
4. Such sign shall not be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet
from any street right-of-way line, and shall be firmly anchored to
the ground.
5. Provide written permission of property owner to locate directional
sign on their property.
6. Such sign shall only be constructed out of maintenance free
materials and be non-illuminated.
7. Such sign shall be removed six (6) months after the sign has been
erected and developer may not apply for a second off-premises
directional sign permit.
8. Sign copy shall include the name of the subdivision and a direction
arrow only.
Sec. 20-1256. Permit for temporary sign, searchlights, banners, etc.
Temporary signs are permitted as follows:
1. Banners and portable signs shall not exceed 32 square feet and shall meet the
following standards:
a. a thirty (30) day display period to coincide with the grand opening of a
business or a new development (business park or shopping center), or a
business may display a banner on three occasions per calendar year with
a maximum 10-day display period for each occasion. Businesses within
a shopping center shall be limited one display per center and not one
display per business.
b. messages must relate to on-premise product or services, or any non-
commercial message; and
8
c. banners must be affixed to a principal structure which is owned or leased
by the business which the sign is advertising.
d. portable signs shall not be located in the public right-of- way. —
e. sign permit issued by city.
2. Inflatable advertising devices are permitted according to the following:
a. for each site or center, two occasions per calendar year, with each occasion
not to exceed seven (7) days;
b. written authorization from the property owner or their designee must be
submitted with the sign permit application.
c. sign permit issued by city.
3. Flashing or blinking portable signs, stringers, and pennants are not permitted. —
Sec. 20-1258. Legal Action.
If the City Planning Director or an administrative officer finds that any sign regulated by
this division is prohibited as to size, location, content, type, number, height or method of
construction; or erected without a permit first being granted to the installer of the sign to the
owner of the property upon which the sign has been erected or is improperly maintained, or is
in violation of any other provision of this chapter, he shall give written notice of such violation
to the owner or permittee thereof. If the permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign so
as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter within (10) calendar days following —
receipt of said notice:
(1) Such signs shall be deemed to be nuisance and may be abated by the city in —
proceeding taken under Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429, and the cost of
abatement, including administration expenses, may be levied as a special
assessment against the property upon which the sign is located;or
(2) Such permittee or owner may be prosecuted for violating this chapter and if
convicted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation exists shall
constitute a separate offense.
9
Sec. 20-1259. Prohibited signs.
The following signs are prohibited:
(1) Advertising or business signs on or attached to equipment, such as semi-truck
trailers, where signing is a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary
or permanent basis.
(2) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and temperature signs and barber
poles.
(3) Projecting signs, not including awning or canopies as defined in this ordinance.
(4) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed on the roof, facia or
marquee of a building provided it does not extend above the highest elevation of
the building, excluding chimneys, and provided:
a. Roof signs shall be thoroughly secured and anchored to the frames of the
building over which they are constructed and erected.
b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the periphery of the roof.
(5) Wall graphics and design treatments depicting corporate logos and company
symbols.
(6) Temporary signs or banners except as permitted in Section 20-1256.
(7) Signs which are placed or tacked on trees, fences, utility poles or in the public
= right-of-way.
Sec. 20-1260. Nonconforming Signs.
When the principal use of land is legally non-conforming under this chapter, all existing
or proposed signs in conjunction with that land, shall be considered conforming if they are in
compliance with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district in which the principal
use is allowed.
Excluding normal maintenance and repair, a non-conforming sign shall not be moved,
altered (including face changes) or enlarged unless it is brought into compliance with the sign
regulations.
10
Within 45 calendar days after vacation of an existing business, any on-site nonconforming —
signs must be removed or brought into compliance by the property owner. An abandoned sign
may not regain any legal nonconforming status later, even if the original business reoccupies the
property. —
Sec. 20-1265. General location restrictions.
(a) No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to
one-half(1/2) the minimum required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within
any drainage or utility easement. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from
any private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle
thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line.
(b) Signs on adjacent non-residential property shall be positioned so that the copy is
not visible from residential uses or districts along adjoining side and rear yard _
property lines.
(c) No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be erected or placed upon any public
street, right-of-way or public easement, or project over public property.
(d) Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or —
pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed
as traffic controls, such as "Stop," "Caution," "Warning," unless the sign is
intended to direct traffic on the premises. —
(e) No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on
rocks, fences or trees nor, interfere with any electric light, power, telephone or —
telegraph wires or the supports thereof.
(f) No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress
or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall
be attached to a standpipe or fire escape.
(g) Window signs are prohibited.
Sec. 20-1266. Maintenance and repair.
Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. Sign
or sign structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired
or replaced by the licensee, owner or agent of the building upon which the sign stands
immediately upon notification by the city.
11
Sec. 20-1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc.
All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the
extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture. Multi-tenant commercial and
industrial buildings shall have uniform signage. When buildings or developments are presented
for site plan review, proposed signs for the development should be presented concurrently for
staff review. All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings all submit a comprehensive sign plan
for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Sec. 20-1268. Noncommercial speech.
Signs containing noncommercial speech are permitted anywhere that business signs are
permitted, subject to the same regulations applicable to such signs.
Sec. 20-1275. Construction Standards.
(a) A free standing sign or sign structure shall be constructed so that the faces are not
back to back, shall not have an angle separating the faces exceeding twenty (20)
degrees unless the total area of both sides added together does not exceed the
maximum allowable sign area for that district.
ortFt
(b) All on-premise freestanding signs must have structural supports covered or
concealed with pole covers. The actual structural supports should not be exposed,
and the covers should be architecturally and aesthetically designed to match the
building. Pole covers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet. The exposed uprights,
superstructure and/or backside of all signs shall be painted a neutral color such as
light blue gray, brown, or white, unless it can be illustrated that such part of the
sign designed or painted in another manner is integral to the overall design of the
sign.
6119E€ MP�@PQ� 68LI
bare i
.S6r�riri Pl
12
(c) The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the National Electrical Code —
as adopted and amended by the city. Electrical service to such sign shall be
underground.
(d) No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all
necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the building official.
Any canopy or awning sign shall have a minimum of an eight (8) foot clearance.
(e) Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at _
oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver. No
such signs shall interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal; this
includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. Illumination for a sign
or groups of signs shall not exceed ' foot candle in brightness as measured at the
property line.
Sec. 20-1277. Cemetery signage.
Signage for a cemetery shall be processed as a conditional use permit in all districts.
DIVISION 2. SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT
Sec. 20-1301. Agricultural and Residential Districts.
The following signs are allowed by permit in the A-2, RR, RSF, R-4, R-8, R-12 and —
PUD districts:
(1) Public and Institutional Signs. One (1) ground low profile or wall sign, not —
exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on
the premises of any public or institutional property giving the name of the facility
and nature of the use and occupancy. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line, and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
(2) Area Identification/Entrance signs. Only one (1) monument sign may be erected
on a lot, which shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet nor be more than
five feet high. Any such sign or monument shall be designed so that it is
maintenance free. The adjacent property owner or a Homeowners Association
shall be responsible for maintenance of the identificationnentrance sign. Such sign
shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance
operations, and shall be securely anchored to the ground.
13
Sec. 20-1302. Neighborhood Business, and Institutional Districts.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any OI, or BN Districts:
1. Multi-Tenant Building
(a) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business
or institutional sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign
display area shall be permitted. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
(b) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be permitted per
street frontage for each business occupant within a building. A wall
business sign shall not be mounted upon the wall of any building which
faces any adjoining residential district without an intervening public street.
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
9% 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
3% 4,500 + 240
(c) Wall signs shall not include product advertising. Wall signs shall include
tenant identification, tenant logo, center name, or any combination of the
three.
2. Freestanding Tenant
(a) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business
or institutional sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign
display area shall be permitted. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
14
(b) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be permitted per
street frontage for each business occupant within a building. The total of
all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
total area of each building wall upon which the signs are mounted, but no
individual business shall exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in sign
display area. A wall business sign shall not be mounted upon the wall of
any building which faces any adjoining residential district without an
intervening public street.
Sec. 20-1303. Highway, General Business Districts and Central Business District.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG, CBD or BF District:
The following table lists the standards for freestanding and monument signs in the BH,
BG, CBD, or BF zone.
PYLON MONUMENT
Principal Height Sign size Height Sign Size
Structure (feet) (sq. ft.) (feet) (sq. ft.)
Greater than 20 80 10 80
100,000
50,000 - 18 64 10 64
100,000
10,000 - 15 64 8 36
50,000
Less than 15 36 8 24
10,000
1. Pylon business sign. One (1) pylon identification sign shall be permitted. This
sign may identify the name of the center of the major tenants. The height and
square footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage of the principal
structure as shown in the table. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet
from any property line, and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height.
2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall
be permitted per each outlot or separate building pad that has street frontage. The
height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the table above. Such
signs shall be located at least 300 feet from any other pylon or ground sign and
at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
15
3. Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be permitted per street
frontage for each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed the square footage established in the
following table:
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
•
9% 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
•
3% 4,500 + 240
A wall business sign may be mounted upon any wall of a principal building.
Sec. 20-1304. Industrial Office Park Signs.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP District:
1. Pylon or ground low profile business signs. One (1) pylon or one (1) ground low
profile Industrial Office Park identification sign shall be permitted. A Pylon sign
shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign area and shall not exceed twenty
(20) feet in height. A ground low profile may not exceed eighty (80) square feet
and eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from
any property line.
2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall
be permitted for each individual tenant. Such sign shall not exceed sixty-four (64)
square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) feet in height. Such
sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
3. Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be permitted per street
frontage for each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall
16
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed the square footage established in the
following table:
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
99c 1,801-2,400 216
79c 2,401-3,200 224
59c 3,201-4,500 230
39c 4,500 + 240
4. Menu Board. One menu board sign per restaurant use is permitted with a drive-
through facility. Such sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size nor greater than
8 feet in height. Such sign is permitted in addition to any other sign permitted in
the Zoning District.
Secs. 20-1306-20-1350. Reserved.
Sec. 20-1 DEFINITIONS
Sign means any object, device, display, or structure, or part thereof situated outdoors, or visible —
through a window or door, which is used to advertise, announce, identify, display, direct or
attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, commodity, product,
service, event or location, by means, including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures,
pictures, illumination or projected images.
Sign, Advertising means any sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, —
activity or entertainment not conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is
located.
Sign, Awning means a temporary hood or cover
that projects from the wall of a building,
and which can be retracted, folded or collapsed
against the face of the supporting building.
Awning may extend in any required yard
17
setback a maximum of five (5) feet.
(2.6 feet in the supplementary regs)
Sign, Banner means a sign which is made out of a paper, cloth or plastic-like consistency,
affixed to a building, vehicle, poles, or other supporting structures by all four (4) corners.
Sign, Business means a sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted, or to
a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the
premises where the sign is located.
Sign, Business Directory means a sign which
identifies the names of specific businesses L I I 1
p r 11 1
located in a shopping center, medical center i j r 1
and professional office and which is located on
the premises of the shopping center so identified. gm wort
Sign, Campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or supporting political
candidates or issues in connection with any national, state, or local election.
Sign, Canopy - Any sign that is affixed to a
projection or extension of a building or structure
of a building, erected in such as manner as to
provide a shelter or cover over the approach to I
any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. I I ti
plastic, or structural protective cover over a
door, entrance, window, or outdoor service area.
Sign, Changeable Copy, - a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that
can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign.
Sign, Construction means a temporary sign erected on the premises on which construction is
taking place, during the period of such construction, indicating the names of the architects,
engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the owners, financial
supporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the
situation or project.
Sign, Development Identification means a permanent ground low profile sign which identifies
a specific residential, industrial, commercial or office development and which is located on the
premises of the development which it identifies.
T EAST LOT
Sign, Directional means a sign erected on I Main Entrance
private property for the purpose of I---ShippingS
directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic Receiving-. j ,
onto or about the property upon which such `"EST tar
Employee Parking I
18 ,�•. ��.
sign is located, including signs marking _
entrances and exits, circulation direction,
parking areas, and pickup and delivery areas.
Sign, Display Area means the area within a single --�
continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits sH� NE7
or the actual sign message surface, including any —
structural elements outside the limits of each sign
forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated
maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a —
single facing.
Sign, Festive Flag/Banner - a flag or —
banner constructed of cloth, canvas or � � •
light fabric, that is hung from a light ,�
pole. The flag/banner shall contain no
advertising except for cultural events, F
special holidays/seasons, etc. _
Sign, Flag - any fabric banner used as a symbol of a government political subdivision or other
identity. Corporation flags shall not exceed 12 square feet and may be flown in tandem with the
state or national flag. Large flags flown in high winds may cause a noise nuisance and are
subject to removal upon complaint.
Sign, Flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign which exhibits changing natural
or artificial light or color effects by any means what so ever.
Sign,Freestanding/Pole/Pylon, means any non-movable sign not affixed to a building but erected
upon a pole, post or other similar support so that the bottom edge of the sign display area is eight
(8) feet or more above the ground elevation.
Sign, Governmental means a sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any
governmental functions, or required by law, ordinance or other governmental regulation.
Sign, Ground low profile business means a ThE MAL -
business sign affixed directly to the ground, + i
with the sign display area standing not
greater than two (2) feet above the ground.
Sign, Holiday decoration means a temporary sign in the nature of decorations, clearly incidental
to and customarily and commonly associated with any national, local or religious holiday. -
19
Sign, Home occupation means a sign containing only the name and occupation of a permitted
home occupation not to exceed 2 square feet. This is also a nameplate sign.
Sign, Illuminated means a sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by lights on or
in the sign or directed towards the sign.
Sign,Informational means a sign containing descriptions of major points of interest, government
institutions or other public services such as hospitals, sports facilities, etc.
Sign, Institutional means a sign which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public
or private institution of the site where the sign is located.
Sign, Integral means a sign constructed as
to be an integral portion of the building
of which it forms a part. _
Sign, Integral Roof, means any sign
erected or constructed as an integral or
essentially integral part of a normal roof _ �-
structure of any design, such that no part ° • Z-1 �Y
of the sign extends vertically above the _
highest portion of the roof and such that - •
no part of the sign is separated from the rest of the roof by a space of more than 1
six (6) inches.
Sign, Marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, or attached to any projection or
extension of a building that is designated in such a manner as to provide shelter or cover over
the approach to any entrance of the building.
Sign, Menu Board means a sign that is used to advertise the product available at a fast food
restaurant.
Sign, Motion means any sign or part of a sign which changes physical position by any movement
or rotation of which gives the visual impression of such movement or rotation.
Sign, Nameplate means a sign, located on the premises, which bears the name and/or address of
the occupant of the building or premises.
Sign, Non-Conforming, a sign that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance.
Sign, Off-Premise, an advertising sign which directs attention to a use, product, commodity or
services not related to the premises on which it is located.
20
Sign, On-Premise, a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, product, use, service
or other activity which is sold, offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is
located.
Sign, Portable, means a sign designed so as to be movable from one (1) location to another, and
that is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or the ground. Including but not limited
to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, sign converted to A-Frames, menu and
sandwich board signs, and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the
public right-of-way unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations.
Sign,Private Sale or Event means a temporary sign advertising private sales or personal property
such as a house sale, garage sale and the like or private nonprofit events such as picnic, carnival,
bazaar, game night, art fair, or craft show.
Sign, Projecting means a sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for support and
which projects more than twelve (12) inches from such building.
Sign, Real Estate means a sign pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or a portion of the
premises, on which the sign is located.
4.144_
Sign, Roof means a sign that is mounted on
the roof of a building or which is wholly
dependent upon a building for support and
which projects above the roof line of a —
building with a flat roof, the eave line •
•
:;
of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip f
roof or the deck line of a building with a
mansard roof. � �
Sign, Temporary means a sign designed orA \ —
intended to be displayed for a short period
I))
of time. This includes items such as banners, !
pennants, flags, beacons, sandwich, or —
balloons or other air or gas filled figures.
Sign, Wall means a sign attached to or
erected against the wall of a building or
structure with the exposed face of the ! ---
�e�
sign in a plane approximately parallel
to the face of the wall, and which T1-17D-
does
not project more than twelve (12) r
inches from such building or structure.
Wall signs shall not include product s
advertising. Wall signs shall include m —= C
21
tenant identification, tenant logo, center
name, or any combination of the three.
Sign, Window means sign, pictures, symbols,
or combination thereof, designed to
communicate information about an activity,
business, commodity, event, sale or service, if
that is placed inside a window or upon the 1 _
window panes or glass and is visible from
the exterior of the window.
g:'plan\a\sigaord
ism
22
CITYOF --
1 i
l 1 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II 1\at--
DATE: January 10, 1992
SUBJ: Issue Paper/Sign Ordinance
BACKGROUND
As previously discussed with the Planning Commission and the City
Council , staff will be rewriting the Sign Ordinance. The intent of
the sign ordinance is to establish standards which permit business
a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise; while the city _
wants to preserve and promote civic beauty and limit the visual
clutter. This report is intended to give an overview of some major
areas where the ordinance could be modified.
GOALS
After review and input from the Planning Commission, a committee,
which has been established, will begin the review and rewrite
process. This Committee includes Councilman Tom Workman, Planning
Commissioner Jeff Farmakes, Kevin McShane of the Chanhassen Bank,
and Gene Borg of McDonalds. After the sign committee has spent
time rewriting the ordinance, their proposed changes will be
reviewed by the Chamber of Commerce and then presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their recommendations and
implementation.
One of the goals of the new ordinance should be that the ordinance
should be easy to interpret and enforce. And finally, the new
ordinance should be in a format where industry uses could have all
the standards in one place. This would require a document where
the definitions and standards as well as district requirements are
in one document.
ISSUES
The following constitutes our review of the existing ordinance and
brief discussion of the issues as we see them. We would ask the
es
t«l PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
January 10, 1992
Page 2
Planning Commission to review the materials and provide any
additional guidance you feel is warranted. We would then pass the
information along to the Sign Ordinance Task Force so that they may
begin developing the ordinance.
ARTICLE XXVI . SIGNS
DIVISION 1 . GENERALLY
Sec . 20-1251 . Purpose. —
The purpose of this article is :
( 1) To establish standards which permit businesses a —
reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise.
(2 ) To preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs —
which detract from this objective because of size, shape,
height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination.
(3 ) To ensure that signs do not create safety hazards . To
ensure signs which are designed, constructed, installed
and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact
public safety or unduly distract motorists .
(4) To preserve and protect property values .
COMMENT: This area needs to be expanded to include the desire to
have signs architecturally compatible with buildings . In addition,
the purpose should include a statement that permanent signs should
be given preference to the on-premise owner or occupant , and that
temporary commercial and advertising displays be given limited
approval for grand openings and occasional sales events .
Sec . 20-1252 . Permit and variance fees .
Fees for reviewing and processing sign permit applications and —
variance requests shall be imposed in accordance with the fee
schedule established by City Council resolution.
Sec.20-1253 . Variances .
The City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this
article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other
conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article
would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted —
only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent
of this article. Written application for a variance shall be filed
with the Planning Department and shall be supplemented with
reproducible copies of the proposed sign. The application shall be —
processed in conformance with the public hearing requirements
dictated for variances in Section 20-28 . No variance shall be
granted by the City Council unless it has received the affirmative —
vote of at least four-fifths of the full City Council .
1
Sec. 20-1254 . Permit generally.
(a) Except as provided in Section 20-1255 , no sign or sign
structure shall be erected, constructed, altered, rebuilt
or relocated until a permit has first been issued by the
city .
(b) The following information for a sign permit shall be
supplied by an applicant if requested by the city:
_ (1) Name, address and telephone number of person making
application.
(2 ) A site plan to scale showing the location of lot
lines, building structures, parking areas, existing
and proposed signs and any other physical features .
_ (3 ) Plans, location, specifications, method of
construction and attachment to the buildings or
placement method in the ground.
(4) Copy of stress sheets and calculations .
(5) Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site
on which the sign is to be erected.
( 6) Any electrical permit required and issued for the
sign.
(7 ) Such other information as the city shall require to
show full compliance with this chapter and all
other laws and ordinances of the city.
(8 ) The City Planner, upon the filling of any
application for a permit, shall examine such plans,
specifications and other data. If the proposed
sign complies with this article and other
_ applicable ordinances, the inspectors shall issue a
sign permit unless City Council approval is
required. If City Council approval is required,
the matter shall be promptly referred to the
council for action.
COMMENT: This area needs to be expanded to state that before a
sign permit is issued, a fee must be paid. Currently, the Building
Department is not reviewing stress calculations, the methods of
construction, or inspecting the installation of signs . Staff is
recommending that the permit process and the administrative
procedure be changed so that all signs are reviewed and inspected
by the city. Periodic inspection may also be warranted. This
2
administrative procedure would also require changing the sign
permit application.
Sec. 20-1255 . Signs allowed without permit.
The following signs are allowed without a permit :
(1) Campaign signs, not exceeding twenty-four (24) square
feet in area. The sign must contain the name of the
person responsible for such sign, and that person shall _
be responsible for its removal . Such signs shall
remain for no longer than seventy-five (75) days in any
calendar year. The city shall have the right to remove
and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph.
COMMENT: The requirement for campaign signs need to be modified to
include the language from the new 1990 state law. This law states
that all non-commercial signs of any size may be posted from August
1 in a state general election year until ten days following the
state general election. There are also some new Supreme Court _
findings pertaining to signs that need to be addressed. Basically,
you cannot regulate a sign based upon text without running afoul of
First Amendment rights . Therefore, ordinances that establish
special conditions on campaign signs or those that ban billboards —
by declaring "off-premise advertising signs" illegal, are likely to
be overturned.
(2 ) Directional signs .
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) —
square feet . The maximum height of the sign
shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground.
The placement of directional signs on the property
shall be so located such that the sign does not —
adversely affect adjacent properties or the general
appearance of the site from public rights-of-way.
The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) —
unless approved by the City Council .
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in
situations where access is confusing and traffic
safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be
inappropriately routed through residential streets .
The size of the sign shall be approved by the City --
Council .
c. On-premises signs for industrially zoned land in —
excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed twelve
(12) square feet . The maximum height of the sign
shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground.
The placement of directional signs on the property
3
shall be so located such that the sign does not
adversely affect adjacent properties or the general
appearance of the site from public right-of-way .
The number of signs shall not exceed four (4)
unless approved by the City Council .
(3 ) Signs or displays which contain or depict a message
pertaining to a religious, national, state or local
holiday and no other matter, and which are displayed for
a period not to exceed seventy-five (75) days in any
calendar year .
COMMENT: This section should be amended to include community signs
with the intent that they be used for religious, national, state or
local holidays or festivals . This would include banners, flags ,
etc . There needs to be some criteria including the need to define
the size and location of these types of signs .
(4) Informational signs not exceeding sixteen (16) square
feet .
(5) Integral signs .
(6) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of
any automobile service station only if such signs are
affixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral part of
a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise
permitted in that zoning district . Motor fuel price
signs affixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed four (4)
square feet in sign display area. When such signs are
made an integral part of a freestanding business sign,
the sign display area devoted to the price component
shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total sign
display area of the sign.
(7 ) Nameplate signs not exceeding two (2 ) square feet .
COMMENT: There is no definition for integral sign, although a
nameplate is a type of integral sign. Therefore, #5 and #7 should
be combined. The definition of integral/nameplate needs to be
amended to state that the two square feet is the total per building
and does not include multi-tenant names .
(8 ) Non-illuminated construction signs confined to the site
of the construction, alteration or repair. Such a sign
must be removed within one (1) year from the date of
issuance of the first building permit on the site, and
may be extended on an annual basis . One (1) sign shall
be permitted for each street the project abuts .
Commercial and industrial signs may not exceed fifty (50)
square feet in sign area, and residential construction
4
signs may not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in sign —
area .
( 9 ) O. S .H.A. signs . —
(10 ) Signs of a public, non-commercial nature erected by a
governmental entity or agency, including safety signs,
directional signs to public facilities, trespassing —
signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or
historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the
like. —
COMMENT: An O. S .H.A. sign, #9 , is a type of governmental agency
sign and should be combined with #10 .
(11) Rummage (garage) sale signs . Rummage sale signs shall be
removed within two (2 ) days after the end of the sale and
shall not exceed five (5) square feet . Rummage sale —
signs shall not be located in any public rights-of-way.
The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs
not conforming to this paragraph. The city may assess a —
fee in the amount established by resolution for each sign
removed by the city.
(12 ) Temporary development project advertising signs erected
for the purpose of selling or promoting any non-
residential project, or any residential project of ten
( 10) or more dwelling units, shall be permitted subject
to the following regulations :
a . Not more than two (2 ) such signs shall be allowed
per project .
b. Such signs shall only be located along streets that
provide primary access to the project site .
c . Such sign shall be set back not less than twenty-
five (25) feet from any property line, and shall
be firmly anchored to the ground.
d. No such sign shall be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet from an existing residential
dwelling unit, church, or school which is not a
part of the project being so advertised.
e. Such signs shall not be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet from any other such sign
located on the same side of the street .
f . Sign display area shall not exceed sixty-four (64)
square feet, and the height of such signs shall not
exceed fifteen (15) feet . —
5
g. Such signs shall be removed when the project being
advertised is eighty (80) percent completed. For
the purpose of this paragraph, the percentage of
project completion shall be determined by dividing
the number of dwelling units sold in the
residential project by the total number of units
allowed in the approved development plan; and by
dividing the number of buildings constructed in
non-residential projects by the total number of
building sites in the approved development plan.
COMMENT: Temporary signs for development projects should be
limited to those projects located in the City of Chanhassen. In
addition, a requirement should be made that the signs be non-
illuminated.
(13 ) Temporary real estate signs which advertise the sale,
rental or lease of real estate subject to the following
conditions :
a . On-premises real estate signs advertising the sale,
rental or lease of the premises upon which the sign
_ is located.
1 . One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per
street frontage .
2 . Sign display area shall not exceed twelve ( 12 )
square feet per sign on property containing
less than ten (10) acres in area, and thirty-
two (32 ) square feet per sign on property
containing ten (10 ) or more acres .
3 . No such sign shall exceed ten (10 ) feet in
overall height, nor be located less than ten
(10) feet from any property line.
4 . All temporary real estate signs shall be
removed within seven (7 ) days following sale,
lease, or rental of the property.
b . Off-premises real estate signs advertising the
sale, rental or lease of business and industrial
buildings :
1 . One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per
building.
2 . Such signs shall only be permitted in business
and industrial districts and on property
located with the same subdivision or
development as the building being advertised.
6
3 . Such signs shall not be located closer than —
two hundred (200 ) feet from any other such
sign located on the same side of the street .
4 . Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two
(32 ) square feet, and the height of such signs
shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet .
5 . Such signs shall be removed within seven (7 )
days following the lease or sale of eighty
percent (80%) of the building floor space —
which it is advertising, or within twelve (12 )
months from the date a permit is issued,
whichever comes first .
c . Off-premises directional signs which show direction
to new residential developments in accordance with
the following. The intent of this subparagraph is
to allow short term signage, for residential
development, to familiarize the public with the new
development . —
1 . Such sign shall only be permitted along major
arterials and collectors as identified in the
comprehensive plan .
2 . Only one (1 ) sign per intersection and one (1)
sign per development shall be permitted. —
3 . Sign display area shall not exceed twenty-four
(24) square feet and the height of such —
signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet .
4 . Such sign shall not be located closer than —
twenty-five (25) feet from any street right-
of-way line, and shall be firmly anchored to
the ground.
5 . Such sign shall only be constructed out of
wood materials and be non-illuminated.
6 . Such sign shall be removed six (6) months
after the sign has been erected and developer
may not apply for a second off-premises
directional sign permit .
7 . Sign copy shall include the name of the
subdivision and a direction arrow only.
7
Sec . 20-1256 . Permit for searchlights, banners, etc .
The use of searchlights, banners, pennants and similar devices
which extend over public rights-of-way, shall require a permit .
The permit shall be valid for no more than ten (10) consecutive
days . No more than three (3 ) permits per business shall be granted
during any calendar year.
COMMENT: Traffic safety may be an issue if banners/pennants are
allowed to extend over the public right-of-way. It may be
appropriate to state that the Engineering Department shall approve
any sign over the public rights-of-way.
Sec . 20-1257 . Display of permit.
Signs requiring permits shall display the permit sticker or
sticker number in a conspicuous manner.
_ COMMENT: Currently, the City is not using the permit stickers .
The purpose of the sticker is to be able to readily determine
whether or not a permit has been issued upon quick inspection of
the sign. Staff feels that an accurate inventory of signs can be
made, as well as reviewing for normal maintenance, without the use
of stickers .
Sec . 20-1258 . Inspection.
All signs for which a permit is required shall be subject to
inspection by the city building official . At minimum, an annual
inspection shall be made . The building official may order the
removal of any sign that is not maintained in accordance with the
maintenance provisions of this article .
CONSENT: Currently, the City is not doing this . It is a good idea
to have all signs in the city inspected annually. Not only will
this aid in finding illegal signs, but it will also help in
identifying those signs in need of maintenance or signs in
disrepair.
Sec . 20-1259 . Prohibited signs.
The following signs are prohibited:
(1) Advertising signs .
(2 ) Advertising or business signs on or attached to
equipment , such as semi-truck trailers, where signing is
a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary or
permanent basis .
(3 ) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and
temperature signs and barber poles .
8
(4) Projecting signs .
COMMENT: Projecting or suspended signs should remain illegal,
except an awning or canopy sign may be permitted. The definition
of a Awning or Canopy sign is "a sign constructed of flexible
translucent or fabric-type material which incorporates a written
message or logo on the exterior" .
(5) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed on
the roof, facia or marquee of a building provided it does
not extend above the highest elevation of the building, —
excluding chimneys, and provided:
a . Roof signs shall be thoroughly secured and anchored
to the frames of the building over which they are —
constructed and erected.
b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the
periphery of the roof .
( 6) Business signs which advertise an activity, business,
product or service no longer produced or conducted on the
premises upon which the sign is located. Where the owner
or lessor of the premises is seeking a new tenant, such
signs may remain in place for not more than thirty (30) —
days from the date of vacancy.
(7) Wall graphics . —
COMMENT: The definition of wall graphics needs to be expanded to
include items which, by their nature, act as a sign without using
any words . These graphics include such items as corporate logos or
company symbols . These would be excluded unless they were included
as part of an approved sign, as noted in Section 20-1268 Non-
commercial Speech. —
(8) Portable signs except as permitted in Section 20-1272 .
COMMENT: No off-premise temporary sign should be allowed except —
those specifically noted and regulated for real estate purposes or
otherwise noted in the ordinance . Temporary signs should be
limited to on-premise establishments for the purpose of special
events or grand openings .
(9) Signs which are tacked on trees, fences or utility poles . —
(10) Home occupation signs, except for one (1) identification
sign. The sign may not exceed two (2 ) square feet in
area .
COMMENT: Home occupations, whether a permitted or conditional
use, should receive a sign permit . Home occupation signs need to —
9
be moved to Division 2 of the Sign Ordinance, Signs Allowed in
Specific Districts by Permit .
Sec . 20-1260 . Nonconforming uses .
When the principal use of land is legally non-conforming under
this chapter, all existing or proposed signs in conjunction with
that land, shall be considered conforming if they are in compliance
with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district
in which the principal use is allowed.
COMMENT: We may also wish to establish a category for non-
- conforming signs which are located on property having a conforming
use . If a non-conforming pylon sign is destroyed, should it be
allowed to be rebuilt or must it now comply with current standards?
Sec . 20-1261 . Bonus sign area.
_ (a) To encourage design excellence, the maximum sign areas
for certain businesses, industrial, and directory signs
may be increased up to a maximum of ten (10) percent
based on the original sign area limitation.
(b) Ground profile, free standing and wall signs may be
increased as follows :
(1) When the sign is constructed of solid wood and uses
only earth tone colors .
(2 ) When the sign (except for wall signs) is installed
in a landscaped planter.
COMMENT: Consideration to the following elements should be given
when submitting plans for signs ; architectural compatibility, color
and style, size, scale, proportion (balance) , location, and
landscaping. Pole covers should be considered as a requirement as
well as requiring monument signs only.
Sec . 20-1262 . Uniform Sign Code.
The design and construction standards as set forth in Chapter
4 of the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Sign Code as may be amended,
are adopted.
COMMENT: This section should be eliminated from the ordinance .
_ The Uniform Sign Code has definitions that conflict with those in
this ordinance . The definitions in the Sign Ordinance are specific
and reflect the desires of the City of Chanhassen. The Uniform
Sign Code is very generic and does not address specific standards
the city wants to establish. This section should be rewritten and
be called Construction Standards and should state that all signs
10
shall comply with the National Electrical Code and Uniform Building —
Code as a requirement .
Sec . 20-1263 . Electrical regulations.
The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the
National Electrical Code as adopted and amended by the city.
Electrical service to such sign shall be underground.
Sec . 20-1264 . Address sign required.
Except for farm buildings, at least one (1) address sign
identifying the correct address shall be required on each principal
building, accessory building, or mail boxes in all districts . The _
numbers shall be at least three (3 ) inches in height .
Sec. 20-1265 . General location restrictions .
(a) No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line
than a distance equal to one-half (1/2 ) the minimum
required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within —
any drainage or utility easement .
(b) Signs on adjacent non-residential property shall be
positioned so that the copy is not visible from
residential uses or districts along adjoining side and
rear yard property lines .
(c) No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be erected
or placed upon any public street, right-of-way or public
easement, or project over public property. —
COMMENT: Section 20-1269 Traffic Hazards, etc . , should be combined
with this section. In addition, a site distance triangle should be
used. This would require that all signs be placed a minimum of 60 —
feet from an intersection . This would eliminate signs from
creating a site distance problem at intersections . Signs should
not be allowed to extend over any pedestrian or vehicular access
area unless specifically approved by the City Engineer.
Sec. 20-1266 . Maintenance and repair. —
Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and
kept in a safe condition. Sign or sign structures which are
rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted,
repaired or replaced by the licensee, owner or agent of the
building upon which the sign stands .
COMMENT: The definition of maintenance needs to be expanded.
Every sign should be kept in complete operating condition. The
landscaped area in which any sign is placed shall be kept free from _
weeds, garbage, and debris . Maintenance includes the repair of
11
facades where signs have been removed; the painting, cleaning, and
repairing of signs . Maintenance should not include structural
alterations, cosmetic or style changes , or enlargements .
Sec . 20-1267 . Uniformity of construction, design, etc.
All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a
uniform manner and, to the extent possible, as an integral part of
the building' s architecture. Multi-tenant commercial and
industrial buildings shall have uniform signage .
COMMENT: This section should reflect the city' s intent as stated
in the purpose section, that being signs which require
architecturally compatibility with the building. When buildings or
developments are presented for site plan review, proposed signs for
the development should be presented concurrently for staff review.
All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings should submit a
comprehensive sign plan for approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council .
Sec . 20-1268 . Noncommercial speech.
Signs containing non-commercial speech are permitted anywhere
that business signs are permitted, subject to the same regulations
applicable to such signs .
Sec . 20-1269 . Traffic hazards, etc .
Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient
movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic . No private sign shall
contain words which might be constructed as traffic controls, such
as "Stop, " "Caution, " "Warning, " unless the sign is intended to
direct traffic on the premises .
COMMENT: This section should be added to the general location
restrictions .
Sec . 20-1270 . Attachment to building.
No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any
building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been
approved by the building official .
COMMENT: Currently, the Building Department is not inspecting
these types of signs . This procedure will be modified as the
administrative procedure has changed. This section should be
amended to state that any canopy or awning sign should have a
minimum of an eight (8) foot clearance.
12
Sec . 20-1271 . Attachment to rocks, fences, etc . , interference with
utilities .
No signs, guy wires , stays or attachments shall be erected,
placed or maintained on rocks, fences or trees nor, interfere with
any electric light, power, telephone or telegraph wires or the
supports thereof .
Sec . 20-1272 . Illumination.
Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from
being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it —
impairs the vision of the driver. No such signs shall interfere
with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal ; this includes
indoor signs which are visible from public streets .
COMMENT: The illumination needs to be more specific such as, no
sign or groups of signs shall exceed 1/2 foot candle in brightness as
measured at the property line .
Sec . 20-1273 . Portable signs .
Portable signs may not exceed thirty-two (32 ) square feet and
may not be illuminated with any flashing device . Use of a portable
sign shall require a permit . The permit shall be valid for no more _
than ten (10 ) consecutive days . No more than three (3 ) permits per
business shall be granted during any calendar year.
COMMENT: A portable sign is a temporary sign and should be limited —
to on-site use . The purpose of a temporary sign should be for
special events or grand openings .
Sec .20-1274 . Obstruction of egress or ingress; attachment to
standpipe or fire escape.
No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that
prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire
escape . No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a standpipe
or fire escape . -
Sec . 20-1275 . Construction requirements for freestanding signs .
A free standing sign or sign structure constructed so that the
faces are not back to back, shall not have an angle separating the
faces exceeding twenty (20 ) degrees unless the total area of both
sides added together does not exceed the maximum allowable sign
area for that district .
COMMENT: This section should be moved and combined with the new —
section to be called construction standards, Section 20-1262 .
13
Standards for canopy or awning signs needs to be developed as well
as standards for menu boards . Menu boards should be placed in a
landscaped planter.
Sec. 20-1276 . Painting of supporting parts, etc .
The exposed uprights, superstructure and/or backside of all
signs shall be painted a neutral color such as light blue gray,
brown, or white, unless it can be illustrated that such part of the
sign designed or painted in another manner is integral to the
overall design of the sign.
COMMENTS: This section should be modified to state that all on-
premise freestanding signs must have structural supports covered
or concealed with pole covers . The actual structural supports
should not be exposed, and the covers should be architecturally and
aesthetically designed to match the building.
Sec . 20-1277 . Cemetery signage .
Signage for a cemetery shall be processed as a conditional use
permit in all districts .
COMMENT: A section on Legal Action should be added to the sign
ordinance . This section should address a procedure for notices of
violations to the ordinance, citations, abatement and removal of
unsafe or dangerous or illegal signs and abatement and removal on
non-maintained, abandoned signs or signs identifying a discontinued
use. A right of appeal section should also be included in this
section .
DIVISION 2 . SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT
Sec . 20-1301 . Agricultural and residential districts .
The following signs are allowed by permit in the A-1, A-2 , RR,
RSF, R-4, R-8 and R-12 districts :
(1) Public and institutional signs . One (1) ground low
profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four (24)
square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on
the premisses of any public or institutional property
giving the name of the facility and nature of the use and
occupancy. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10 )
feet from any property line, and shall not exceed five
(5) feet in height .
(2 ) Development identification signs . One (1) development
identification sign, not exceeding twenty-four (24)
square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for
each major entrance into any residential development of
14
ten (10 ) or more dwelling units . For the purposes of
this paragraph, "major entrance" shall be defined as the _
intersection of any local street serving the identified
development with any arterial or collector street as
designated as such in this chapter. Such sign shall be
located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or
street maintenance operations, and shall be securely
anchored to the ground. _
COMMENT: This section needs to address those uses which are a
conditional use in the agricultural and residential district,
including uses such as a bed and breakfast, mineral extraction, day —
care, recreational beachlots, contractors yards, wholesale nursery
and golf driving range . The home occupation ordinance permits one
sign not to exceed two (2 ) square feet in area .
Sec . 20-1302 . Neighborhood business and institutional districts .
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any OI or BN -'
District :
(1) Ground low profile business signs . One (1) ground low —
profile business or institutional sign not exceeding
twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area shall
be permitted per street frontage, with a maximum of two _
(2 ) such signs per lot . Such sign shall be located at
least ten (10 ) feet from any property line and shall not
exceed five (5) feet in height .
(2 ) Wall business sign. One (1 ) wall business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage for each business occupant
within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign —
display areas shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
total area of each building wall upon which the signs are
mounted, but no individual business sign shall exceed _
twenty-four (24) square feet in sign display area . A
wall business sign shall not be mounted upon the wall of
any building which faces any adjoining residential
district without an intervening public street .
Sec . 20-1303 . Highway and general business districts .
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG,
or BF District :
(1) Ground low profile business signs . One (1) ground low
profile business sign shall be permitted per street
frontage, with a maximum of two (2 ) such signs per lot .
Such sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in
sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in
height . Such sign shall be located at least ten (10 )
feet from any property line. In no case shall any lot _
15
contain more than two (2 ) freestanding business signs,
whether such signs are pylon or ground low profile signs .
(2 ) Pylon business sign. One (1) pylon business sign, not
exceeding sixty-four (64) square feet of sign display
area, shall be permitted per lot . A pylon business sign
greater than sixty-four (64) square feet, but equal to or
less than eighty (80 ) square feet, may be permitted after
_ securing a conditional use permit . Such signs shall be
located at least ten (10) feet from any property line,
and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height . In no
case shall any lot contain more than two (2 ) freestanding
business signs, whether such signs are pylon or ground
low profile signs .
(3 ) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage for each business occupant
within a building . The total of all wall mounted sign
display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of
the total area of each building wall upon which the signs
are mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed
eighty (80) square feet in sign display area . A wall
business sign may be mounted upon any wall of a principal
building.
(4) Development identification signs . One (1) development
identification sign, not exceeding sixty-four ( 64) square
feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for each
major entrance into any commercial development of three
(3 ) or more buildings . For the purposes of this
paragraph, "major entrance" shall be defined as the
intersection of any local or collector street serving the
identified development with any arterial or collector
street as designated in this chapter. Such sign shall be
located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or
street maintenance operations, and shall be securely
anchored to the ground.
Sec. 20-1304 . Industrial office park signs .
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP
District :
( 1) Ground low profile business signs . One (1) ground low
profile business sign shall be permitted per street
frontage, with a maximum of two (2 ) such signs per lot .
Such sign shall not exceed eighty (80 ) square feet in
sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in
height . Such sign shall be located at least ten (10 )
feet from any property line.
16
(2) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage for each business occupant --
within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display area shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the
total area of the building wall upon which the signs are —
mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed eighty
(80) square feet in sign display area. A wall business
sign may be mounted upon any wall of a principal
building.
(3 ) Development identification signs . One (1) development
identification sign, not exceeding ninety (90) square —
feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for each
major entrance into any commercial development of three
(3 ) or more buildings . For the purposes of this
paragraph, "major entrance" shall be defined as the
intersection of local, collector or arterial streets
serving the identified development with any arterial or
collector street so designated in this division. Such
signs shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic
visibility or street maintenance operations . and shall be
securely anchored to the ground. —
(Ord. No. , Art . IX, S8 . 12-15-86
Sec. 20-1305. Central business district.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in the CBD
District :
(1) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage for each business occupant
within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of
the total area of the building wall upon which the signs
are mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed
sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display area. The —
design and location of all business signs in this
district shall be in keeping with the purpose and intent
of this article and the goals and objectives of the —
downtown redevelopment plan of the city. Central
Business District signage shall be uniformly designed to
be an integral part of the building's architecture to
avoid excessive signage and to ensure a harmonious
appearance throughout the downtown area.
(2) Business directory sign. One (1) business directory sign —
shall be permitted per shopping center. The design
and location of such shall be consistent with the design
objectives for wall business signs in this district . The —
maximum height for such sign shall be twenty (20) feet
and the total sign display area shall not exceed (80)
square feet . —
17
(3 ) Pylon business sign. One (1) pylon business sign, not
_ exceeding sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display
area, shall be permitted per lot . Such signs shall be
located at least ten (10 ) feet from any property line,
and shall not exceed (20) feet in height .
(Ord. No . 80 , Art . IX, S 9 , 12-15-86)
Secs . 20-1306-20-1350 . Reserved.
COMMENT: Planned centers and multi-tenant buildings should only
be allowed one directory (monument or freestanding) , and then be
limited to wall signs only. These signs should have a common theme
and be architecturally compatible with the building. This would
apply to the highway and general business, industrial office park
and central business districts .
Consideration should also be given to the size of the development .
The way the ordinance is written, whether the project is li4 acre or
_ 20 acres , the same amount of signage is permitted. Scale of the
developments should be a factor in determining the amount of
signage . Two freestanding signs, 20 feet in height , may appear
minimal on a 10 acre site; but on a 3 acre site, 2 signs
would have negative impact on the aesthetics of the site .
An example of freestanding signs out of scale with the building
would be Country Clean, at the corner of Great Plains Boulevard and
Chan View. The Chanhassen Mall (Frontier Center) sign is too tall
for a business direction sign. The sign is also in need of
_ maintenance . The American Legion has multiple freestanding
signage, causing visual clutter. This location (the Legion) is at
a major entryway into the city and gives a bad impression of the
city development standards . Amortization of non-conforming signs
could be an element of the new ordinance . This issue has also been
discussed in the Highway 5 Corridor Study.
Sec. 20-1 DEFINITIONS
Sign means any object, device, display, or structure, or part
thereof situated outdoors, or visible through a window or door,
which is used to advertise, announce, identify, display, direct or
attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization,
business, commodity, product, service, event or location, by means,
including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures,
pictures, illumination or projected images .
_ Sign, advertising means any sign which directs attention to a
business , commodity, service, activity or entertainment not
conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is
located.
Sign, bulletin board means a sign which identifies an institution
or organization on the premises of which it is located and which
18
contains the name of the institution or organization, the names of —
individuals connected with it , and general announcements , of events
or activities occurring at the institution or similar messages .
Sign, business means a sign which directs attention to a business
or profession conducted, or to a commodity or service sold, offered
or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the premises
where the sign is located. —
Sign, business directory means a sign which identifies the names of
specific businesses located in a shopping center and which is —
located on the premises of the shopping center so identified.
Sign, campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or
supporting political candidates or issues in connection with any —
national, state, or local election.
Sign, canopy or marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, —
or attached to any projection or extension of a building that is
designated in such a manner as to provide shelter or cover over the
approach to any entrance of the building.
COMMENT: Need to add Changeable Copy, a sign which the copy is
changed manually or electrically, such as a message center or
reader boards with changeable letters or changeable pictorial
panels, and electrically controlled time and temperature signs . It
does not include panels or painted bulletins .
Sign, construction means a temporary sign erected on the premises
on which construction is taking place, during the period of such
construction, indicating the names of the architects, engineers,
landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the
owners, financial supporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or
firms having a role or interest with respect to the situation or
project . —
Sign, development identification means a permanent ground low
profile sign which identifies a specific residential, industrial,
commercial or office development and which is located on the
premises of the development which it identifies .
Sign, directional means a sign erected on private property for the
purpose of directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic onto or about
the property upon which such sign is located, including signs
marking entrances and exits, circulation direction, parking areas,
and pickup and delivery areas .
Sign display area means the area within a single continuous _
perimeter enclosing the extreme limits or the actual sign message
surface, but excluding any structural elements outside the limits
of each sign not forming an integral part of the sign. The
19
stipulated maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a single
facing .
COMMENT: Sign Festive Flag Banner, a flag or banner constructed of
cloth, canvas or light fabric, that is hung from a light pole. The
flag/banner shall contain no advertising except for cultural
events, special holidays/seasons, etc .
Sign, flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign
which exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color
effects by any means whatsoever .
Sign, freestanding means any non movable sign not affixed to a
building .
Sign, governmental means a sign erected and maintained pursuant to
and in discharge of any governmental functions, or required by law,
ordinance or other governmental regulation.
Sign, ground means any sign, other than a pole sign, placed upon or
supported by the ground independent of any other structure .
Sign, ground low profile business means a business sign affixed
directly to the ground, with the sign display area standing not
greater than two (2 ) feet above the ground.
COMMENT: The two ground sign definitions conflict . The definition
of ground sign should be changed to a low sign where the extent of
the sign surface is attached to the ground or a foundation in the
ground, and where there are no poles, braces, or other visible
means of support other than attachment to the ground.
Sign, holiday decoration means a temporary sign in the nature of
decorations, clearly incidental to and customarily and commonly
associated with any national, local or religious holiday.
Sign, home occupation means a sign containing only the name and
occupation of a permitted home occupation.
Sign, illuminated means a sign lighted by or exposed to artificial
lighting either by lights on or in the sign or directed towards the
sign.
Sign, informational means a sign containing descriptions of major
points of interest, government institutions or other public
services such as hospitals, sports facilities, etc .
Sign, institutional means a sign which identifies the name and
other characteristics of a public or private institution of the
site where the sign is located.
20
Sign, integral means a sign a constructed as to be an integral
portion of the building of which it forms a part .
COMMENT: Need to add the definition of Menu Boards, a sign that is
used to advertise the product at a fast food restaurant .
Sign, motion means any sign or part of a sign which changes
physical position by any movement or rotation of which gives the
visual impression of such movement or rotation.
Sign, nameplate means a sign, located on the premises, which bears
the name and/or address of the occupant of the building or
premises .
COMMENT: Should add the definition of Sign, Nonconforming, a sign
or sign structure or portion thereof lawfully existing at the time
this ordinance became effective, which does not conform totally to
the regulations prescribed in the District in which it is located.
Sign, Off-Premise, an advertising sign which directs attention to
a use, product, commodity or services not related to the premises
on which it is located.
Sign, On-Premise, a sign which directs attention to a business,
commodity, product, use, service or other activity which is sold,
offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is
located.
Sign, pole or pylon means a freestanding sign erected upon a pole,
post or other similar support so that the bottom edge of the sign
display area is eight (8) feet or more above the ground elevation _
at the base of the sign.
Sign, portable means a sign designed 80 as to be movable from one
(1) location to another, and that is not permanently affixed to a
building, structure, or the ground.
Sign, private sale or event means a temporary sign advertising
private sales or personal property such as a house sale, garage
sale and the like or private nonprofit events such as picnic,
carnival, bazaar, game night, art fair, craft show or Christmas
tree sale .
Sign, projecting means a sign that is wholly or partly dependent
upon a building for support and which projects more than twelve
(12 ) inches from such building.
Sign, real estate means a sign pertaining to the sale or lease of _
the premises, or a portion of the premises, on which the sign is
located.
21
Sign, roof means a sign that is mounted on the roof of a building
_ or which is wholly dependent upon a building for support and which
projects above the roof line of a building with a flat roof, the
eave line of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip roof or the
deck line of a building with a mansard roof .
Sign, temporary means a sign or advertising display constructed of
cloth, canvas, fabric, plywood or other light material and designed
or intended to be displayed for a short period of time .
Sign, wall means a sign attached to or erected against the wall of
a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a
plane approximately parallel to the face of the wall, and which
does not project more than twelve (12 ) inches from such building or
structure .
COMMENT: Should add the definition of Sign, Window, a sign either
attached to a window or door or located within a building so as to
be visible through a window or door from outside of the building.
Pictures should be used with many of these definitions . A picture
is worth a thousand words and helps in interpreting the definition.
22
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
— REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 16, 1994
-- Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Jeff Farmakes, Ron
Nutting, and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
_ PUBLIC HEARING:
CHARLIE JAMES FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE
SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS CENTER, LOCATED ON
LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Charlie James 6640 Shady Oak Road, Eden Prairie
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay, questions or comments for staff.
— Mancino: Are they also asking for approval of the pylon sign and the monument sign at this
time too?
Generous: Not specifically. They brought those back as a part of the sign package for the
entire site. The 20 foot monument sign will be 80 square feet of signage. It is permissible
under our code.
Mancino: But so we're looking at a whole signage package right now.
Generous: Basically yes.
Mancino: Okay, so it would include the pylon sign and the monument sign and all the wall
—
sign, right?
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 —
Generous: In essence, yes.
Mancino: Okay. —
Farmakes: Do we have, maybe I missed it. Do we have a copy of the criteria that we use to
grant variances? —
Mancino: It was in the staff report.
Generous: Starting on page 3, the findings.
Farmakes: So it's incorporated into that? Okay.
Generous: Those are the a thru f are the criteria.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, we can ask more questions after the applicant comes up right?
Scott: Okay. I'd like to hear from the applicant please. Please step forward and identify
yourself and speak into the microphone.
Charlie James: Hello again. I'm Charlie James. You've probably heard all you want from
me. I guess I'd just refer once again to the type written narrative that we provided in the
report and also through the sign designs here that we have provided that are drawn in strict
accordance with the existing code and would be built out of this same material as the
building. Since our last get together here I managed to get a copy of a more 3 dimensional
artist rendering that Byerly's submitted so I'll pass this around. I'll be happy to answer any —
questions.
Scott: Good, any questions? —
Ledvina: Do you find the staff report acceptable?
Charlie James: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. —
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
Farmakes: I'd like to see the drawing before I close out on that.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Sure.
Mancino: Charlie, now Fine Foods, that is in reference to the grocery items? To the
restaurant?
Charlie James: I was told that that's part of their, that's a trademark Byerly's. Fine Food is
part of some trademark. They're just going to the Chicago market now for the first time.
They're building a store, or they're in the process which will follow right after this one in
Highland Park. It will be the first store and so they felt that in those areas that they're
putting in Chicago where they're not as known as they are here, that they would introduce
that onto their buildings there and so they decided to introduce it here for consistency. I'm
afraid I don't know whether they're referring to their restaurant or their groceries on that.
Mancino: Okay. It almost looks like here to me architecturally it's to symmetry of signs on
each side of Byerly's more than anything else. I have no more questions of the applicant.
Scott: Okay, any more questions or comments? Great. This is a public hearing and if I
could have a motion to open the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Scott: Is there anybody here who would like to speak on the Byerly's signage variance?
Seeing none, let the record show that there's no one here to speak on the first item. Can I
have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Scott: Comments.
Mancino: I have a question for Bob. Bob in your findings on (a), you felt that the sign
could or should be bigger. The signage area on the West 78th Street and you compared it to
Target and you compared it to Market Square as one of the reasons for being able to, and
when you made that comparison, what was your thinking as far as the rest of the signage
package? If I look at the rest of 78th Street and I look at Target and Market Square, they
don't have a 20 foot pylon sign. All they have, each one of them has one monument sign.
So if we're going to use them to say yes for bigger square footage, shouldn't we also use
them as the benchmark for signage on West 78th? So we're going to use them for part of it
but not the other? I mean that's what I'm asking.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Generous: I didn't really look at it that way because as far as the pylon sign went, they were
meeting code and so I wasn't putting the package together in that sense. I was just trying to
compare the bulk of the building, the mass of the building and what they were requesting...
From a policy standpoint, yeah. It might make sense to put the whole thing together for West
78th Street.
Mancino: Okay. Because that's where I kind of come from. I'm seeing it, if we are going
to do something different here, allow a variance and if we use Target and we use Market
Square as the reason that we're allowing this variance, then I think that we should follow it
through on the entire signage package. I mean it only would make sense. Any discussion on
that?
Farmakes: I'd agree with it.
Scott: Yeah, I too. —
Ledvina: Well I think the, just from in a comparison sense. I didn't know what the pylon
sign for the bank was and as I understand that's like about 20 feet? Something like that.
Mancino: For which?
Ledvina: For the bank sign.
Farmakes: 20 feet in height?
Mancino: Which bank?
Farmakes: Are you talking about Americana or what?
Ledvina: No, the Chanhassen Bank. No, okay. Then I'm mistaken.
Mancino: Well when I drove down, and I was looking at West 78th Street to see you know
what kind of pylon signs there are existing there right now. I was looking at Target. I was
looking at Market Square. I also looked at the Country Suites sign, which is not a 20 foot
sign either. I mean that's a block away but I kind of looked at the overall area to see what
was going on there because that's the comparison we're making and the reason for the
variance and it just struck me that you know if we do allow this, then I would like to see
compatible signs also. Monument signs. Although I like the design of the pylon sign. I like
it because it's kind of airy in the way it looks versus your squared off monument sign and I
still like the lower height in the sign.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: What height would you like, if there's going to be a monument sign like that, what
size would you want to see there?
_ Mancino: I would say either 8 to 10 feet. I'm not sure what's, probably 8 feet. Do you
know Bob off hand what the Target? I know that the Market Square is 10, isn't it? Because
we just saw a package for that Wendy's which was the same exact so it's either 8 or 10 feet.
Aanenson: For Target?
Mancino: Yes.
Aanenson: Here it is. It's 8 feet.
Mancino: Okay, 8 feet.
Aanenson: Yeah, 8 x 6.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Well with regard to this particular issue, what would you be in favor of relative to
sizes, variance, etc? I mean would you support the staff recommendation? Or if not, how
would you see that changing so that you would support it?
Mancino: Well I guess what I just look at, on the West 78th, the big Byerly's sign that is
over the entrance that's 304 square feet, to me it could be 3/4 of that size and still be just
fine. I don't support the Fine Foods and Open 24 Hours as signage and I guess I feel that
overall, I mean I don't want to get into looking at different businesses that come in and
decide what language that they can be putting up on their walls besides the name or the
registered trademark or the logo of their business. So that is what I would limit it to.
Scott: So you'd support the Byerly's about 75%, this is the West 78th, Byerly's West 78th
about 3/4 the size but not Fine Foods.
Mancino: Not Fine Foods and Open 24 Hours. I have a little harder time with the Wine and
Spirits and obviously that I guess did not pass on Monday night at City Council so we don't
even know if there's going to be a wine and fine spirits. Is that something that we should
still deal with tonight, even though it's off?
Conrad: Sure.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 —
Mancino: I support signage for kind of a store within a store, which I feel that this is. And
where I get confused is then if there's a restaurant within a store, at what point do we limit
the number of signs and I don't know that yet. So I'm going to wait on that part and listen
to everybody else.
Scott: Okay. Well for purposes of coming to a decision, I've got this broken up into a
couple of things. We've got the Fine Foods, 24 Hours. We've got the West 78th Street
Byerly's. We've got Wine and Spirits and then we have the restaurant. Is that a good
framework to work from so we can say yes, no, yes, no, because I think we need to come to
an agreement here. Would anybody else like to, is there any discussion? Any additional
discussion?
Farmakes: Are we going to make comments around the board?
Scott: Yeah. Yeah. —
Farmakes: We can jump around?
Scott: Sure, that's fine. You can go.
Farmakes: I'd agree with what has been said except for personally I would be fine with
Open 24 Hours and Wine and Spirits. The criteria being it's a separate entrance for the store
similar to their other operations. It requires a separate license. So I don't have a problem
with that because of the amount of square footage that's there, which I think is the overriding
call for the variance here. I think it's reasonable with a store that size to see that the part of
the store and the elevation facing south has a reasonable opportunity to be seen from —
Highway 5 because of it's location and the fact that it's a, or subregional, a destination for
people outside of town finding it. I do think however that the east and the west applications
are different than what the applicant is applying for. I don't think they need to be that strong. —
I would limit any signage on the building to the west. Rely on monumenture for at the entry
points along 78th and along Kerber Boulevard. I would eliminate the wall signage to the east.
Scott: Eliminate wall signage to the east or to the west?
Farmakes: I would leave it to a monument. An entry monument or get it off of the wall. I —
don't think it's required that it be that large. The sight distances from the roads, they're
virtually right next to the building. Right next to the sign. Obviously a different assignment
to the south. Facing the highway.
Scott: Yeah. So you'd support the size of the Byerly's logo as proposed?
6
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Farmakes: I think it's reasonable because it has a further distance than Target. I think it's
reasonable. If we could moderate and eliminate the pylon sign to monument for the entrance
to the south, on 78th, and the entrance to the east. And take the rest of the signage off the
buildings as far as Byerly's goes. And leave Wine and Spirits and Open 24 Hours. Get rid
of Fine Foods. I think a case has been made that that's a trademark. It's a generic verbiage
and it's far enough away from Byerly's that it's a category capability.
Scott: Okay good. Matt.
— Ledvina: Boy we've got a couple different things that have been proposed. Overall I think
that the proposal is acceptable the way it's been laid out and I look at how I think it's going
to look after it's built and I don't have a problem with what's there. Fine Foods, Open 24
Hours, Wine and Spirits and the Byerly's logo. I think Nancy has a good point with the
pylon. I think maybe 20 feet is just a little bit too much there.
Scott: What would you like to see?
Ledvina: I think 10 to 12 feet would be acceptable. I don't know. Maybe it should be 8
feet but you know I'm okay with 10 or 12.
Scott: And then what about the, so then there's signage proposed on the east and the west
elevations. That's acceptable to you?
_ Ledvina: Well, as it relates to the provisions that are laid out in the ordinance, I think you
have to have the street frontage to get the signage.
_ Farmakes: Staff is recommending denial of the west elevation. I made a recommendation
that the east elevation be removed and allow it to have a monument on Kerber rather than
virtually if you drove on Kerber you'd be right next to the sign, whether it's on the wall or
whether it's on the street. My comment was from the distance that it has to be read, it's not
necessary that it be that size. From the east elevation. The only sight line is from city park
and 78th.
Mancino: I kind of like that. That's kind of nice because if you're in Market Square, you
could look up you know Kerber.
Farmakes: It would allow sight from Kerber and sight from 78th but it would not be
obtrusive to virtually what's civic property.
Ledvina: You're restricting them beyond what the ordinance would say then.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 —
Farmakes: Well it depends on how you want to look at this. You're granting a variance so
you're not restricting them. You're offering.
Ledvina: Right, there's a give and take.
Farmakes: There's a give and take situation there. I think the primary emphasis to the —
applicant is to be seen from TH 5. I would agree that that's the motivation for the variance.
I think that that's reasonable.
Nutting: Jeff did you come out in favor of the pylon and putting the monuments as part also
on 78th?
Farmakes: I would be in favor, I don't want to take away from some of the comments. I
just wanted to clarify the differences between the comments that have been made up to that
point. My comment is to support what Nancy said to the exclusion of Fine Foods and the east —
elevation. Currently if you look on where it says east elevation, the secondary sign. That
signage is virtually facing City Hall and for direction or people coming down Kerber or
people coming down 78th to see the location, if it was a monumenture at the entrance area —
there, that that would suffice. And still follow the moderation that we used with Target. It'd
be similar to how Target reads off of 78th.
Scott: Okay. Matt?
Ledvina: Well, I don't know. I would accept that. Elimination of that signage on the east
side.
Scott: Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: Jeff you said eliminate the signage on the east side? _
Farmakes: No, I said replace it with monumenture like Target.
Ledvina: Well, the wall signage.
Conrad: Yeah. —
Farmakes: And the entrance point from the east.
Ledvina: So add a monument sign.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Farmakes: There'd be two monument signs in place of a pylon.
Conrad: We're all going to have different opinions. I don't mind the, I think most of the
signage that's requested is quite nice. Basically, but I do have some exceptions and they're a
little bit different than everybody. I like all the wine and spirits. The fine foods is fine. I
don't like the 24 hours out there. I think that's, I just don't want that. That's not what, I
don't want that. The pylon sign in front, I think we should take it down in size. That's sort
of a give and take process here to allow the variance and I don't have a clue what to say to
Jeff's proposal. Not a clue. I was comfortable with the east elevation as it was provided the
24 hours was taken off of that. So I'm probably in a different spot than everybody else.
Scott: Ron.
Nutting: I could go along also with the adjustment in the pylon. I guess how low do you
bring it before a pylon has to become a monument?
Scott: I'm just saying, chop the legs off and it becomes a monument.
Nutting: So I don't know what impact bringing it down to 12 feet has. If it stays a pylon or
if it becomes a monument or how that fits the plan. I'm okay with the east elevation signage
but there's the give and take side but I think if we're bringing down the pylon, I mean there's
give and take going already with the pylon coming down. I think the east elevation sign
could stay. I'm okay with the Byerly's logo out front at the present size. And as far as the
24 hours, fine foods, wine and spirits, I can live with all three of those.
Scott: Good. Yeah, I'm fine with the Byerly's on West 78th. I think that's the kind of
treatment that we're looking at. I mean what we don't want to see is a 4 x 8, back lit piece
of plastic so I think that works well. I don't think the 24 hours, open 24 hours is appropriate.
Wine and Spirits is fine. I like the suggestion of the signage on the east face being replaced
with a monument and also having the large sign out by the street on West 78th to be
something that's in the 10 to 12 foot range. So are there any more comments? Any more
discussion?
Mancino: Yeah, I have a question and that is Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the applicant
what he thinks of Jeff s suggestion on Kerber. To take off the wall sign and put it on a
monument sign on Kerber. I'd like to get his thoughts on that.
Charlie James: Well unfortunately I'm not in a position to deal with it. The people from
Byerly's so I don't know what their...might be. I guess reducing the, I think one of the
reasons for the pylon down on West 78th Street for instance is because the code specifically
9
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
allows a pylon and so we just tried to draw what we had down there to fit the code. I would
think at that point, I'm speaking for Byerly's here but I can't imagine getting too much brain
damage if that was lowered or consistent with the other ones we're doing. Unfortunately
the ordinance doesn't provide for that. It says you can have a pylon...so that's how we ended
up with that. But I could see some, although Target has a pylon 36 feet tall, I can appreciate,
I guess what I heard tonight for the first time was a concern about West 78th Street. What
that streetscape looks like. I appreciate that argument. As long as everything else going out
West 78th Street we're consistent here...going on there further west and everybody's got these
big signs, what are you going to do out there? Because they're in a wedge, are you going to
say they're along Highway 5 or are they on West 78th? Do they get to push their pylon up
to, I don't know. I guess I have, maybe we could get some consensus or direction from
Byerly's prior to City Council or something, I don't know. I'm afraid they're not here
tonight. The gentleman that ordinarily attends this is on vacation with his family this week
so I guess I'm indicating that we're going along with that...and I guess I can appreciate the
concern on West 78th. Whether Byerly's will like it or not...
Scott: Okay. Any other discussion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the variance to the sign ordinance for the West Village Center to permit a maximum
of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byerly's. A variance of 351 square
feet and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east elevation of Byerly's. A
variance of 296 square feet. Approval of the signage on the west elevation of the retail
center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's. This
approval is subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with the following additions.
Number 7, a pylon sign should be limited to a height of 12 feet. Number 8, the words "Open
24 Hours" should be eliminated from all signage text.
Conrad: I second that.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
Mancino: Yeah. You're suggesting Matt that we say 12 feet even though Target and Market
Square, their monument signs are only 8 feet? And why? I mean I just want to hear some
rationale. If we're trying to have the whole area kind of have the same comparable,
compatible signage.
Ledvina: Well I don't think 4 feet is, Market Square is just 10 feet I don't think. Well that'd
be an extra 2 feet. I don't think that difference is able to be seen. I think that the, by taking
them down to 8 feet, I think what happens is maybe this design doesn't become feasible
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
— anymore. And I like this design. I like the way this is set up. So I don't want to see this
eliminated. I just want to see it scaled down. Perhaps they'll actually scale the whole thing
down and we might get a smaller Byerly's on there. But I would leave that up to them in
terms of how they would do it.
Mancino: So you kind of just picked an arbitrary height. Instead of picking, would you
entertain a friendly amendment of the maximum height not being any larger or any higher
than either the Market Square or the Target monument instead of kind of picking an arbitrary.
Ledvina: Well then that would be 10 feet right?
Mancino: Yeah.
Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that.
Farmakes: What about the issue, the east elevation? You're proposing it as it's drawn right
now?
Scott: Except for the 24 hours.
Ledvina: Yes, eliminate the.
Farmakes: No, the east elevation would be attached to the wall rather than the monument?
Ledvina: Yes. I think that's.
Farmakes: That's a much larger scale.
Ledvina: Pardon?
Farmakes: That's a much larger scale design than would be on a monument of 10 feet.
Ledvina: Right. I think that again what they're requesting for, or requesting is reasonable. I
don't want to monkey with it too much. Maybe that's the wrong word. I don't feel that I
want or I don't feel we should restrict them to that degree. To totally eliminating that
signage.
Farmakes: But the only sight line for that signage is the government civic park and
Chanhassen Bank.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Ledvina: Well, you can see the sign as you're on the road as well.
Farmakes: You can't see it from Kerber coming to the south until you become adjacent to
the building. And coming on the east, west on 78th, you couldn't see, you'd see it at the
same time you saw the front end elevation or the south elevation of the building. _
Scott: And the monument sign.
Farmakes: Because of the projectory of the angle that you see it.
Scott: You'd also see the monument sign out front with a monument pylon on West 78th.
Well too it looks as if the Byerly's on the east elevation is the same size as the Byerly's on
the south elevation.
Ledvina: Is that the case?
Generous: It is. —
(There were several conversations going on simultaneously at this point.)
Ledvina: Well if you would like to make a friendly amendment to that affect, I would accept
that.
Farmakes: I'll make a friendly amendment that the east elevation sign be reduced to the
word Byerly's, similar to the monument sign on the 78th Street south elevation. And reduced
to the same height as Target and Market Square. —
Scott: Which would be?
Mancino: I think we said max 10.
Scott: So we're looking at two 10 foot monument signs, Kerber and West 78th.
Mancino: I have a question for discussion Matt. When you gave square footage, total square _
footage earlier, on each elevation. Did it take in 24 hours because I know that you wanted to
eliminate that so wouldn't that take away from the overall square footage that we would
allow?
Ledvina: Yes, I would imagine so. Actually that's something we need to be concerned
about?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Well we're taking away three occurrences of open 24 hours and I don't know if that's
2 feet tall by 8 or something.
Ledvina: Well can we just, can I add another condition. Condition number 9 that the
footages, the square footage identified in the main body of the recommendation be adjusted
to, adjusted downward to account for the elimination of the Open 24 Hours text of the
signage. Is that acceptable?
Scott: Is there any more discussion?
Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question from Bob?
Scott: Certainly.
Mancino: Bob, on recommendation number 4 you have the signage will have consistency
throughout the development. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and
height. Does that mean that you know, a Byerly's has PMS 286. I mean that's their logo
color. Does that mean that every other retail store in this development has to use this color
for their signage?
Generous: No, that's not the intent no. But we wouldn't want to have clashing colors that
don't go together.
Farmakes: Are we specifying what colors we're seeing in the signs?
Mancino: Well yeah, are we specifying what colors we're seeing on the signage? I suppose
we should do that.
Farmakes: Determine that as Byerly's blue.
Scott: Would that be condition number 11?
Mancino: Yeah. Friendly amendment Matthew. That we specify that for Byerly's, that
there's consistency in color and that is the Byerly's blue which is PMS 286.
Ledvina: I would accept that.
Scott: So we have a motion on the floor. Let's see, can we have a second?
Ledvina: Do you accept those? The second has to accept those amendments as well?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Conrad: I don't.
Ledvina: Okay, you don't. —
Farmakes: I'd second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we.
Ledvina: Well can we, excuse me. Are there any particular ones that you don't agree with?
Conrad: Yeah. We're kind of tinkering with the, we're designing signage here. I don't
know, I'm real uncomfortable with that. I like to see what it is and how the applicant say
that makes sense so. A couple things did make sense. The 24 hours to me made sense
taking that out. Approving well designed signage made sense, whether we did it through a
variance or through another vehicle but as we start gerry rigging signage here, as resident
experts, I'm not comfortable with that.
Ledvina: So if you didn't accept the friendly amendments, then it goes back to my original
motion and we have to vote on that because we have a motion and a second. Is that correct?
Conrad: I think you had another second. I think Jeff could second your motion. I withdrew
my second. So Jeff can second it.
Scott: Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye?
Mancino: Can we state the motion in it's entirety?
Scott: Certainly. Would you like to do that?
Ledvina: Well we have the, okay I'll go ahead and do that if I can. Item number 7.
Reduces the maximum height of the pylon to 10 feet. Number 8, which eliminates the words
"Open 24 Hours" from all signage text. Number 9 which was Jeff's friendly amendment as it
related to the elimination of the signage on the east elevation of the building. Replacing that
signage with a monument.
Scott: 10 foot.
Ledvina: Okay. And then number 10 which reduces the square footages for the signage
stated in the body of the recommendation to account for the removal of the words "Open 24
Hours" from the signage text. I think that's it.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: And then number 11 was Nancy's.
Mancino: The color.
Ledvina: Okay. And number 11 would be the use of the consistent color PMS 286.
Mancino: PMS 286. Byerly's blue.
Scott: Is everybody ready to vote?
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve the variance to the sign ordinance for the West Village Center to
permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byerly's (a
variance of 351 square feet), and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east
elevation of Byerly's, (a variance of 296 square feet), approval of the signage on the west
elevation of the retail center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west
elevation of Byerly's This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be permitted.
2. All signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. Consistency in signage
shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
4. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the Byerly's sign.
6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code.
7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 10 feet.
8. The words "Open 24 Hours" should be eliminated from all signage text.
9. The east elevation sign be reduced to the word Byerly's, similar to the monument
sign on the 78th Street south elevation and reduced to the same height as Target
and Market Square.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall
account for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text. —
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
Scott: The motion carries 4 to 2 and Ron, if you could summarize your thoughts on your nay
vote.
Nutting: In my earlier comments I basically agreed with the east elevation signage. I guess
I'm new to this game and I still haven't fully figured out the process but I'm less a tinkerer
and more along the lines with what Ladd was saying. I don't, I'm not comfortable with —
picking everything apart to what I see as opposed to what the developers have spent a lot of
time working on.
Scott: Okay. And Ladd, your comments.
Conrad: I've made them already. —
Scott: Good. And this goes to City Council?
Generous: March 28th.
(Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and was not present to vote on any of the
remaining items.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED —
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE
DEVELOPMENT, RLK ASSOCIATES.
Public Present:
Name Address —
Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court
John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins —
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
John Dobbs 450 East Co. Rd. D, Little Canada
Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge
Bob Generous, Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for staff? Hearing none, would the applicant or
their representatives wish to address the Planning Commission? Please identify yourself.
John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. I
guess I'd just briefly like to give an overview and let John Dietrich from RLK will go
through some of the concerns. I guess I'd just briefly like to tell you a little bit about me.
I'm a trained landscape architect and interestingly enough, a number of the people who show
up on your...community across the corridor, study of urban design studies, one of my
professors in landscape architecture department and Bill Morrish did some...urban design and
Lars...who is a professional landscape architect who was my advisor at one point. Not only
that but I happen to run Heritage Development at the moment...so it gives me an interesting
and unique perspective I think on what's going to come up and I'm actually looking forward
to it I think. ...make a difference and do some different things. The reason we put together
the preliminary and put it out as a PUD was, as Kate mentioned, there are a lot of concerns
staff has and that we have about the property and it seemed like a very good way to
keep...and the staff and the Planning Commission and City Council. A number of issues have
been addressed as in the preliminary meetings that I've had, as Dave mentioned, with storm
water management. The landscape is, that we're addressing here is very narrow and also very
rolling. There's a future park corridor running down the Bluff Creek...idea for the entire city
itself. And the future sewer line that's coming from Stone Creek running out to the future
school site. Had meetings with Kate and Diane, Dave and Charles, the City Engineer. I've
also been over to...Bill Morrish and Tom...and just trying to be as much a part of this as I
possibly can so. We're coming to the...meeting at 2:00 tomorrow and I'm pretty excited
about the process and I think we'll pass along...With that, we do have some concerns with the
storm water is a real issue. That's changing as we speak in terms of drainage, Stone Creek
and new runoff that we're going to generate, park corridors and trails along it so
obviously...So John Dietrich who represents RLK will...
John Dietrich: John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the landscape architects and civil
engineers preparing the findings for Heritage Development. I have just some clarifications
that I'd like to put to each of the I guess 23 recommendations that we have with you.
Address those. We've had a chance to discuss it. We are basically in approval with the
recommendations as they are stated. Some minor clarifications that...Should we speak to
those now or would you like to discuss the plan first?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: I guess I think probably what we'd like to do is have you go through the
recommendations and then do your clarifications so we can understand what your position is
and so forth.
John Dietrich: Thank you. I'm on page 15 of the staff report...The first one, the applicant
incorporate design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed plan that are being
initiated in the upcoming month. Yes, we definitely want to include those. We just want it
to be clear that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in this corridor. Open
space, land use. The access needs. The need for development of the residential property so
that they all have to be tied in so we are a quality park and open space and have..individuals
come down and use that space. Secondly is timing. We are interested in moving forward
with a final PUD and then into a preliminary platting procedure so that we can look at an
opportunity for development on this site this coming year, 1994. So we are looking to do,
trying to move along quickly but also incorporating the concerns. Number 2, the proposed
ponding area in the southern portion should be relocated to lessen impact on wetlands,
wooded areas and natural features. If indeed the ponding area that we have...talked about
with Heritage and...is going to be an issue, we feel that there's an opportunity to have a pre-
treatment of the storm water between the wetlands to the east and the lots up the roadway
that would necessitate some...and possibly the roadway and possibly some negotiation
between the square footages of all the lots but we feel that would be a doable process and we —
would definitely adhere to the pre-treatment of any storm water...wetland areas. Number 3,
that's a yes. We will definitely be working with Frank Svoboda and Associates for wetland
delineation. Number 4, attempt to retain the natural topographic features. Again, we will be —
looking closer at the grading plan and design and in concert with these...trunk line, sanitary
sewer and watermain to this site, we want to try and have an equal balance for good
engineering and good site design for all parties involved. Number 5. Pretreatment of the
storm water. Basically we go back to comment number 2. The City has suggested removing
Lots 50, 51, and 52 and building a storm water retention pond for the pretreatment area. We
feel we can modify the location of that pretreatment area so that we will not lose 3 lots —
outright for pretreatment. That is again a...modification that would have to be. Number 6.
Wetland 15-15-1 should remain in it's current condition. If in fact it does remain in that
condition and you would like to have us work with the city as to potentially looking at that as
some unique housing sites on the edge of that pond area where they would have a much
higher tree count within the lots. So if it's not going to be for ponding, there should be
another use that is estimated to stay exactly like it is. It would have to be some type of
credits...
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. Is that the wetland that is drained by a
culvert?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay. So are, do you have any specific proposals as it relates to that? Do you
need to take that culvert out or is that what you're thinking or modify that? Resize it or.
John Dietrich: This is the ponding area that we have a specific, we had anticipated utilizing
as a storm water pretreatment before it would flow into the wetland. Currently there's a
creek and in the creek...site from the Timberwood Estates area. We would propose that that
would be in it's current location. That with a street crossing.
Ledvina: Okay.
John Dietrich: Did I answer your question?
Ledvina: Well.
Hempel: One of the issues I guess that staff had before was this, this is the location of the
wetland that's currently being drained through an existing culvert that goes underneath the
railroad tracks in this location here. Based on the surface water management plan, we did
propose...the use of this wetland but as the storm water quantity...as of today right now. A
lot of the Stone Creek development as well as the southerly...drain through a ravine down to
the wetland to this location here and...It is our belief that somewhere in this area here, this
flat area with the trees...for water quality improvements is adjusted in this point. So we feel
there's probably a location here where a pretreatment pond can be developed prior to a storm
sewer to go in prior to discharging into the wetland...continue the drainage patterns of the
neighborhood. That's something we want to be looking at here when we get the grading
plans and so forth.
Ledvina: Thank you.
John Dietrich: Item number 7. The SWMP report, the storm water quality/quantity fees and
trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. Yes we will be looking to provide that on site and
the credit that comes with that report and providing that service. That would be great. We
also are concerned about what those fees are and that report is in it's final draft form so we
have not had an opportunity to actually see the report. Number 8, sanitary, trunk sanitary
sewer lines to be used as both lateral and trunk. We intend to work with the city and have
those within the public right-of-ways of the site so that we have an opportunity to maintain
the creek corridor in it's natural state which we think both parties will benefit from. Number
9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to the future
east/west frontage road. Between Galpin and Audubon Road. We fully intend that that
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
connection would be critical to servicing this site and as that roadway is developed, this one
would also be extended. That outlot is part of the Chanhassen Corporate Center PUD concept
plan submission which was submitted I believe 2 weeks ago to the city. Number 10,
curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics. We will work with the city and try to
come in with as quality of a plan as possible with the understanding that it is a long narrow,
highly topographical site so we're trying to balance a number of issues at this time. Number
11, to make the north/south roadway the major traffic flow. Yes, we will modify that.
Number 12, detailed construction drawings and specifications. Yes, we will submit to that.
13, final construction drawings. Absolutely. 14, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security. We assume
that will be based on the standard criteria that has been used on other platting procedures for
securing the escrow. We will submit that. Trail easements connecting the interior of the
development to the Bluff Creek, absolutely. 16, the applicant shall investigate the use of
private driveways to serve up to four lots. We will look at that issue to try and minimize the
amount of right-of-way for individual lots if we have the opportunity to do so. Number 17,
north/south street should provide a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway to match the
typical cross section for Stone Creek Drive. Provided the sidewalk that is being proposed
does connect into another sidewalk, we would agree to this condition. Our concern is that it
ends at our property line and goes nowhere else, then we should not be required to put it in.
A tree survey, number 18. Yes, we will take care of that. Number 19. We will look at —
setbacks of variances to accommodate the siting and maintain that...Number 20, 21 and 22.
Yes we will submit all of those approvals. And 23 addresses the issue of the DNR letter by
Mr. Richter to Kate Aanenson. Although we're concerned with the classification of this as a
protected tributary, it is the distance of 300 feet from the creek center line or bluff that it has
the shoreland overlay district provide to it which requires 20,000 square foot of...lot area. We
would ask that you look at a combination of lot areas would have an average of 20,000
square feet across the development in order to make this entire site work with the strong site
constraints and...
Scott: Okay, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience
who would like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Can I have a motion to open the
public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and _
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Those who would like to speak, please come forward. State your name and address.
Tahir Khan: I am Tahir Khan and I live in Timberwood Estates. I read over the details on
drainage and I want to go on record stating that it is a drainage that is occurring from my
20
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
property which is 2040 Renaissance Court. Which if you could put a map up. This is the lot
and there's natural drainage to the pond here that's not shown but it drains up and goes, the
water drains east and not towards the creek but it goes east, straight across and drains into the
creek that runs north and south. The way I see this platted out it's going to be running right
through the back yard until it hits the road. And I'm wondering if.
Farmakes: Excuse me just a minute. I saw you move the pencil back and forth to the east
and west. North I believe is facing, so which way does it drain, east or west or north and
south?
Generous: It drains from west to east.
Scott: Towards Bluff Creek.
Generous: Yes. To the wetland.
Tahir Khan: It's a natural area. It just happens to be draining right from this corner. It goes
right to the creek and I'm wondering if there's any provisions that you have thought of so
they don't end up with a...pond where the water has no place to go except...go south.
Hempel: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to address that at this time if you'd like. Down here is
Renaissance Court. This is the lot that, he lives on right here. This drainage ravine that goes
right through here is the one that carries the runoff from west to east. To the Timberwood
Estates down to Bluff Creek, which is down here in this area. We will be requiring that this
drainageway be left open with the appropriate sized drainage culvert similar to what's in to...
Estates up here. We will maintain that flow through there. Will not be compounding...
Tahir Khan: On the one you had up where the current drainage is occurring towards, there's
a slight depression on the top northwest corner and it serves two homes. One is my house
and the one north of my house. And the natural flow of the ground as it is, where that
drainage occurs, goes right through the property to the east. And unless there is some
grading that could occur so as to divert, there's also a power line that runs north and south.
So unless from that top northeast corner there's a new ditch section be done north and south,
for any house that goes...is left not only it's own back yard but also cause flooding in the
northeast corner of my house and the southeast corner of the Johnson home.
Hempel: Once we get a formal grading plan we'll be reviewing that to make sure that the
neighborhood drainage patterns are compatible. That we're not breeding any kind of ponding
onto the properties outside of the plat. It's part of our review process.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Tahir Khan: This side of the concept where they show the street layout and the lot lines.
Hempel: We don't have a grading plan at this time or a utilities layout so when that step -
during the preliminary plat approval process is what they supply in the piecemeal information.
This will address that further.
Farmakes: Which lots would we be talking about here in relationship to the comment?
Hempel: It'd be up along this corridor here. It would be the east lot line of the plat. These
back yards of the Timberwood development in here.
Scott: Which lot numbers?
Farmakes: So we're not talking about 4, 3, 55 or 54?
Hempel: I would say you're looking at Lots 4 thru 12 in this area. Address the back yard
drainage.
John Dietrich: It appears that it might be running through the proposed Lot 7?
Scott: Right.
John Dietrich: We will take a closer look at that and it may necessitate a pipe out to that
side or a definite swale or some type of drain tile along the property line...
Tahir Khan: Also for the record, if your architects care to go and see it right now...that pond
is about 50 feet in diameter. And it has not gone over the slight hump before it starts to
drain so it's collecting right now between my property and the property north of me and I
think as the spring thaw progresses, it eventually will top itself off and start heading across
the, start draining eastward now.
John Dietrich: Would there be a problem to drain that all the time without having the water. -
Tahir Khan: We would prefer, looking from our point of view, to have it drain all the time
because there is some very mature oak trees that momentarily do get submerged. Then once
in a while when the plow used to plow the cornfield, it would leave ridges. 6 inches to 8
inches worth of ridges and that would be like a dam. And eventually the ridge would break
and the flow would be very rapid across the cornfield so preferably it would be, if there's a
road going by and it can be graded so that the lots and the road are lower, by only even a
foot, then that water would probably drain normally into the sewer anyways. That's all I
22
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
have, thank you.
Colleen Dockendorf: Hi. Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Is that the exact area
we're talking about where the sewer stub will go in?
Hempel: The sewer stub for servicing the future Timberwood Estates, we're looking at this
corridor through here. It would be the lowest portion.
Colleen Dockendorf: As with all conceptual approvals there's, it's hard to give comments
when it's not final but my other concern is the time line that you guys are trying to meet and
are we putting the cart before the horse...Bluff Creek corridor done this summer. I'm not
sure if all...and if we give conceptual approval at this point, are we forcing ourselves to a
time line that we don't want to be subject to.
Tahir Khan: I have one more point. I read about the stub also for the sewer. If it has to run
into the Timberwood Estates, I would personally oppose to having it run next to the creek or
the drainage creek because it's very heavily wooded and it meanders back and forth
sufficiently through my property as well as properties through the west of my property. And
it would require a lot of trees going down. The sewer line would have to go across. Now
there is a drainage and utility easement on the northern edge of my property that takes a
straight shot towards Galpin Boulevard. If the trunk has to go and get stubbed in between the
creek and the existing easement, I would recommend the existing easement because the
existing easement also is part of this pond that I'm describing and consequently there's not as
many trees. And also access, like I said, straight to Galpin but I would be opposed to having
my property detreed...in order to facilitate the stub going in.
Hempel: We'll be looking at that in greater detail in the upcoming preliminary plat submittal
in determining the best alternative to extending sewer, sanitary sewer in the future for
Timberwood Estates. Where the creek runs in the lowest portion of the Timberwood area
though it's typically, well there's...to extend sanitary sewer so you can service the entire
development through a gravity system...and no need for an additional lift station and so forth
but we can certainly review that in greater detail in the upcoming month here so.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the general public? Okay, could I have
a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 —
Mancino: I'll make it short and sweet. First of all, Bob I want to thank you for doing such
an extensive job of bringing up so many issues. It's just a very good report and thanks. I'm
having a hard time, actually Colleen kind of took the words out of my mouth. Saying yeah
to this conceptual plan because I think conceptual plan sets the tone of the development and I
think the tone of this development, and it says in our staff report on page 2. The intent of the
development is to create a project that is compatible with the natural elements of the area,
specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area and the existing topography. And it
goes on. And because of that I would like to wait until the shirette is done on the Bluff
Creek corridor and those design components the developer can work with. Until that is done, —
because I think it will set the tone of this development. And I would like to wait and I could
not give conceptual approval right now until that Bluff Creek shirette is done and see how the
developer takes those design components, guidelines, and works with them in this —
development. Because it is the whole part of this development. The Bluff Creek and the
natural topography.
Scott: Okay, good. Jeff.
Farmakes: A couple of general comments. I get uncomfortable when a high percentage or
we start hovering close to 40-50% of substandard in a PUD. I don't know why that is but it
seems to be a target that we shoot for. There always seems to be that there's a bunch of little —
lots and then there's some tree top lots that make up the rest that have extensive square
footage but what it does is it equalizes out the other lot. But the problem I have with that is
that a lot of that square footage that we're using isn't buildable under normal development
process and I keep on bringing this up. This is a difficult area to develop, granted and I
don't see a problem with the PUD. I see a problem with some disseparate lots, in particular
where some of these drainage patterns are where there's deep ravines. Very limiting as to
where those pads are going to go and the lot looks much more spacious than it truly is. And
without seeing building pads on this particular review, it makes it kind of dangerous from the
concept standpoint to give approval to this type of thing. Or really review the design of it. —
Drainage issue is a concern in particular with this type of property and it's essentially that's
what this is. It's a big drainage field and I would be concerned about that if I was an
adjacent property owner or potential owner of this property. And I think it's sort of the cart —
before the horse here in this development, I'd agree with Nancy. And I would vote to deny it
at this point.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I have a couple of questions for Dave. On condition number 9. Talking about the
north/south street shall be extended through that outlot to connect to a future east/west
frontage road within three years of the final plat. I'm concerned about the connective you
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know road scenario and what would be the time line for the east/west frontage road going in?
This is part of that south frontage road construction. What are we looking at there?
— Hempel: That's correct. The east/west frontage road will serve the school site and eventually
multiple residential sites there east of the school site. The city project will be commencing
this spring with the site grading of the school. Utilities later on in the summer with the street
construction in the fall. Completion date of I believe July of 1995.
Ledvina: Okay. Doesn't it make sense to just, so this, the roads in this subdivision would
actually be done this year, is that what we're shooting for? Is that what the developer is
shooting for?
Hempel: I don't want to speak for the developer but my interpretation of their plan here is to
show you the entire development with anticipation of doing a phased approach. The outlot to
the north is actually under a different PUD development and it will be coming in in the next
couple of weeks. Chan Corporate Center I believe it's called. I don't know, maybe the
developer can address their phasing...of this parcel. Maybe they are proceeding to develop 56
lots.
John Dobbs: It would depend on a number of issues...the one that's the most glaring and that
_ is this trunk sewer coming up. Whether that would follow the road line or not. If it does
follow along the proposed alignment that we have, there would be some drainage that would
have to be...in preparation for the sewer...Then our intention after that, after the sewer would
go in, if there's enough time this year...put in streets as far as weather...
Ledvina: Okay. Well I'm concerned about a 3 year time period. The issue as I see it relates
to safety and maybe 3 years is too long...to delay that connection so I guess I wouldn't
change that recommendation specifically but I would request that staff review that
recommendation again to see what might be appropriate as it relates to that time frame. It
may be an as soon as possible type of thing, you know would be appropriate. On item
number 17, Dave. Would you clarify the situation with the sidewalks there? How do you
see that?
Hempel: Certainly. Currently Stone Creek, the Hans Hagen development to the southwest of
this site, is proposing to extend Stone Creek Drive to where it exists today in the first phase
of Stone Creek. There currently is a sidewalk I believe on the south side of Stone Creek
Drive...which will terminate at the westerly property line of the subdivision. Their street,
typical section does include the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk as well so it
would be completing the sidewalk.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Ledvina: Okay so that, so we wouldn't have a situation where we would have a sidewalk
ending? It would connect to the existing sidewalk? Or the proposed sidewalk in that area.
Hempel: That's correct in that location and eventually there is a sidewalk/trail in harmony
with each of those...
Ledvina: Okay. And getting, stepping back a little bit on this whole development. I guess
generally I support, certainly support the development of this site using the PUD approach.
We certainly do have a very sensitive area that we're dealing with. We have the extreme
topography on the northern part of this site and then also the ravine on the southern part of
the site. I would want to see those elements treated very carefully and to that extent I would
strongly support staff's recommendation that the private driveways be looked at in great
detail. Not necessarily to reduce the right-of-way but in an effort to minimize the disruption
to the topography. Also, it may make sense to increase the distance or just to eliminate
grading from those very steep areas and just pull the extent of the development back on the
northern part of the site to essentially leave those areas alone. And similarly to the, as it
relates to the ravine on the southern end, I understand of course you have to cross that but as _
it relates to minimizing and perhaps even eliminating the grading associated with the
preparation of pads, building pads in that area. I think the street alignment certainly can be
changed to maybe provide a little more curvilinear aspect as the staff has pointed out. And I
think things can be perhaps readjusted in terms of the locations of the private, potentially
private drives to be sensitive to the topography. Let's see. I guess I would support this
conceptual approach. I think even though we don't have the guidelines for the Bluff Creek
corridor, I think that the developer is certainly aware that that is the reason that we're, that
we want to evaluate this or the reason it should be evaluated using the PUD approach. And
although things may not be specific as it relates to the standards, I think staff has probably a —
pretty good idea of some of the things that can be done at this point to minimize the impact
on the corridor. To provide the access that we want to. The open space, etc so I think we're
pretty far away from making decisions that really dictate how the corridor will be impacted at
this point so I think that knowing what our goal is going to be I think is enough. And I think
we can move this forward from this point. So again I would support this proposal with the
staff changes. I've got some other conditions that I would add to address some of the
neighborhood concerns.
Farmakes: Could I ask a question? How do you feel about so many undersized lots? And
adjacent to the property.
Ledvina: Well, we're looking at it as a PUD so some of the things that we can do for the
developer relate to the undersized lots and the setbacks. The roadway setbacks in exchange
for added sensitivity as it relates to the area surrounding the corridor. But specifically I don't
26
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know if 24 lots averaging 13,500 square feet, you know that might be acceptable.
Farmakes: My point on that though is if you look at Lot 37 and you see Lot 38, those lots
are a third of those lots are buildable.
Ledvina: Right. I understand your point. Exactly.
Farmakes: So if you count those and the ones that are already substandard, if you get to 40-
50%. 60%. 70%. At what point does the trade off for sensitivity become, really go beyond
the zone of single family and start encroaching elsewhere. Just because it's a wetland
doesn't, you couldn't build a traditional development on it.
- Ledvina: Right. Well if it's a wetland it can't be included in the total, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: There's a compliance table in the plat that shows the lots without the
wetland...We check out the net and the gross...
Ledvina: You might think it's not buildable because of the topography but you know they
have some rights in terms of being able to grade that area. We don't want them to.
Farmakes: Well no, but what I'm saying, even as total square foot. Not usable square foot
but if you look at total. 21 of the 56 lots are undersized. That's, if you look at the usable, I
did count the usable square foot because we don't really have a criteria for that but it seems
like we get all these somewhere around 50% being undersized. And when they go in
adjacent to properties that are large lot, how are we dealing with a transition of development.
Ledvina: That's always an issue, certainly. And some of the things that actually, now I
wasn't able to walk that whole line there. I didn't want to because I'd be trespassing, or at
least I thought I would be. But I see a lot of topographic changes there that, and there's a lot
of vegetation there along that line. There is a, is there a power easement right on that line?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: I think that also provides a buffer. And I don't know. You raise a very valid point
and there's a red flag that goes up when I see the backs of 5 lots, more than that, 6 lots
abutting one lot. So that's always a concern. But I think the gains that can be made relative
to the creek may outweigh that given the specifics for the site.
Farmakes: So you think that more homes, I'm not here to beat up on your logic but you
think that more homes, when you're saying the site benefits. Does the site benefit from more
27
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
homes or higher density within the site or?
Ledvina: Well, coming in here and just grading it all out, you could put more lots in here.
Farmakes: But there's a substantial amount of it you couldn't grade out.
Ledvina: Right, and the wetlands you can't.
Farmakes: In other words, the houses are lined up in a row so at least a substantial amount
of them are sort of lined up in a linear line so I.
Ledvina: I would change that certainly.
Farmakes: But there's not a lot of room to play around there before you get into the wetland.
Ledvina: No, you're right. I will say this. I don't know that whatever number of lots, 59
lots. I don't know. Maybe that probably seems like there's too many lots on the
development. So if, I don't know what the total number of lots will be but when you do start
changing the road alignments and taking a close look at areas, very steep contoured areas that
you don't want to grade, maybe the number of lots will go down. I'm hoping it will. —
Mancino: Then conceptually, would you go with more clustering of the houses and have
more open area where we wouldn't do, there wouldn't be as much grading and keeping the —
ravine, etc?
Ledvina: Well they suggested looking at the use of private drives with homes serviced off of
private drives. Several. 3-4 homes. That's a technique. Clustering houses. I guess that's
kind of a clustering type of thing...I'm done.
Farmakes: I just had a question.
Ledvina: Those are my comments.
Scott: Okay. Ron.
Nutting: Very good comments. I guess my issue comes down to giving conceptual approval
now versus deferring you know until the corridor or watershed plan is done contrasted with
the fact that the recommendation number 1 says they incorporate design components from
that. Is it 6 and 1, half a dozen of the other. I'm not sure. In terms of everything may
change or have to change because of that. So that point seems to suggest that I can live with
28
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
the recommendation but I agree with, I do agree with Jeff's concerns and also other
comments that have been made and so the question is, do you move it forward by deferring
or do you move it forward by approving subject to. And that's where my confusion comes
into the process.
Ledvina: Well we will see this again. I mean this is a conceptual.
Nutting: Yeah, so I guess from that standpoint I would tend to lean to say that subject to the
various comments that we could approve then the conceptual plan and move it forward. But
there's a lot of issues that are going to have to be resolved before it gets past that next stage.
I think Jeff's comments are appropriate.
Scott: Good, thank you. I was kind of surprised when we had two residents come up. One
who lived or has a lot adjacent to this property and they didn't say anything about the density
or the number of lots and so forth. I agree with Jeff on the kind of the false sense that we
get when we see very large average lot sizes but that's dictated primarily because of non-
usable space and so it kind of gives us a false sense. This to me looks extremely dense. I
don't support moving this forward. I guess even though it's from a conceptual standpoint, I
still think that we're saying something stronger than perhaps we are when I say I approve this
conceptually. I can't approve this conceptually. I think it's too dense. I think there are,
when I think about the work that we did on Al Klingelhutz's multi-family. We had a
situation where we had some large lot people with 15,000 square foot lots abutting, I think
there were seven 15,000 square foot lots abutting a fellow who I think had a 2 or 3 acre
parcel. The developer came back and reduced the density but basically worked with the
adjacent residents. Also too, is it topographic or topographic? I'll say topographically and
when I take a look at the northern extension of the street and I think Matt had a good point
about maybe doing something different. I see from Lot 22, I see an elevation of 910 going
up within, to Lot 19. We've got a 40 foot change in elevation and obviously that probably
exceeds our, was it 6%? 7%? So I think we're talking about some horrendous grading. I
can't pass this on right now. I think there's such a, there's a large component here where we
have to be sensitive to Bluff Creek and so I would recommend denying this conceptual plan.
I don't have any further comments. Do we need more discussion or would someone like to
make a motion?
Mancino: I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of this
conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development subject to the
applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan.
They're being initiated next month and when those get incorporated, that we see a new
conceptual plan and I would also like to add that many of the issues that are in this
recommendation that Bob has put together for us, be incorporated into the conceptual plan
29
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
too.
Scott: Is there a second please?
Farmakes: I'll second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the applicant's request. Is there any
discussion? —
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial
of this conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development —
subject to the applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan and that the applicant incorporate the conditions outlined by the staff
report into their conceptual plan. All voted in favor, except Ron Nutting and Matt
Ledvina who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Scott: By a vote of 3 to 2 the applicant's request is denied and this goes to City Council on
the 28th?
Generous: The April 11th.
Scott: April 11th? Okay. And what will be accomplished relative to the, at least the design
or the shirette or some input. Will there be some facts that will be available or some city —
guidance...time to rework their plan prior to presentation to the City Council?
Aanenson: I don't think so. We didn't intend for that...What we'll try to do now is...so they -'
know what to do when they come back the next round. They may not get 56 units. They
may get less than that but we have to resolve all these issues...that's fine but obviously we
hadn't intended for this shirette or this focus group to meet before they go to Council. But
we certainly will communicate with them and with you so you know what the issues are
when it comes back.
Scott: Yeah, that's what I'm kind of thinking. If there's probably going to be some new
information available, okay.
Ledvina: Joe?
Scott: Yeah.
Ledvina: I'd like to clarify two points that were discussed in addition to the things in the
30
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
staff report. I would like to see the staff evaluate the drainage patterns within the
Timberwood Estates neighborhood to make sure that the patterns of drainage are maintained
and specifically in the vicinity of Lots 4 thru 12. And I'd also like to add that the
consideration for the sanitary sewer stub for Timberwood Estates, the siting of that stub
minimize topography disruption and tree loss to the extent possible.
Scott: Do you guys want to take a 5 minute break before we do the next?
(The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT
COMPUTER AIDED GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND
SUBDIVISIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Vernelle Clayton 425 Santa Fe Circle
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
_ Scott: Any questions or comments?
Mancino: Is this a public hearing?
Scott: It will be. I don't know, I just have one comment. In the section 1(4) where you
talked, item number (m) where you talk about computer generated photocomposite images or
artistic renderings. I personally would like to see computer generated photocomposite images
only and the reason, I was quite struck by the pedestrian bridge. I mean that, I think as a
Planning Commission we were able to make some decisions based upon some fairly minute
differences I think in the pylon size and different materials and then also they were able to do
a time progression and say well here's what it's going to look like now and here's what it's
going to look like in x number of years. From an artistic rendering standpoint, I don't see
that as being as valuable. So I would rather not have both. The question does come in
though, do you have an idea of what this costs somebody to do a photocomposite versus an
artistic rendering?
Generous: I don't know the artistic rendering. Now they gave me some examples of the
31
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
costs for the photocompositioning...$3,000.00 for the standard site. The example he used was
the high bridge in St. Paul which was a $35 million to $55 million project depending on their —
final design. And they said that the final cost was, I believe it was $35,000.00 or $40,000.00.
Scott: Yeah, because that's my concern is if somebody's got a quarter of a million dollars in —
a lot and then they're going to be building a $20.00 a square foot building, I'm just trying to
figure out if there's a way to give us the scale without having.
Aanenson: As you recall when we looked at the hotel project, what they did, I'm sorry.
What they did is take actual photographs and tried to superimpose it. I think that helped you
to give a bit of perspective from Highway 5 and West 78th.
Scott: That worked really well.
Aanenson: Right, and I think that's what we're talking about in this artistic rendering.
Scott: So it's a photographic process but not just somebody drawing something?
Aanenson: Right.
Ledvina: Question. When you say artistic rendering, do you mean a computer artistic
rendering or is that what you're requiring though? I mean can somebody sketch it out? Is
that adequate?
Scott: That, at least in my mind, that doesn't really give an appropriate view or doesn't give —
me a good idea.
Mancino: Well they can change scale all the time. When it's a hand drawn artistic
rendering, a lot of times they'll get the building and the trees out of scale you know with
each other or they'll give a funny perspective that isn't real realistic and I think that that's the
problem with the. Yeah, they do whatever they want to do.
Scott: I like the idea of if there's some existing, I mean I don't expect someone to spend
$3,000.00 on something but I think it is important, if they can take an existing photograph
and use that as the scale point and then do something with it. So I don't know what the
language is. Maybe photocomposite image. I mean that to me says it's a couple of
photographs stuck together. It doesn't have to be anything extremely expensive, unless
someone that has a very large scale development feels they can invest the money but anyway.
Farmakes: You're going to drive the cost up of demanding a building that's not built as a
32
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
photocomposite where it becomes an illustration...versus if they scan in an elevation drawing
and then drop in some color and then show the signage. They can do that like a photo shop
or something relatively inexpensively. If they have to render the building in 3 dimensional
form, it gets to be fairly expensive.
Scott: What's the middle ground that gives us what we want but doesn't cost?
Generous: Well it depends on the resolution you ask for too. John was telling me that if you
go with a flat shaving, it's less expensive than going to the photo realistic images.
Farmakes: The memory capabilities get very high and then you get into work station type
breaks where you have a much more sophisticated computer to hold a lot of memory from an
illustration. Some of them might be 100 megabytes just for an illustration. So it's a lot of
more expensive equipment.
Scott: What language do we want?
_ Farmakes: Well aren't we interpreting, Kate can you go over what the benefit again is
supposed to be here? If we're looking at photocomposites, we're looking at the relationship
of the building to existing buildings? We're looking at possible signage or landscaping. That
sort of thing. When we're looking at signage or whatever, I think that certainly working from
a working elevation and seeing the maximum development is sufficient. I don't know if it
needs to be a photo rendering or that cost when you're dealing with PUD's where there's
substantial amount of money and it's a large scale development. This is fairly small
percentage.
Mancino: Yeah, I was going to say. It might have to do with cost of the project and having
staff make that decision because we couldn't have visualized the bridge. I mean if somebody
explained it in verbiage, here's the difference between the you know, the bridge. We couldn't
visualize that and the picture obviously.
Aanenson: I think that kind of language, what Bob has put in there, the appropriate levels of
resolution for the visualization. I mean that's something we're going to have to develop you
know as we go through this process. Say that this project demands this level of detail and
this project...but we want to have something in there where if we do need it to make a good
decision, that we can ask for it.
Farmakes: So the criteria then would be that if you thought it was necessary, then you could
ask the developer for that expense?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Aanenson: Right. Because we don't have it in there right now. Right now we can't ask for
it.
Mancino: That makes sense. That makes sense.
Ledvina: So the terminology, appropriate levels of resolution, that's really your discretion.
Aanenson: Well if it comes to you, you could say we can't tell the details and we're going
to have...
Generous: Also you should know that once they have the first one done, the next levels are —
less expensive. He was giving me like $800.00 for a different angle or picture...
Ledvina: A question. Now does this apply to all subdivisions that will come through?
Aanenson: No, that's what I'm saying. We'll have them to do in subdivisions and sign
plans.
Ledvina: But what do we have in front of us? Is this.
Aanenson: You're amending two sections of the code.
Generous: 18-40 is the subdivision section and 20-109 is the site plan review.
Ledvina: So you said subdivisions so this is for subdivisions, just like what we, like a
residential subdivision.
Aanenson: Or maybe along Highway 5...some instances where you may want to...
Ledvina: I see that it's a very powerful tool for analysis and I really like what we did with
the pedestrian bridge. I couldn't agree with you more on that but for a residential
subdivision, I'm having a hard time seeing the application.
Mancino: What about an apartment building?
Aanenson: You don't have to have it. This is something if you feel like it's necessary,
you've got the language in there. Again, we're going to have to on a case by case basis, and
it may be something that...a multi-family project.
Generous: He also said they could do like a video so if you have a subdivision it would be
like coming into the entrance on the street. Going up the street seeing the various housing
types placed in there.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Farmakes: A walk thru program.
Generous: Yeah, exactly.
Mancino: So it gives us the option.
Aanenson: What it does is gives you the option.
Scott: The option to ask for it. Okay.
Ledvina: I guess I would like to see that clarified. I don't think that...appropriate level of
resolution. Another question though. Section 20-109. That's the site plan review?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. I think it's certainly appropriate there. I don't know, I think it has a lot of
application there but I'm not so sure, certain as it relates to subdivisions, how important it
might be.
Nutting: But they're also not making it mandatory.
Ledvina: Yeah. How can we change that language to make that clearer? Appropriate levels
of resolution.
Scott: Appropriate levels of resolution as determined by City planning staff.
Ledvina: Can you throw that in there?
Scott: So it's clear as to who makes that?
Aanenson: Well this is part of a laundry list that you look at. When you come in for an
application to build a subdivision, we give you a checklist, these are the things you need to
provide. And so these fall into that checklist. Okay so if someone was coming in and we'd
say well this obviously, you probably wouldn't need this on this subdivision or take a site
plan, this may or may not. It's one of those things you could check...
Nutting: You want to say it's a requirement but you have the flexibility to say you don't
need it.
Generous: Yeah, you're too small and we don't really...
35
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Aanenson: Or when it comes to you and...and you feel like you need it, then we've got a
method to say, we're not going to approve it until we get a visualization.
Scott: Yeah but I wouldn't see us getting to that point until the development is going ahead
but then we're getting down to maybe some of the finer details. Okay. Good. Are we done
with the discussion with the staff? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would
like to speak on behalf of the public hearing? Yes. Please identify yourself.
Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vernelle Clayton and I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle...just have some
questions. We haven't had much of a chance to look at the report and we had some of the
same questions that you did. Particularly did it really mean that you could have a rendering
such as we used on the motel, and apparently it does. And I think that's important. The
process is not incredibly well developed yet for computer visualization. It's sort of going
through the process, as I understand. The computers and calculators and everything...probably
in a couple years everybody will have it but right now not too many people do. And I have,
ever since I worked in State government, always felt that it was somewhat an uncomfortable
position for any unit of government to find themselves in to be requiring something that is
only provided by a few. And so one of the questions that we had was, would like to have
answered too I guess before we know whether we're even concerned about this is, how many
people really can provide this service? And that is kind of...and that then, let me go back.
How many people can provide it at the level that you want? There are a lot of people that _
can provide a certain amount of...go in and assume that you're requiring a whole lot. So I
guess that would be something that should be clarified so there aren't any misunderstandings.
The other thing is that sometimes I think what we did with the motel, when we took a picture
and then Tim Howell, as you may recall, painted in what we proposed to build, could be done
by somebody like Tim Howell but the others couldn't. I like to be able to see folks like Tim
Howell be able to...business of being an architect, one of the few remaining businesses where
you don't have to be a...if you don't want to. So I mean...but basically we had a couple
questions like that. When would it be applied? There are some small projects that really
couldn't afford it. And whatever you ask these folks to do, they pass it on to the price of the
home or the price of the product that's sold in the commercial buildings so I think you need
to think about that. I believe that's all I had. But maybe if you have the answers to those
questions and you know that...that's fine but we didn't have the answers and we were
wondering, since we find ourselves appearing before you from time to time with various
projects but.
Scott: Maybe the intent, especially on the, like an addition to an existing structure. In my
mind that's just fine. We just want to see how is it going to look. How's it going to play
out and so forth. From a signage standpoint, an elevation drawing, you know 2 dimensional
36
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
_ is fine but I think when we start getting into something like, and I don't know if you had a
chance to see the computer generated piece that they did for the pedestrian bridge but we
were asked to make some decisions that I don't think we really could have made.
Vernelle Clayton: I think that's perfectly reasonable and that's a very ambitious project...so
it's a very small percentage of the total cost.
Scott: So that's why we want to make sure that it's optional and it's only used in case of a
tie or if you will, but just something where we feel we need it or city staff needs it. But
we're not going to be requiring this willy nilly and I think that was one of our concerns. It's
like what does this stuff cost? But no, your points are well taken.
Vernelle Clayton: I would suggest you might want to...obviously it's got to be not the
planning staff but the City Planner. I've never read anything from the staff on their own...
reports signed off by the planners. I think it would be the city planner that would be making
the decisions. I would think she'd be more comfortable with some sort of a guideline...and I
would think you would be in the future, should you hire some...if she decides to go to South
America or something. It's easy to be comfortable with the people you know and their
judgment. You're comfortable and so am I with Kate's judgment but this is a law on the
books that doesn't always, I've been around here a whole lot longer than probably any of you
and some of the things that we all thought we just a given you know 5 or 10 years ago,
people don't even remember now. And some of the things that happened 20 years ago, it's
so easy to have a good idea while you're doing it and then another group of people interprets
it differently.
Scott: I think someone at the planner level would be appropriate. I don't know if we need to
have the Planning Director but you know city, when you talk about planning staff, I'm not
thinking of an administrative individual. I'm thinking of someone who's business it is to plan
and to make decisions of that thing so we need to specify planner level I and II on up or
whatever but we're talking about somebody who's in the business of planning can make that
decision. Are there any more comments from the public for the public hearing? May I have,
seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: Well, I have a few questions. I guess one other thing that I wanted to know was,
it says and provide a perspective. This is in the middle of the paragraph. And provide a
37
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
perspective of the proposed development from abutting properties. Outlying properties? All
sides? At the property line?
Aanenson: We do that right now when we ask for perspectives. We make the judgment call
on what we feel is the most important...maybe on a small project, it's...maybe onone project
it's so sensitive that you need a perspective from all. So really.
Ledvina: Sure. Okay, so it's your discretion on that. That's fine but it's just, it begs to
question I guess.
Aanenson: Maybe there's a...
Ledvina: Sure, I'm okay with that. _
Aanenson: There's just so many variables with each project. I guess I don't want to tie it
down and then leave something out.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I think things do change with time and I can see 5 years from now
people looking at this ordinance saying geez, that was in the Stone Age. The Jurassic type of _
things... But we have to make a stab at it and I guess, as I said before, it is a powerful tool
and I would support the passage of this ordinance.
Scott: Okay. Ron.
Nutting: I guess I also would support it. I guess the issue is coming down to discretion to
apply on a case by case basis to the level that's appropriate and I guess the only question I
have is, the language as it sits, appropriate levels of resolution for the visualization shall be
used from flat shading etc. Does that leave appropriate open to interpretation from the
applicant side as opposed to planning side? And do you want to say as determined by so my
comment is, if we want to refine that. Otherwise I'm in favor of approving this.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: I'm in support of approving this as is. The only words I would change is artistic —
renderings and I don't know what we came up with. And I don't know what the right jargon
is. Jeff, what was the right, you came up with something.
Farmakes: I don't remember what it is.
Mancino: Did someone write it down?
38
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Generous: I wrote photocomposite but I don't know.
Mancino: Well I think that Joe you said just leave out artistic renderings and say
photocomposite images.
Farmakes: Because the photocomposite that's where you took two photos together into a
single image. A rendering, a 3 dimensional rendering is just that. It's a rendering. A
drawing in CAD where you do.
Mancino: Oh a computer generated rendering.
Farmakes: Correct. Which is far more elaborate and far more costly. You can use photo,
canned photo or library photo textures like for instance...have a lot of different kinds of brick.
And you can design a dimensional drawing and the computer will apply it dimensionally. So
again it's the amount of, that's far more elaborate and time consuming and expensive than
scanning an elevation drawing and dropping in some color in the background.
Scott: Or taking a photograph of the existing area and then superimposing either a line
drawing or a photograph.
Farmakes: That's easy.
Scott: Yeah, and that may be appropriate in those instances.
Farmakes: That's an easy issue. Two scans and you put them right together. That's easy.
Mancino: Well then let's leave it up to the discretion of.
Ledvina: I'm comfortable with artistic rendering...
Mancino: Then we'll leave artistic rendering.
Ledvina: ...but again, I'm sensitive to.
Mancino: Cost.
Ledvina: Well cost, yeah. And narrowing the realm of possibility and also the vendors that
can provide the service. I think that's important.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: Then let's leave both in and so either are an option. Whatever is appropriate for
the particular site.
Scott: As determined by.
Farmakes: And I would add the verbiage of provide an undistorted perspective of the
proposed development.
Mancino: Where would you put that?
Farmakes: Well you were talking about distortion of perspective which can be used to create
a distortion of scale so the purpose of comparison, you would want like a normal lens. A
view of the surrounding area.
Ledvina: Depict the undistorted visual impact. Whatever.
Farmakes: My comments on this are that the city staff should have discretion because the _
negotiation and development takes place prior to us seeing the staff report and that's therein
where the preparation of presentation takes place. Before we see it. For us to set up a
criteria, again you get into the problem of trying to come up with a criteria that is applicable _
to every type of development. And as we've seen with the sign ordinance type situation, it's
a very complicated process and I would go with the judgment of city staff on this and not
hinder the, as to individuals changing on city staff, I don't think that that makes any
difference. An ordinance is an ordinance and whoever is in the city staff at the time I believe
will, it's their job to project whatever the city ordinances are through their interpretation so
time marches on and I'm sure we may get other people here but I wouldn't expect that they
would go outside the realm of what the current ordinance is and if it needs to be changed, it
will be changed. We do it all the time as our needs arise.
Aanenson: Or as technology changes.
Mancino: Jeff, you're limiting it just to staff. I mean if it got to City Council and somebody
on City Council said you know, you guys I really think we should see a photo image
composite, I mean.
Aanenson: It's not limited to staff. All we're saying is this is a requirement. IS we don't
require it, what we're saying is it could be a requirement. Okay what we've done by not,
everybody...when a developer comes in they'll say, can you hand us a checklist to see what
we need to do. We can say, we probably don't think that this project requires...so all it is is
it's on the checklist. Is it appropriate? You may be required to put them on notice...
40
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Okay. Well I support that code amendment and can I have a motion please?
Mancino: I move that, oh I'm going to need your help on this. I move that we approve the
code amendment to require computer generated images for subdivisions and site plans as
shown in the attached amendment, attachment. Is that what I want to say? With the addition
of provide, you're wanting to provide an undistorted perspective.
Farmakes: Provides an undistorted perspective of the proposed development.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Is there a second?
Nutting: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the code amendment as amended. Is
there any discussion?
ti Mancino moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Code Amendment for Computer Generated Images for Subdivisions and Site Plans
amended to include a statement that it provides an undistorted perspective of the
proposed development. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: Does this have a life after us now?
Aanenson: It goes to Council.
LANDSCAPING APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS AND LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions for staff or comments?
Mancino: A couple questions. Kate, where are you, and I'm sorry if I missed it when you
gave the report and you talked about the conservation easement. You're going to take that
directly to the City Council?
Aanenson: That would be part of the conditions. You had asked that's one of the things we
41
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
did...it's not in here but you had asked that that condition be added as one of the conditions
of the plat...I didn't list it as a condition but it will be a condition of their plat.
Mancino: And have you talked with the applicant about where that conservation easement
would be? I mean what area takes in the conservation easement? Because I am very
concerned about the shoreline of significant trees on the south side that are on the south of
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on Minnewashta and those are the ones that, and there may be
other areas too.
Aanenson: The conservation easement should run along the backs of all these plus these are
the other significant trees in this area right through here on the backs of these lots.
Mancino: Can you also tell me why we have a variance for Lot 8, and it was because of tree
preservation? And why is that? _
Aanenson: Well, as you recall. They moved this lot line here. There's some significant
trees up in this area here if you overlay the two.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: Flat lot, this goes back to the flat lot issue. Flag lots for some reason has 20 yard
side yard setback from the 30 foot setback once you get inside that. You're supposed to take
the setback line from here. So that would push the house even further down. -
Mancino: Oh okay. I see what you mean. Okay, thank you. And you are suggesting that
additional trees be placed in 13 lots where only 1 tree per lot is proposed. They should be on
lots, do you have any number? Because I can see the mitigation of 173 trees that were taken
down prior to this development. Is there a guideline number that maybe we wish to come up
with? -
Aanenson: Again, I'll leave it up to the applicant to make a proposal to you.
Mancino: Okay. So I'll ask the applicant. Okay, thank you.
Farmakes: In our current ordinance for shoreline, part of that is the screening process
involved as well as other eco reasons. And that just deals with trees but also shrubbery and
so on or the natural state of the shoreline. When we're talking about trees, are we also
dealing with some of the screening elements that are involved with the natural shoreline.
Other than the ones that say trees of a certain caliper. How is that restored or cleared?
42
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Aanenson: As I indicated earlier, anything under the ordinary high water mark...jurisdiction.
With this plat, with the tree conservation easement, they shouldn't be below the building, the
rear building line. That's where all the significant trees are. There shouldn't be any reason
to have...It should be snow fenced and.
Ledvina: But they can't go in and prune the underbrush or something?
Farmakes: So from the 60 or what is it, 75 feet setback from the shoreline, the underbrush
and screening there, I know you're allowed to clear out, I think the DNR allows you to clear
out an access or a channel and I know that we've had some arguments in the past about what
you're allowed to clear out. Or how much of a path. Whether it's lot line to lot line or
whether or not it's a 50 feet situation. I'm just wondering if there have been violations of
that there in your opinion from the existing property? Or the way the existing property was
prior to the application.
Aanenson: Well as I indicated what the ordinance says is...DNR shoreline regulations...What
we felt was being removed at the time was less than the 6 inch caliper. Obviously you show
clear cutting and that was a concern. At that time the...
Farmakes: So if dogwood was cleared out, we're not going to see dogwood replaced.
Aanenson: No, I think what we're asking is that they would be replaced with significant
species. Something that...overstory trees. Not necessarily ornamental but...
Scott: Dave, clarify on the stop work order. You signed it.
Hempel: That was placed by the building inspector at that time on the site...activities being
done.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments?
Mancino: Question about the landscape plan. Was this done by a professional landscape
architect?
Aanenson: You'll have to ask the applicant for his credentials.
Scott: Okay, we'll wait for the applicant's report. Any other questions or comments? Okay.
Would the applicant or their representative wish to address the Council? Planning
Commission.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Kenneth Dun: My name is Kenneth Durr...and I think it's appropriate that I address some of
the issues and the accusations that have been leveled that have not been very accurate...I've
been a building contractor for 40 years. This was our 40th year. I've had...working with me
for over 30 years who was Chief Building Inspector for the City of Minnetonka...In talking to
him today, I asked him during his experience with the city of Minnetonka, or previous to that
with an architectural firm, Johnson..., whether he had any knowledge of anything permits
necessary to cut trees on property. He said no. He had never come across that, nor have I in
40 years. With one exception, we are a builder in the Bear Path, Jack Nickolson...in Eden
Prairie there has a tree...and we're well aware of it and it was presented to us and we were
made aware of it prior to our doing any work there. But in 40 years we've worked in many,
many municipalities. There have been areas where we've had 40 acre sites. Where we have
cleared out, I mean clear cut 3 acre parcels out of the center so a large...and there's never
been the faintest thought in our mind that permits may be required for that. And we've never
experienced that. So when we approached this site, at the time that I put these parcels
together, I was not certain whether I was going to build there or sell the property. I had
offers on 2 parcels that I first owned. I felt it was necessary to purchase the third because
there were lot line discrepancies. Had I not purchased the third piece of the last 30 feet of
the parcel that I did own so I went to a lot of expense and legal work to get that cleared up
to purchase that. At that time juncture, just as I was purchasing that, there were other people
interested to purchase at the same time I was. And my intent in going in there was not
necessarily at that point going into it as a development but merely to clean the land up so that
it was presentable. Now what we did there, I had a firm come in who's done work for us in
the past. They do work for a number of the golf courses in town. Interlachen Country Club
being one of them and I trust their judgment as to trees. What is diseased, what is wind
damaged, what is good, what is not. And they just go ahead and do their work for us. They
do work for municipalities. They do our work on all of our sites because we're very
concerned about preserving trees. We're not there to rape the land. We are preservist in
what we do. It's only to our advantage to preserve and maintain a good tree cover but it isn't
in the best interest to leave wind damaged trees, diseased trees, and that type of thing. Those
are the types that were taken off that site. Had we the intent of just going in there and clear
cutting with the intent of just coming in behind that and pushing roads in, it's very obvious
looking at the property, we would have taken trees down on the hill where we wish to put the
road. That was not done. You'll notice the trees that are there are all of the specimen trees.
Big umbrellas on the trees. The trees that were taken were mainly trees below 6 inches in
diameter, 4 feet up from the base. In looking at the site...something major is 8 inches or 10
inches but 4 feet up is entirely different than what a stump shows. It's 4 feet off the ground,
6 inch diameter. Those are the trees that were taken together with wind damaged trees that
were lodged, I have a couple pictures that show just a tangled mess in part of this property.
There are old buildings in there that my insurance company said I had to get outof there
because they were an attractant nuisance to children. So we removed those at the same time.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Hauled them off the property. But it was a tangled mess. Wind damaged trees. Trees
leaning into other trees. We just didn't simply cut some of those down, we cabled up and
down the sections and pulled them away from the good trees we were saving. It's very
obvious in looking at that site you see good trees. The diseased, the wind damaged, the ones
that were blown over and a few trees, when I talked with my tree people, there were some
box elders growing under large oaks. Large maples that were stretching for light, growing
almost horizontally, coming down touching the ground and then growing up again. Those
were the trees, they were larger than 6 inches and those were taken. Growing under the
umbrella of the specimen trees but they were junk. And he knew they were junk. So that's
the extent. Now we have a house on that property. Better than a year ago the Fire Marshal
wanted to use the house and bum it. I objected to it because I said I don't think you can do
it and preserve trees. The trees around the house that we wish to preserve. You can check
with him and verify this. Now subsequent to that, he has asked me again about it and one of
your people even called me...looking at the property and assuring me, yes. We can burn this
if we don't damage the tree there. So we have to have absolute certainty that this does not
occur because we had a house bum down, it was badly vandalized on the center property.
And in that they assured us that they would not damage trees. And a specimen maple was
burned to the ground. The fire got away and burned the tree down. I didn't want this to
occur again. That house cost me $7,000.00 to have it demolished and hauled out. If I'm
looking at the very economics of this thing, I'd say go ahead. Burn the thing down. The heck
with the trees because then I'd save $7,000.00. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in
preserving the good trees and forget the $7,000.00. I'd rather spend $7,000.00. Take the
house down and haul it out rather than risk the burning trees. So these accusations that have
come to you people are entirely false. The number of trees may be accurate. It's a 20 acre
site. There may be 173 trees that were taken down. But we're not talking big trees. We're
talking small trees that were 6 inches and less unless they were wind damaged, the tops out
of them or leaning into other trees or a few exceptions of box elders that were growing
horizontally...I think the question was raised about whether or not a professional landscaper
would be used in this. Very definitely yes. I talked to Herb Baldwin who's a very well
recognized name in landscaping. I'm not sure that Herb will be doing all of this. He's done
some preliminary work. Kevin Koehnen who is a landscape architect. He does a lot of work
for us on upper bracket projects that we do. That involve large acreages, up in the Medina-
Orono area, that are very extensive landscape projects. He has looked at the project and has
given me some ideas of what to do. I've been put in touch with one of the best people in the
area as far as the ponds. As far as what you do with them. How you go about aerating
them. We are planning to do both aeration and...getting air pumped into the bottom of these
so that they aerate well. He knows what can be done without using chemicals in the ponds to
control the growth. And the suggested depths of the ponds, we've gone into things that I feel
are very important to the total concept of the project. And so we are not going into it on a
shoe string and just trying to get the maximum that we can out of this property. We're
45
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
hopefully doing an excellent job and that is our goal. We're noted for excellence in what we
do and I really resent some of the accusations that have been leveled from, particularly one
individual. We are noted in all the communities we build in, as being highly reputable and
extremely careful of ecology and tend to spend more money than most in landscaping
projects, which will certainly be the case here. What is shown is such an extreme minimal to
what we will be doing and we will definitely be using professional people in it. We want this
to be a very high test, high class neighborhood. Street of Dreams people are very interested
in seeing this developed. Seeing what we've done in the past and we will put everything that
we have into it to make it an established appearing community from day one. Are there any
other questions that you might have of me that I can hopefully clarify or?
Mancino: Well I just have a question. I guess it's Mr. Dun for you and also for Kate.
When we ask for a landscape plans to look at and to say yeah or nay to, and they're not final
and they're not even, I don't know if this is what you, I don't know what kind of plan you'd
call this. Is it a preliminary plan or something?
Kenneth Durr: Very preliminary because I really don't, what I like to do is formulate that -
together with a landscape architect and really work on it to get it to the very best that we can
do. We are searching for very mature trees right at the moment and we wish to put a lot of
evergreens in because they have an impact both winter and summer. And we're searching for -
large stuff.
Mancino: Okay. So what I see here on the north side that parallels Highway 5 is 6 foot and -
they're all 6 foot and you're just in a row and there's no creativity. There's no landscape
design to them on the other side of the fence. Is that what we're going to see?
Kenneth Dun: No.
Mancino: Okay. -
Kenneth Durr: This is.
Mancino: So I figure an engineer did this.
Kenneth Dun: I'm sorry.
Mancino: Did an engineer do this? Okay. Okay. Well I mean I would add to it.
Rick Sathre: We were trying to represent the numbers. Minimum numbers.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: I just wanted to know what I'm seeing.
Kenneth Dun: If there are a number of trees that are called out, and I think there was.
Something like, was it 27 or somewhere else I heard 50.
Aanenson: Well the ordinance states that you have to place 1 per lot. You also the
requirement that you're obligated to do is the streetscape. What we're saying is that, and
maybe some additional trees are required and those lots that really don't have any other
mature trees on the lots. And this is preliminary. We wanted to see, they did show the tree
removal plan. I think that's what the Planning Commission was concerned. They showed...
individual lots as far as a count idea. Normally when we do see that, I think that's kind of...
If you go back to normal preliminary plat, we don't always see that quite as formulated.
That's something you ask us to follow up on.
Mancino: But I thought that we usually see more of the streetscape in it's final form, don't
we?
Aanenson: No. Not necessarily...I think there was concern because of the trees removed and
that's kind of been the focus but now that we've got something under preliminary...
Mancino: I remember like Rottlund and stuff was from a landscape architect. It was Todd
Irvine from Arteka did that so we see it at the point where a landscape architect gets
involved. Or we have.
Aanenson: It depends. On the...plat, on Lundgren's, there was a condition that the
landscaping, the streetscape be in...so it's not always the case. ...I thought you picked up that
we were treating this one differently but sometimes we do and sometimes we don't.
Normally you give us direction. I think again this one came out of the fact that trees were
removed and we wanted to get an idea as to how they were going to...
Mancino: Okay. Because I just have the problem is that I wouldn't approve this if this were
the landscape plan. I mean it just doesn't meet it for me so.
Kenneth Dun: Well again, I may be repeating myself but if there was, as Rick was saying,
like 26 but I think.
Rick Sathre: That's on the berm.
Kenneth Dun: On the berm, oh I see. And Kate was saying about 50 trees.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Aanenson: Right, in total. Yeah that includes the streetscape and the additional landscaping
between the neighbor adjacent to Lots 8 and 9...and that's the minimum required. That would
be the concern.
Kenneth Dun: Well you can be assured we'll...the minimum and if you want a commitment
to that, you could name a number of 100 and I'd be very comfortable with that.
Mancino: Thank you. _
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Thank you sir. Well this is not a
public hearing so I guess we can move on to comments. Nancy. Give me an issue. _
Mancino: Not right now...
Scott: Pardon me.
Mancino: Not right now but I will.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I think the sole purpose of us going forward with the plat, the preliminary plat.
One of the strong conditions that and concerns we all had was regarding seeing what the
landscaping would be, as Nancy mentioned, and also the tree removal. I see that we do have
a plan which does show the lot layout and the trees. I guess there's x's here. Those
represent removal as it relates to the road. Trees removed for the road but I don't see what
would be anticipated for tree loss with the building pads. I think that's.
Aanenson: That was the Attachment #1...
Ledvina: So there is a discussion, okay. I'll take that back.
Aanenson: ...site grading and the road...And then the additional 21 and...
Mancino: It would be much easier to tell if we did some sort of an overlay for us. I mean
it's very hard to tell which, you know for us to see which trees per lot actually are going to
be removed.
Ledvina: I guess just to wrap up my comments, I would feel more comfortable seeing a
more detailed landscaping plan. I think that's really what we were looking for when we
discussed this last time...
48
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I have no further comments other than what's been mentioned. I guess maybe
one thing. I hope the city staff still uses some latitude in looking at the issue of the
compliance. Whether they were factual or non factual. Use your own discretion with that.
If there's a violation in the ordinance, treat it as such. Ignorance of the law, as I'm told, is
no excuse and that ordinance I know has been on the books for a fair amount of time so the
intent is to protect what tree cover is left in Chanhassen and I think it's a good ordinance
with good intent. It's not to say that the applicant premeditatedly clear cut the issue but if
there was damage done, particularly in the area adjacent to the shoreline, the effort and the
intent is to restore the vegetation so there isn't a lawn down to the lake as you see in some
_ houses that were developed 40 years ago. With the preference, the intent now has been for a
fair amount of years, is not to do that. Not to allow that type of development and the State
encourages that and ordinances in the city have been there for quite a while so that's it.
Mancino: I'd like to add on to what Jeff just said and I think that a lot of times developers
say well we've saved the big trees. We've saved the significant, the big ones and they take
out all the saplings underneath, which is our next generation of trees for our children and our
grandchildren. When those big trees go, we have another, we have trees there that are ready
to come up and little trees become big trees. So it is, we are trying to also preserve some of
those, most of the saplings underneath big trees also. That they are as important to us and a
part of the ecosystem too. So to go in and clear cut, like they did on Lake Susan Hills a little
bit, under the bigger trees, is not what we want either. That is part of the woodland area and
should remain so. And are for the next generation because those big trees will come down
and we have saplings there that are ready to take over. So I think it's as important to keep
that under canopy coverage also.
Scott: Okay. Ron.
Nutting: I guess I just haven't...in terms of we approved pending the submission of the
landscaping plan before the plat proceeds to City Council. Is this, I was trying to understand
from Kate's comments, is this the normal procedure? Is this on a case by case basis whether
we get full landscaping plans at this point versus some point in time down the road. I'm just
trying to understand the.
Mancino: We don't see it again.
Nutting: Okay. So if we approve things at this point it's, we will ever see...
Aanenson: Are you asking me?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Nutting: Yes.
Aanenson: Normally, as a part of the process, you articulate to the applicant what you want
to see. You don't also see maybe landscaping in preliminary plats. Some plats yes, you see
it. It's your discretion. What they show is that they met the minimum intent of the —
ordinance...we'd recommend additional trees, we've left that open. We certainly feel that
needs to be evolved by a landscape architect and that's something that normally we follow up
on just like the other conditions that we put in the report. —
Nutting: So is Nancy, you would not be comfortable with even establishing parameters
then... or additional guidelines to the.
Mancino: Well I don't want to tell them how to do their landscaping. I want them to come
back with a good professionally done landscaping proposal. —
Attorney for Applicant: Would it...
Scott: Let me see. I have to ask a procedural question here. Since this isn't a public hearing
and the applicant had their, made their presentation and now we're doing our discussion, I
know how to handle this from a public hearing standpoint but procedurally, go ahead.
Attorney for Applicant: My question is just procedural too and that is, since both the
Planning Commission and the City Council get to look at this project again, in the final plat
approval process.
Aanenson: It only goes to Council for final. So the City Council will see it for preliminary
plat and then as it gets approved in whatever phases, they'll come back for final plat. And
again, a lot of times the Council doesn't see the final landscaping plan until they come back.
They wait until they get approval and then they come back and do the final design. The
engineering of the streets and a lot of those kind of issues. So the Council doesn't always
see the final landscaping plan until even final plat. There's a lot of final issues. I mean that's
up to your call if you want to see it again.
Attorney for Applicant: I'm wondering whether that, the next look that you'd like to have
can be done in the final approval process.
Aanenson: Then the final would come back to them before it goes back? —
Attorney for Applicant: Exactly.
50 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: Okay.
Kenneth Durr: What we really want to do is spend considerable time in that area. For the
planning. It's not something that I just care to rush in just for the sake of coming with a
plan. We want to come with a plan that is really special. We want to do this up really
exceptionally well. And I don't think that can be done just in a very quick, you know few
days or a week. It's something that I think is going to be a process that we do and we refine
it and we come with something that I think you're going to find that is going to be
exceptional. We're not going to spare dollars on this. It's going to be done very, very well.
And if it means that it goes to the Council. If it has to have a special approval with the
blessing of this body, that's fine because I'm not concerned at all about what our final result
is going to be for submission. But I would hate like everything just to spend dollars and
quickly do something that is only mediocre. I want to be special and whatever it takes to do
that, we can proceed and come back with something that is special, that's what we're going
to do.
Scott: Well I guess that's the, Kate.
Ledvina: Can we see it again after Council then? Is that possible?
Aanenson: Sure.
Ledvina: Okay, so that would be a recommendation.
Aanenson: Before it goes for final plat that you have a chance to review the plan.
Ledvina: Well, the landscaping plan.
Scott: Okay.
Mancino: That certainly works.
Scott: So if I could have a motion. That's one of the luxuries of chairing this body is you
don't have to make any motions.
Mancino: Let's see. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the final landscape
plan after the City Council has seen it? Kate, would you help me.
Aanenson: Before final plat approval is given by the City Council.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: There you go. And you know that it, and Mr. Dun has said this, but that it be
done by a landscape architecture, landscape professional and that there will be some
mitigation as Kate has said. Well I want to add the staff's recommendations also 1, 2 and 3.
Can I have a second?
Ledvina: I'll second it.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we act on Commissioner Mancino's motion. Is
there any discussion? No discussion.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve the landscaping and tree removal plan as shown on the landscaping plan dated
March 10, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
1. A minimum of 4 conifers be placed on Lots 1-4, Block 1 on Minnewashta Parkway.
2. Additional trees be placed in the 13 lots where only one tree per lot is proposed. They
shall be placed on Lots 6-16, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 2.
3. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit.
4. The final landscaping plan, prepared by a professional landscape architect, be
brought back to the Planning Commission for review prior to final plat approval
by the City Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: Kate timing wise, we're looking at a couple of months?
Aanenson: It's going to Council on the 28th.
Scott: 28th? Whatever happens after that. Okay.
Ledvina: You anticipate this development to occur this year? Is that correct? You anticipate
that this development's going to occur this year? Okay.
Scott: Okay. Thank you very much.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS.
— Scott: For the record, item number 6 under old business, appointment of Planning
Commissioners to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Commissioner Mancino has
volunteered for that position for 6 months and then at that point in time we'll review what
— our more long term solution is.
Ledvina: Generously done so, yes. I'd recommend Commissioner Mancino for giving her
— time and effort.
Mancino: Thank you.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ledvina: I have a question in the Minutes. It related to when the, page 63. This gets back
to the vote on the Wendy's site plan. But maybe you guys can correct me if I'm wrong but I
didn't think that Ladd voted for my motion. I thought he voted against it. He's not here to
— say yes or no but.
Farmakes: Which motion were you talking about?
—
Scott: The motion recommending approval?
Ledvina: My motion recommending approval of the site plan for the Wendy's.
Mancino: That was the first vote?
Scott: The first vote was to approve, which did not pass.
Mancino: He did not vote for that one.
— Ledvina: He did not. Okay.
Mancino: I didn't think so either.
Ledvina: It shows in the minutes that he did vote for in favor so I don't know. Do you
recall Bob? Can we suspend these or wait?
— 53
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Yeah, we don't have to approve them. Because they don't get distributed until they're
approved anyway.
Ledvina: Not that we need to reproduce this whole thing. I don't want to see this again in
my next packet. _
Scott: Maybe an addendum or something.
Ledvina: Maybe save a tree but just that page 63. Just to clarify where Ladd sat on it. I
don't want to make a big deal out of it but seeing that he's not here, I want to, and there is
some.
Mancino: Yeah because I thought he voted the second time. I know he voted against it.
Ledvina: I know he voted against the second motion but I thought he voted against both
motions and I kind of understand why he did that. And I don't want to make a big deal out
of it but he's not here to answer my question and there's some disagreement as to what
actually transpired. So let's revisit that next time if we can.
Scott: But if you look on, about a 15 second comment. If you take a look at, on page 66 —
where the motion came up to recommend denial of the site plan.
Ledvina: He did, yes.
Scott: Yeah, so whatever.
Ledvina: It does make sense that he would go with the converse but I don't think that
automatically...
Scott: Well we will, the Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of March 2, 1994
have not been approved and we'll review that particular item at our next meeting and perhaps _
Nann, if you could give Commissioner Conrad a call and see if he can search his memory
banks on that one and we'll correct it.
Ledvina: Well I don't know that we need to do that...I read an article on motions passing
that weren't supposed to pass. When people were actually put to the test and asked how they
voted on it, it came out different than what actually went into the record. I guess I'm
sensitive to that. Not that it made a difference in this case but still, I think we should be
sensitive to make sure that what actually transpired is accurate. Before it goes into the
record, yes.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Farmakes: Let the record reflect that that's how I voted.
Scott: Okay. Good.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Scott: That was Nancy, do you have a City Council update for us?
Generous: Not me anyway.
Scott: Well Nancy, you were at the.
Mancino: No I wasn't. Was I supposed to?
Farmakes: We were upstairs at the time. I heard though that they denied the liquor license.
Generous: Well they didn't, they tabled it I believe.
Mancino: To come up with some way to write it in as...
Farmakes: It was an issue of concern of zone. Sort of like the problem we had with the
sign.
Generous: I wasn't there so I'm not sure. Kate was there...
Scott: Yeah they dropped the Wendy's or tabled the Wendy's item. Any other City Council
update related things?
OPEN DISCUSSION:
DISCUSS THE DRAFT OF THE TREE ORDINANCE.
Scott: Commissioner Mancino, would you like to begin that discussion?
Mancino: No. I think I'll let Bob begin it. You wrote the report.
Bob Generous gave a staff report on this item.
Scott: Can I just ask you a question. Commissioner Mancino raised a good point about the
understory trees that are the next generation. From a standpoint of determining what has
55
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
changed, because I think after a development is put in, obviously do we, are we thinking of
using aerials to then determine what's really happened and what about the understory?
Generous: The idea was that if we were able to put in these conservation, tree protection
areas, you're not going to have clearing in there. So you're going to maintain those —
understory trees. And specifically ones of, for instance as part of the subdivision, just like we
do wetlands and they have to put the stake in and say this is a wetland conservation
easement. Well on the site they're going to put in another stake that says, this is a tree
preservation area so that the future property owners, the homeowners know that as part of the
platting process this part of their property was designated as a preserve.
Scott: Okay. Who's, because we've had some issues I think also with the Lake Susan Hills
9th Addition about things happening after the fact. That obviously were not totally above
board relative to tree removal. How do we keep an eye on this thing? Who's responsibility
is it going to be to make sure that these easements are protected? Do we just...but I
specifically mean, do we have, we've had an intern.
Generous: Yeah, and we'll have it again. I don't know, maybe long term if this works out
the city will say, yeah. It's, the benefit to having an urban forester on staff is...cost effective.
Mancino: I would like to put that as part of the record. That I think we do need an urban
forester. Maybe a shared one with another community that helps in making sure that this
ordinance is followed because you do need a dedicated person to do that and to know what
they're talking about when they go in and check on sites. So for the record I'd like to add
that.
Scott: And what about a funding mechanism too? I mean if you're going to basically have
tree police. I mean we have a wetland police person now. I think we need a tree police _
person and obviously that has to be funded. Has a mechanism been discussed that based
upon the aerial view and the percentage of coverage, etc, etc that, and I don't know whether
it's how you would calculate this but we need to fund this person and that would be my —
suggestion is we need the protection but obviously based upon the way our city operates, is
that we haven't raised taxes for a number of years, and I don't know where we can divert
funds from to do this but I think along with this we need to, we obviously we came up with
the dollars for Diane and that was a very good move.
Generous: That was the SWMP.
Scott: SWMP. Well maybe what we're looking at here is, I don't know if it's a tree tax but
you know what I'm saying. I think that's appropriate because we do need to have somebody
56
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
and if you're going to have ordinances, somebody has to police it.
Mancino: And most cities do.
Farmakes: Actually if you do come up with a tree tax, you may find more trees coming
down than being preserved.
Scott: Yeah but so you know, we have parkland dedication. We've got park fees. We've
got, you know what I mean. We'll tax cigarettes in the city. But you know what my intent
is.
Farmakes: $3.00 a pack.
Scott: There you go. I'm sure Todd would be willing...anyway. Any more.
Ledvina: I have a comment. This is a general comment. I said it when we talked about the
wetland issue and you just mentioned it. We're going to put a sign, this is a tree preserve on
every lot. I understand that that's good for people to know what it is but on the other hand,
= we've got so many signs in our lives, I'm against signs. You're trying to make this a
wilderness area and you walk through and oh, there's a sign that tells me this is a wilderness
area. That I'm in a preserve. I'm against that concept of putting this sign in the trees.
Mancino: Well it has to be made out of wood.
Ledvina: Yeah, whatever. It's the same thing with the wetland. I understand that there's
that education thing but it detracts from the thing that you're trying to accomplish in the first
place, in my opinion.
Scott: Well how many times, right in this very room have we had very intelligent
professionals come up and say, well the realtor never told me that I couldn't put a dock out
in front of my house. And the realtor never told me blah, blah, blah. You know and that's
one, I mean I hate to see that we have people who are fairly, you know they're not.
Ledvina: I've heard it too.
Scott: Yeah and I'm just thinking, well you know, I didn't know I couldn't cut these trees
down so I mean.
Farmakes: Well we just had a developer who's been developing for 40 years. One comment
on that. The DNR, according to their survey, says that Chanhassen's denuded the forest
57
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
cover about 95%. That's only about 5% in Chanhassen actually has forest cover in it. So
percentage wise you're dealing with a small amount and the majority of that is in ravine areas
or non-farmed or minimal farm area.
Scott: Non-buildable too.
Farmakes: Well it's also environmentally sensitive because most of Chanhassen is a
drainfield for an ancient glacial river over here and some of the soil, if you follow it down to
the bluff is, if you dumped a drink on the corner, you might wash out somebody's house
down the way. It's pretty unstable and I agree that maybe you can go overboard with micro
managing an issue of putting a sign in front of every tree but it seems that the same theory
though of overall massing is that's what we're looking at for the Bluff Creek area. For
sensitive areas of stands left including animal cover. The animals follow up these ravine
stands of trees up to lakes area. I know last year I saw a beaver coming up. Beavers coming
up out of the river area following back up into an urban wildlife scene and we have a herd of
deer over on Lake Lucy that live in the forest behind Prince's area. It'd be nice to see some
eco corridors left of those kind of stands because I think what will happen is a lot of that's
going to disappear as you get clear cutting underneath these canopies. That a lot of that's
going to be destroyed and the question is, how much of it that's left is...
Ledvina: Sure, I understand. But you know you're saying that only 5% is left.
Farmakes: I'm not, the DNR is. _
Ledvina: Well okay, the DNR says. Then people are going to be naturally conscious of that
and they're going to be concerned about maintaining that.
Farmakes: But actually, given the choice, where would you put your house? In the trees or
out in the farmland?
Ledvina: Well we're not talking about when the thing is being built. The bulldozer can back
over the sign and that would happen. We're talking about maintaining a sign in perpetuity
for whatever, on each lot. Every 90 feet there's a sign that says, you're in a tree preserve.
Farmakes: Well you might have a point on the issues in regards to signage or notification.
Maybe it's some other.
Mancino: Is it in every back yard for the wetland?
Ledvina: Yeah I think it is. It's every lot. Monumentation, every lot.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Generous: I was envisioning this skinny little sign on a pole.
Ledvina: Well maybe so but it detracts from, in my opinion from the way I experience trees,
nature, I don't like to see a sign when I'm walking and communing with Mother Nature. It
just, that's backwards for me.
Mancino: What's another solution to make sure that, you know.
Ledvina: Education. I mean if you have a newsletter that says.
Mancino: Or homeowners association doing something about it.
Ledvina: Right. I don't know. And even the issues of maintaining the signs after 5-10 years
are going to be down anyway.
Mancino: Well again, that could be a homeowners association, maintenance thing.
Ledvina: Well it's another thing that needs to be done. I don't know. I just, I wish it was
simpler. Maybe it can't be simpler.
Scott: Well what can we do, I know if there's a conservation easement, some language gets
incorporated in the deed to the lot?
Generous: It shows up on the plat.
Scott: That becomes a record. But then again I keep coming back to, you know it's amazing
people who invest a hundred, you know let's face it. Coming into this community you're
going to be plopping down $100,000.00 to $200,000.00 just about anywhere and it just, it
baffles me to see you know people come in and they've taken a lot of things for granted and
I don't know. I don't like to see signs up all over the place either but it's almost like, you
hate to feel like you have to be protecting adults from themselves but it happens. We see it.
We see it about once a month so, I don't know if there's a better way to do it, I'm certainly
open to it.
Ledvina: Well I guess I give people a little more credit for maybe recognizing the value of
those things and also I think in the future we're going to see a higher level of consciousness
of that I think. I think people are going to look back at what we're doing today with this
ordinance 5 years from now and it's going to be a very major issue and they're going to, and
it's going to be in people's consciousness. They're not going to need a sign.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 —
Mancino: I think that's something good to think about. I mean let's kind of go through it
and maybe we can come up with a different solution.
Ledvina: I don't know. I don't like the idea of signs.
Farmakes: Did it get in the wetland ordinance too?
Generous: That's what I took, I modeled this one after the wetland ordinance.
Mancino: I want to stop for just a second and tell you all just a little bit about the make-up
of the Tree Board right now and the people who drafted this ordinance so that you have an
idea of who was on the Board and what they bring to it. Just because as you're looking over
this I think it will add a little bit. Obviously Bob and Paul Krauss, has been on it too. Tim
Erhart who has been on the Planning Commission and has 100 acres of wooded land. And I
also have 23 acres and most of it's wooded so we want to get people who are on it that, at
some point maybe down the road will develop and will this work for these forested areas. I
mean my God, what are you telling me? I can't build on here and you know, how many
trees am I allowed to take down on my property and so we wanted people who had some
property that will be developed so that they could give their opinions. We also have Mike
Zens who's from the Arboretum who is an arborist and Kevin Norby who is a professional
landscape architect. So we started out with, who else?
Generous: There were two people that I never met. Charlie.
Mancino: Charlie with public works who does a lot of maintenance of the city trees. And
Larry who used to be on the Park and Recreation was the Chairperson. Started out with us —
and hasn't been there for the last 2 or 3 months. But it was quite a good group so I just
thought I'd tell you that up front.
Ledvina: Well no, and I believe that the ordinance has gone through some iterations in it and
we have discussed a lot of different issues and a lot of this stuff has been hammered out and
it's, there's a lot of thought in here and I like most of what's, well I like it all except for the —
sign. I guess that's my only comment. The signage.
Scott: Is there any more discussion?
Mancino: Yeah, I have a comment and that is, it's a tree preservation ordinance and the one
thing that we're not preserving, and I don't know if this has come up in some of the Planning
Commission...but I certainly had an experience earlier this week about a developer next to our
land going in and clear cutting. And it brought up to mind, and the developer clear cut and
60
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
gave one person, one neighbor one reason and another neighbor another and one of the
reasons was, well I'm going to farm it. The other reason was, well I'm going to develop it in
3 years and I don't want the trees to get any bigger because it's going to cost more to take
them down plus the impending tree preservation ordinance. They'll be big trees and I'll have
to preserve more. And this doesn't take that into account. I mean I'm wondering if there is
some way that, and again this gets into individual rights. You know individual property
owner rights. If someone is going to take down more than 5% of their canopy coverage on
individual lots, that they need to get a permit. I mean I'm throwing this open for discussion
because you have a developer that's got land and prior to development they go in and let's
say they don't even clear cut.
Farmakes: The developer's a private land owner?
Mancino: Yeah. The developer's a private land owner and they go in and take down, I mean
8 to 10 acres were clear cut and it was, again your second generation trees. These were trees
that were 12 feet high. They were probably 3 inches but they were so thick and dense, I
mean it was a woodland. The beginning of a woodland. And went in and in a matter of 2
days took down 8 to 10 acres.
Farmakes: Totally?
Mancino: Totally. And the punitive part of it is, he or she may have to pay $1,000.00. You
know or $1,000.00 a day. And you know if I'm a developer, do it. That's cheap. Cost of
doing business. Hey, I'll do that. So we don't have anything for that here.
Farmakes: What if there was, if there was a violation of that extent that could be shown as
current, what if there's a moratorium of time that would make it unpalatable to the developer
as a private landowner to cut it? So that you wouldn't penalize a farmer or a hobby farmer
who's clear cutting some trees for firewood or getting a corridor down to a wetland or
whatever it is that they happen to be doing. It's within their prerogative as a private
landowner without the intent of developing. Not penalizing them but if I'm a developer,
that's what I'd do. I mean I'd come in before I applied for the replat and I'd cut whatever
was necessary to cut. And if I had to put in a few trees down, well I know that if
somebody's going to pay me $700,000.00 for a house, they're going to want a nice carpet of
lawn coming down to the lake. And that's a given. And once I clear that out, you might
have me put a few more trees back in there but you know, the intent is, the deed has been
done.
Scott: Maybe what we need to do here is where it says, it is therefore the purpose of this
ordinance to provide regulations related to the cutting, removal or killing of trees.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: Where are you?
Scott: This is like page number 1 of the draft. Instead of saying, on construction and
development sites, I think what we need to do is include on private property, construction and
development sites.
Ledvina: Maybe future development sites.
Scott: Well see and anything can be a future development site.
Farmakes: But if there's a time line where you're not allowed to replat that property.
Developers don't like to hold onto property forever because it costs them money.
Mancino: I see, so if there's a 5 year time line.
Farmakes: If there's a time line but I don't know if that's a reasonable way of solving that
problem. But the problem you're going to come up with politically is that you're going to
have private property owners who own 23 acres of forest or whatever, have no intention
currently of developing them and if they want to go down and chop down one of their trees,
it's a property right of ownership. You own trees. _
Generous: Then clear cutting.
Farmakes: Yes, but I mean one person's clear cutting might be another's, they're putting in
trails.
Mancino: Well sure. When Kate called these guys, they said oh we're just taking a downed
shrub. Much like what we heard tonight. I mean this is just shrubs. Little stuff. Well you
know, these are trees. I mean you can call them shrubs now but these were, so the jargon
that is used can be misused.
Farmakes: They must be using some plant food on those trees. 3 years later...some more to
cut down. It will grow that much in 3 years.
Generous: That was one of the specific questions I had on my property is on page 8 we have
the definition for woodlands. Do we need to expand that? Could we co-term, instead of...
Mancino: I agree. So we, I would like to see the second generation of trees stay there.
Whether it's.
62
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Generous: And how do we...or if it covers half an acre or quarter acre.
Mancino: A woodland is a massing, can be a quarter of an acre. Half an acre.
Farmakes: What is the intent of the forester's input to, what is it you're trying to preserve?
If you judge a woodland on canopy cover, you go to some forested areas of the state, it's
just a large yard wide tree with a big canopy and it's cow pasture underneath. That's not, to
me an eco, a woodland eco system. It's a landscaped farmland with some tree cover. So
what is the intent trying to preserve? Are we just trying to preserve the big tree or are we
trying to preserve the eco system of that woodland?
Generous: In an eco system the diversity of tree sizes and big canopies and second
generation and saplings. That's why...the group was insistent on we put some preservation
area around it...wouldn't go in.
Farmakes: I'm curious to know what Mr. Erhart did. He was a proponent of how he voted
in this issue. He was a proponent of, vocalize it here, of owner's rights to tree cover. I was
— just wondering what his.
Mancino: Well he was for all this. I mean we had things that he wasn't for, we talked
through but he figured out what percentage on his land. He wanted to make sure that we
didn't make the percentage, that you'd have to keep canopy coverage so large that you really
couldn't put a good development on it. So we figured out how much the streets would take
up. How much a pad would take up. How much the driveway would take up. What else did
we, what else is included?
Generous: That and the utilities.
Mancino: And the utilities. I mean we went through.
Generous: We actually gave a little bit more on these final percentages.
Mancino: Yeah, 5% to 10% extra in cases of grading, etc. So we're really in any
development is how much is...40% or 35%.
Scott: But then also too we could go with a, if we saw something like that that would
happened to be treed, we could go with a PUD and back off a little bit on the setbacks and
street widths and that kind of stuff from a preservation and conservation easements and
custom grading and all that kind of stuff. But what do we need to put in here to restrict. It's
not so much the private landowner who is going to live there and those people would tend to
63
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
treat it more responsibly but it's the developer who is coming in as a private citizen and then
going through and doing what's happening up by where you live Nancy. Do we include
somehow private property? I guess that would probably, that would cover basically any land
owners in the city and is that what we want to do?
Mancino: Well I think Jeff's idea was pretty interesting. About the time moratorium.
Farmakes: I'm not sure that's a good idea. Don't assign my name to it.
Scott: Well someone came up with this idea.
Mancino: But I think Bob could research, I mean...
Farmakes: ...palatable where it's in their best interest to follow the ordinance rather than
trying to get around it, prior to platting the land.
Generous: Or by tree preservation (a) is there's no clear cutting of woodlands. Well we
might spread that, or to cutting down of half acre contiguous vegetation, or whatever.
Mancino: Exactly. I'd like to do a 2:1 mitigation then or something we do in wetlands if
they are caught doing it.
Farmakes: If you rely on a punitive action to make compliance on that, it has to be such that
it's really to their disadvantage to do it. And I'm not sure if circumstances like we just saw
here, and that's an alleged action. We don't have any proof that they did that and don't you
have to rely on that garnishing proof or taking the attitude and I always like it when there's _
an incentive for the developer not to take the action rather than punitive actions because one,
the city has to prosecute it. Two, the city has limited resources and it's very expensive to
litigate that kind of stuff. And often when you're dealing in developments of that size, hey.
A few thousand dollars, $10,000.00, it's not that much money in the overall development of
20 some homes for a million.
Mancino: When you talk about being punitive, I think the thing that you want though is to
have the trees back there. I mean you want to, as I said, do some sort of mitigation so that
when they do develop, they have to maybe do 2:1 replacement of what they took out.
Scott: So we're thinking from a punitive standpoint would be, if this occurs, a preliminary
plat or replatting of the property will not be allowed for 5 years or something like that?
Because that's where the money is. That's the pocketbook. It's not, it's going to cost you
$50,000.00. I think if a developer was looking at putting in homes in there, especially if
64
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
they're a builder and it's all of a sudden they do this and then now they've got to sit on the
property for 5 years. That's huge. That's very huge.
Mancino: Yeah, I got you.
Scott: And then they can't even sell because it doesn't matter.
Farmakes: I don't know if that's legal.
Scott: Oh, I don't know either.
Farmakes: I don't know if it's a legal enforceability.
Scott: I don't know either.
Farmakes: Because you'd have to prove intent of the individual and what's to stop the
original landowner from whacking the trees and then transferring the land to the developer?
All in one swoop. I mean who incurred the violation?
Scott: I think it's clear that we need something, we need to protect the private property and
you're right. I mean the thing that we're trying to protect is that somebody who's a
developer owns the land. Whacks the trees. Oops. And it's development time.
_ Farmakes: And I'm not sure how you treat trees in a zonement where the city "the
community" sort of takes over control of that for the common good. From a private property
owner. It's kind of a, I'm not a proponent of one way or the other so I'm just bringing that
up as something that I'm sure you've discussed and I know Tim Erhart has discussed it at
length in the past on the commission here when he was on this commission. Then if that's
where you butt up to the problem and I'm a lot more lenient in my mind to the private
property owner who, as in the past, a lot of these stands were left for access to wood for
farmers. So they had something to burn in the winter. But I'm not sure how you can enforce
or put that together so that, as I said, it's palatable to follow along.
Scott: Well I think you know what we're trying to do and you're going to be meeting with
Roger tomorrow so why don't you use some of his expertise on this and then get back to us
on it.
Farmakes: One thing that I'd like a provision in there that, some people were calling me and
asking me. A dead fall, especially an ice occurrence that comes within the trees on shoreline.
Often the ice knocks over the small sized trees when you get ice shifting. The trees that are
65
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 —
very close into the water or unstable ground. They get knocked over and so I don't think that
there should be any, you should have to fill out a permit to clear cut that out. I shouldn't say
clear cut. To remove the dead fall for those type of trees. So I didn't know whether that was —
covered in the ordinance or not but that would be a I believe an imposition.
Mancino: We get that all the time.
Generous: Page 6 on 8 I think covers that.
Mancino: I didn't even see it.
Generous: It's an existing code. We just added a few more... —
Ledvina: But in terms of an ecosystem.
Generous: Removal of diseased or damaged trees is permissible.
Ledvina: The ecosystem says leave everything stand. Or leave everything fall or lie.
Farmakes: Well if it's a problem with the trees that's fallen, one it could be dangerous. And _
two, the tree is dead so it's.
Ledvina: Bugs and...
Mancino: But we'd leave it because the birds love dead trees. That's where they make their
nest and I mean we don't want to pay the money to have somebody come and take it down. _
Generous: Then you get back to the issue of someone bought that wooded lot and they want
the natural environment. Maybe they would... —
Farmakes: I would like to see the...to the issue of dead fall. If declared.
Scott: So where are we on this thing? Are we going to bounce it back to staff and then have
them take the recommendations in hand and come back to us at our next meeting?
Ledvina: Are we going to have a public hearing then or no?
Generous: That's if you wanted for this.
Ledvina: Are we ready for a public hearing on this?
66
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Well not today but.
Ledvina: No, no, no, but for the next time.
Scott: I don't know. I'd like to see it before I have the public hearing. What do you guys
think?
Mancino: Well, yeah I agree. We are trying to obviously get it in because of development
happens so much in the spring. We want to, I mean why have this thing come in in July.
We're going to lose.
Scott: Then let's have a public hearing at our next meeting and we'll get a chance to review.
Ledvina: I bet we can do it.
Scott: Yeah, okay. Can I have a motion?
Ledvina: I don't think we need one, do we?
Mancino: No. This is just open.
Generous: No, you're just giving direction to move forward.
Scott: Groovy. Okay. Then the direction is that staff has collected comments and we'll get
another revision back to us and we'll have a public hearing the first meeting in April. Okay.
I'll quickly do the Admin Section. An interesting thing occurred at the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed District and I guess the, is it Ray Haik, the chairperson of that particular
group? Well, he's a senior person there and a tract of land that's basically at the end of the
Bluff Creek. I guess the city of Chanhassen was interested in purchasing part of it as part of
our Bluff Creek trail system, etc, etc. And one of the members of the Watershed District
negotiated a deal with a fellow who was reportedly, or actually it was assumed that he was
the actual owner of the property when in fact the property was in title to another individual.
So anyway, that's still up in the air but I thought it was rather interesting. But that's the way
it, do you have any other comments on.
Generous: Well they also negotiated a deal that was $30,000.00 more than the previous
asking price.
Scott: So anyway, that's your tax dollars at work. Anyway, any other comments, questions
before we adjourn the meeting or before I get a motion to adjourn the meeting?
67
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 —
Mancino: I just have a quick question. Bob, you know we saw the PUD next to
Timberwood. Are we ever get in PUD's, I mean I know that one of the things about having
a PUD. I'm sorry, I'm not very articulate. Is low cost housing or moderate, let's say
moderate income housing. Something like that as a part of the PUD. But we never see that.
What's being done?
Generous: Chan Corporate Center might have it but then do you build 140 unit apartment
building. I believe there are efforts on the part of the city to look into options for that.
Mancino: Okay.
Ledvina: Just a quick follow-up on that. I noticed with Heritage I was reading the Findings
as it relates to the PUD development and it said, you know provides affordable housing, etc.
And in the response it said, the response well, the houses or the lots will be marketed for, or
for sale or something like that. It was really kind of a weak.
Farmakes: He used the word moderate.
Ledvina: Yeah, moderate. But I don't think that, maybe when we have that situation, maybe
we should just be realistic about it and say, this isn't applicable for this type of development. _
Or something of that nature as opposed to trying to gloss it over. I don't know. That's just a
comment.
Farmakes: It would seem to me, this is really late to be discussing this but it would seem to
me that this city needs to take a clear cut direction along with other suburbs in this regard.
How we're going to deal with that because this is really a metropolitan, state legislation issue.
And for us to willy nilly, run around looking for stats to compare against their stats, I'm not
sure if that's the direction for this type of thing. Or there's no question in my mind that there
is no intention or conspiracy going on here but, there are viable issues of discussion in
regards to barriers against income. And yes it's true. I mean you will, there's plenty of cars
at the Auto Show that I looked at, I can't afford them. And we can discuss the philosophy
forever, but I think certainly there should be a coordinated city response to this based on
hopefully civic input, professional input on how we can address the issues that are brought
up.
Scott: One idea, I think we have the PUD as a good tool and something that popped into my
mind when we were looking at Al Klingelhutz' development and he brought up where there
was, we had some concerns with density. Since there are no federal or local dollars, and I
don't see the City of Chanhassen bonding to, for the purpose of affordable housing, one way
we can take a look at it is, I choose to use the carrot approach and one of the things that we
68
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
might be able to do in a PUD is if somebody does come in with something that's too dense,
we can say hey. This is what our expectations are. These are the, and we can come up with
dollar amounts as far as what's affordable. Not relative to what's affordable in Chanhassen
but what's affordable in the metro area. And just say okay. What we are going to allow you
to do Mr. or Mrs. Developer is, our ordinance says that this is the density. However, if you
put in, scattered throughout this large development, x number of units that will be let for no
more than x, we will allow you to put an additional building, the revenue and profit from this
will offset what you're not getting here. We gain because we get affordable housing. They
gain because they get additional income and get the break so I think if we can play some
games with density.
Farmakes: But is that how the animal works? It would seem to me that the animal works,
the developer's going to build the house, even substandard to what we currently have, for a
dollar in return. If an applicant comes to that house, the applicant is going to have to be
subsidized in such a way, either to buy into the mortgage or on a monthly basis to pay off the
principle and interest. At least this is how some religious organizations do this in
supplementing housing, "affordable housing". And it depends on which category you're using
according to the State government. There's very low income. There's low income. There's
like 20 different categories that they have and the issue revolves around a rather technical
requirements. My point being is that many of the approaches that have been to this are site
scattered and when you say PUD, you're not necessarily talking site scattered. Or at least the
ones I've seen...where 509 of them are substandard. So if you're looking at that as a vehicle
to come up with stats for affordable, if the word you're using. Low income is the word I'm
using or moderate or upper moderate or whatever you come up with. But the problem that
you are going to incur is, if you subsidize that, who's going to subsidize it? You're saying
the builder in some way and it seems to me that in commerce you're not going to find the
builder subsidize anything. It will be more or less I believe, it will wind up being
government in some way, shape or form. To come up with some equity situation.
Scott: Well, can I have a motion to adjourn.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
69
CITY OF
i
1orCHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORA i M
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
— DATE: March 30, 1994
SUBJ: Report from Director
At the March 28, 1994, meeting, the City Council took the following actions:
1. Church Road 2nd Addition was given final plat approval on the consent agenda.
2. Variance request for Byerly's sign was tabled. The motion to approve a variance requires
a 4/5ths majority vote. Only 3 votes favored the variance, therefore, the motion was
tabled.
3. The Council recommended the southerly access boulevard for the EA document. A
public hearing on the EA will probably occur within the next 3 to 4 months.
4. Preliminary plat approval was given to the Minnewashta Landings subdivision. The
Council recommended that a 450 view be maintained from the center of the Hoelke
home.
PUD Process
At the last Planning Commission meeting, you recommended denial of conceptual approval of
the Heritage Plat. Commissioner Mancino requested that staff review what was required for
conceptual approval in a PUD. Attached please find the requirements for conceptual review.
You will note that "approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the
final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district."
Staff has always been of the opinion that conceptual approval is just that. . . conceptual. The
purpose is to identify issues and give the applicant direction. It does not obligate the city to
approve the project but does provide a tool for the applicant to work with. Certainly, if you are
uncomfortable with the concept plan, it can be denied. The real purpose of the concept is to give
direction and tell the applicant how to proceed for a particular site.
Planning Commission —'
March 30, 1994
Page 2
Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on April 20, 1994 at 5:30 p.m.
Issues:
1. Temporary sales
2. Process of review of developments, i.e. Wendy's
3. Consideration of a funding for a full time urban forester -
If there are any other issues you would like to add, please let us know.
ZONING § 20-517
tunity to gather information and obtain guidance on the general merits of the proposal and its
conformity to the provisions of this article before incurring substantial expense.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5-18 6(1)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20.517. General concept plan.
(a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to
submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire
development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following:
(1) Overall gross and net density.
(2) Identification of each lot size and lot width.
(3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
(4) General location and extent of public and common open space.
(5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development.
(6) Staging and time schedule for development.
_ (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be
filed with the city before the staff commences review.Approval of the concept statement shall
not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to
a planned unit development district.
(c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures:
(1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments.
(2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with
all supporting data.
(3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make
recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal
property description, description of request, and be published in the official news-
paper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing
shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five
hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign
erected.
(4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commis-
_
sion the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to
make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the city
council may proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan
and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable.Approval shall require a four-fifths
vote of the entire council.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5-18-6(2)), 12-15-86)
Supp. No. 5 1200.11
ONGOING ISSUES
REVISED APRIL 1, 1994
ISSUES STATUS
1.* 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. The CC recommended the southern route
5 Corridor Study for the northern access boulevard. The
next step in the process is to make the EA
document public and notification of the
availability of the document in the EQB
Monitor.
2.* 1995 Study Area (South)/Bluff A meeting was held on March 17, 1994.
Creek Corridor Greenway/Existing The LCMR Bluff Creek group met to
use zoning - BF District discuss the status of our grant application.
They endorsed the staff's proposal to
conduct a design charette along the
corridor. Staff is working with Lance
Neckar, U of M Landscape Dept., to
prepare a charatte proposal.
3.* Sign Ordinance PC is continuing to review the document.
4.* Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Public hearing to PC on April 6, 1994.
of significant vegetative areas
5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the
ordinance. Initial comments delivered to
Minnesota DNR. Will place on upcoming
PC agenda.
6. PC input in Downtown Planning The city is continuing work on the 2002
and Traffic Study Vision Plan for the CBD.
7. Review of Architectural Standards Hwy. 5 Plan incorporates some language
to Promote High Quality Design addressing this issue. If additional
emphasis is desired by the Planning
Commission, staff should be notified.
8. Temporary uses, sales - new PC reviewed. Staff given direction to
ordinance make changes and bring back in 1994.
1
9. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC.
10. Joint meeting with Park and Requested by PC.
Recreation Commission on natural
area preservation and Park
Comprehensive Plan.
12. Auto related uses. CC determined that new district not
appropriate but wants lot by lot discussion
of available sites and how best to control/ _
influence auto related uses.
13. Local/Collector Street Plan PC requested discussion of potential _
developing a map and plan.
14.* Hwy. 101 Alignment Selection Alternative #3 was recommended by the
CC. The Engineering department is
working to get this officially mapped.
15. Legion Site Transit Hub Plans in development for presentation to
HRA and PC.
* Change in status since last report.
2