Loading...
1988 02 03 e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1988 Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette ElIson, Brian Batzli and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE CODIFICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 80, THE CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED, AND TO CONSIDER REVISING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 80. Emmings: We'll just go through these one at a time, I assume. Headla: Do you have to have a public hearing on each one of these items or how do you work that? Dacy: How about if you just open the public hearing and ask if there is any member present that would like to speak on any of the items l(a) ~ through l(h). Ernmings: The publing hearing is open and we have one member of the public who is just here to listen. ElIson: From the press. Emmings: I think what we should do is let's just go through them one by one and we'll ask if there's any comments after each one if anybody else shows up. Then we will close the public hearing at the end of all the items. Dacy: The first issue that staff would like to present is the codification issue. Enclosed in your packet's list, this black book that pulls together all of the City's ordinances. Your action tonight is concentrating on Chapter 20 or the Zoning Ordinance. It is, in a couple of ways, different than the newspaper version that was originally published and approved in February of 1987. I have noted those changes in the report. Tim, before the meeting just brought up an error on page 1174 and I found one on page 1270. Did the Commisison find any other of those types of errors or organization or duplication? Erhart: Barb, why don't you assume that there are probably hundreds of errors in a document this large and that those will be cleaned up. .. Emmings: Is there going to be another draft printed? Dacy: Yes, after the Planning Commission public hearing and the Council's final approval, there will be correction pages of certain ,~ Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 2 e pages that had to be changed. You will receive a supplement probably sometime at the end of March that you will have to remove your old pages and insert the new ones. Emmings: So if we have an opportunity, then we should all try to read through for those kinds of errors and just phone them in to staff. That's the best thing to do rather than take time in the meeting. I'd rather do it that way. Dacy: Maybe in the motion, we've suggested a motion there, maybe you would want to add the phrase, something to the effect to correct any oversights that may be detected prior to the Council meeting or something to that effect so we don't have to go back. Headla: What's your idea of an oversight? Dacy: I would say those items that are either duplications, misspellings, or typing errors or placement of sections in the wrong place in the ordinance. Headla: Okay, no rewording or anything like that? Dacy: Right. So that's the first motion that's proposed. - Emmings: There's no one here from the public to comment, so are there any commissioners here that want to comment? Erhart: Essentially in the past, everything was single, separate pieces of paper? There was nothing tied together in sequence? Dacy: That's correct. We had a series of ordinances from Ordinance No. 1 through Ordinance No. 80. Erhart: book. made. So this is the first time it's been pulled together in a single The intention is to constantly update this book as changes are Who will have copies of the book? Dacy: These are your permanent copies and if there are any changes, you will be sent corrected pages for you to insert. Erhart: Can citizens purchase copies of the book? Is that what it is, a purchasing? Headla: The general public would have to purchase a copy? Ellson: Would there be one for their review like at the library or something? tit Dacy: Sure, they could always stop upstairs or that's a good idea, we should probably keep one on file. Batzli: I think you're going to have a heck of a time trying to keep track of what pages are the current pages in the current format. Unless Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 3 e you start putting revising dates on it or something on the pages, I don't know how you're going to be able to tell if you're looking at the most recent page or not. Dacy: From what I understand from the Municipal Code Corporation, when they print the corrected page, sometimes they may have to do, for example, l22lA, B or C and then they will correct the reference that's on each page. You're right, it's going to be... Batzli: What they normally do in a looseleaf book like this though is to keep track of it by year and then the number of amendments that have come out. For instance, the first amendment would be labeled right on page 88.1 or something and I think unless you go to that kind of system, you're going to have a heck of a time trying to decide if the book is complete or not. That's not even really relevant to the Planning Commission but I think it's something you might want to consider. Emmings: He's absolutely right and we all deal with these in our libraries, both Brian and I deal with looseleaf services all the time and it's a constant struggle to know and be sure that you've got the latest materials, the up-to-date materials. It's not even easy a lot of times when the replacements come in to sort it out. It can be one of the most confusing things known to man. But that's part of this anyway. I feel like you did this just because I was finally getting used to using the other set so you wanted, I didn't have to ask if things were in the Code anymore or not. e Dacy: I appreciate your input because we can relay that to our office manager who is going to be in charge of working with this process. Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed codification of the Zoning Ordinance as Chapter 20 in the proposed Chanhassen City Code subject to correction of typographical errors, duplications and other corrections found by Planning Commissioners. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVISE ARTICLE V, SECTION 5(5) (3) AND ARTICLE V, SECTION 6(5) (3) TO STATE 125 FEET. Erhart: I thought this went to City Council already? Dacy: It did for discussion purposes just to make sure that they agreed with the Planning Commission. Erhart: So we never actually recommended it? e Emmings: This is to hold the public hearing. Again, for the record, we have no one from the public to comment so we'll just ask if there are any comments or questions of staff from the commissioners. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 4 e Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise the lot depth requirement for single family lots from 150 feet to 125 feet. [Article V, Section 5(5) (3) and Article V, Section 6(5) (3) in Ordinance No. 80 and Article XII, Section 20-615(3) and Article XIII, Section 20-635(3)] in the proposed ordinance. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVISE ARTICLE VI, SECTION 5, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE FOR SETBACKS FOR VARIOUS SIZES OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. Emmings: It appears that the City Council had something of a different idea than we had when we sent it up there. You might just hit that quick for our new commissioners. e Olsen: One of the councilmembers felt that if we're allowing larger buildings, right now the ordinance allows accessory structures 5 feet from the rear lot line and they felt that the larger accessory buildings shouldn't be permitted to be only 5 feet away so they asked us to look into a graduated setback. We called around and reviewed what the different sized accessory structures there were and we found that they were either the small accessory structure or the larger 3 car garage and the pole barns. We felt that if we permitted the 5 foot setback for the smaller buildings, that that would be adequate and then increase the setback to 15 feet for the larger buildings. That would satisfy it. To have setbacks for each different size of building would be real confusing to enforce and we felt that this would still satisfy keeping the larger buildings back from the rear lot line and would still be easy to enforce. Emmings: It seems to me that when we had it, before we sent it up to the City Council, that we were concerned about height. Building height on the accessory buildings. Am I remembering that right? Erhart: We talked about it. Emmings: Did the City Council, were they concerned? Olsen: No, they didn't discuss it. I think there's a 40 foot limit to the buildings. Dacy: Right now the accessory structure limit is the same as the principle structure and I think that was based on the fact that if you did have a detached garage or something, the same style or manner that the principle building was and I remember when we were going through, that was the basis. Erhart: You're saying that the accessory building can not be higher than the principle structure? It Dacy: Right. Erhart: So is that in there? - Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 5 e Dacy: Yes. In each of the zoning districts, the accessory structure height limit is the same as the principle structure. Emmings: You can't build an accessory structure without the principle structure being there. Erhart: You can be higher. You can have a 20 foot high house and a 40 foot high accessory structure. Dacy: Oh yes, okay. Headla: ...the sheet metal barn on the north side of TH 7? Erhart: You've got a 1,000 square foot limit here. Headla: You can put a big truck in there. What's it for, A-2 buffering? Erhart: It's 30 by 33, that's not as big as this room. That's not real big. I think that fellow was talking about a much bigger building. 1,000 square feet would be approximately the size of this whole room without that portion of it. Wouldn't you say Dave? I think a guy should be able to build a 3 stall or 4 stall garage and that ought to be the limit and isn't that about where we came up with this 1,000 square _ feet? Olsen: The 3 car garage was approximately 800. Headla: That wasn't consistent with the existing...height? Is that why they used the same height for like a 3 or 4 stall garage? Dacy: You mean the height restrictions for the accessory buildings? Headla: Yes. Dacy: Yes, that's what I recall. Erhart: What conceivably could be an accessory building 3 stories high that you'd want in the RSF district? Dacy: If we're limiting accessory buildings to 1,000 square feet, that would pretty much exclude the pole barns. Usually they range from 12 to 14 feet. The only time I've seen second stories in a detached structure is over in the Red Cedar Point area where they have proposed a little storage space. Erhart: district? Is the object here to prevent metal buildings in Is that what they're trying to do? the RSF e Dacy: No, the object is to provide a sense of scale and separation between an accessory structure and adjacent property. Most of those Sears buildings are metal so to prohibit that, I'd feel real uncomfortable saying they can't have metal. - -~-.- ! i I I I J ---...- Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 6 e Erhart: I wouldn't suggest that. It gets back to this think that we've discussed many times and that's about architectural regulations and you could say that buildings over 200 square feet, which gets bigger than the Sears stuff, is it has to be architecturally similar to the principle structure. Then the question is, do we want to get into architectural regulations and for some reason in the past, we've always said no. I don't know why. Emmings: I just wonder if there's ever any reason to have accessory structures, I wonder if there ought to be a limit that they could be 3 stories or not taller than the principle structure. If you're talking about keeping things in proportion on a residential block. Erhart: I think a minimum, that makes sense. At least to include a sentence that says it can't be taller than the principle structure. Batzli: Then you're going to start conflicting with a lot of other stuff. We're going to have to go back in and clean it up. In each Article, for different residential single family, R-4, they go through maximum heights. Erhart: That's not conflicting with that. All it is is adding another restriction. e Batzli: But it says, the maximum heights is as follows: for accessory structures, 3 stories, 40 feet. Then you're going to say later on that an accessory structure can't be higher than the house. Erhart: That's not in conflict. Batzli: I think you're just trying to put it in the wrong place. There's a lot of redundancy in this new codification. It would probably be a lot easier to actually define what an accessory structure is because I don't know that I know what one is. They talk about accessory uses throughout the code but I don't know that they ever define what an accessory structure is, although that's what we're currently talking about now. Dacy: It should be defined. Batzli: Is that first Article 1, in general, page l142? Erhart: It combines them. Accessory use or structure means the use or structures subordinate to and serving principle use or structure on the same lot and clearly and customarily incidental thereto. Batzli: Is structure and use mutually exclusive although they're defined the same way? e Erhart: The way this is written it is. I think what they've done is combine two separate thoughts in the same sentence. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 7 e Batzli: So you're not talking about, for instance, a 1,000 square foot tennis court having a setback requirement but you are a structure? Dacy: Correct. It says a detached accessory structure, except a dock, it excludes that, as accessory uses in some of the districts, parking lot, signs, home occupations, tennis courts, swimming pool, garages. I'll have to take that back. They are mutually exclusive. A use of an accessory structure as a garage. It can be the same thing but... Erhart: That's a good point Brian. I don't see a reason why a guy would have to put a tennis court 15 feet away from his property line, if that's what you're suggesting. I don't see any reason for that. So you could exclude that just like we did for docks here. Do we have a current problem or do we anticipate a problem? Emmings: We got talking about this because we were talking about buildings right? That's what we're concerned about here is people building garages, storage sheds and things of that nature. Maybe we're not saying it the best way here. I see under definition of structure, it even includes a hard surface parking area. How is that different than a tennis court? I don't know. In fact it says, anything constructed having a permanent location in the ground. That would include a swimming pool or tennis court or anything else and I don't think that's what we're talking about. I don't think that's what we meant to talk about. e Erhart: We're talking about the first sentence under structures, we're talking the first term there. Dacy: You're talking about storage buildings. Emmings: I think we're talking about garages too though. If you look under permitted accessory uses, just for example in the RSF, you've got a list of things on page 1208. The first one is a garage. The second one is a storage building. I think we are talking those two and then way at the bottom is a private kennel. Maybe that involves a building. Maybe we're talking about that one too but all the rest of them in the middle, I don't think a home occupation is clearly just a use and does not involve a structure. At least, according to our own definitions, the rest could be structures. Dacy: First of all we're just talking about the RSF district because I just noticed the way (b) is written, you could interpret that to mean in any district. Emmings: We're only talking about amending the RSF section? Dacy: That's what I'm asking for clarification. That's what we interpretted as the commission's intent. e Emmings: What this says we're doing is amending Section 20-904 in the proposed ordinance which is not the RSF. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 8 e Batzli: That's the general regulations section. Olsen: We can clarify that it's just the RSF though. Dacy: (a) and (c) currently say in any residential district but (b) does not say that. Ellson: So at the end of the first sentence just add, in residential single family. Is that what you're saying? Dacy: Right. Batzli: I don't think you want to say that there. You don't want to amend all of that paragraph do you? Dacy: That's what we need to find out. If that's what the Commission wants. Batzli: I would think that you still want to maintain paragraph (b) for all districts. Dacy: The way that we have it proposed for the 200 and 1,000 in a commercial or industrial district, that could be limiting especially in the industrial district if they did want a 2,000 or 3,000 square foot building in the back of their principle building. That's what I'm saying. These 200's and 1,000's are based on our research. e Erhart: It's only really the last sentence in that paragraph that you want to limit to a district, isn't it? Isn't it only the last sentence, the 1,000 square feet, you want to limit that to RSF? Dacy: What I was thinking is adding that to before the second sentence. In the single family residential district the detached accessory structure, etc.. Maybe to really clarify it, we add (d) for the RSF requirements and leave (b) as a detached accessory structure may occupy not more than 30% area of the rear yard. Emmings: I like here. (a) would sentence of (b). would be of (b). as it is and (d) then pick up all that better. Let's go through the proposed motion stay the same. (b) would be just the present first The present first sentence of (b), that's all there Then (c) would speak of any residential district, just would say in the single family residential district and the rest of the language in (b). Erhart: Yes, except why wouldn't you want to have setback graduations apply to RR and A-2 as well? If a guy's got a 2 1/2 lot, he's got no reason to put a 1,000 square foot building up 5 feet away from his lot line. He has less reason than anybody. - Emmings: It's tough to coordinate through all exceptions. Can you think of something to do here Barb or do you think we ought to table this? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 9 . Dacy: Number one, the original intent came out of that David Obie conditional use permit. You wanted to prohibit big buildings in the RSF district. As far as in the RR and the A-2 area, in the current regulations, someone could put an accessory building 5 feet from their rear lot line. Do you want to limit not only the setback but the size of an accessory building in the RR and the A-2 districts? This is beyond the original purpose. Erhart: Just change the last sentence in paragraph (b) to say, a detached accessory structure shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in the RSF district. Dacy: So you want to keep the graduating setbacks for RSF, A-2 and RR. Erhart: The other districts, in the multiple family and we don't want to get into that because sometimes you have multiple garages for apartment buildings. Dacy: This is getting to a point where I think the Commission should give us direction on what they want to do and then we'll come back. We'll rework this. Headla: Let me ask a question. Why did you say rear yard? . Dacy: I was saying, under current regulations you can't place a structure 5 feet from the rear lot line. Headla: If you go along Minnewashta Heights there are some beautiful homes there and as far as I know, their living rooms are facing the lake which means the front of the house. What's your definition of a rear yard? ElIson: The one facing the road is the front yard. Headla: What happens in the...the property that you were going to develop at Lawson's...and you've got lots on Minnewashta Parkway and on the main road on the other side. Dacy: A double frontage lot? Headla: Yes. Is it clear in your minds what a rear yard is and a front yard? I'm not sure I know. Dacy: In a double frontage situation, technically you have two front yards. Headla: I look at Minnewashta and Minnewashta Parkway and people live facing the lakes and that's the front yard. That's one thing I want to make sure we... . Dacy: We can add that too. What it would be if it's a double frontage lot. That's one item. The next item is, just for the RSF district, is what (b) says there, is that what you want for the RSF? Just limit it Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 10 e to the RSF? Emmings: That's what I recall us sending up. That's what I remember we were in agreement on, at least at one time. Batzli: somebody going to equal to You need to add, or equal to, in there somewhere because is going to come in with a 200 square foot job and you're know what to do with it. Your first, structure less than 200 square feet. not or ElIson: The only other thing I noticed was if it's greater than 200 square feet, they will be located 15 feet. No closer than 15 feet. Isn't that basically what we wanted? They can have the garage next to the house if they wanted could they? Erhart: What's the side yard setback in this case? 10 feet? Does that make sense. Dacy: Yes. Erhart: So it's okay to put 1,000 square foot building 10 feet from the sideyard? e Dacy: You can put your house 10 feet away. So, then what do you want to do on A-2 and RR districts? ElIson: I don't think that there's a problem. Maybe you're thinking of the future and maybe possible problems so I can understand that but... Erhart: I think you have to allow bigger buildings in the A-2 district. ElIson: Right. I don't think we should combine it all with this thing. It sounds like what you wanted to do was accomplish this for the residential single family. I think trying to combine it with the other is just going to make it more confusing. Erhart: My thinking was that the graduated setbacks though could have some merits in the larger lots as well. You're proposing this to go into the accessory structure, isn't that what you're proposing this goes in? Into the definition of accessory structure? Your whole proposal is based on this being wording for the accessory structure. So it can apply to all districts. Dacy: Right, and I wanted to get direction on what you want for residential districts so then we can say that and also say what you originally said for commercial and industrial. Emmings: You still have us confused over uses and structures I think too? e Erhart: The question I'm getting to, in an apartment complex in the high density area, an apartment complex where they have a garage of 47 garages in it, basically if we do this, we're saying that garage has to Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 11 e be 15 feet away from the lot line. Do we understand that? ElIson: That will say that. Erhart: Is that okay? Dacy: That's up to you. It would be best, from an administration standpoint, if we had one consistent set of rules for all rural districts. That's why we weren't really happy about the graduated idea because it just adds one more quirk into the scheme of things. You need to decide. Does this apply to multiple areas?.. Erhart: If you're looking at me as to what I would recommend for the rural, I think I like the graduated. If it's good for the RSF, I think it's good for 2 1/2 acre lots too. The only thing is that I don't think you can limit it to 1,000 square foot buildings. Dave, don't you agree? There's a lot of 2 1/2 acre lots that have large buildings. Headla: We were talking before, just in our area, and there's lot of open land... Erhart: I don't think you can limit the size of the accessory building in the RR or A-2 area. e Headla: back. People who have got 10, 15 to 20 acres and beaucoup land out Erhart: I think we can limit them to not put these buildings 5 feet from the property line and that's happened to me and it seems silly for a guy with 2 1/2 acres, in fact we encourage that, to put his house 10 feet from the property line even though his lot was 200 feet wide. Thank goodness today we're not doing that anymore. Dacy: Then what we get from that, first of all you were saying you don't want to limit the size in the RR and A-2 area but you do want to impose a stricter setback? Erhart: Yes. Dacy: We've got direction on that and we can come back with revised language because I think you're right, you're going to end up going t back to each individual district. Emmings: And clear up this accessory use business too. I think basically what you have here is what we wanted and not all of a sudden it's gotten broader. I suppose you might as well go and reword it all at once. Dacy: Do you want us to look at the height issue? e Headla: I think that should be a consideration to look at. you're comfortable with. See what Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 12 e Ellson: what is a pole barn, or whatever you were saying, and the height of those. Erhart: The height thing, I was thinking of just the RSF district. I'm thinking of third acre lots. I think that's where we're trying... Emmings: There, couldn't we limit it? Headla: How many places do we have, like around Lake Minnewashta where you have 10-15-20 acres that are RSF? Is that just a unique thing? Dacy: Primarily around in your area and some land of Mrs. Anderson and the Carlson's lot. Erhart: I think those are the areas we're trying to prevent someone putting in a 5,000 square foot building because we anticipate in the next five years, because if it's within the MUSA line and RSF, somebody is going to subdivide this land and what you don't want is selling 5 year old, 5,000 square foot steel building right in the middle of this now subdivision. So I think that's what we're trying to prevent. Even though it may seem restrictive to Dave. Headla: Could I put up a 5,000 square foot pole barn on my property? e Dacy: He's zoned RSF now and whatever 30% of your rearyard is, is acceptable. Again, that was the whole basis... Headla: That shouldn't be right because alot of that land is going to be developed and that would be an imposing structure for the whole neighborhood. I don't think that's right. Dacy: At the next meeting we're going to get a request for a 12,000 square foot building. Erhart: Are you understanding that this is creating limitations on your land, do you still agree with what we're talking about? Headla: Our area is just a unique area. If it was general, I'd say we should take a much better look at it but if it's just in our area, and I think that's going to be developed very shortly, I just don't think it's right that we should allow one building...like another barn like I've got. Put up another one that size... Emmings: First of all, we're talking RSF. Can someone on a 15,000 square foot lot come in with a pole barn? Dacy: Our current ordinance says that he can build a detached accessory structure up to the maximum area 30% of the rear yard. So they have to meet that. If it's a pole barn and it meets that, then we have to issue a permit. e Erhart: The rear yard is half of 15,000 is 7,000 times 30, it could be a 2,100 square foot building. I think this is pretty good here. I Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 13 e think it does what we wants it to do. The only other issue is if you want to tie it in architecturally and I just can't imagine someone building a house and putting an accessory structure of 200 to 1,000 square feet and not making it architecturally similar. Headla: If we would say you couldn't build over 800 or 1,000 square foot building, it can not be sheet metal pole barn construction. If we knock that out, wouldn't that make it more compatible with, if somebody is going to invest that kind of money, I can't imagine somebody giving up an accessory structure... Dacy: You have a point there, once they are building a building, you would assume that they would probably put a garage and we would assume that they would use the same materials or wood or brick or something. It's a matter of desire on the community's standpoint as to how far do you want to go to regulate what a private property owner can do and what materials that you want to use for an out building. It's an option. What I thought, in the past we have not regulated it because sometimes development can have private covenants address that. So far Chanhassen hasn't taken that extra step to go that far in regulating aesthetics on accessory buildings. It's not unusual though for commercial and industrial districts. - Headla: How about if we say, anything around 1,000 square feet has to be . . . Erhart: I think we're all agreed that we want them up to 1,000 square feet. There seems to be a hesitance to put an architectural limit on this thing. What is the adverse effect of us to start dealing with architectural controls? Emmings: ...the public health, safety and welfare and aesthetics, legally we can control things that effect the public health, safety and welfare. I would say, if you said something like it has to be architecturally, and I don't know what the language should be. Architecturally consistent... Erhart: I was thinking in an area from 200 feet up to 1,000, building the structure so it's aesthetically or architecturally matches the principle structure. Later on this evening we're talking about controlling architecture in the industrial area aren't we? Dacy: In the commercial and industrial. Erhart: How is that any different? e Dacy: It's different because cities have more say as far as design in the industrial parks and commercial and industrial acreage. I think it is important, the single family detached home, that's at the top of the pyramid. That's the highest use and that's kind of like traditionally accepted that your home is your castle. with commercial and industrial uses, there are more impacts as far as water use, traffic and lights, building separation and aesthetics comes in... To me there is a Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 14 e difference. Emmings: I can see if you want to go higher. If you want a garage separate from your house or a second story or something like that and you've got a house. I don't see any reason to want to limit that. Erhart: What's the highest conceivable? 20 feet? Dacy: that. Again, the height issue, we can come back with some facts on I hate to make a statment on that now. Headla: Why don't you make a recommendation on that. What I'm thinking about is, our in our area, if that gets developed, you've got one building 40 feet high, that's going to stick up like a sore thumb so why don't you take a look at that and give us something. Erhart: Also look at your wording in paragraph 2. Dacy: That's the way it's written now. Erhart: I think it could be a little better if it was broken down into two sentences. e Erhart moved, ElIson seconded to table the item revising Article VI, Section 5, Accessory Structures until staff can come back with additional information and suggestions regarding the setbacks and building sizes. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVISE ARTICLE VI, SECTION 12, FENCES AND WALLS, TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF BARBED WIRE FENCES. Emmings: Again, there's no one here from the public. Are there any questions or comments from the Commissioners? Headla: The fences that are in now, that are barbed wire, they can stay there right? Olsen: Yes. Headla: Can they repair them and update them? 01 sen: Yes. Batzli: I guess I'd like to propose that we reword the proposed sentence to make it consistent with the paragraph that it's going to be JOlning. I would propose that rather than the way it's worded, I propose that we say, fences utilizing barbed wire in all commercial and industrial districts shall require a conditional use permit, to make it consistent with the rest of the paragraph. e - Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 15 e Batzli moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the Fences and Wall section of the Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (Article VI, Section 12 in Ordinance No. 80 and Article XXIII, Division 5 in the proposed ordinance) as follows: Section 20-1024. Barbed Wire Fences: Barbed wire fences are prohibited in all residential districts. Barbed wire fences are permitted in the agricultural districts. Add the following sentence at the end of the section (Section 20-1018) regulating commercial and industrial fences: Fences utilizing barbed wire in all commercial and industrial districts shall require a conditional use permit. All voted in favor and motion carried. DELETE ARTICLE VI, SECTION 4, TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES. e Dacy: I don't have any comments other than what was presented. However, we did receive an application last week for location of a temporary use on the Natural Green property. So we accepted the application and because this ordinance was not approved, we had to accept application for it. So at the next meeting, you will see an application for a temporary use. Emmings: What is the temporary use they're proposing? Dacy: They want to put a mobile home on the Natural Green site for temporary office space. Erhart: An office for what? Dacy: For the Natural Green offices. Erhart: I thought Natural Green was moving. Dacy: Yes, they did find another site in Chaska but they are currently using the existing home for office space and supposedly according to the owner, it's very cramped in there and they wanted some extra space for another year. In March of 1989, they will be completely out of Chanhassen. Headla: Did you have any restrictions on locations? e Dacy: No. Again, we're in the process of writing the staff report and it will be at your next meeting. Emmings: Are there any comments on this proposal, to delete this section? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 16 e Batzli: I'm just curious as to what other cities do around Chanhassen. Do they have this type of use permit? Dacy: Not to my knowledge. For example, we have Eden Prairie's, Minnetonka's and Plymouth's ordinances on file and I think this temporary conditional uses did exist in our 1972 ordinance. It was just a carryover into the new one. The City Attorney wrote that in but not to my knowledge have I seen it in adjacent communities. Batzli: But the Attorney's opinion didn't necessarily say it was improper as it would be costly to fight it out in court, if I read that right? Dacy: Right. I think it's really way, in some cases, to circumvent the ordinance. If you look at temporary conditional uses and under this request then, you could propose almost any type of use in any zoning district and then it becomes an enforcement problem and sometimes temporary becomes permanent and maybe the property owner can claim investment into the property and go after us on that. So I guess that's where the counsel comes in. Erhart: Why are you recommending this? e Dacy: We're recommending to delete this section. Erhart: You're recommending to delete the entire section that allows... You're saying that a guy can put a temporary.. ElIson: No, we're saying they can't do it. Erhart: They just can't do it at all. Oh, okay. Dacy: We're saying either the community looks at the use and includes it as a conditional use or a permitted use. It's either permanent or it's not. Emmings: We don't want temporary uses. It's just like that book store. I don't think anybody saw any benefits for retaining this section, as I recall. Batzli: The only benefit is flexibility but perhaps at the cost of mucho denario for the City. Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning Ordinance Amendment to delete the section rgarding Temporary Structures and Uses (Article V, Section 4, in Ordinance No. 80 and Article XXIII, Section 20-903 in the proposed ordinance). All voted in favor and motion carried. e - Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 17 e ADD SECTION 26 TO ARTICLE VI, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS TO REGULATE CONSTRUCTION OF METAL BUILDINGS. Dacy: The language that's proposed, I'm not particularly happy with, to be honest with you and the City Attorney said that he was going to suggest some alternative language. I talked to Jim Wildermuth today on the phone and he alerted me to the fact that Eaton Companies are now making wall materials whereby you could have a masonary facia, sheet metal, insulation and sheet metal again so he's saying that there is a form of construction out there that does use some type of sheet metal. Then it is hung on steel frames and so on. That provides better insulation qualities to the building. His opinion was, the City should not go so far as to prohibit the use of metal or sheet metal in actual construction but merely limit the facia or the exposed material. In my comments I addressed that second alternative. The recommendation was based on the first alternative prohibiting utilization of metal construction completely but given Jim's comments today, it seems like the state-of-the-art building, that may change so it may be best to go with option 2 and just address what the building looks like. Emmings: So now you're basically proposing to allow use of metal construction without exposed metal. Is that correct? e Dacy: Right. Emmings: Do we have any buildings in the commercial or industrial area that have exposed metal? Dacy: No, not to my knowledge. We do have buildings that have metal construction that different facia. Headla: Exposed metals, you're talking like walls? Dacy: Right. I'm sorry, the only one that we would have is Gary Brown's mini-storage. This would, if Gary Brown walked in after this was approved, he would not be able to build his metal buildings. Headla: I thought of that and I didn't understand that. How would this knock his off? Dacy: It would knock out Gary Brown's proposal because he basically, all his building's were, were pole barns. Headla: But isn't he on the fringe area? Dacy: Yes, but he's zoned business fringe. He is commercial. Erhart: Isn't his approved already? e Dacy: Yes. I'm just saying, as an example, if he never requested... ElIson: They're saying if he wants additional, could do it because he Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 18 e already some either. Dacy: Right. If he came in for expansion beyond what he has approved. Head1a: I like your intent but I tried to think of other wording too. Batz1i: Again, just echoing that sentiment, I started thinking, what about conceivably aluminum siding that really doesn't look like metal? Or the metal around windows? Or metal fire door? Your wording doesn't allow any exposed metal but you're going to have a lot of exposed metal in things like that. Emmings: You can think of somebody designing a building that's not just an ordinary building where they want to have structural components exposed or something like that where it would be consistent with the design or whatever we want to allow. Dacy: Which option? ElIson: We like Option 2 I think. To allow metal but just so somehow, with some exceptions, especially the face. I don't think we're going to prohibit all metal construction, especially after what you said about Eaton and things that are certainly being done in building. e Dacy: With that direction, we could come back with a better sentence. Erhart: There are a lot of buildings that are just glass and metal. Beautiful office buildings. Dacy: Maybe the sentence should read, there shall be no construction of pole barns in the commercial or industrial area. Erhart: That's it. How do you say that. Dacy: That's the intent. Emmings: Maybe that's the way you do it. Maybe you say something like, the intent of this is to avoid pole barn type construction and not to limit the use of things like aluminum siding that don't appear to be metal. Dacy: Right, so that will give us flexibility in interpretation. Emmings: And I'd specifically put in pole barns. Just go right ahead and say it. That's what we're talking about. Head1a moved, E11son seconded to table action on Section 26 to Article VI, Supplementary Regulations to regulate construction of metal buildings. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 19 e ADD SUBPARAGRAPH 20 TO ARTICLE IX, SECTION 2, GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SIGNS TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CEMETERY SIGNS. Emmings: There is still no one present from the public. Are there any questions? Batzli: I have a question. Are you holding cemetaries to a higher standard than anyone else in the entire City by making them go through a conditional use permit if their sign in fact complies with all the requirements for the district in which they are located so they would only need a permit? Dacy: Actually, cemetery signage isn't provided for anywhere right now. The location of the two cemetaries are in, one is in the A-2 district and the other one is in the RSF district. Under the signage regulations, the only thing that's permitted are development identification signs and house numbers. -- Emmings: I think it's quite the contrary. The cemetery down here came in with a sign proposal and we all sat here and said gee, cemetaries really are different and they really ought to be allowed more latitude with their signs. Our whole focus has been to restrict the use of signs everywhere and here it was a place where we felt like they ought to have a little more latitude. We thought the only way we can keep our finger on what they're doing is to require a conditional use permit. It really was to give them more latitude, not less. Batzli: That answers my question. I was curious if for instance, I didn't know where they were located but if they were in a business district. They're a sign and they comply with the rules for that area. Emmings: They don't need directional signs. Batzli: If all they had was a little 2 x 2 square foot sign that said cemetery. I imagine that would be permissible in a business district to have a sign advertising who you are. So if that's all they were going to put up, they would still require a conditional use permit? Dacy: Right, because most cemetaries have the entrance and the gates and they're more extravagant. Emmings: That's not really his question. His question is, if they comply with the sign ordinance. If the sign ordinance applied and they met the conditions of the sign ordinance, would they still have to come in for a conditional use permit, is what he's saying. Dacy: As written, if it was located anywhere, yes, they would have to come in for a conditional use permit. e Emmings: But the fact is... Ellson: We'd let them have a nice one like, I think I was reading the Minutes, engrave it or rout it. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 20 e Emmings: That isn't the problem that we face. The problem we face is they wanted more than the sign ordinance would ever allow anybody else to do and they aren't in the commercial area. Dacy: I think they're only permitted as a permitted use in the A-2 district. That one next to St. Hubert's may be non-conforming. I think that's the only place where we allow them as a permitted use. Batzli: If that's not a problem, I guess I would just propose that we again reword the proposed new section to read, signage for cemetaries, in all districts, shall require a conditional use permit. Emmings: Why don't you go ahead and make a motion. Does anybody else have any other comments? Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning Ordinaince Amendment to include Signage Regulations for Cemeteries as follows (Section XXVI, Division 1 in the proposed ordinance): Section 20-1277, Cemetery Signage. Signage for cemeteries, in all districts, shall require a conditional use permit. All voted in favor and motion carried. e ADD AN ARTICLE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REGULATE BURIAL OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS. Emmings: You've asked us to table this item. First of all, do you want any comments from us at this point in time? Olsen: Sure. Emmings: Why don't you tell us a little bit more about what's going on here because this thing has gotten bigger too. Olsen: It began again, at the request of the City Council to look at construction where there's an existing building or whatever and they want to bury it on-sight. There's-no requirements or regulations for that so they want the City to have some control on that. That list that's on the back page of the report is the State's regulations and we transferred the ones that are applicable that could also be used within the City. Right now we still have to work with the other departments to figure out who's going to enforce this. What the permits are going to be. Definitions. Things like that so we still have some cleaning up to do. Erhart: Where do you think we're going with this? Right now anybody tit can bury anything? Where do you think we're heading on this? Olsen: To keep a little bit more control on it. To make them so they have to receive a permit. So we will know what it is there. - Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 21 e Erhart: Right now I can bury wood. ElIson: Concrete, you name it. Somebody else could buy that property and not really know what's under there. Erhart: You're certainly not thinking about eliminating burying of concrete and boulders? Olsen: We don't want to eliminate it. We just want to tell them where they can put it. Just so we know where. Erhart: Have we had some trouble? Olsen: Not too much that we know of. Emmings: What about things like, I know when I built my house, they took down some real big trees and everything, and had great big stumps left. I think they buried, this talks a little about demolition. I think that meant of existing buildings. Do you care about other stuff that might be there that they buried? Olsen: That's when we get into that definition and we'll look at that a little bit closer. e Dacy: What's exempt? Burying your pet dog? The key word here is demolition. Erhart moved, Headla seconded to table adding an Article to the Zoning Oridnance regulating Burial of Demolition Debris. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVISE ARTICLE VI, SECTION 21, ANTENNAS AND SATELLITE DISHES TO LIMIT A SINGLE FAMILY LOT TO ONE ANTENNA AND ONE SATELLITE DISH. Olsen: Staff already has some changes to this. Mr. Headla pointed that the way it reads, right now you could put a car antenna, radio antenna on the house so what we actually meant there was the radio antenna tower. That's what we meant to restrict to one per lot. Emmings: So you want to insert the word "tower" after antenna. e Olsen: Then satellite dish, that can remain the same. Also, a question was the ground mount. You may recall the ground mounted vertical antenna, the Roy Barke's proposal. It wasn't the large tower that the antenna was placed on but it's just a pole that's stuck in the ground that acts as just an antenna. I was speaking with somebody in the town who has all these and he was saying, they're temporary. You just stick them out there and they're usually no higher than 20-23 feet but I just wanted to get the Planning Commission's feeling that they wanted that also to be limited to one. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 22 e Emmings: Has that been a problem here at all? Olsen: The first time I ever saw them was when we visited ROy Barke's site and he had one. Again, they're temporary. We have to come up with a definition also. Headla: I'd like to see you wait on that one. I'd like to see reworded, forget radio antenna and just say antenna tower and put a maximum square foot area of the antennas they can have. Olsen: Yes, he requested that before and we tried to come up with some numbers. Headla: Who did you ask? Olsen: I called all the different antenna places and people who use the radio antennas because it depends on where you want your signal to go. Your antenna could be a million different combinations. Headla: But as you drive down, like Powers Blvd. and you consider the antenna over there, I think the real intent is to control, put a maximum square footage and how many antennas can you stick on this tower. Right now it's unlimited. You could put up 15-20 square feet of antenna and I don't think that's what we want. e Olsen: The tower itself, if you limit it to one tower, there's only a certain amount of antennas that you can put on. Headla: Yes, you can put up 20-30-40 square feet on that one tower. Olsen: I have not been able to come up with a good number. Headla: Have you talked to any hams? Olsen: I've talked to several and then I also talked to the companies that manufacture them. Headla: Those probably aren't the hams but I would think, how did they respond? Olsen: They agreed that you could limit it to the towers but that the antenna would be very difficult to regulate because they're all different. They're all different sizes. Headla: The only one thing we're regulating is maximum cross section area. e Olsen: Again, I could not come with a definite number. It was a number that we could pick and then next week we could get somebody who had 5 square feet more and they need that because they want to speak to Russia. I can still look at it again. - Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 23 e Headla: I think it's incomplete without putting a maximum cross section area on the antenna. Emmings: I think what Jo Ann is saying, any number she would come up with would be arbitrary. Ellson: Maybe you should say, in relation to the house it's on or something like that. You don't want it to be huge and ugly is what you're really concerned about, right? Headla: To me, antennas aren't particularly bad. In consideration of other people, on TH 101, remember there we had where he wanted to put two. They were quite concerned there about how that would look, the aesthetics of it. I just think that's a parameter that should be controlled with a maximum. Maximum only. Emmings: Part of the history here, and maybe it was in here and I just don't remember right now but we keep getting these requests for towers and then we're told every time that we can't deny it. Although we have a conditional use process to go through, the area has been pre-empted by FCC regulations and we don't really have any control over it at all. This was an attempt to start to get some control on it. If we can't say no to an antenna or tower, maybe at least we can say no to two. To there being two towers on a lot. I think that's how this all kind of came about. We're not sure that we can even do this. It's kind of a gray area. e Olsen: I think by giving them that one tower is giving them reasonable use. I guess the question again is, do you also want to regulate those ground mounted vertical? Ellson: Just say the towers plus the ground mounted will just be one. They use them basically the same way. Olsen: Those are temporary and the satellite dish and antenna tower are permanent. They have the concrete base. Headla: Until we see it as a problem, why would we even want to get our hands into it? Batzli: It would be a way to circumvent the ordinance. Just put in temporary ones and they can use temporary ones permanently. Headla: It becomes a problem with any control. Batzli: Then it's too late. Emmings: Now these temporary ones, what do they do with them? Do they go out and put them out for one day? e Olsen: The people I was talking to, they were saying they put it up during the winter because in the summer there's too much static and it's just an additional antenna rather than having to mount an antenna tower. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 24 ~ It works as an antenna without having the tower. Erhart: It's an antenna field. You can achieve the same goal as having one long, high antenna. You can achieve the same goal by having the multiple, small antennas as having a high tall one. Emmings: Would we want to say something like if you have a tower, all your antennas have to be located on the tower? Olsen: It might be the same if they used the ground. Ernmings: What do you want to do? Olsen: I could look into them a little bit more and maybe we could say two ground. Two antennas aren't that bad. Ellson: I think you should say a number too so they don't go down and someone has 5 in their yard. One probably isn't very obtrusive but... Batzli: I'd rather limit it to one, whether it's temporary or permanent myself. Olsen: They can always go through the variance process if they want. ~ Emmings: So basically, you want to go ahead with what's proposed here. Are there any other comments or discussion? Batzli: I guess I'm under the impression that the word radio is deleted and the word tower is inserted after antenna. Olsen: I think that we should separate antenna towers and also specify ground mounted antennas. ElIson: That would allow them to have one on their house and then put one on. Emmings: I don't think so. ElIson: You're saying you want one and let it be the house or the ground? Olsen: You want either one tower or the ground? Batzli: That's right. That's what I'm proposing. Ellson: I think you should let them. Especially if in the winter they can get more Chicago stations or something like that. You do pick up a lot more in the winter and they probably can just put it out there for the winter and enjoy it a little bit more. ~ Batzli: We just got rid of our temporary use permit and here you're trying to do temporary things again. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 25 e ElIson: I'm saying they can have one of them. them in their yard. They can't have 5 of Headla: Does this include TV antennas? Olsen: That wouldn't include TV antennas. Batzli: Do you want to reinsert the word radio? differeniate from TV? It appears that's how the deals with satellite dishes, television antennas three separate entities. Radio antenna tower to section does it. It and radio antennas as Headla: Then you could put a facsimile tower and microwave tower? Batzli: It sure looks like it according to this ordinance. Well, we can exclude television antennas specifically. I would say antenna tower, permanent or temporary and excluding television antennas, would be a friendly amendment. Erhart: I'll second that amendment. Emmings: Any more discussion? ElIson: Read it again. I'd like to hear what it is again. e Emmings: As I understand it, it will say there shall be no more than one satellite dish and one antenna tower, permanent or temporary and excluding television antennas, per lot in residential districts. Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment to revise the section regarding antennas and satellite dishes (Article VI, Section 21 in Ordinance No. 80 and Article XXIII, Section 20-915 in the proposed ordinance) as follows: Add the following and renumber the existing six paragraphs: 1. There shall be no more than one satellite dish and one antenna tower, permanent or temporary, excluding television antennas, per lot in residential districts. All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and motion carried. Headla: I think they should put a maximum number and/or sizes of antennas on the tower. e Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearings on the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. All voted in favor and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 26 e COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, MARK KOEGLER. e Mark Koegler: We've got a few items to discuss tonight on the transportation section of the Comp Plan. They are fairly brief. In the memo I outlined essentially there's going to ten major components of the transportation section, just to give you a little idea of what we're working on now and what we're working towards. They are largely either pulled together or information is coming together on literally everyone of them. At our last meeting we talked about item 7, functional classification. Tonight we're going to review items I through 3 and then the next time the balance of the items will be incorporated in the draft. Prior to going to talk about some of the new text that's been generated for the Plan, Barb and I talked about it might be adviseable to real quickly give you another chance to review the goals and policy statements as they exist right now for transportation in the transportation section of the plan. Being that this is the first section of the plan, I know just a couple of you have gone through, I don't know what chance you've had to look at the draft as it exists today but there are goals and policies pertaining to each section of the Plan. Land Use, Housing, Recreation and so forth. These are the ones, obviously, for the transportation section. We thought we would simply put those in the packet and give you a chance to look at those again to see if there are any additional comments or modifications that you would like to see. I don't think it's necessary for me to read through those by any means. Perhaps any comments that anybody might have, this would be an appropriate time to make those known. To be honest you, we looked at these so long ago, I don't really recall what modifications the Commission made initially, if any, to the transportation items. There were changes that were made to some of the other goals and policy statements pertaining to other sections of the Plan. Do you remember Barb? Dacy: In my notes, I didn't note any particular ones. e Mark Koegler: I suspect it may be possible that when we get into talking about some of the plan sections tonight, and again next time, that may spark interest you might have and if we missed something. Particularly on this topical area ~hat you had interest in or if some policy on some type of use of facility, that may really come to light in further discussions so again, this like everything else, is not a dead issue after tonight. Feel free at any time to make any comments you want. Moving along, if we can then into the new text that's been prepared for discussion this evening. The transportation chapter is going to be completely reworked so you can literally take all of the old pages and toss them aside and replace them now with material that you get in a chronological sequence. The part that's before you tonight, as I indicated earlier, is the first three sections dealing with just some simple introductory text. Some straight forward descriptions of the existing system. Then, laying what we think isa fairly important component of the transportation plan and that is, an outline of some of the system's deficiencies and major issues that are present. The intent obviously being plan, through a variety of measures, both in text and Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988- - Page 27 e graphics, we'll address each of those points and be posing in the long term and short term, various solutions that are appropriate. In terms of introduction, the only comment that I think I want to impress upon the Commission, so that you're aware of it, which is somewhat an interesting point, is that again, this plan has to be prepared in accordance with the overall framework that the Metrpolitan Council establishes. That regional framework says that the goal is to maintain the same level of accessibility that is present right now in the entire transporation system. That's not to say that there aren't targeted areas that are going to try and get through but I think it's important to realize the congestion that exists now, to some degree, will be a factor in the future as well as a part of the design of the system. They've done that for a variety of reasons. First of all, I think I referenced there isn't enough money you can throw at the problems to solve it. ...in order to keep transit systems viable in the area for those segments of the population that rely on that. They don't want to make it too convenient for too many people to have easy private accessibility without mass transit. For a variety of reasons, that is part of the regional policy. It's clearly delineated in all of the Metrpolitan Council's plans. That they plan to have congestion as a part of the future system because they don't think it can be eliminated. e Emmings: I saw Commissioner Keefe spoke to some group, that was about the light rail transit, and said the same thing. It was the same message. Focus on everything inside the MUSA and I think is what he was saying if I heard it right. I was wondering what it meant, when you've got that overall policy that they're going to maintain approximately the same level of regional accessibility and then you've got this data over here. On T-9, that on TH 5 you've got 7,000 to 7,500 vehicles per day. To justify a 4-lane facility, they aim for TH 5 at 20,000. Almost three times that. I know they do plan to upgrade TH 5, but when they say you have the same level of accessibility as you did when? Or as things change from this year to 5 years from now? Mark Koegler: That a real general, regionally oriented statement. It's like any large parameter. You can't take it and focus it on TH 5. TH 5 is an example of that. There will be situations like TH 5 that will be improved and hopefully we'll have better accessibility. I think if you read in the text, without TH 212, TH 5 isn't going to be a lot better off 10 years from now than it is right now. Despite the construction that will hopefully obviously is going to occur. So I don't think it's fair to focus on an individual little spot. Yes, there will be improvements but overall, the regional perspective is that as a whole, the system will be operating essentially the way it is now. When you compare the Twin Cities to a lot of major metropolitan areas, it's pretty favorable. You look at the maps of where the significant traffic delays occurs, metroareawide, and how extensive those area and how much they probably are, there might be 70 miles of congested roads, sounds like a lot but when you compare it to other areas, it's not that severe. e Emmings: Under the description of existing systems, it starts out on page 2 there, this may be trivial but that first sentence says that Chanhassen's existing street system consistents of a series of local Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 28 ~ streets, collectors, minor arterials. Is there a different between intermediate arterial and major arterials? Mark Koegler: The new verbage that's being used goes to minor and major arterials. Emmings: We've got intermediate. Mark Koegler: Yes, we're going to update that language. We're in a period of time right now when there is a draft, which was just prepared which is not even fully circulated yet, of the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Chapter of the Development Guide. So they are revising their transportation section of their Comp Plan, if you will. That has some different language in it than the 1985 draft, which is the most recent one to date. The current now is prefacing major and minor arterials and the highest category will either be a freeway or expressway. What used to be principle is now either intermediate or expressway and what used to be intermediate arterials is now major arterials, essentially. Just some renaming. Ernrnings: TH 7 is the only major arterial? Mark Koegler: Correct. Emmings: And then I didn't understand at all, the comment on T-5 and ~ under issues and system deficiencies in the second paragraph. General "'problems. You've got north/south access deficiencies and then the last half of that I didn't understand. The last half of that paragraph. what does it mean? Mark Koegler: That's an example which comes from the previous plan. That's language really that was modified slightly from the 1980 plan and that's simply pointing out that when you look at the standards that the Metropolitan Councilor anybody else puts out, say you've got a collector route or if you have any minor arterial routes, ideally those have design standards. They are spaced 1 mile in frequency, 1 1/2 mile in frequency. You have controlled intersections. You have no private driveways. The list goes on and on and on and it focus's on speed limits and ADT numbers and so forth. What that's essentially saying is, if you look at those kind of ideal situations, there are areas in Chanhassen where that physically is not going to be possible. That's an example. Normally you would have major facilities spaced roughly a mile apart and here we've got a space that's 3 1/2 to 4 miles where literally because of topography and because of the lakes, and because of existing development patterns, that's as good as it's going to get. The area that I guess would like as much comment on tonight as anything, particularly if there are things that have been left out because as I was pointed out in the text, as residents and as people who drive to and from work each day or to and from events in other parts of the metro area, you experience the road system. We've gone through and essentially identified and kind of combined to a certain degree, some of 4It the deficiencies and issues that were presented in the last plan that has really kind of surfaced since then and have categorized them with Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 29 4Itthree,major headings. Either intersections, access problems, road capaclty or connection problems and jurisdictional continuity. Starting on page 5 then, there's an outline of some of the really prime examples of existing problems or existing deficiencies or existing areas that fall under each of those three categories. Again, I don't know that I need to go through all of them. I think you're familiar with many of them. You're probably familiar with some of them in greater detail as a result of the broaden study area report that was done a year and a half ago. Particularly some of the intersections like TH 5 and West 79th, TH 101, West 78th and Dakota and so forth. I guess as a primary interest, are there other items that you're aware of that should be included in some of those categories that have not been covered in the text that's been put together right now. Or are there specific problems there that you don't think have been identified enough. Certain aspects of intersections or streets or whatever that aren't covered there and if so, we would certainly like to include those. Emmings: I don't know what criteria you used. To me one of the worse things in Chanhassen is getting of TH 7 into the roads that I have to use to get access to my house. It's dangerous and there's screeching tires and collisions up there all the time and that's TH 7 going into Minnewashta Heights and Lows and Shores and that whole stretch. Some of that is actually in Shorewood I think. That's a real problem. That's a problem that I experience everyday but I don't know if it rises to the level of being a problem that needs to be identified in the 4Itcomprehensive Plan. Mark Koegler: I think it does and I think that's an example of one that, quite honestly, I overlooked. You're aware that the TH 7 corridor study took place 2 years ago now, maybe plus a little bit, and that has some definite recommendations on some intersection closures and some things up in that area to help remedy that. It's our intent, I think I had one of the items, the outline item 5, is actually talking about some of what are the existing deficiencies. The text will move into a section that's going to talk about some of the planned improvements and that would be an example of the reference to the TH 7 corridor study. I think that is a point that we need to identify in the deficiency section. Right now it only identifies one or two intersections with TH 7 and it doesn't really focus on the corridor. Emmings: I found out just recently, and I was tempted to get it, the State does keep, you get a computer printout for an intersection and the number and types of accidents that occur at the intersection. I didn't know that until about 3 or 4 months ago but I was kind of curious, I was thinking about getting one for our area up there just to see what the record shows. I always feel, the pile of bodies has to be so high before they do anything and I was wondering how high it is already. Mark Koegler: We'll add some text on that. TH 7 corridor and Minnewashta area. One of the things, again to give credit where credit is due, the assembly process of putting some text together, the graphic 4Itthat's on page 10 that shows some of the growth along TH 5 corridor, which I thought really laid out very nicely what has taken place over - Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 30 ~the last 6 year period in terms of the volumes that have increased and for each of those segments, what kind of percentage increase has been happening on an annual basis. It drives home the need for those improvements. It is particularly important to reference that in terms of the development as commercial and industrial expansion and residential growth continues to happen in Chanhassen regardless of, hopefully the TH 212 construction occurs, TH 5 soon will be a very heavily used route and therefore it's importance in the City's role in monitoring what Eden prairie is doing. I think it's extremely important and there are jurisdictions probably to the west of here that feel the same way about Chanhassen. TH 5 obviously is vital as you head on out to Victoria and Waconia. Are there any other items that anybody noted that were not addressed at all or not addressed thoroughly enough in terms of problem identification? Emmings: I'm just looking at this arrow, the black arrow that appears on the map on T-6, it extends CR 17? Maybe I didn't connect that to the text. Mark Koegler: The intent of the graphics is simply to indicate that CR 17 has the potential to be extended to pioneer Trail and there is specific reference in the text. That essentially is as far south as reasonably that road is going to go. Therefore, if Chanhassen has interest in making sure it has at least one north/south minor arterial that has some hope of being functional, it is TH 101 rather than CR 17. ~What we're trying to stress TH 101 for a variety of reasons. One of ..,them is the interchange aspect with the proposed TH 212. Under Metropolitan Council's criteria, interchanges occur with at least minor arterials or better, in terms of their functional classification so that's to some degree in support of that also. Emmings: Does anybody else have any questions? Mark Koegler: The only other item, and I don't know that it's really necessary to go through it. I think all of you probably have had copies or currently have copies of the broaden study area which did focus on some detailed recommendations for intersections. Specifically, a reworking of the interchange at TH 101 and West 79th and TH 5, I think is probably the most major item and Dakota. Dakota is probably the major one with 78th Street. There's TH 101 as a part of that also and the new interchange west of TH 101 that will go into kind of a middle of downtown area. Those will all be a part of this plan and that text is being worked into this. I think you probably, at least most of you, had a chance to go through that in the past. If you haven't you'll see that in two forms. You'll see it in the plan of material that you get next time, or you can read about it, perhaps in more detail, in the broaden study area's report. Emmings: What does that come under? For example, that interchange of TH 101 and West 79th Street. Does that corne under recommended systems? ~ark Koegler: It would corne under two things. I think that's going to be primarily opened ended to what's now considered planned improvements. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 31 ~Planned improvements is going to really look at the improvements that have essentially been generally agreed upon or generally planned by a variety of jurisdictions. The City, County and State. Certainly this is one that the City now has had planned. Interestingly enough though, the way that process worked, I don't believe that has gone to public hearing yet. It will do that as a part of the Comprehensive Plan so I don't know that the general public has had the chance to critique some of these things to the degree that they will have when this document is pulled together. It will be clearly identified in there that this is what's being planned, in general, for that area. Emmings: What is the status of that? Is that intersection, that weird intersection with the railroad running through the middle of it. Dacy: That will be part, as Mark mentioned, of the planned system section on the transportation chapter and that will probably be the most controversial part of your public hearing process to adopt the plan. You will hear from Chanhassen Estates. You will hear from McDonalds. You will hear from Ivan Sinclair. You will hear from the people in Hidden Valley. Emmings: And several Planning Commissioners. Erhart: For or opposed? ~Dacy: McDonalds will be opposed. Staff is planning to conduct some ~eighborhood informational meetings prior to an official public hearing on this matter but the first step is getting it considered by the community as a planned improvement. You recall a year and a half ago we had joint meetings with the Council and we looked at that year 2005 transportation plan. You really looked over that intersection quite closely. We have had BRW look at that alignment and make some refinements so that there isn't such a curve coming south on TH 101 so we are getting to the point that we are refining the geometries of that intersection and getting down to specific distances, right-of-ways, widths, etc.. Emmings: One of the interesting things about that intersection is that a railroad goes right through there. Ellson: Do we have a picture of this somewhere in this packet? Dacy: In your orientation packet, I put the year 2005 study in there. It's figure 17. Mark Koegler: There's a lof of detailed background material in there also which I think will give you more of an overview to see what the thinking was behind that. Quite honestly, the transportation element, to be one of the focal points of the public hearing on the Comp Plan. I don't think any of you were on the Commission back around 1980 but when the Plan went to hearing in 1982, it was hard to muster anybody to have A:iny interest in the thing and I suspect some of these kinds of things ~will generate a little more enthusiam this time around. Whether that be Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 32 ~ood or bad, we'll see. That's all I had. We'll be back next time with ~he rest of the material. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ElIson moved, Batzli seconded to approve the first half of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 20, 1988 as amended by David Headla on pages 2 and 15. All voted in favor and motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - DISCUSSION. Dacy: I wrote this primarily to try and keep track. Make sure that we have everything and a couple of new things have come up from other members of city staff. For example, regulations for fences in the front yard and concerns about wood storage and outdoor storage. A tape change occurred at this point in the meeting. Emmings: PUD philosophy is on here. That's kind of big. I don't know what it meant. You've got landfills and and hazardous waste disposal. Treated wood, we've talked about that. Architectural exterior metal buildings. We are talking about that. Radio antennas, cemetery signs, temporary conditional uses, center islands in cul-de-sacs. The only other one is acreage left in MUSA. tlbacy: I did answer that at one meeting. Emmings: Maybe I wasn't here. Dacy: It was another Comp Plan meeting and the answer was 1,200 acres. Erhart: How much do they allow you to have? What's the goal? Dacy: We have 1,200 acres of vacant developable land left in the MUSA area. Once we eat up the 1,200 acres, then the City can consider petitioning Met Council. Erhart: And they expect you to bring that down to zero? Dacy: Correct. Erhart: What happens if Dave Headla just doesn't want to subdivide his land? We have to wait for the next 50 years until Dave dies. Dacy: I think if it comes down to 95% or 98%, I'm sure they will consider that but... Erhart: That just seems unreasonable. At some point you have to say, it's like unemployment. You can't get it down to zero. At some point there's got to be a certain number of acreage that these people just ~ren't going to want to subdivide for any reason and you will start ~estricting, more and more restricting the growth of the City. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 33 ~mmings: This issue on fences in front yards. about that tonight? Do you want to talk Dacy: If you want to. to you. If you'd rather wait until next time, that's up Emmings: This came up either from the City Councilor by other city staff it says. Dacy: Yes, the fence one was initiated from a counci1member and contacted Jim Chaffee about it and I received a memo from Jim Chaffee. I agreed that I would bring it to the Commission's attention to see whether or not they wanted to pursue it. Headla: When people come up with stuff like that, it just seems like they've got tunnel vision. The one area they're looking at, the whole world is like that, and it's not. Take a look in our area, and Tim's area. If you want to put a fence in your front yard. I don't know why you can't. Sometimes I like to have flowers and sometimes I like to keep my dog in my yard. I don't want a 2 1/2 foot fence that he'll step over. I really think when they look at the stuff, and the next subject too, don't look at just one small area of the City. It's a big city with a lot of diverse things going on and there's a lot of different interest in this city. ~acy: How about if I do this. Maybe I'll invite the councilmember that was concerned about this issue, to come to a meeting to discuss it more unless you have a strong feeling now that it's not appropriate. Emmings: It seems to me when something like this comes up, it's good to know why. What specific thing has gone haywire that brought it up. Do you know what it is? Dacy: I think it was just a general aesthetic issue that must have occurred in his neighborhood because we just talked briefly about it. It's just the aesthetics of having a 6 foot fence in the front yard along the road. Emmings: And you do see, I think of my neighborhood and I know my neighbor has, the spot I live in is completely enclosed with a chain linked because it was all in the hands of one person at one time. Now we tore it down along the lake but it's still there up along Greenbriar, and that looks real bad, in my opinion. Across the street, on the corner, there's a woman that has a split rail fence in her front yard and it looks just fine. It's just two rails and very unoffensive. It's just a variety. Then you get into hedges and hedges being fences. We've been in this before. It's a real complicated issue and not only would I like to know what went wrong that brought it people's attention but it might be a good idea just for people to drive around for a while and look and see. There's a variety and I don't think we want to eestrict people too much. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 34 ~atzli: Currently, if someone was going to install a 6 foot fence in ~heir front yard, what would be their limitations on doing that? Is there a setback from the road? A right-of-way that they couldn't put it on or can they put it right up to the road? Dacy: They would have to put it at the property line, at the right-of-way line. They couldn't put it within the right-of-way. Olsen: We also require a plan. Dacy: Okay, we'll come back with specifics on this issue and maybe pictures. Emmings: Did we define that hedge as a fence, when we were doing that stuff on the sliding lot line? We talked about it. Dacy: A landscaped hedge? Shurbery? Emmings: Yes. Oacy: No, the ordinance is just fences or walls. I recall now that you mention it that we talked about it, but the way it's written. Ernmings: Alright, so that will corne back. .acy: As well as these other 8 items. I would like to get most of the rdinance amendment issues wrapped up soon. I'd like to have it as kind of annual issue. Kind of a housekeeping process. Headla: What about the wood storage? Dacy: I just included that for informational purposes. I haven't had a chance to sit down with them to really discuss the intent here because I think we have some problems with the suggestion of number 2, from an enforcement standpoint. It was just for informational purposes. Headla: I'd like to know what costs are involved because once you do that, you need an elmologist to go out and look at a woodpile and that's going to require so much education and training and travel and what are you going to get out of that? Where Steve lives and I live, are two vastly different areas. What are we going to accomplish for it? If I go on TH 5, TH 101, TH 7 and look at all the elms standings, there are so many of them compared to what's going to be in a wood pile. Emmings: I didn't know about the importance of removing oak bark. I knew about it with elm. Headla: That's becoming more serious all the time and I've got a lot of good oaks there that boy, I want to save. A lot of nice oaks in my area. e Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 35 ~hart moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in ~avor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim - 'e