Loading...
PC SUM 2012 04 03 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES APRIL 3, 2012 FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 6:00 P.M. – WORK SESSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Bill Colopoulos, Kim Tennyson, Kelsey Nelson and Kathleen Thomas. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Hokkanen and Mark Undestad. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer, Bob Generous, Senior Planner and Roger Knutson, City Attorney. PUBLIC PRESENT: None. Kate Aanenson welcomed the commissioners. 1. City Attorney Presentation. Roger Knutson gave a presentation on legal issues that affect appointed and elected public officials. Open Meetings – Noted that all meetings with a quorum of public officials must be open to the public. He explained that the advent of technology has created additional concerns regarding serial meetings in which officials may create an open meeting by inadvertently contacting a quorum of commissioners. Gift Law – Local officials may not receive gifts from interested persons who may have business before the commission or official. The gift prohibition excludes trinkets and mementoes with a value of less than $5 or for meals where an official is providing a presentation. Conflicts of Interest – Officials can’t have an interest in a contract with the city if you make a decision regarding that contract. There are also non-contract conflicts in instances in which one has a personal financial interest. Any time that one has an interest in a decision that is different from the community as a whole may result in a conflict of interest. Perception is important so if there is any questions, one should ask for clarification and when in doubt, excuse oneself from the decision. Also, there is a change in the quorum requirements if one is legally disqualified from making a decision versus perceptually disqualified because the legally disqualified official reduces the body of the commission. Public Hearings – Officials are to make decisions at the public hearing, never make a decision in advance. Officials must provide a due process review for every applicant before the commission. If there is substantive discussion of an issue before the hearing, the official shall disclose the conversation on the record and allow an opportunity for response. Planning Commission Summary – April 3, 2012 Government Data Practices – There is a presumption that all data is public. However, the legislature changes the requirements often so if there is a question, check. Roger Knutson left at this point and Kate Aanenson had everyone go around and introduce themselves. 2. Road Projects Presentation: Alyson Fauske made a PowerPoint presentation on the following roadways and also noted that this information is available on the city’s web site:  Highway 101 South of Lyman Boulevard – 4 lane, divided urban section with turn lanes, 40 mph design, trails on both sides, construction 2013/2014, preliminary design stage.  Highway 101 River Crossing – as part of flood mitigation for transportation, Minnesota Department of Transportation is looking at elevating the river crossing above the 100-year flood elevation with a land bridge. No funding is yet available.  Lyman Boulevard between Powers Boulevard & Audubon Road – improve roadway from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard with a 4 lane, divided urban section, 55 mph, dual trials, estimated construction 2014. A commissioner also asked about the Pleasant View and Highway 101 intersection improvement. Alyson stated that it is scheduled to start this year and that survey stakes can be seen in the area. 3. Discussion of Potential Code Amendments. a. Discuss Planned Unit Development, PUD, Process and Standards. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on the PUD process and standards. She stated that staff has been reviewing the process and determined that if we were to amend a portion of the ordinance, then we should amend it all. For concept review, we are really only looking to provide generalized comments for developers which would be provided to the City Council. It is intended to provide an opportunity for a developer to test a plan without getting into all the details of a preliminary project approval. When developers come in staff attempts to determine what is the best process and zoning category to follow. However, sometimes the developer thinks that they need flexibility from our standards and would like additional direction from the city. In these instances, it may be appropriate to get informal direction from the Planning Commission and City Council. They can then decide if they would like to continue to take the project to the next level. Kate reviewed the standards and requirements of the Residential Low Density Developments: 2 Planning Commission Summary – April 3, 2012 Single-Family Residential, RSF, District and showed the Highcrest Meadows development as an example of a single-family development. Mixed Low Density Residential, R-4, District and showed the Vasserman Ridge development which includes single-family homes and duplexes. Residential Low and Medium Density, RLM, District and showed the Reflections at Lake Riley development. Planned Unit Development – Residential, PUD-R, District and showed the Springfield development. It was noted that this was the last low-density, single-family detached housing project reviewed as a PUD. Staff will be bringing back the PUD ordinance for public hearing in about a month. The Planning Commission had previously directed staff to proceed with preparation of amendments to the PUD ordinance. b. Festive Banners Bob Generous presented the staff report on the banners. We are at a decision point right now. We can either do nothing and continue to process these banners as part of the temporary sign permits or we can create standards for banners and either review them as part of a sign plan review process or permit them without permits, provided the standards are adequate. Kate Aanenson pointed out that this idea was initially suggested to the City by a property manager in the downtown area as a means to give additional visibility to businesses within the development. The Planning Commission had a general concern with the unlimited use of banners. Staff was directed by the Planning Commission not to prepare amendments to city code. However, it was suggested that staff begin to investigate standards in case this item is brought forward in the future. c. Temporary Signs Bob Generous led a discussion of the temporary sign ordinance. In 2009, the city inadvertently eliminated standards for inflatable signs, search lights and prohibition against flashing, blinking portable signs, stringers and pennants and the removal of large flags flown in high wind which cause noise nuisance. Staff proposes to re-adopt the standards. The Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with the amendment to the sign ordinance. 3 Planning Commission Summary – April 3, 2012 d. Boulder Retaining Walls Alyson Fauske discussed retaining walls made of boulders. The City is having a problem with larger boulder retaining walls failing due to animals burrowing or water issues. Staff is proposing that boulder retaining walls over six feet in height be prohibited. The city is looking at the long-term viability of these boulder walls. As far as standards for retaining walls, the city follows Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. Additionally, there are many alternatives for retaining walls including poured concrete walls that are stamped or concrete boulder walls that can be used as well as the traditional block retaining walls. The Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with the amendment of the ordinance. e. Sign Lighting. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on lighting. City code currently limits illuminated signs to backlighting. However, it does not permit the full range of signage lighting opportunities available due to new technology. Staff pointed out that the light intensity can be controlled by reducing the transformer power to the sign. The City also learned as part of the review of the electronic message center signage that brightness and glare can be eliminated through the measurement of the light intensity called a nit, which can be submitted as part of the sign permit application. Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to proceed with the amendment of the ordinance. f. Non-Conforming Lots Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on non-conforming lots. The city has numerous subdivisions that were approved prior to the city adopting its standards. Many of these lots are non-conforming. She showed the Carver Beach development which has standard lots that are 20 feet by 100 feet. City code standards for single-family residential lots require a minimum frontage of 90 feet and a minimum depth of 125 feet. She superimposed a lot of these dimensions over Carver Beach lots to show that many lots would be necessary to meet these standards. What staff is proposing that we acknowledge that there are many areas of the community that predate the ordinance. What we want to come up with is a reasonable minimum standard possibly in the range of 66 to 75 percent of the current ordinance. We are attempting to stop the conveyance of lots of record that are currently under one owner, but that can be sold as separate parcels, leading to a proliferation of these substandard lots and the potential for variances to permit their development. The Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with the amendment to the ordinance at the higher percentage. 4 Planning Commission Summary – April 3, 2012 4. Flood Plain. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this issue. She showed the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps, prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, dated June 2, 1979. The City is contained within two panels and there is very little detail of the community. Now, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is developing updated flood maps. The new maps divide the city into 16 panels so that more detail is available. Alyson Fauske pointed out that the old maps were based on 10-foot contours, whereas the new maps are based on 2-foot contours. Sharmeen pointed out that the maps are preliminary right now. But when they are finalized, the City will have to adopt them as part of the floodplain overlay district. The Work Session concluded at 8:10 p.m. OATHS OF OFFICE: Andrew Aller administered the oaths of office to William Colopoulos, Jr. and Kelsey Nelson. 8:15 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Bill Colopoulos, Kim Tennyson, Kelsey Nelson and Kathleen Thomas. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Hokkanen and Mark Undestad. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer and Bob Generous, Senior. PUBLIC PRESENT: None. ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS:William Colopoulos moved and Kim Tennyson seconded a motion to adopt the by-laws. The motion passed 5 – 0. APPOINT CHAIR & VICE CHAIR:Kim Tennyson moved and William Colopoulos seconded a motion to retain the current Chair, Andrew Aller, and vice-chair, Kathleen Thomas. The motion was approved 5 – 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 6, 2012, as presented. nd CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Kate Aanenson stated that Pioneer Pass 2 Addition was approved on March 12, 2012, Lakeside Sixth Addition and Primrose of Chanhassen/Chanhassen Gateway PUD amendment were approved on March 26, 2012. Staff added a letter from Fred Riese to the packet for Primrose. 5 Planning Commission Summary – April 3, 2012 Kate Aanenson stated that the first PUD residential amendments will be coming for public hearing and stormwater code amendment discussion on April 17, 2012. There will be a future amendment to the CUP for the cell tower at Halla Nursery and the Canine Club and Spa will be in for site plan approval to expand. Kate also noted that the city is zipping through building permits. There is also building activity at Minnetonka Middle School West, classroom expansion and city water tower, and Goodwill. ADJOURNMENT:Thomas moved, Tennyson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Robert Generous 6