2. Potential Code Amendments0 2
MEMORANDUM
CITYOF TO: Planning Commission
CHANIMSEN FROM: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
7700 Market Boulevard DATE: February 21, 2012
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJ: Potential Code Amendments
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
BACKGROUND
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Prior to proceeding with the actual code amendments, staff is presenting the issues to
Phone. 952.227.1180
the Planning Commission for review and direction. The Planning Commission has
Fax: 952.227.1190
review responsibility for Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. The
driveway and festive banner issues were previously presented on January 17, 2012 to
Engineering
the Planning Commission for discussion. Staff was directed to provide additional
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
information. We are requesting that the Planning Commission review these portions
of the code to determine if ordinance changes should be prepared. A public hearing is
Finance
required to make changes in these chapters.
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
DISCUSSION
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.22T1 120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
7901 Park Place
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
1. Driveways (Section 20 -1122 (1) and (8) (e)).
Issue: The problem we are having is
that driveways located on narrow lots
and outside edges of public streets
cannot meet the ordinance as written.
The reason for the setback
requirement is for snow storage and
storm water runoff. These houses
cannot properly access the third stall
of the three -car garages that are being
built on lots with the setbacks of 10
feet for the first 20 feet back inside
the property line for the driveway,
and 5 feet for the building (garage
side) structure.
Phone: 952.227.1125 One option is to restrict the side yard setback for driveways to the minimum structural
Fax: 952.227.1110 setback on the lot with the ability to reduce that on smaller frontage lots with a caveat
that snow storage will not be allowed on another's property but must be stored within
Web site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us their lot (8d). This option does not seem equitable as it could make one homeowner
take most of the snowload/storage. In the real world the wind dictates where the
snow will actually end up. In an area where two garages are next to each other
(usually high points on the roadway), this alternative could become an issue.
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Todayand Planning for Tomorrow
Planning Commission
Code Amendments Discussion
February 21, 2012
Page 2 of 6
A second option would be to reduce the distance at which the side yard setback can be reduced
from 20 to 10 feet. By moving this restriction closer to the roadway, it gives the owner /builder a
better angle to get into the third stall of the garage without driving onto the grass. Staff has
attached examples of driveways that deviate from the ordinance on the small width lots. As can
be seen, only a limited portion of the driveways do not comply with the ordinance. This is staff s
preferred alternative.
Another option would be to limit the narrow lots to two- car garages. The houses are
approximately 60 feet wide themselves minus the 20 feet of setbacks the minimum lot size
would need to be 80 feet wide if a three -car garage is built. However, then the City would be
dictating the housing style on the lots. The homeowners would be coming into the City to
request relief so they could have a three -car garage, just like the people across the street.
Existing Ordinance
Sec 20 -1122. - Access and driveways.
The purpose of this section is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope standards
for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility easements by
providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface for all driveways; to
limit the number of driveway access points to public streets and to direct drainage toward the
street via establishment of minimum driveway slope standards. Parking and loading spaces shall
have proper access from a public right -of -way. The number and width of access drives shall be
located to minimize traffic congestion and abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the
following criteria:
(1) Driveways shall be setback at least ten feet from the side property lines, except on lots
that access off of a cul -de -sac "bubble ", neck or flag lot where the lot frontage may
prohibit meeting the side yard setback requirement. Beginning 20 feet from the front
property line, driveways may be setback a minimum of five feet from the side property
line or the distance of the existing drainage and utility easement on the particular lot or
parcel. Encroachment into a side yard drainage and utility easement must be reviewed
and approved by the city and may require an encroachment agreement.
(2) Driveway grades shall be a minimum of one -half of one percent and a maximum grade of
ten percent at any point in the driveway.
(3) Within the right -of -way driveways should access city streets at 90 degrees.
(4) In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as identified on
the comprehensive plan, driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other
hard surface material, as approved by the city engineer. In areas outside the MUSA,
driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the right -of -way
portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as
approved by the city engineer.
Planning Commission
Code Amendments Discussion
February 21, 2012
Page 3 of 6
(5) On corner lots, the minimum corner clearance from the roadway right -of -way line shall
be at least 30 feet to the edge of the driveway.
(6) For A -2, PUD -R for single - family detached houses, RR, RSF, R -4 and RLM for single -
family detached residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 24
feet at the right -of -way line. No portion of the right -of -way may be paved except that
portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum driveway
width shall not exceed 50 feet. The minimum driveway width shall not be less than ten
feet.
(7) For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 36 feet in width
measured at the roadway right -of -way line. No portion of the right -of -way may be paved
except that portion used for the driveway.
(8) Driveway setbacks may be reduced subject to approval by the city engineer and the
following criteria:
a. The driveway will not interfere with any existing drainage swale or easement in
which a utility is contained;
b. Shall require an easement encroachment agreement from the engineering department;
c. The driveway must be designed to maintain stormwater drainage runoff on the
property to ensure that it will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties;
d. Snow storage may not be placed on adjacent properties; and
e. Lot frontage on lots that access off of a cul -de -sac "bubble ", neck or flag lot do not
permit adequate driveway access width or side yard setback.
(9) Accessory driveways shall be maintained as natural grass or be constructed of
bituminous, concrete, or paver surface.
(10) One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street.
(11) A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or
collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city streets where
this is deemed necessary by the city engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances,
street grades, or other relevant factors. If the engineer requires a turnaround, this
requirement will be stated on the building permit.
(12) Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted.
(13) All driveways must be constructed in accordance with current construction
requirements /details. A driveway permit is required when any alteration is made to a
driveway in the public right of way. A zoning permit may be required for any other
driveway work not in the public right -of -way along with other requirements to determine
if the improvement will meet zoning ordinance requirements of the particular lot or
parcel.
Planning Commission
Code Amendments Discussion
February 21, 2012
Page 4 of 6
Recommendation: Staff is requesting Planning Commission direction on the revision of the
ordinance.
2. Decorative banners affixed to buildings or light poles. (Sec. 20 -1255. - Signs allowed
without permit).
Issue: Except in a planned development or on city light poles, the city does not permit the use of
decorative banners within a development except as permitted under the temporary sign permit.
Occasionally, we have received requests for the use of these banners on light poles, but the
ordinance currently does not address them. In reviewing this issue, staff has envisioned
seasonal -type banners and flags, but we must look into many potential contingencies.
Staff has requested input from property management and sign professionals regarding this issue.
At present, we have only received comments from one, which I have added below:
"As you know, we haven't actually implemented any of the flags and banner opportunities in
Village on the Ponds, but here are a couple thoughts: I agree that in some cases the businesses
should be able to have their name and/or logo on their sign, but probably not for the purpose of
advertising a particular promotion or sale. This would be particularly true on owner - occupied
buildings and in their parking lots. Assuming the use of the business name is permitted, then I
agree that it would need to be up to the management of the particular project to determine which
business for what period, etc. Thus, the City should continue the practice of making sure that a
building owner or property manager has signed off on the permit before the City issues it.
As to size, I guess it's probably a matter of perspective. The City's banners are all on short
poles but when we had banners at Market Square, they were on the tall parking lot poles so I
assume may have been larger. You do need to have some maximum, however, or there will
someday be a building with some rather huge signs.
One last comment: It seems practical to permit the flag to project from buildings more than two
feet. Since the edge of the flags need to be a few inches away from the building (which eats into
those two feet leaving a flag that is less than 2 feet wide), the flag itself is pretty narrow, don't
you think? On the other hand, you might consider having a lower limit for the bottom of the flag
or banner of, say, 8 feet so that those folks who are taller than I don't bump their heads.
Another actual last comment: Can there be some language which will be sure we don't have
those strings of flags strung up? Think plastic, but instead made of fabric.
In general and while this comment is not intended to apply to the more comprehensive flag and
banner opportunities, as to signage, most of our historical rules have worked just fine. The
businesses have had sufficient latitude; whereas, the City has not become overrun with signs,
lights, etc. It's an easy argument to make that private enterprise needs this or that type sign in
order to be able to advertise its wares, but too many signs, too many colors, end up being just
visual clutter, not marketing benefit. "
Planning Commission
Code Amendments Discussion
February 21, 2012
Page 5 of 6
Following are standards that have been approved as part of the Village on the Ponds
development, which may be appropriate citywide.
Festive Flags/Banners
1. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade
and on standards attached to area lighting.
2. Plastic flags and banners are prohibited.
3. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric.
4. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products.
5. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet.
6. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet.
7. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the
city.
The city's banners are 24" x 42 ", so maybe eight square feet would be a better size. Or size
could be a function of the height of the structure upon which it is located. But as noted above,
the City may want to establish a maximum size or square footage to avoid visual clutter.
Recommendation: Staff is requesting Planning Commission direction on the revision of the
ordinance.
3. Illuminated Signs
Section 20 -1267 of the zoning ordinance addresses the construction and design of signs.
Subsection (a)(2) states "Wall signs shall be backlit if a wall sign is illuminated, and be
architecturally compatible with the building and other signage if in a multi -tenant building."
The intent of requiring backlit signs is to insure the sign does not emit glare. However, limiting
the illumination to backlit only limits the design and creativity. The glare of exposed neon can
be easily controlled by reducing the transformer power to the sign which would reduce the
brightness and glare. Furthermore, the technology of LED signs uses the LED light bulbs to
illuminate the sign. These bulbs are exposed light sources as opposed to back lighting.
Planning Commission
Code Amendments Discussion
February 21, 2012
Page 6 of 6
Backlit Neon
Based on the above - mentioned facts, staff believes that the current city code requirement does
not reflect the emerging technologies and trends since these alternatives have become the leading
method of illumination. The following are options to consider:
1. Do nothing: Eventually, the city will react to the changing technology.
2. Allow a variety of methods of illumination but regulate the transformer power to the sign
which in turn control's the glare and brightness of a sign.
Recommendation: Staff is requesting Planning Commission direction on the revision of the
ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Examples of Driveways that deviate from the Ordinance.
g: \plan\city code\2012 \pc memo driveways, banners and sign lighting 2- 21- 12.doc
LED Sign
EXAMPLES OF DRIVEWAYS THAT DEVIATE FROM THE ORDINANCE
4 V
�4 pRoposEQ O 4 :. ,
HOUSE
2 4 907.7
909.5
42
0�
4p 20
x e9 e.6^ _O V
C
$� / Y, 9m t0a 3 1 \i
r •04 - g
ot`O O �rn0
cp
9es 9048
906 C r1 0
x
o
X 998
r f ka9�
r 0
W ' 7P OF SIDE
\o -, _ = 90 7
I
, A3
4
�a oq
90 �.
�� �� � A
� > 02 'n
77 O
3d
1
4t
03.
897 t
19 ��
r 904.3 �
ko
N �. G o
^ tiP O
03 rr 3d. fi O J g1 0
t ti o �3 6� g 6 ;r`,
t
591.4 O 1
697
1
�! N`t� t J,
ki 6 t
O1 ` `LIN
t
X
8935 �-
_ ` 1
S '
O
O°
' O
0 c .
'O
U
r �
,3 O
I A N
tD CY)
� (J► U
l�
I II
1 1
V
I
I
`�`� ,2O
/ `' V j
Z CL
LLJ �s sqpJ m0 �- LL)
s�
A-/ /