Loading...
1988 03 02 - CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 2, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Brian Batzli and James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT AMENDMENT OF 41 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 18 ACRES TO 51 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 23 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF HWY 5, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. e Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comment. Emmings moved, ElIson seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: Just as a philosophy first, if they go ahead and build those homes and then a decision is made someday, I want a fence or a hedge between our property lines right next to a road, do they have to come in and get approval for a fence? Olsen: They have to get a building permit for a fence. Headla: They do have to get a building permit for a fence? Olsen: And if it's over 6 1/2 feet they have to get a conditional use permit. Headla: I was just thinking like a 4 foot hedge or 4 foot fence, they would have to get a permit? Olsen: For a fence. Headla: So have to get that? - Olsen: Yes. if there's any type of sign that they'd put in, they'd approval so they'd fall under the regular ordinances for ~ Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 2 e Headla: PUD doesn't go around that? Okay. The first thing when I was looking at the plan and we've been driving that direction and once in a while we bounce back to it but we go ahead again. We're going to have 50 homes on one road, a deadend road, and I see Madden didn't ask for it, is there any reason why we shouldn't ask that that road be continued back to Powers Blvd.? I could just see an emergency vehicle couldn't get back to an emergency because something was jammed up near Powers Blvd.. Olsen: Again, that was reviewed by staff and they did not feel that was necessary at this time. But the road will be extended in the near future with the additional phases. Headla: What's the definition of near future? Olsen: In the next 5 years. Headla: In the meantime we've got 50 homes that could be in jeopardy. I feel that we should ask that the road be extended, just for safety sake. There's agreement they were going to put in a park right? What's the schedule for that park? Are we going to let him get everything built in the park that's the last item or what's the phasing of that? e Olsen: No, the park will be developed as a part of the future phases. The necessity for that park would really be determined upon the number of homes once it reaches a point. We have it specifically in that PUD contract. Whenever the Park and Rec Department wants that park, they can have it. Headla: You've got that pretty well... Olsen: Yes, it's up to the city to determine. Headla: The roadway that goes through there, it's 35 feet wide? Olsen: The paved surface is. Headla: It's 35 feet. That's curb to curb? Then a 5 foot sidewalk is going to be in addition to that so it would be 40 feet? Olsen: It would be off-street sidewalks so it won't be on the street. It will be a separate sidewalk from the road. It will be outside of the curb area. Headla: But there will be a place for the sidewalk but that will be within the 60 feet right-of-way? Olsen: Yes. e Headla: What side of the street does that go on? The sidewalk? ~...' Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 3 e Olsen: I believe it's going to be on the north side. The Park and Rec Commission didn't determine which side. They just wanted to make sure that it was on the same side on either side of Powers Blvd.. Headla: You know, a while ago we talked about it and then we backed away. We've got over 50 homes now but we're going to have a lot more homes there and when we go on the east side, there's going to be an awful lot of homes. We've got a park and can you imagine in 10 years the traffic on Powers Blvd., people crossing that? I don't know if we backed away from a tunnel or a bridge. I don't have a position but I'm concerned about that. Do we look forward to a stop sign there? Is that the practical thing to do or should we be asking for something else? I'll give the rest of you a chance to think about it. Do they put in street lights? Olsen: Yes. Headla: I didn't see that spelled out. Olsen: That's in the development contract. Headla: On item 18, if you look at the 20 foot utility goes between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1. Was that to be a continuous line down to Susan Hills because the next easement is over between Lots 17 and 18. e It looks like it took a jump shift. I'm looking at page l. Emmings: On the third page down. Headla: You know I looked at that page and I didn't even see it. Okay, that's the answer. That looks fine. On item 6, I don't understand that compared to the engineering memo where they talked about the 7%. Olsen: This is just a landing area. They want a level area where the cars will be waiting. Headla: No, I'm talking about the engineering memo where it says roadway. Olsen: A typical standard for a road itself is a 7% slope. Headla: I didn't understand that. Olsen: That's our maximum slope of the road itself. Headla: It said to the City's recommended standard of 7% and that didn't seem right. Go to the Engineering memo, page 2 about the middle paragraphy. See where it says, as compared to the City's recommended standard of 7%. ~ Emmings: Should that be recommended maximum? ~.. e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 4 Conrad: It's maximum is what they intended. Headla: 7% maximum. Alright, then this other one makes sense. If we approve what you've got here, and then I look at a note on the drawing on page 1, and we talked about this before, all dimensions are preliminary and subject to change on the final plat. Doesn't that just open up a can of worms? When we approve something, don't we approve it based on the date of this print? Olsen: Yes, but they come in with their final computerized calculations. Instead of 92 feet wide it might actually be 92.5 or something. The actual dimensions really don't change. Headla: Where do you draw the line on changes? Olsen: If it's a major change, if the lot comes in with a totally different area. Headla: But your opinion of major and somebody elses opinion can be different. How do you control that? Olsen: We review when the final plats come in to make sure that they conform with the preliminary plat. It's always very, very minor. A couple of feet. Headla: You're saying with this note, you've never had any trouble in the past and if somebody shifted stuff that you hadn't... Olsen: If it was a 90 foot wide lot which was required and it came in at 89, then we wouldn't permit it. It wouldn't be acceptable. It's usually just minor. Headla: Alright, so you haven't had a problem with that? Olsen: No. Headla: Okay the last one then is, where you have on here page 4, just above your recommendation, could you just explain that a little bit more. On the very top where the Park and Recreation also requested. Olsen: Okay, the 50 foot for the outlot? Headla: Yes. Olsen: Outlot B is leading into where the park area will be developed in future phases so they are preserving an access for the subdivision. That was a part of the first plat they had in. Headla: Okay, that's all I had. ..- Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 5 e Ellson: I had a quick question on lots per acre, units per acre. Is that the same measurement? In here we write units/acre net density of 2.32 and on the blueprint it says net density of 2.68 lots per acre. Olsen: When you're talking single family then yes, it's the same. If it's multiple or two homes on one lot. We always go by units. Ellson: There's a discrepency then. Olsen: Right, it's real close. I went through and calculated it. Ellson: I just have another question on the type of landscaping that you recommended. I wouldn't begin to know what you're talking about. Olsen: They provided the detailed landscape plan for the other preliminary plat and what that is is additional landscaping along the intersections Lyman Blvd., along the main streets and it tells you what kind of landscaping it is and what types of vegetation so we can approve that. Normally that is presented as a part of the preliminary plat. ElIson: I didn't know if it was that detailed or if it was up to them and I thought, how can that be? e Olsen: What happens is normally with subdivisions, all they do is the development contract just requires one tree per lot. With this PUD, as a part of the PUD approval we got.additional landscaping so as you turn into the subdivision there might be an arrangement of trees around the sign or something so it's added vegetation rather than just the one tree per lot. Ellson: They have their streets, I think it was like 60 feet wide and we wanted to change them to 50 and the reasoning was because of our regulations for that? Olsen: Right, the urban street is only 50 feet wide right-of-way. They are providing a wider road along Lake Susan Hills Drive because it is such a major roadway. The shorter cul-de-sacs really only need to be in 50 foot right-of-way for urban standards. ElIson: I disagree with Dave about another entrance. I think that it's when you get all these entrances onto a main road like Powers Blvd. that you get more traffic problems because everyone is trying to come out at once and if there were development on the other side they could share one intersection but if there's an intersection here and then someone's got to stop again later on. I think that's where you get more problems with people pulling out rather than having one designated area. If they will eventually extend it, I would be satisfied not to expand that entrance. ~ Conrad: Just so you know Dave's concern is that for emergency purposes. We have a standard and staff inforces it in all cases that Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 6 e there be two entrances to anything for fire, for police. I think that was Dave's main point on this one. We don't know when the rest of this will be developed and therefore you have 50 houses that have one access which can be closed off by one tree. So the point is, are you comfortable with the safety for the end of the cul-de-sac basically or do you think anything temporarily should be done to provide a second access? Staff's recommendation is no. Emmings: Has staff looked at whatever these poor soil conditions are just to see if it impacts any other aspect of the development or any other future developments? Olsen: The Engineering Department really looked at them closely because still the utilities were going to be g~ing through there. He has some certain stipulations to help protect that. e Emmings: I'll jump in on the road issue because there's no doubt in my mind that we would not approve this and that we have specifically not approved others on the basis of not having a second access. Five years is an awful long time to me and I think there should be a second access here. I guess maybe one way we could handle it would be, the Fire Inspector said that there is no problems with this meeting the fire code and I don't think that's what we're asking. I think it's a different question and there's no indication that that was considered, either by the City Engineer or by the Fire Inspector. Maybe what we could do is just ask that the appropriate person look at it between now and Council and come back with the reasons why we should or shouldn't require a second access but I certainly think we should. That's all I have. Olsen: Do you feel like just having a secondary access going... Emmings: Back to Powers Blvd.. Olsen: Right but coming back here and swinging back to Powers or would you... Emmings: Whatever is easier for them to do. If they want to put a temporary roadway back out there, I think that would be fine. Conrad: I agree with the road issue. That's my only comment other than clarification of one issue. The englneer Larry Brown says, under drainage, a more defined drainage swale should be created. Staff says a more pronounced drainage swale. In terms of how the developer takes those comments, what does that really mean? Are there engineering aspects to what we're asking them to do or are we talking about digging it a little bit deeper and there's no standard for digging it a little bit deeper? We're just saying dig it a little bit deeper? e Olsen: I believe that's right. They just have an idea that they want it to be more pronounced. I don't believe that there's any specific standards between swales. I could double check. They work closely _.~ Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 7 e with the developer when they go into the detailed plans and I think that's when a lot of those are figured out as to exactly what they mean. Emmings: Does it sort of go without saying that if we put something like this in that it has to be done in a way that satisfies the City Engineer or should we put that language in there? Dacy: In his paragraph, Larry refers that the final plan and specification approval. That is approved by the Council and that plan is the construction drawings. That would show the depth of the swale and Larry was referring, based on the calculations of the amount of water going through there, they use that to determine how deep a pond should be or how wide it should be and the volumes going through that so it's one of those detailed items. Conrad: So those calculations by the developer, get reviewed by Larry Brown? Dacy: That's correct. e Conrad: I don't have any other comments other than I think we should put in a point 19 that staff should advise City Council as to the safety of having a cul-de-sac this long without a secondary access. Any other discussion? Headla moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat amendment as shown on the plan stamped "Received February 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which provides for additional landscaping on the addition of Lake Susan Hills Drive and Pelican Court. 2. The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver County for the proposed access from CR 17 (Powers Blvd.). 3. A five foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk shall be constructed along Lake Susan Hills Drive and the trail shall be placed on the same side of the street in both neighborhoods so as to match at the Powers Blvd. intersection. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and shall provide the necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improvements. e 5. The applicant shall enter into a revised Development Contract with the City to reflect changes to the platted area and update the financial security. -~ Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 8 e 6. The plans shall be revised to include a landing zone being a street grade of 0.5% for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to the intersection of CSAH 17. 7. Type II erosion control (staked hay bales and snow fence) shall be placed as check dams at 100 foot intervals in all drainage swales. 8. All utility and roadway improvements shall conform to the City's standards for urban construction. 9. A revised grading plan clearly delineating the limits of area with poor soil conditions shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 10. Plans and specifications indicating details for installation and supporting utilities in poor soil areas will be required prior to construction. The revised plans shall address the comments contained within this report. 11. The proposed right-of-ways for Pelican Court and Egret Court shall be reduced to 50 feet in width. e 12. A more pronounced drainage swale shall be created at the rear of Lots 1 through 7 and Lots 11 through 23 of Block 1 to convey backlot drainage to the proposed storm sewer. 13. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading. Once in place they shall remain in place throughout the duration of the construction. The developer is required to review erosion control and make the necessary repairs promptly. All erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer. 14. Sidewalk/trails shall be included in the construction documents as required by the PUD agreement. 15. The road section for Lake Susan Hills Drive and Heron Drive shall be 35 foot back-to-back. 16. A 20 foot wide permanent trail easement shall be provided along Powers Blvd. for Lot 1, Block 2. 17. Lot 4, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4 shall take services from Lake Susan Hills Drive sewer and water. 18. A 20 foot utility easement shall be placed along the storm sewer pipe which runs between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 and Lots 17 and 18 of Block 1. e 19. Lake Sugar Hills Drive shall be continued back to Powers Boulevard unless the Public Safety Director can show to the City Council e .e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 9 that a secondary access is not necessary. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Headla seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 17, 1988 as amended by Ladd Conrad on pages 6 and 37. All voted in favor and motion carried. DOWNTOWN SIGNAGE CONCEPTS. Dacy: While Jim's setting up I'll just start. For the three reasons that I stated on the first page of my memo, staff wanted to look a little closer at the issue of signage in the downtown area and for the reasons of the aesthetics issues for downtown redevelopment and improving the streetscape of downtown and the visual image as well as trying to create a consistent form of signage in the downtown area we thought we'd put this before the Planning Commission to see what your ideas were because you have in the past expressed opinions about signage into the community and into the downtown area. As we began looking at the downtown and the redevelopment projects that were occurring, we noticed that the developments were taking shape into smaller areas which we have labled on here as districts. Retail West right across from the new bank, the Kenny's building over on the east side, the proposed Medical Arts Building Center, the whole area on the west side of Market Blvd. side. So these little nodes started appearing and we thought, what a good way to use that to our advantage and create what we're calling district signs to focus traveling motorist into what that particular node or commercial development is doing. The first part of our proposal is to create these district signs. They would not have any advertising or business names on them but they would just state a name. For example, Chanhassen Square or Chanhassen Government Offices. Headla: That would be where the red stars are? Dacy: No. The district signs are those located and proposed as the small black dots to identify that node and what's occurring there but not necessarily saying Q-Suprette and Dominoe's Pizza, etc.. What this means is that in creating district signs, what happens to the other signs by individual property owners so a couple of issues are there. One is, this means not allowing anymore new pylon signs. For example, not allowing Kenny's the ability to have an individual pylon sign of the Daycare center to have another pylon sign. It would mean solely that these signs would satisfy what we call street level identification of that node. There would be a lot of wall signage of course and we're looking at some performance standards with that to act as a compliment to the district signage. Down on the West 79th Street area, that poses maybe as a bigger issue because we do have .J e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 10 several free standing buildings, existing buildings. Do we want to go so far as to go back and remove those existing pylons or take the approach of when these uses leave or burn down to occupancy changes, do we want to request that they remove the pylon? Again, opt for a district sign, one sign denoting what this node is. So that's one issue, the district sign issue that we're asking your input on. The second issue is what Dave asked about, the red stars, the entry monuments. You talked a lot about this about a year ago when the Chamber came in and through some other development requests so we wanted to create another type of sign that would say "Welcome to Chanhassen, Dinner Theater this way" or whatever that type of message would be on the sign. We wanted to look at locating those in strategic points when you get into the downtown area. What we're looking at initially is one located at the intersection of Market Blvd. and TH 5 and one up here on West 78th Street at the base of Kerber Blvd.. One as you cross the railroad tracks on Great Plains Blvd. in front of Klingelhutz' office building and future entry signs at, the Chamber sign was allowed to be up for 5 years. The Council put a condition on that so after 5 years, that sign could come down and we could have an alternative form of signage at that location and another future sign at the new intersection here when we realign TH 101 into TH 5 at West 78th Street. The purpose tonight is to talk in general terms, from the Planning Commission's standpoint, if this should be pursued any further. Staff's recommendation is that we really feel stongly in the central core area of the downtown of the district signage and the entrance monument signage is a worthwhile project to pursue. We think it does compliment our overall effort to create an uncluttered and appealing streetscape when you get into the downtown area. That's our recommendation on that. So that's the first issue that we need your comment on. What do you think of all of this and then the second issue that we need your comment on is, do you think we should expand this concept to other commercial areas of the City? So if you say no to one, that answers two but if you do say yes, that does have some implications for other potential areas. Maybe I'll ask Jim maybe to just briefly describe the district sign approach with the complimenting wall signs. Jim Lasher: A couple of quick notes about signage. What a lot of communities are doing is going to a more performance oriented signage code and not the standards which is what most often really Chanhassen has now. You get so many square feet of signage for so many square feet of developable space or facade area. By going to a performance type signage ordinance you are encouraging a lot more creative look at how you're going to sign your building and it requires a little bit more aesthetic appeal from the people that work at staff to be able to look at these kind of issues but you're opening up a lot of opportunities for people to do some exciting things. You're also opening up an opportunity for somebody to do something really ugly so it's definitely a double edged sword. One of the things that has been used in the past and we're thinking about using in the downtown area is a signage band for a strip type of commercial establishment which we're getting a couple of them downtown. Usually it's a continuous e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 11 band along the face of a building. One of the statements is that these signs are generally based on a solid color that's continuous all the way along the building edge and the signs are separate layers that punctuate that color. What that does is allow the signs to be read but it doesn't interrupt the building movement all the way along the facade. It maintains it instead of having a box of one size that maybe you use backlight fluorescent and then a smaller box that's maybe a neon and it gets to be a little bit of a hodge podge so we allow to have a continuous sign band. Generally the sign band is about two feet high. In this drawing and in a lot of performance type codes, they are allowing the sign bands to get larger when businesses are set off of the street, if in fact they meet the criteria for height about the sign band. What that does, if you can picture what this building would look like flat with a 4 foot high sign band and then think of putting another 7 or 8 feet of roof above it in a 4 foot high sign band, you're going to get a much better, cleaner looking building and the signs are not going to look out of scale. So that's what we propose. We've been working with the developers of both these buildings, the Colonial Center and I'll call it Retail West because I haven't heard the new name yet, but work with them because they did want to get a larger sign bands. We worked with this roof structure to try and get that up a little higher to give a better proportion to our sign area. What that also allows them to do is to put larger letters that are read from farther away. One of the standards is that for each 1 inch height of letter you have in a sign, it's legible from 50 feet. So if you have a 12 inch or 1 foot high sign, you can read it from about 600 feet. That's a signage standard. So with a 4 foot high band, you can comfortably get 1 to 1 1/2 foot high letters still keeping some space above and below. They are legible from 500 or 600 feet and if they're lit, it's even better. That's the ideas that we're working at for developing a new ordinance, is some kind of performance criteria for design. Back to the district situation where once again as Barb described, we're trying to make a cohesive development out of certain areas which break up either by grade or by just actual splitting of the railroad tracks. It just breaks into a lot of scenarios. Right now it would good if we could take advantage of that and I think that's what we're here tonight for is to get some input from you about the general idea and whether you see it as what's bound together. Emmings: I think node is a funny word. That's one comment I have. I think this is an outstanding idea. I just love it. I think it's the first thing that I've seen for signing the whole downtown that made any read good sense. I think it's terrific. That's all I have to say about that. The other thing I noticed in the packet is the Mayor taking us to task for our comments to Gary on page 15 of the Council meeting Minutes of January 12, 1987. I thought that was kind of too bad. He was disturbed with the comments we made about the sign. It looked like an attempt to knock him down without giving him a chance to say anything or having any respect for their wishes. I guess my view is different from the Mayor's so I don't know if we should - e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 12 dedicate ourselves from not having opposing views or what but I just wanted to mention that. Ellson: I like the idea of the individual little district names. Sometimes I see these strip type things and it gives me the impression of generic. I can't necessarily recognize a familiar store because a lot of times they're not using the lettering that I've seen B. Dalton's use and things like that. I'm not sure if that type of thing had to change or not. I don't think I would want it so generic that it's one after the other. I'm picturing the one by Southdale. It's like Yorktown or whatever and they've got that type of thing and I hate it. I can't find the store because it's not lined up under it's thing and I can't read one from the other very well. I drive by there and it just bugs me. I know there are stores over there that could probably help me and I could buys things there but I don't like that and I wouldn't want this to come away with that. If you have like Peck and Peck. I'd like them to be able to use their letter style that they use in all their stores. Maybe even the colors that you're used to seeing Peck and Peck have in order to recognize them. I notice that's the problem I have when I go some of those other strip malls. It's not the B.Dalton's I know. It's like McDonalds couldn't their arches or something. Jim Lasher: One of the things that a lot of buildings in the past have done, have set up a very strict guideline of you have to use a white letter against a brown background and it has to be this high and it can only be this long. That's a standard and they didn't allow any of the businesses to project any of their image at all and they didn't allow anyone any creativity. So just by having something that says you can have 40 square feet of signage if you have 3,000 square feet of businesses. Those are good places to start but we have to allow the businesses to really be a lot more creative than just doing the standard old white sign on a brown background. I think if we can pursue something like this a little longer we can come up with a new ordinance that allows that to be done. One of the best cities in the nation that does that is Carmel in California. The best signage probably in the nation. The strongest and the best written performance guideline and really working with a copy of that to try and get a sense of how they will accomplish that. It's a wonderful place. I've been there. The signs are great. There are a lot of overhanging signs and in fact, they try and get more of those to come about because they've used signage where you don't have any words. It's pure symbols. The signage manufacturers have started to realize that the days of the sign with the shoe on it meant shoemaker and it's still true today. For some reason, all the words you want to write in the world just doesn't get that point across. This guy makes shoes and it's corning back. That's the kind of thing we really would like to be able to work with in the new ordinance. Ellson: That's what I was more concerned that it would get to that generic look which I just hate. Like you said, some people have creativity and this is the way they market their building, their signs Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 13 e are no big deal. I do like the idea of continuity. I don't like the Hardware Hank sticking out up there and he's the main guy in the Bloomington strip or something like that. Would one dot be enough? What if someone is coming in from the other direction? Sometimes that's the only thing I think of. Like the one on 79th, you've got it located in two places. Both entrances. Is that usually the way it would be? e Jim Lasher: What we did is because this was one district and there were two entrances to that district, we gave them one on each side. This is such a large area that we gave one at most logical points here. The way we see this developing, which mayor may not happen because we don't have a true site plan yet is, we see a main entrance to this development off of Market Blvd.. There could in fact be a curb cut and a full right intersection up in here which we may have to take another look at that but with what we're working at right now, we have this development, the bowling alley and the bar which has one entrance at this point so that's kind of where we started off at. Is looking at the grade split here and knowing that these two will never adjoin unless there's a parking ramp/hotel which mayor may not happen. The rest of these are more of a just get them where we think people are going to see them upon entry into the district. That's how we picked it. It's a good point. This one just happens to need two because it has two main entrances. Emmings: I think too on that, if that's the only thing that's out there, instead of having a whole bunch of signs, if just that thing is out there, it's going to be that much more visible. It's the only thing there's going to be to look at that's different than a tree. Headla: I like the concept. I think it's very good. I'd like to see it applied to all our business districts. The district nodes I like. I really the question the information we're going to put on the red. If you've got somebody tooling down TH 5, you don't want them reading a sign that says businesses here or there. I think you really have got to stress what street you're on and in your notes you had something about the City Hall. A couple of civic places but I think that's all that should be there. People come and they know they've got to turn on Market Street or whatever, make that be the main focus. e Conrad: Some good comments. Mine may not be totally in sync with what you've heard. I totally agree that the individual pylons should be kept off the street from different companies. There's just no doubt. I think that's critical. I totally agree with Annette's comment that individual shops have their own characteristic logo types or signage or color. Absolute. There's just no reason to standardize the names because we take something away from the individual companies. I do like the continuity of the stripe or of some way to fit the signage in on the store fronts. I think that's smart also. I'm not convinced of the pylons in front of each shop. To say Retail West says nothing to me. We're not designing a southdale here. The one shopping center has a daycare center in it and something else. e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 14 I'm not sure that we need a pylon to say something that really doesn't have much meaning to me. If I were a retailer, I'd be more interested in having my name out there. Very much like what the Chamber of Commerce has done out on TH 5. That is not an appropriate place for that type of signage. However, having a pylon in front of a shopping center to maybe help identify what's in it, may appeal to the retailers a little bit more. Somebody could possibly make a case two ways on this one and I'd listen to them. One, we're going to have too many shops in there and therefore we can't put everybody's name out in that pylon. I could understand that. Two, if somebody could claim that Retail West or whatever has some meaning or will ever have meaning and therefore the kids at home say, dad let's go to Retail West, then I'll listen to that case but I've got to be real critical of those. I think those are just things that I'd have to mull over in my mind. If I were a retailer wanting to move into this community and I deal with them all the time, the names are key. The signage is key and we're taking away their pylons. Therefore, we've got to give them something on the storefronts and we also have to help traffic make decisions on whether to turn in or whether not to turn in. I think if there's a sign that says daycare this way out by the streets so I don't have to be jerking around to look and see, that may be beneficial. I guess I'd be real interested in pursuing both alternatives and staff making a recommendation, whichever they feel. I think we've got to be sensitive to retailers who want to locate out here. Other comments relating to the big stars there. Whatever we're calling those things. The entry monuments. I think we were talking before about the major monument in Chanhassen being moved east so that people knew they were coming to Chanhassen before they got to Chanhassen and they just went by it. So that first monument, we're going to replace the Chamber sign but I think when we talked about the Chamber sign, we were talking about before saying here it is. Get ready to turn. That's now what the sign would say but it might say Welcome to Chanhassen, Home of the Dinner Theater or whatever we're the home of. But I like the thought of that. I think that's real important. I also think there should be one on the west side of town close to CR 17 and TH 5 because if you're coming from the west, there's a good chance you're not going to loop back into Chan. You're going to by-pass or else we've got to get them to turn before. Jim Lasher: That's a good point and maybe that's something we can pursue in that one of the things that affects all our signage in this entire corridor is that there will be an additional 50 feet of right-of-way needed and required for the expansion of TH 5. There's a lot of stuff on TH 5 right now that's not going to be there when this road is rebuilt. Some of the pylon signs. Certainly the Chamber sign is closer than 50 foot back from Kerber right now. I don't know when that's going to happen but it certainly will at some point. We can pursue moving say this particular monument down the road as long as we can start looking at the future plans of this road and find out if there's any property for us to build on. It's tough up in here as far as who's land are we building this on. Do we have to get State Highway approval to build in that right-of-way? The same down in here Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 15 e as well. It's not as critical because the bridge will not be expanded, at least to my knowledge it's not going to be expanded. So we probably have the same amount of right-of-way in this area. About 50 foot additional all the way along this side of the road so that's something we'll have to look at if you want to stretch out down a little bit and we'll look that way too. Buying land. It just so happens that now having a little piece that in 5 years the bulldozer would knock it down. Conrad: Conceptually, think about what I just said in sort of making of the announcement that Chanhassen's coming up and I think that's what we want to do. Not just say it to them when they happen to be stopped at the stop light but say it to them before they actually get here so ah yes, maybe we should turn off. That's the idea. Jim Lasher: Plus with the expanding right turn lane, they're going to have to make the decision to come up this road probably somewhere back in here and if they get up in this area they will not be able to negotiate that turn. e Conrad: My other comment is on the Highway Business District and I guess people locate in highway business districts because they are actually taking people off the highway and are funneling them right back on and they really don't want to go to Chanhassen to begin with. Pylons, and I really don't like them but pylons is a real important function of highway business district useage. If you can't tell somebody that there's a gas station, the Standard station from 300 to 500 feet away, they're not going to turn so I guess my comments would be not to apply the same standards to the Highway Business District. They may be applicable to other districts but a Highway Business District, for all the clutter, it is essential for them to tell people that they're there and tell them from a distance away. If there's a solution to that, I would sure pay attention but I don't think the average owner would feel there is a solution to that. Jim Lasher: Barbara, is this district presently split now from General Business to Highway Business? Isn't there a line? Dacy: Yes, it follows generally the Market Blvd. alignment and where the pond would be too. e Conrad: I'd like standards for those pylons and I think we have some of those standards in effect right now so we don't have those pylons 150 feet in the air, rotating. I want to control that but I don't think taking them away is going to serve their needs or our needs and therefore I'd like to apply the standards in other areas. At least that's my personal opinion. Anything else? Headla: I liked your comment about putting it out by CR 17. You're going to bring in that whole district then. Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 16 e Jim Lasher: Maybe we can just discuss for a minute, we're going to have business running all the way down to CR 17 now, do you see any need to expand this concept out of the purer CBD area or do you feel that this is where it works best and let the rest of this deal with your signage as it's been dealt with in the past? Ellson: I would see continuing it. Especially if you have another small group of the same thing. Conrad: I think it should be out to where TH 101 intersects, the new intersection. It should go down to CR 17. I think a sign at CR 17 is real important or things in that area. Dacy: Okay, to summarize, the Commission liked the idea of the district signage and the entry signage but you would like us to look at a business directory sign option for the district signs and look at the option of having a little more detail on the types of uses. Conrad: I think you should give us a couple alternatives to look at. e Dacy: Second of all to keep the ability on wall signage for individual enterprises to have their own unique color scheme and logo but keep a consistent size sign band or location on the shopping center. Moving the entry signs farther east and west. The last point that I heard was, look at eliminating the Business Highway District restrictions on pylons. Conrad: That's what I said. Emmings: That would be the only place you'd be looking at pylon signs. Conrad: That's the only place I think they are needed. Emmings: Let me ask you something else about your notion. On this one on the right you've got a thing out there that looks like a little house. A little bird house or something. That's going to say Retail West on it or whatever it says? When you say look at the business directory type of alternative, would it be again something in the same place, one sign that would have the names on it? Conrad: Right. Emmings: I guess my point would be this. Wouldn't it be easier for someone who's in that building to say I'm in Retail West to a customer who wants to find them? ElIson: Once you get to know that that's where Retail West is, right. e Emmings: Or even if they're coming into Chanhassen for the first time. All I've got to do is find that thing that says Retail West on it to find the shop. Now if the name of the shop is out there on that Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 17 e sign, they still have to look at the building to find the shop. Is it easier to just to find something with a general name on it than to find it in a list of 15 or 20 names or however many there may be? It might be kind of a nice idea to just be able to identify yourself to an area of town and then they can find the shop because even if the person's name is out there on the curb, unless it's right in front of their store, they still have to scan the whole building to find the daycare or whatever it may be. Conrad: I'd like to agree because it would be a nice way of doing it. Emmings: I think it I s kind of a novel idea. ElIson: What about the drop-ins that were going by and say, oh there is a Hardware Hank there. I guess lId go pick up whatever, the impulse type buyers and realize that because there's a drug store there then I will go to get something versus 1111 look it up in the Yellow Pages and then try to find that person. e Conrad: Practically speaking, it breaks down. If a third of our traffic is from the Dinner Theater or whatever it is, Retail West doesn't mean anything because they're not reading any ads. A sign that says Hardware Hank has meaning so from a retailers standpoint, they're not going to be wild about this and our retailers right now are not real energetic advertising wise and I don't see them changing that posture a great deal and spending money saying we're over here. That's nothing that you really want to say. You really don't want to tell people where you Ire located. You want to tell them what's beneficial about their product. Not where they're located. That's sort of a boring scenario of advertising. Emmings: Could this allow them to have a group identity that will allow them to share advertising? Could they advertise as a group? ElIson: Absolutely. A booklet of Retail West coupons for example... Conrad: I agree with that Steve. It could. Ernrnings: Maybe if you set it up that way, maybe they'll use it that way. e Jim Lasher: I think the easiest way to solve this is to do a design of two or three different scenarios and take one and put a simple Retail West. I think there will be about eight separate stores in here or at least from the original plan that's what I recall, about eight, and see what size lettering you could get. Where we could put the signs. Would they be legible from the street and just see if it makes sense. We can tell this just from a scale drawing and that should answer all our questions. Conrad: The other practical thing though is, I think on eight you can but there's going to be other parts of town where they're going to be Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 18 e 15 and it breaks down. We can't do 15 there. Jim Lasher: The comments about becoming a part of the whole is real important in retail. That is when you're in Southdale, you're in Southdale and you don't tell people you're on France Avenue. I'm in Southdale and you like to be known as a part of the larger entity so that's where this makes sense but from a pure small retailer, the only thing that makes sense to them is that people know where their business is. So we're really working with two diametrically opposed type of systems. It would be great if they would advertise and become excited about their district or whatever name you end up having. That would be a wonderful scenario. e Dacy: Just one more note on process. We had thought, depending on your reaction tonight which appears to be favorable, that we would go to the City Council also and present this and if a favorable action there, then we would have some type of informational meeting with the Chamber or the property owners to make them aware that this is a process that is being considered by the City and they become a part of the process. I think you all have a sense for how controversial this can grow into. As a part of that, we had been talking about doing some slides and doctoring some of the slides to take an existing picture of free standing buildings and pylons and airbrush those out and placing in a proposed sign. Would you like to see that type of presentation before we go to the property owners? We want to make sure that the Commission feels comfortable with what we're about to head into. We can do a lot of neat things graphically to help portray the pros and cons of these issues. Conrad: You will come back and show us some alternatives so we'll have another chance to take a look at this. Really what you're asking, after that it's a matter of selling the Chamber of Commerce in my mind and the local businesses and I know where their minds are. They're not going to be real wild about restricting signage and therefore to sell is really what has to be done. Typically you can sell them on the fact that they're not spending 10,000.00 to $20,000.00 on a pylon. That's what a pylon sign costs. If you can say that the competition is not going to be getting a jump on you, that you're going to be the equal of, you can save them money. What I'm saying is you need a way to go to the Chamber and talk to them about the benefits. If that means airbrushing and showing pretty pictures or whatever is necessary, I think you have to do that but I think facts are as important as picture. I think you have to echo some of the ways that it's not taking away but adding to. Emmings: Could you get pictures of this example in Carmel that you've seen? tit Jim Lasher: I know I can get a copy of their document and I have a friend who works in Los Angeles that I may be able to coerce into driving down there some afternoon and just taking a bunch of photos. -- - Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 19 e Emmings: I think showing an example of where this has been done well and where it's worked... Ellson: Is a real good sales tool. Conrad: I don't know that Carmel is the area we want to use. Some non-descript place... MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ISSUES. e Dacy: Metal Buildings. We found, I think an excellent example from the City of Lakeville that I thought really summarized the Commission's intent on the metal building issue and I included that so at minimum we're recommending that the ordinance be amended to state as printed there under (a). Then second of all, I am proposing to the Commission whether or not they want to go a step farther and adopt (b) and (c) as a part of the Lakeville ordinance. (b) is just a general statement which I think can be included. (c) gets a little more detailed as far as the type of materials. That has some pros and cons. With a list of items you're really saying what you want to see. The con is, if something different comes along then it's not a part of the list. I think at minimum, (a) gets at what the Commission had intended to do in the first place. Headla: what are you saying in (a)? Unfinished steel? So if I paint it then it's permissible? Dacy: I think the key here is the galvanized steel or the aluminum. That type of construction, it's synomous with the term polebarn. Headla: I can put up a polebarn by this because that's baked on enamel paint and that's finished steel. Dacy: No, it says no galvanized or unfinished steel, galvanized or unfinished aluminum buildings. Headla: But baked enamel is finished steel. Baked enamel on your sheet metal, that's finished steel isn't it? Emmings: If I had that same corregated metal that you put on a polebarn with a baked on paint finish, I've seen it. Dacy: When I spoke to the building inspector, he said that the term galvanized is what we want to prohibit because that's the material that polebarns are made out of. Headla: No, they aren't. I've got a couple. I take it back. One of my polebarns is galvanized. The other one is baked enamel. e Dacy: Maybe then what we need to do to solve your concern is add some language saying that you just don't want a galvanized building e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 20 painted. Headla: Sheet metal I guess is what we're really against. Dacy: Okay we can add the sheet metal. Emmings: I guess I was going to suggest that we add a second sentence to what you have there that just said, our intent is to avoid the type of construction commonly used in polebarns. Just come right out and say it. Why fool around? As a second sentence to kind of cover the guy who comes in who's just going to slither around this by putting paint on steel or something like that. Just say that our intent is to avoid the type of construction commonly used in polebarns. Headla: Does that mean we can't use wood beams now? Emmings: I don't know. Dave, you can go on like this all night. We really can. Headla: We want it to do the job though. Emmings: Try and make an intent statement that will be broader than this specific statement. So we tell people the reason we've got this is, we want to avoid polebarn type structures. That is what we're doing here and that is our objective to avoid polebarns being erected here. Headla: I thought we were against sheet metal surface fronts. Emmings: No, I don't think so. I think the last time we kicked it around we said, there may well be uses of metal buildings such as aluminum siding that looks like wood siding. No one would object to that I don't think. Like you use on a house. Just regular lap siding that's made out of a finished aluminum or steel and no one objects to that. What we're trying to get rid of is polebarns. Dacy: Right, and some can be vinyl coated into a different series... Emmings: It's a hard thing to get a handle on and I think what we wanted to do was do something that would eliminate the polebarn type structure and then see where we go to refine it from there. Right now we don't have a restriction on that. Conrad: Do you agree? Headla: To what? ElIson: To his addendum. Headla: I don't think we solved it yet. You've got some good points and it's probably a lot more nebulous as we talk back and forth on and how do we really do that. e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 21 Dacy: If there's anyway that I can reassure you. We went to building inspectors and in-house, we reviewed this ordinance and reviewed this language and we felt quite comfortable with this is enforceable in the commercial districts. This prevents polebarns but yet it will allow metal construction with a vinyl coating or a nice appearance. Headla: How would you prevent a polebarn with baked enamel paint? Dacy: I guess I'm going to have to claim a little ignorance on the baked enamel. Headla: If you can get around that, I like the wording. Dacy: So what you're after is some type of language that eliminates pole barn construction that's painted. Is that what you're saying? I still unclear as to what you want. Conrad: If you changed the words. If no galvanized, if you put material right after galvanized, would that solve the problem of how that material may be painted? If you said no galvanized material? Does that take us out of how the galvanized steel is treated? Emmings: You don't galvanize anything but metal do you? Conrad: Right. Headla: It's a little more selective than that. Emmings: Is steel the only thing that can be galvanized? Headla: Yes. I like what you got worded here but I keep coming back, what's going to prohibit a polebarn like mine because I've got finished steel and we don't want that sheet metal construction. Emmings: But Dave, what's wrong with just saying our intent is to avoid polebarn construction. Ellson: Then when a guy comes forward with a plan that's blatantly a polebarn you say, didn't you know the intent was against this? Conrad: to do. I think that sentence makes it very clear what we're trying Headla: Alright. I don't have a better suggestion. Ellson: He'd be pretty bold to come forward after reading what the intent is and then try to come in with a loophole like that. Conrad: Let's take a look at the section (b) on the opposite page there from Lakeville. Buildings in all zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 22 with surrounding properties to insure that they will not adversely impact the property values. Do we want that in? Emmings: It's so general it's almost meaningless. ElIson: Things like high standard of archituect, whose standard is that being based on? Emmings: Again, it's one of those catch-all intent type statement that in the case where you've got something really horrible going on that fits, you might be able to lean on this. It might be good to have. Dacy: What you're suggesting is put it in a preface or an intent statement before the specific rules? Emmings: It could be in all districts. This could be true of any building in town and yes, I think having a catch-all like that, you might ask the City Attorney if having something like would ever be anything we could rely on. If it fit our code in every other way but was something that was just awful, could we use this to deny something? I really doubt it. ElIson: Someone might be able to prove that it impacted their property value but it would still be hard if it hasn't gone up yet. Conrad: Item (c), do we want to dictate? ElIson: I don't think so. I think that's real limiting. I think what we're really trying to get away from is that ugly looking metal and I think there's a lot more than 8 things that might even be able to be done. Like you said something new coming out that's going to limit that. Emmings: I crossed it out too. Headla: I guess I don't have any comment on it. Conrad: I had to eliminate it. Barbara, what would you like us to do with this item tonight? Dacy: If you feel comfortable on recommending approval, we would correct it as you have instructed and then it would go to the City Council. If you want to see it back again, that's fine also. Conrad: I think we could send it along. Emmings moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Section 20-902 Building Construction in Business, Office and Institutional, and Industrial Office Park Districts. e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 23 (a) No galvanized or unfinished steel, galvanized or unfinished aluminum buildings (walls or roofs) shall be permitted in the Business, Office and Institutional, and Industrial Office Park Districts. The intent of this section is to avoid the type of construction and materials commonly used in polebarns. (b) Buildings in all zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding properties to insure that they will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties or adversely impact the community's public health, safety and general welfare. All voted in favor and motion carried. SECTION 20-915, ANTENNAS, SATELLITE DISHES AND AMATEUR RADIO TOWERS. Olsen: We went through the whole thing and hopefully came up with something that solved everything. The first thing we did was state that Satellite Dishes, Television Antenna and the Ground Mounted Vertical Antenna shall be permitted accessory uses within all zone districts. What we did was specificty each of the different types. Before it just said satellite dishes and antennas. With all this now we've differentiated between towers and satellite dishes and antennas. We stated that they were permitted as accessory uses. Amateur radio towers were a conditional use permits. We stated that with last use, wanted that only one of them be permitted per lot. A satellite dish, amateur radio tower or a ground mounted vertical antenna. This was taken from the old ordinance saying that a satellite dish shall not exceed 15 feet. Number 5 went through the ground mounted satellite dish, amateur radio tower or ground mounted vertical antenna shall be located within the front yard setback and sideyard setback. So again, we're just pointing out each of the specific one so it's clear. Number 6 went through that they shall be set back an equivalent distance to the height of the dish, tower, or antenna. That was pretty much taken from the old ordinance. Then we added the next sentence because as we found with Jim Tyson's request was that he had his tower attached to the house to where it would only fall down a certain distance. We tried to come up with a sentence that explained if a tower was going to be attached to the building and only 20 would fall down, then it could be only 20 feet away from the property line if in fact the tower was actually 40 feet. Number 7 is just from the other ordinance. It stays the same. 8 is the same. 9 is the same. Then we came up with definitions for an antenna which is just a system of wires that receives and transmit. Communication and transimission tower and then amateur radio tower which is what the antennas are on. Then a ground mounted verical antenna. Headla: I think that's a real improvement over what we had before. Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 24 e Ellson: I thought that one part in 6 was really rough but I can see how it was hard to write. I can picture what you're doing. Only the part that's not attached to the building. You mean the extended part but I just thought it was kind of rough to read and I didn't know if that could be rewritten. The portion of the tower is fastened or secured to a building, then the only portion which is not attached to the building will be used to determined the setback. I don't know. I could live with it because I know what you're talking about but I just thought it was on the rough side. But believe me, I agree. I read this thing and boy, I know this was a lot of work. Does it bother any of you guys? I'll live with it if you guys thing it's good enough. Conrad: I know what it means. Olsen: We were definitely going to still work on that and confer with the City Attorney on how they wanted that written. They can always come up with something. We definitely understand that that's kind of rough. e Headla moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Section 20-915 for Antennas, Satellite Dishes and Amateur Radio Towers. 1. Satellite dishes, television antennas and ground mounted vertical antennas shall be permitted accessory uses within all zoning districts. 2. Amateur radio towers shall receive a conditional use permit in all districts prior to installation. 3. In all residential districts, only one of the following are permitted per lot: a) Satellite Dish b) Amateur radio tower c) Ground mounted vertical antenna 4. A ground mounted satellite dish shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height above ground level. 5. No ground mounted satellite dish, amateur radio tower or ground mounted vertical antenna shall be located within the required front yard setback or side yard setback. e 6. Ground mounted satellite dish, amateur radio tower or ground mounted vertical antennas shall be setback from all adjoining lots a distance equivalent to the height of the dish, tower or antenna. If a portion of the tower or antenna is collapsible or securely fastened to a building, only the portion which can fall will be used to determine the setback from property lines. Location shall e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 25 not adversely obstruct views from adjacent property. 7. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any satellite dish, amateur radio tower or ground mounted vertical antenna. Building permit applications shall require the submission of a site plan and stuctural components. When a satellite dish or radio antenna is located on the roof of a building, the applicant shall furnish the City Building Official with building plans and structural components displaying the means of securing it to the building. The Building Official must approve the building plans before installation. 8. Each satellite dish, amateur radio tower and ground mounted vertical antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted and amended by the City. 9. Satellite dish, amateur radio tower and ground mounted vertical antenna, electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in adherence to the National Electrical Code as adopted and amended by the City. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following definitions to be added to Section 20-1, Definitions: Antenna - A system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves, which system is internal to or attached to the exterior of any building or tower. Communication Transmission Tower - The structure on which transmitting or receiving antennas are located which are used for commercial transmissions, including but not limited to radio stations and dispatch systems. Amateur Radio Tower - The structure on which transmitting or receiving antennas are located which are used for non-commercial transmission. Ground Mounted vertical Antennas - An individual vertical antenna which is mounted in the ground. All voted in favor and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 26 e SECTION 20-904, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. Olsen: What we're proposing to do now is, number 1 just states that no detached garage or storage building in any district shall be located in the required front and sideyard. Number 2 would essentially be for RSF and R-4 districts where it would say, In RSF and R-4 districts detached garages...and then add the remainder of this where it was talking specifically about RSF and R-4 with the 1,000 square foot and maximum of 30% of the rearyard and put that as a paragraph under 2. Then make number 3 as another section under number 2 because this will be pertaining to the RSF and R-4 districts. Number 4 then is also for the maximum height will be applied to the RSF and R-4 district. If you feel that you want these also for the other districts, we can also add that under number 3 that we added for multiple family commercial, industrial districts stating that they shall have a rearyard setback of 10 feet. Essentially we've got one as a condition for all districts. Two would be RSF and R-4. Three would be multiple family, commercial and industrial districts. Then we tried to further define a tennis court and swimming pool, where they can be located and where they can not. When you look at the ordinance now they are considered an accessory use but then you use the accessory structure setback so we came up with specific requirements for those. (c) is the same. e Conrad: What did we decide? City Council didn't like the 1,000 foot building right? Olsen: They wanted different setbacks and Bill is here to be sure. Emmings: That's been incorporated already. Olsen: Right. Conrad: They literally said in either point 1 or 2, they did not want a garage or a building as large as 1,000 feet. Not that I agree with them but that was what they said. Dacy: They did talk about 800. e Conrad: What are you thinking Bill? Let me give you our logic, I think when we went through it a month or two ago. Tom didn't call on me for our logic during our meetings so I'll share it with you. We really took a look at what it would take for a 3 car garage and also what it would take to have a little shop in there and then Steve added a 10% fudge factor or something and we came up with 1,000 feet. We basically looked at garage stalls to be a key there. I think 800 feet probably would work too. I don't know if there's a great deal of difference between 800 feet and 1,000 feet in our mind but when I heard City Council talking, I heard numbers that were significantly lower than the 1,000. Bill, do you have any comments? Anything to guide us on this thing based on what you heard? Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 27 e Councilman Boyt: I remember saying at the meeting, when we first discussed this and I think what I could live with is if the out building was never to be larger than the main structure. In a sense that we don't require a house, the minimum house size is less than 1,000 square feet. I'd like some means of avoiding the situation where a person has a 850 square foot house and 1,000 foot outbuilding 15 feet from the lot line. I have a really serious problem and will probably vote against this if we come up with 1,000 square foot building and put it closer to our rear lot line than we now allow a 850 square foot house to be. I think that's inappropriate. Headla: What about a little Sears sheet metal utility shed? Emmings: That's under 200. Conrad: That's under 200 so there's no problem with that. Emmings: That's why we put that in there was that concern for that. e Councilman Boyt: If I might just comment one more thing about that item, when I think of a single car garage, which is what I had envisioned about 200 square feet to be, and see that 5 feet from a back lot line, I get nervous about that too. What I see as an out building is something where a person can store a lawn mower or a few tools and I know staff was going to check into what a typical size of an outbuilding is. What is a typical size of an outbuilding? Olsen: It's always an 8 x 10, 10 x 10, 10 x 12 and he said up to 200. Then I always checked around with other cities and 200 was the cut-off point for their small buildings and 1,000 was the typical maximum. Dacy: That's in the Building Code too. The 1,000. Councilman Boyt: That the 1,000 is a maximum? Dacy: For a garage. Tim Erhart had come up with 1,000 for a 3 car garage also. Olsen: We first had 800. Dacy: Then Tim came up with 1,000. Councilman Boyt: I'm really here to listen so take it away. e Dacy: That's the concern about the accessory building be larger than the principle building. I think that goes right in with (c) and is a logical extension of that as far as when an accessory building is constructed. I think that's easily accomodated if the Commission wants to pursue that. The only exclusion to that would be if you were in an A-2 area and your barn would be obviously larger than your home but that can be excluded. Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 28 e Conrad: The districts that 2 applies to, RSF and R-4. Emmings: Tim wants to expand that in his letter to RR-l and A-2 if they're 5 acres or less. Headla: And I think we'll want to make that 10. Conrad: I agree with Tim in those larger lots that we're allowing that are residential in nature. I agree. I think we should. Emmings: I think the record should reflect that we all think Tim makes much more sense when he's not here than when he is. Conrad: He's much more agreeable. Headla: Which point are we going to discuss here? We've got different ones. If we're going to talk about Tim's memo, I don't think it should be 5 acres. I think it should be 10. Look on the west side of Minnewashta, you can put up an awful big building there and it just doesn't fit into the area. I'd be affected by it but I really thing that's for the good of Chanhassen, that's the way it should be. e Conrad: Is there any logic we can use? I hear what you're saying. I think the 5 acres... Dacy: I think the 5 acres, all the Hesse Farm lots are approximately 5 acres and all the cluster subdivisions are below that. If you would raise it to 10, it would probably include some of the other separately described sporatic parcels throughout the city. Headla: So we'd knock all but one out in our area. Dacy: Your area is zoned RSF so you're going to fall under the maximum of 1,000. Headla: Even though I've got 10 acres? Dacy: Right. What we're proposing to do is regulate it by zoning district. Tim's concern is out in the rural area. Your zoned RSF. You have 10 acres. You have a maximum of 1,000 square feet. Headla: That accomplishes what I wanted. Emmings: It's funny about 5 acres, it just kind of feels right but I don't really know why. Conrad: It feels right but I didn't have a good logic. I didn't like the 10 but I do like the 5. 4It Emmings: I'm wondering why in the old number 3, now it's assumed under 2, it says detached garages but storage buildings is left out of e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 29 there. Is there a reason for that? Dacy: Yes. Our concern was that we had a difficult time trying to enforce that condition on, for example 120 square foot Sears building or one of those. When we talked to Tim more about it, he said that was his main intent also, was to make sure that the garages at least looked the same as the house then. Emmings: How about saying detached garages and storage buildings over 200 square feet~ Because if they're going to build a bigger building, wouldn't we want them to be? Olsen: A lot of times those are still polebarns. Emmings: Can they build polebarns in the RSF? Dacy: Yes. Olsen: But when it's a garage... Dacy: You do need the thicker walls obviously but Building Code purposes. Emmings: The other thing I've got is, number 1 says no detached garages or storage buildings in any residential district shall be located in the required front or side yard. Down under tennis courts and swimming pools, you've put in some special language for riparian lots. Again, not I'm getting kind of worried about my own situation here a little bit but it does come to mind. This would prevent me from building a garage on the side of my house away from the lake without a variance, would it not? What is my rearyard? Dacy: The lakeside. Olsen: So you have a 75 foot setback for any structure. Emmings: Yes, but my front yard is away from the lake and you're saying I can't build a garage back there when the road is back there, my car comes in there. I've got to put my garage now... Headla: It's the old story, which is your front yard. Dacy: The ordinance defines the front yard as that part that abuts the street. Your case, because you're on a private easement. Olsen: You still have to be 30 feet back and that's the front yard. You could still, if you house was 50 feet back, you could still have your garage in the front. Dacy: Are you calling your lakeside your front? Emmings: I'm asking. Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 30 e Dacy: The ordinance defines the lakeside as a rear but it can't be as close as 75 feet. Between 75 feet and your house you could have a garage. Emmings: This says I can't build a detached garage in the front and my front is by the street but that is where I would logically build my garage. Olsen: You can't have it within the setback of the front. Emmings: What you're saying is I've got to get a variance. Dacy: If you want to build a garage in the front yard, you'll need a variance. Emmings: But why should we make that necessary on riparian lots? Ellson: How many people will that affect? Conrad: Quite a few. Emmings: Everybody who lives on a lake. 4It Dacy: Especially in the older platted areas. Headla: We talked about this before. We still don't have a definition of a front yard and you were going to go back and look at that for me. Dacy: The ordinance defines front yard as that part of the lot that abuts the public street. Headla: But that's not good enough. YOu've got double frontage lots. You've got lakes. Dacy: We define a double frontage lot also. Emmings: My point is this, you've gone to the trouble down for tennis courts and swimming pools of distinguishing what you do with riparian lots and why not do the same thing for garages and storage buildings? Dacy: That's fine. Olsen: On riparian lots? Emmings: Yes. e Olsen: The Shoreland Ordinance prohibits that within 75 feet. Is that what you're talking about? Emmings: No it's not. e e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - page 31 Dacy: All we'd be doing is repeating what the Shoreland Ordinance says. Emmings: All I want to say is something like, on a riparian lot they shouldn't be allowed in the rearyard. Dacy: Your intent is to prevent the ability of somebody to construct some type of storage building between the principle structure and the lake? Emmings: And to allow it in the front yard in that situation. Ellson: You don't want a Sears thing in the back that has life jackets in it and things like that? Conrad: We don't need a lot of variances coming in here with people who live on lakes and 20% of the people in Chanhassen live on lakes. Emmings: I've probably got 250 feet down to the lake from my house. I don't have any trouble getting back 75 feet. Not that I would ever build a building there. No one in their right mind would but why can't I just get a permit to build it in my front yard in that situation? Why do I have to get a variance? Dacy: Let me explain this. The intent to permit an accessory structures in the front and side yard is, in the case of the sideyard to not block and access between two lots. The front yard is to maintain a safe distance between the public right-of-way and any type of structure for safety reasons. Like in your area along Horseshoe Curve or the Red Cedar Point area, there are a lot of those older garages that are right on top of the road. I think everybody knows that that's not the best safety type of situation also so this accessory buildings not being able to be located in the front yard, that's a typical requirement in most ordinances. Maybe it should be looked at through a variance procedure in some special cases because I think to allow it outright may be creating more problems than it's worth. Emmings: Just think for a minute. If we allowed it on a riparian lot, when they come in for the permit they're going to have to meet all the setbacks. If you allow it in the front yard on a riparian lot, you're not going to run into the Red Cedar Point type of situation. Conrad: Steve, why don't we table this? There are a lot of things here and I guess I'd like to have staff come and bring it back next time that we meet and work in these considerations and just think about it a little bit more in terms of riparian and that kind of stuff. Emmings: I think we all kind of like, can even speak about Tim's, but the rest of us seem to think that Tim had some good things that could e e - Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 32 be incorporated too. Dacy: I understand he won't be able to make the meeting on the 16th either. Headla: I don't think we want outbuildings on the lakeside allowable. Dacy: We'll bring it back. Headla moved, Emmings seconded to table action on Section 20-904, Accessory Structures. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW PROPOSED STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION. Dacy: If I could just bring you up-to-date where it is with the legislature. It is in committee from what I understand now and various communities have been testifying pros and cons on many of these issues. My main intent of bringing this to your attention is so that you're aware of this proposed law because it does have in some instances, very significant implications on how planning commissions will be operating in the future. Minnesota I think is unique in taking this approach of looking at it's enabling legislation and doing a complete revamp. Looking at other laws like the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act and looking at how cities relate functionally with counties, etc.. For example, if you noted on page 30 for conditional uses, I'll just bring the example to your attention. Something that's easily identifiable. All the language that's underlined is what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that the planning commission is getting a little more authority on conditional use permits. What it's saying is that the City Council has to consider that Planning Commission's recommendation and over two-thirds of the Council must abide by the Planning Commission's recommendation or by a two-thirds vote override that. So for example, that is different than what was law up until this time. Another issue in here, this doesn't affect the planning commission necessarily but the composition of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. What's being proposed is that councilmembers are not going to be permitted to sit on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. That is current practice in Chanhassen so that takes a different approach. There are other larger issues that we could go on and on about as far as consistency between comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances and so on, but again, my main intent was to get you familiar with this so you understand that this has direct impact on how you decide issues and what you can and what you can't do. If you would like, I could have Roger Knutson come in and highlight the chances a little bit more. Because on why they did this or why they did that, I'm not up to speed on. I don't know the history or the rational but Roger could give that. Headla: One point I'd like him to comment on is Chanhassen going to have liability on us then like they cover the Council? Right now they Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 33 e don't carry liability on our decision making because all we do is make recommendations. Dacy: I don't think this law, at least I didn't see in here anything on that type of issue but I ask. Headla: On page 30, the Council has to have two-thirds to override us, isn't that giving us some clout and if we have that clout, doesn't that potentially make us liable? Dacy: We do have employees and some commission and the Council members do have insurance. I don't think this makes you any more open to that but I can ask Roger. Headla: I thought we were not covered because we only make recommendations. Emmings: I think that's basically right. I don't think we're sueable as people that don't make final recommendations and I don't think that this would change that because the City Council would still be making the final decision whether it's to go with what we said or to change it. e Headla: Even though it would take two-thirds? Emmings: Yes, but weld want to find out about that. We want to make sure that Roger agrees with that. I was interested in this notion of impact fees and 11m totally unfamiliar with what it was. I read the little bit in here on it. It sounded kind of interesting. Could you tell me in 25 words or less what it is? Dacy: It's synonomous with the ability to charge park dedication fees. Impact fees would enable the community to charge a specific fee for transportation improvements which has been a popular mode in the recent past. Emmings: Sewer improvements? Dacy: Right. Storm sewer. Drainage improvements. Emmings: That sounds terrific. Headla: How about fire engines? Ie Dacy: That can be classified under a general generic term of community facility or public services. It gives the City the ability to charge an impact fee based on a broader area. For example, maybe to use a comparison with the park dedication fee, you're identifying what the park needs are for that subdivision. Impact fees, the city has supposedly gone through an analysis of what it needs for transportation, fire services, police services, etc.. This law gives the communities the ability to do that. - e e Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - page 34 Emmings: We can't now? Dacy: Right. The only mechanism that you could probably use to do that would be to somehow negotiate with your PUD agreement or something. But even there it's kind of shakey. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim