Loading...
1c. Zoning ordinance Bed & Breakfast establishments I • / e. .......... C I TY 0 F , i CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE * P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 , ,• II (612) 937-1900 * FAX (612) 937-5739 An by City Adnintstratot Louse Modifi • MEMORANDUM ' ce Rejoeed-----, wt.—A:IL TO: Planning. Commission . Dee Sextutzed to C,c4-rmstipt: I I FROM; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: July 10, 1991 --- -II SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Bed and Breakfast - Establishments II On July 8, 1991, the City Coun-1, I approved an amendment to a oonditional use permit for a t;"ii: and breakfast establishment II located on Bluff Creek Drive., A 3. tO.tion of approval was that the zoning ordinance be amended to era 1-,t_ the definition and specifi c - conditions of bed and e bretkfas'Ishments'in the City Code. - II - -------- - The City Code was proposed to '"'- amen \'-d after Bluff Creek Bed, a - en_ reque ea ' pe 4 rekfa to add a fifth rental il unit to an existing garage. , i Currently, ihe City Code dines a bed .liolbreakfast establishment , . as an owner occupied pri;! pal dwelling'n,which five (5) or less I rooms are rented on a n basis for 4 of less than seven (7) days. Meals may may not be pro , keed to residents and to r ernight guests. 1 City Code also pro specific conditions 11 for a bed and br-4( ast which are as font:- s: 1., Two • - •. iv- plus one additional • .,,..x„ :$.. 4*- 7 l'"3 v . , t , • - , k,-,,,,, ,,mik , A, trL 4 i4 ` , : 01 II 2. •There s= , a c more than one (1) el11.-.5P-2- in addition to the re ,-. II 3. Establishment must be;A'A' occu , II 4. There shall be five o ' ess rooms for rent. - , - 5. A room shall not be rented for more than seven consecutive days to the same person. II The City Attorney has drafted proposed amendments »t o both the definition and the specific conditions as follows: II to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 Bed and Breakfast ZOA July 17, 1991 Page 2 ' Definition: an owner occupied single family home in which not more than five (5) rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of less than seven (7) days. 1 Number 4 of the specific conditions is proposed as: ' 4. Not more than five (5) rooms may be rented. All rooms must be located in the principal dwelling except that one room may be located in a detached accessory garage. ' Staff is recommending an additional change to the definition of bed and breakfast by changing the first sentence to: an owner occupied single family home in which not more than five (5) rooms are rented on a nightly basis and for a period of seven (7) or less consecutive days to the same person. ' Staff is also recommending that, under the specific conditions, instead of limiting the one room to be located in a detached accessory garage, that it be allowed in a detached accessory structure. This will not limit the fifth unit to only accessory garages. Staff feels that these proposed changes will allow flexibility in the creation of bed and breakfast establishments, ' yet maintain the city's objective for what a bed and breakfast establishment should be. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the amendments to the City Code as follows: Section 1. Section 20 -1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by amending the definition of "bed and breakfast" to read: 1 An owner occupied single family home in which not more than five (5) rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of seven (7) or less consecutive days by the same person. Meals may or may not be provided to residents and overnight guests. Section 2. Section 20- 252(4) of the Chanhassen City Code is ' amended to read: (4) Not more than five (5) rooms may be rented. All rooms must be located in the principal dwelling except that one room may be located in a detached accessory structure. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE 1 On July 17, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the amendments to the City Code with the following changes: 1 1 1 Bed and Breakfast ZOA July 17, 1991 Page 3 1. In Section 1 where it says "person" would be changed to read 1 "person or persons ". 2. Add " provided that such detached accessory structure is compatible with the existing principle structure" at the end of Section 2, Paragraph 4. The Planning Commission discussed adding wordage that would tie the detached accessory structure architecturally to the existing principal structure and asked staff to determine appropriate language. Staff felt that the existing language was sufficient. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the amendments to the City Council as follows: Section 1. Section 20 -1 of the Chanhassen City Council is amended by amending the definition of "bed and breakfast" to read: An owner occupied single family home in which not more than five (5) rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of seven (7) or less consecutive days by the same person or persons. Meals may or may not be provided to residents and overnight guests. Section 2. Section 20- 252(4) of the Chanhassen City Code is 1 amended to read: (4) Not more than five (5) rooms may be rented. All 1 rooms must be located in the principal dwelling except that one room may be located in a detached accessory structure, provided that such detached accessory 1 structure is compatible with the existing principal structure. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Letter from Roger Knutson dated July 2, 1991. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 17, 1991. 1 1 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Lay, 1 L Thor.,_ - Roger \ }.nL,t> ., (6121 45b.y53a Th ... . G Fax (h._ s; .-);4� 3^ G J'an:e' R. \\ Elliott B. Knetsch Ji July 2, 1991 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen • Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Bed and Breakfast Establishments Dear Jo Ann: Enclosed please find the ordinance you requested amending Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning bed and breakfast establishments. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, i TSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. BY: Roger N. Knutson RNK:srn Enclosure C:�CEIV�D JUL Q 3 12 1 CITY. CHAN 'Cr , Yankee Square Office II1 • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE 1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20 -1 of the Chanhass 1 amended by amending the definition of "bed and breakfast" to read: An owner occupied single family home in which not more than five (5) rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of less than seven (7) days Meals may or may not be provided I to residents and overnight guests. Section 2. Section 20- 252(4) of the Chanhassen City Code is 1 amended to read: (4) Not more one room may be located in a detached accessory except garage. t Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately 1 upon its passage and publication. • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this ' day of , 1991. ATTEST: 1 Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager . Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 1991.) II 07/02/91 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 1991 - Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO DEFINE /CLARIFY. BED AND BREAKFAST ' ESTABLISHMENTS. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order. • Erhart moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Emmings: Does anybody got anything they want to talk about? Erhart: Yeah. What in our ordinance says that this building's even going to have running water or insulation or heat? Olsen: Well for it to get an occupancy permit. You'd have to go through the Building Department. Erhart: It's all clear? ' Emmings: Isn't this also a conditional use? I Olsen: Or interim use. Emmings: So if anybody's going to bring one of these in, we're going to be able to see it. It's not just a permitted use...so we'd be able to judge I things like whether or not the accessory structure fit in in a way like the one that we looked at did. Was it compatible with the other building and so forth. I Erhart: I missed that meeting. How were they going to put plumbing in this garage? Were they going to have a bathroom in the room? I Olsen: You mean the one we just processed? Erhart: Yeah. ' Olsen: Yeah, they were even adding a new septic site. I Erhart: Oh they were. See on this condition use permit, we have to almost, I mean we have to show a reason to deny a conditional use if it's a permitted use. That's why I'm saying, if there's some other ordinance that also ties into this that requires it properly constructed for human 1 occupation. Olsen: The Building Code requires that. II Erhart: Okay. If we're going to do this. I like the idea of making_it broader to accessory buildings because i•you say garage then "it looks like we're doing this for one particular individual. The other comment I had I was on your second page there. On owner occupied single family home which not more than 5 rooms and so forth and so far. Seven or less consecutive days with the same person. Let's say a couple rents this thing. They I could alternate back and forth one week renting one and the next week Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 1991 - Page 8 renting to the other person. Refer this to the.attorneys here. If you change that to same person or persons, I don't know if that would have any I effect but it's possible with that language that somebody could rent it on a monthly basis. If anybody cares. Olsen: Person or persons. Batzli: i was kind of leaning towards I didn't know if anybody cared. Erhart: The scenario that I could see happening is if the place gets run 1 down and it could very easily turn into a boarding house. Where somebody would start using it as a more permanent residence. That does happen. Batzli: I guess I still think of bed and breakfast in England where the g Y were permanent residence. I didn't know why it matters. Farmakes: I stayed in some in California where you have a limit of 2 days I that you can stay there and it was a local ordinance. Emmings: And was it enforced in your experience? Did the people that run I them. Farmakes: It was in the literature and I asked about it. She just said it' was a local ordinance. I imagine for what you just talked about. There was a limit. I didn't get into it any further than that but that's how they qualified as a bed and breakfast. Batzli: Why do we care? Erhart: Because I don't think we want to turn it into a hotel. I thought I the intent was. Olsen: This gives us enough that if it did become a problem we could bring I them in and say it's not meeting the interim use permit or conditional use permit. • Krauss: I think the reason for it though is boarding houses have 1 traditionally had the potential, if not the reality of causing neighborhood problems. There's a different element that lives in a boarding house. A ' transient as opposed to somebody who's looking to get away for the weekend with their wife or spouse or whatever. Erhart: That's what I had. Emmings: Okay, Brian? Batzli: I think that makes sense to make the change that we're talking 1 about there. The interesting thing I thc,ht the detached accessory - structure, do you feel comfortable that since it's a conditional use that we'd have enough leverage over it or do you want to put some sort of intent to go along with when we would allow the accessory structure. Like provided that such detached accessory structure fits in with the character. Whatever we want to put in there. Do you want to put something in there? I 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 1991 - Page 9 • Emmings: Sure. That's a good idea. Batzli: Otherwise I agree that we're looking like we're kind of doing this for that one... Erhart: Should we even go farther than that? Say the existing structure has to already exist. Batzli: So they don't build another one? Olsen: We discussed that. That it has to be at least 10 years old or 50 years old but then. Batzli: What's the difference? Olsen: Yeah. Farmakes: That's when the walkway, just build a walkway out to it. ' Olsen: I think it's probably a good idea to do something like that. So just built to similar architectural? See that's what, we discussed it and it was really hard to pinpoint. I think we all know what we mean but it's ' hard to explain. Emmings: Well it should be compatible with the other buildings on the property. I don't know I suppose compatible is a word that's awfully broad but. Erhart: Something with the style and nature. ' Krauss: We're comfortable with compatible. It's the City Attorney that glinches a little bit but just simply because it gives us more latitude to be able a little inconsistent with it. But we've used that same term a lot in the ordinance. Emmings: Okay, we'll do that. ' Batzli: That's all I have. ' Emmings: Jeff. Farmakes: Everything has been discussed up until this point. The one thing that I had brought up right now is the issue that if, as I understood it if they built a walkway out to that gatehouse, they would have conformed to the existing structure. It would have made it attached right? Olsen: Right. Well it had to be a walkway with a roof. Farmakes: Right but I believe that, a friend of mine just built a house ' out in Afton and did not want a detached garage so he just built a walkway. It's just a little stick roof with sort of a dock type floor off to it. So it got around the ordinance in that way. I'm just wondering if somebody wished to turn a barn into a rentable situation or something other than a Planning Commission Meeting I/ July 17, 1991 - Page 10 1 carriage house, to qualify for that do they just have to build a walkway to do it? If that's an existing structure. Olsen: Well with this you would be able to use that barn. Farmakes: That's what's considered attached then right? You can just build a walkway. Batzli: But they do have a conditional use for, and I believe we limit the' number of rooms. - Farmakes: - It was 5 wasn't it? Batzli: They would have to come back in, yeah. Emmings: Yeah, once it's attached because they've already got the maximum I number of rooms in the main building. Just by attaching it they can't do anything because that won't get them anything extra. I supposed you've got control that way. The other thing we could do I suppose, if this situation, I don't know often attached structure is used in our ordinance but do we have any requirement in attached garages in anything? I don't think so. Krauss: Actually we do have one style of housing that requires attached garages. Emmings: We could simply define, we could define attached structure is one' that shares a common wall with the principle structure or something like that and that would eliminate that problem. Krauss: In fact that's something that we need a little clarification of. We've had a couple of instances where if you have an accessory structure you have one side yard setback. Detached. If you're having attached, it's I a different standard and we've had some people try to play with that lack of a definition to get the best deal on putting the building in the side yard. Emmings: Okay, so if attached is sharing a wall in common with the principle structure, would that eliminate these problems or not? It seems like it would. ' Krauss: Well actually I'd like to be able to bounce it off the building official because Building Code and Zoning Ordinance tends to differ in intent and the results we get on that particular issue. I think we need to ' work out something that works with both. Emmings: Okay why don't you, there's something we can head off maybe. Erhart: Can these rooms be in the basement? Emmings: Theoretically but again it's got to meet Code. ' Olsen: And have the windows and egress. 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 1991 - Page 11 • Erhart: Windows, that's all stated? ' Krauss: Realistically I don't know how much we're going to see of this. We only have one in town now. There's a potential with the seminary that they may develop the two homes as adjunct kind of accessory guest houses but with the development that we've seen and then with the rural development up on the bluff, there's just no place else for it to go. Erhart: Is something happening with the seminary? ' Krauss: Well it's kind of an ongoing odyssey. We've been talking to the • same individual for about a year now. 1 Erhart: But nobody's putting money into it yet? ' Krauss: Well they claim to be on the verge of submitting an application. Farmakes: I have no further comments. ' Emmings: Okay. I agree that it should say structure rather than garage. Otherwise everything I've got has already been discussed unless anybody else wants to do anything further, is there a motion on this? Brian why ' don't you do it? Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission adopt amendments to the City Code as set forth in the recommendations of the July 10, 1991 staff report with the following changes. In Section 1 where it says person. It would read person or persons. And at the end of Section 2, paragraph 4 it would read, provided that such detached accessory structure is compatible with ' the existing principle structure. Now I say that and I didn't include the word architectural. I almost wanted to compatible architecturally with the existing principle structure and compatible with the bed and breakfast type use. Something like that. Olsen: But the one we just did wasn't, when I was drafting this too I wrote architecturally too but the one we just did had barn siding versus Chaska brick. Batzli: I don't think we're looking architecturally. I think we're ' looking more that it fits into the bed and breakfast concept. That's what makes it tough to put into. ' Emmings: I'll second your motion. Is there any discussion? Batzli: I'd like Jo Ann to think about it a little bit more and if she comes up with something better before it gets to City Council, recommend that. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to adopt the amendments to the City Code as follows: SECTION 1. Section 20 -1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by amending the definition of "bed and breakfast" to read: Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 1991 - Page 12 An owner occupied single family home in which not more than five (5) rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of seven (7) or less consecutive days by the same person or persons. Meals may or may not be provided to residents and overnight guests. SECTION 2. Section 20- 252(4) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to I read: (4) Not more than five (5) rooms may be rented. All rooms must I be located in the principal dwelling except that one room may be located in a detached accessory structure, provided that such detached accessory structure is compatible with the existing principle structure. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 19, 1991 were so noted with one exception. Commissioner Batzli noted I that under Members Present it looked as though he, along with Annette Ellson had arrived late. He wanted it clarified to show that only Annette Ellson had arrived late. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Krauss: There's actually a couple interesting things in there I think. One' minor one. The Roger Byrne plat, the one that we discussed here with whether or not the driveway should be paved. We were directed to go, the determination was not to pave the driveway because the street wasn't but we I were directed to go talk to the City Engineer. See if there's a way to minimize erosion problems. After the meeting we did sit down with them and they told us there really wasn't a good way of doing that. That paving the thing is really the only way of dealing with it. So we went back to the City Council with the recommendation that the thing be paved but it not be paved to the 20 foot width. That it be paved to a width that's consistent with the fact that there's a fire plug on one side and there were trees and that garage pad area on the other. Ultimately that was the way the Council approved it so it will be a paved driveway. It's kind of a modified pavement. I believe the Byrne's found that acceptable as a compromise. Emmings: I thought he had decided to put his road in a different place. Am I wrong about that? Olsen: His driveway. Well it was going to be adjusted because of the fire I hydrant. Emmings: No, but I thought he was actually going to, when I was here.at ' one meeting. At one City Council meeting it was, has he been at two City Council meetings or one? Krauss: Just the one. Emmings: Didn't he talk about actually putting his driveway in a different I place altogether? Okay, I made it up. • 1