Loading...
PC 2004 04 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 6, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Lillehaug, Bethany Tjornhom, Kurt Papke, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh and Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous; Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive OATHS OF OFFICE: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh and Dan Keefe took the oaths of office for Planning Commissioners. ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS. Sacchet: This is new every year, we review the bylaws of the Planning Commission. It says they need to be read each time. ! assume we all read it, so that's already done. Does anybody have any issues, comments? Staff, do you have any things you want to point out to this? So if nobody has comments, does anybody have a motion to adopt this? ! guess that's what we do. Slagle: So moved. Sacchet: Second please. Claybaugh: Second. Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded to adopt the Planning Commission Bylaws as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE CHAIR. Sacchet: I guess we start with Chair and we take nominations. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: Yeah, again this is spelled out in your bylaws, 4.1. At your first meeting in April, which this is, you would elect from the membership so you get to cast one vote. So take a nomination and then. Claybaugh: ! make a nomination staying in the rut that we've been in with Uli Sacchet. Papke: I'll second that motion. I'll continue the rut. Sacchet: Now, how do we do this? Do we get other nominations or? Aanenson: It's up to you. If you've got one and you want to vote on the one that's on the floor or. Sacchet: Any alternates? Uncontested? So do we make a motion or. Aanenson: There's a motion and seconded. Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded to appoint Uli Sacchet as Chairman of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried with a vote of 6-0-1. Sacchet: And Vice Chair. Who would want to be Vice Chair? Let's make nominations. ! nominate Rich. Tjornhom: I'll second that. Sacchet: Any other nominations? Claybaugh: Does Rich want that position? Sacchet: Does Rich accept it? Slagle: Sure. Sacchet: Do we have alternate nominations? Sacchet moved, Tjornhom seconded to appoint Rich Slagle as Vice Chair for the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Rich Slagle who abstained and the motion carried with a vote of 6-0-1. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. THESE CHANGES AFFECT ARTICLES 1 THROUGH XXXI OF THE CHAPTER AND ARE INTENDED TO UPDATE AND CONSOLIDATE THE ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: So ! believe we just pick up where we left off, is that the idea? Which was on page what? Generous: Page 60 of my notes, but ! did have to go back just one page. They had as part of those streams and lakes, where those numbers, what those numbers represent and there is the DNR does have a jurisdictional map, and this is a reduction of what it is and it has the numbers of the various lakes and water basins and stuff so that's what the numbers in our ordinance reference that so, just for clarification. ! tried to remember everything that people had asked of me and eventually when we get this all together, ! will summarize when we come to adopt or make the motion of bringing this forward those changes that are made based on our review. Otherwise we'll assume that the amendments are as they were discussed or presented. Sacchet: So we're on page 60. Generous: On page 60. We have, we were adding under Section 20-480, number 3. Actually there are setbacks and so we wanted to specify that the underlying zoning has setback requirements and so they'd still have to comply with that. 61, we just wanted to specify that the ordinary high level for lakes and rivers and the center lines of the stream. They didn't have the setback from those. Page 61. We just want to clarify that it's Minnesota Rules. 62, it's just that we needed to add an and on the bottom on Section 3. Sacchet: Just to interrupt. It is a public hearing so if you have something to say, please. Janet Paulsen: Do you want to wait until they're done? Sacchet: ! think we, it's probably best if you address the points as they come up Janet, okay. Because then, otherwise we'll never get through it. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. ! live at 7305 Laredo Drive. ! would just like to address Section 20-481. You're talking about the center line of streams. The Bluff Creek District, Lake Riley, Bluff Creek district uses the center line of streams, which he told me they have all girded out and so forth but he said that they require 100 foot setback. Aanenson: There's two different things that we're talking about here. One's the overlay district, and one is the setback from the creek setback. So one can be inclusive in the other. The primary district, the Bluff Creek Overlay District in some cases is much greater, and that's a different type of mapping. Again it takes into consideration other features than just the setback. It could be slopes, trees, so. Sacchet: So it's not just one simple setback in that sense. Aanenson: Correct. So this wouldn't apply to the overlay district. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Janet Paulsen: Do they recognize an overlay district? ! mean aren't they including Lotus Lake and so forth? Aanenson: This regulatory is State DNR regulatory, and the overlay district is unique to the City of Chanhassen. How we interpret that additional regulatory. Janet Paulsen: Well ! talked to him today, his name is Paul Obermeyer. He said that they've had a little discussion with Chanhassen over the 100 foot setback and he said they haven't given a variance in 30 years for that. Sacchet: The Watershed District? Janet Paulsen: Yeah, and if you want to get a variance you have to apply if it' s over an acre. Well he was just concerned and then so I'm concerned. Aanenson: Well ultimately this has to be approved by the other jurisdictions too. Sacchet: So this gets looked at by the watershed. Janet Paulsen: He said whatever's most restrictive applies, so it doesn't matter what we say. Sacchet: Exactly. Aanenson: Well ! think there's some other information on that issue too as far as the watershed, some of that jurisdictional thing which I'm not going to go into long detail on that. I'd be happy to have Lori put something together in writing on that as we comment back on that. Sacchet: Okay. ! don't know whether we can settle it because it also goes into another agency aspect and as you say, the most restrictive is the one ultimately we have to live by. So if our's is less restrictive than the watershed, then the watershed is obviously the one we have to apply. ! understand, it'd be nice if it were lined up. That's your point isn't it? Janet Paulsen: Yes. And also then if we're using the center line and we're still going to use the old setbacks, that's different from the OHW, shouldn't we add some feet? Sacchet: Can you explain us just a tad more please? Janet Paulsen: Well we say 100 feet for unsewered and 50 for sewered and sewage treatment is 75. So if we're measuring, and that was measuring with the OHW. Now if you're measuring from the center line, ! don't know how many feet to add on. How wide a creek would be. It just seems we should be adding on at least 10 feet. Sacchet: You're saying the standard would be the high water line, not the center? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Janet Paulsen: Well that's what it said before. The ordinary high water level. Now it just says that will be for lakes. Generous: And rivers. Sacchet: And rivers, yeah. Now, did we do a, is that because we do rivers also that we go to this ordinance? Generous: Well we have the Minnesota River. Aanenson: Right and other tributaries. Those are the ones, as Bob indicated on that map that are jurisdictional from the DNR. So taking the center line. Claybaugh: Do they identify OHW's for streams? They do for the rivers and the lakes but do they for streams? Aanenson: ... survey that and get that, correct. Claybaugh: They do? Generous: Well not all the, in Chanhassen we don't have all the rivers. Claybaugh: What ! was inquiring about is the rationale behind going from the center line versus the OHW. ! was wondering if in fact all the OHW's are available for any stream that would be within the Chanhassen jurisdiction. Aanenson: We'll check on that. Claybaugh: Is that a fair point to make? Generous: Yes. Claybaugh: That they substitute the center line because those OHW's in fact may not be available or is that not the case? Generous: Pardon me? Claybaugh: Is that, with respect to the streams, are they using the center line in lieu of the OHW because there isn't necessarily an OHW available? Generous: That's been established, right. Claybaugh: Alright. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: Could staff maybe take an action or look into this? ! don't think we can all voice opinions here but we don't really know. Thanks Janet. Janet Paulsen: And then, have you gotten to 481 (b)? Generous: Yes. Well it's just, we took out additional structure because it's not an additional. It's just a structure setback. It's not cumulative with our setbacks or anything. It's just a setback from those points. Janet Paulsen: Have you ever had a problem with it? Generous: With additional? Janet Paulsen: Yes. Generous: No, but it's not clear that when people say well what is this an addition to? Janet Paulsen: It doesn't say additional to though. This is stating. Generous: Well additional structure setback. Aanenson: I don't think we want to argue semantics but you know if we want to get a legal opinion on it. Part of it is trying to make it easier to read. Sacchet: Right. Well do you see we're missing, is your point we're missing something by striking? Janet Paulsen: It's state wording and now we're getting away from the state wording and then it's hard to defend ourselves against anything that Chanhassen may be planning to do and use the state to back us up. We had a little history with that about 4 years ago. When we were having a discussion with the city about the separation of a lot next to us, and we had to prove that street's not classified meant private streets and we wrote to the DNR and they said it did include private streets. Now the two issues that would have prevented the separation of that lot was it had to have a 60 by 60 and it had to have a 20 foot setback from the right-of-way, and those two issues that we told them a month later showed up as a change to be changed in the newspaper, so then it came before the Planning Commission and we had to speak up and say you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. ! don't know if you remember that Uli or not. Sacchet: ! do remember. Janet Paulsen: Okay, so that's why ! think it's important to keep additional in, and if you think it will be additional to whatever else is, ! think that that abrogation at the head of the shoreland code would cover that because it says whatever is most restrictive would apply. Now adding on a cumulative. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: So additional structure, the setback, the additional could go with setback. think if you could just clarify that with our attorney that we will be on safe ground. think that's really the point that Janet makes. That we don't inadvertently open ourselves up to something. Generous: Additionally the shoreland district must be sent to the Department of Natural Resources for approval all the changes also. Sacchet: Right, right, okay. Generous: But I'll follow up. Papke: ! have a question on that same section. Where and how do we define the top of a bluff?. Aanenson: It's in the definition section. Papke: Okay. And it's precisely the top. Aanenson: Top slope. Sacchet: Alright, ready to move on? Janet Paulsen: So in addition, we always have recognized the 30 foot setback from the top of a bluff and from the cemetery and from the right-of-way line of a federal, state or county highway. And the right-of-way line of a town road, public streets or other streets not classified as that was the tickler of it. If you had to define what that meant. And so if you're going to change that, then ! think you should say private street in there. Sacchet: Or streets not classified. Did we change that wording? ! mean it's not modified. It looks like that is the way it was before. So you're making a point it should be changed? Janet Paulsen: Because if you take additional out, it isn't the same wording as the State anymore. Sacchet: Yeah, but aren't you pointing to another thing now? Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: But ! thought we'd be out the additional. Janet Paulsen: If you take out additional, then you should change it, streets not classified to say private streets. So it's plain and clear. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: To be more specific is your point, okay. Okay, will you make a note of that please. Aanenson: Yep. Sacchet: Thank you. Lillehaug: One quick question with that. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: What is the driving force behind that change? ! mean where is that coming from? Generous: This one we're trying to clarify the languages. It's a structure setback from these points. Actually from a right-of-way we have a 30 foot setback if it's a public street, so our's is more restrictive than the 20 foot that's shown in there. Sacchet: Okay. Well ! trust you'll check this out and ! think that will settle which way is the clearest. So are we ready to move on? Here's your chance Bob. Grab it. Generous: 62, we just added in. 63, clarified that it regards a section in the State Statute citation, Chapter number change is 1341, not 1340. Sacchet: Straight forward. Generous: Section 20-482 is vegetation and when we talk about people putting vegetation, that includes grasses...which are those flowering plants, shrubs, trees and lines. Page 64, we just added streams into that and made it mandatory. Additionally we added, or Jill recommended that we add the language, in no case shall clear cutting be permitted. We have cutting has to be done as part of some type of approval. Page 65, up at the top as Section 7 is not correctly citation. It's Chapter 7 which is the grading, mining, building permit section so that's part of it. Citation, down at the bottom just clarifying words. Three years is consistent with Chapter 19 and Section 3. And then 103(0221 is the correct citation of Minnesota Statutes. Page 56, up at the top we're adding where appropriate. Transportation and management strategies may be required. We just want to clarify that that's an option that the city would have as part of a PUD. Under Section 20-502 we take out the allowance for additional 25 percent of another use. If we want to do that we really have to do it as part of the comprehensive plan and as in the zoning ordinance because your zoning has to be consistent with the comp plan. Sacchet: Okay, that makes sense. Generous: Section 20-503. It's just classifying the street as collector, minor or principle arterials. We don't have intermediate arterials. Page 67, Chapter, the code is the entire 20 chapters and so there's a correct citation. This is the next one, the Municipal Code Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Corporation says to take just the titles out. If you have the article number, that's enough reference. Section 505(c)(3). The Section 20-508 deals with clustering and so we had to reference that. Under 4 we have policies in the comp plan that permits up to 25 percent bonus density for affordable housing so we wanted to clarify that you can actually exceed the minimum. Section 505. This is trying to just clear up the language that these agreements are contingent on approval and they can't have them in place before they're actually approved. Again 505(j), is just the article citation numbers rather than the names of the articles. Section 20-506, and this is the one that we've been going back and forth. To be consistent we're going to go to a 60 by 60 foot building pad. Sacchet: So we're back to the 60 by 60? At this point. Generous: Without...yes. We'll do that in the 60 by 60, then we'll be all consistent under the wetlands, under the subdivision and this chapter. Sacchet: Any comments to that? Everybody? No? Okay, good. Lillehaug: Thank you. Generous: ! do listen. 506 is just we've never had a quantity of trees so a minimum of one in the front yard. Entrance monuments, they may be approved as part of the development but they're not necessary and you don't always require them. It's up to the developer and the development to determine that. 20-508, this is a way to implement the Bluff Creek Overlay District. We have one time we brought it forward and just applied it in the district. Council directed us that we should have it as another option that we could use it city wide when properties are guided low density, so that's what that is. Page 70 at the top again we're taking out the entrance monument requirement. And 517 for the concept plan we're trying that we were copying the Minnetonka regulations to say this is for concept, the general idea you want. We don't get a lot of detail in this. It's more a bubble we're supposed to look at the big picture and this we believe will help us focusing on the big area rather than the minute details of the actual development. Page 71. We're recommending that the A1 district be repealed. Yes sir. Slagle: Keep going but ! want to ask a question. Generous: We don't have any property that is zoned A1 currently. There's no intention as part of the comprehensive plan or our discussions with any property owners to maintain agriculture in the community so we'll be eliminating that zoning category. Sacchet: Rich, you have something? Slagle: ! do have a question. On page 70, with respect to the monuments. Give me your thoughts as to sort of why we're not requiring those as in the past we have. Aanenson: We've never required an entrance monument. Most developments do it. Typically they're on a PUD. It's never been a requirement. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Slagle: Well here's what I'm getting at. If we think of some of the developments that have gone in, I'll use Longacres, Stone Creek. Highover. ! think we've seen a really nice job where developers have spent money, considerable amount of money in some cases, and really making what ! would call nice entrances to developments, and ! think in the last year or two, or some of the developments that we've seen before us, ! think there's been a reduction in the amount of money I'm going to guess that they've spent on their entrances. And ! think it's, personally ! think it's a nice amenity when you have stone entrances or whatever it may be, and ! guess I'm just asking the commission to think out loud, if we are going to not require or in this case to suggest that well designed is vague. ! guess I'm just wondering if we really think that that's the way to go. Aanenson: Can ! just comment? Slagle: Sure. Aanenson: ! think the first question is, are you going to require entrance monuments, and we've never done that. Typically on a PUD they identify it. If you look, the other thing ! want to point out, long term if you look at some of the older subdivisions on the northern end of the community, they're managed by homeowners associations. If they're going to let something go, that tends to be it. They end up being a maintenance problem long term, so ! guess I'm looking at what well designed means. If you want to talk about high quality, low maintenance. If you want to require them. If you want to move in that direction because again if you look at some of the ones that were put in early 80's, a lot of those aren't in good shape and homeowner associations tend to be reluctant to. Slagle: Maybe if ! can throw this out. Maybe when we get those proposals, like if you go to Vasserman Ridge as an example. ! think there was a question asked at the time, do we have any idea what this is going to look like, and we didn't, and it was sort of like well they'll work with staff and all I'm trying to suggest is. Aanenson: But if they're not required to do it, what authority do you have to say it should be a certain value. That's my question back. ! mean it's their choice. Unless you want to say, all entrance signs, you want to have a criteria. All entrance monuments must be approved, designed, then we get to add that in because right now it's not a requirement so it's, you know what I'm saying? It's kind of. Papke: Just to play devil's advocate to that point, entrance monuments I think are more of a marketing tool than they are long term value. As you say, they can easily fall into disrepair. The real value is when you're trying to initially attract people to your community and it seems like we're, ! would hate to see us defocus into spending time with a developer on the quality of their entrance monument as opposed to the quality of the actual housing, which is something we're going to have to live with a lot longer. Counter point. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: ! would think it probably regulates itself. ! mean if a developer makes a decent size neighbor and they want to make a monument, it's in their interest to make it nice. Otherwise they probably wouldn't make monuments. That's my thinking about it. Maybe I'm overly idealistic about it but. Slagle: And I see both points. I guess I've just seen a trend in the last 2 years, and specific builders in mind where what I'll call the quality of their entrances has down. Papke: Has there been also a change in the kind of the level of the housing that's being constructed? ! mean Highover and you know some of these other ones that you mentioned are pretty high end developments. Have we seen a change in the level... Aanenson: Well for example if you look at the Highover fountain, ! don't know long term, are they going to continue to maintain the fountain once all those houses are done? ! kind of suspect you know if it' s a cost for the association, if they decide to reduce their costs, that might be something, so ! guess we're trying to look at, because we've seen that problem. We have wood ones that have actually had to been removed because they're a safety problem, and the association has a hard time replacing them. There's not enough people that want to pay to do that. So ! understand your concern as far as that it be maintenance free, durable, high quality but as far as attaching a value, unless we're going to require that. Sacchet: It's tricky. Aanenson: It's tricky, yeah. Claybaugh: Yeah, ! think my perspective would be is if in fact they are going to put up a monument, that we do specify that it is of natural materials, or no maintenance and attach some criteria to make sure it looks as good as it can for as long as it can in the absence of any care being provided for it, so. Sacchet: Alright, any other comments? Since you asked Rich. No? Okay. That gives you something to work with? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Alright, excellent. Generous: And I was just wondering if that should be part of the sign ordinance portion. Sacchet: It's really more a sign issue at that point. Generous: Because ! was looking right now in the sign ordinance, it says that these project identification signs have to be of low maintenance material but if you want to. Aanenson: Embellish that. Maybe we'll take a stab at that. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Yeah, ! think embellish might be the fight word to. Sacchet: It could be considered a sign, yeah. ! think we should put it in that context. That's a good idea Bob. Generous: Okay, 20-572 on page 71. ! just, for the permitted uses we're going to try, and ! missed it on the daycare because we, state license we don't need that. That's redundant. It's in the definition so it's a daycare center and a group home and ! will be alphabetizing all that so it's a little easier to track. Page 72, and we're doing this to all the residential districts. We're going for a 35 foot building height requirement right now, our shoreland district requires that but in the non-shoreland you have a 40 foot height and so to be consistent and when someone says how tall a building can ! have, we're going to do that. We're recommending that for all the residential districts. And this is specifically in the A2, but it repeats itself. On page 73, it's no longer considered a mobile home, it's a manufactured home. Again under rural residential district, we take out state licensing a daycare and group homes. Page 74, we're removing references to public buildings. They're either a specific use... Again, 35 foot height on page 75. Page 75, the RS district, again remove the state license from daycare and group homes. Unfortunately ! didn't get the graphic link to come in. Minimum lot depth is 125 feet on page 76. And then we picked up the lot width as a separate item and so that's what 4 is. It just took. Sacchet: So it's the same values but it's expressed separately? Generous: Yes, it just pushed it down because it talks about lot depth in one and then.., so we just separated that. And then the numbering changed because we added that. Again back to 35 feet for building height. R4, single family detached, just to clarify and attached because we have permit the twin homes in there. Janet Paulsen: Can we just go back to RSF for a second? Sacchet: Go ahead Janet. Janet Paulsen: ! think it'd be a good idea for RSF to have a 60 by 60 building pad. Make sure that that's covered there. Generous: Well that's the minimum house sizes that are specified in the supplemental regulations. So you want a 3,600 square foot house, or ! don't understand. Janet Paulsen: Building pad required to prove that you've got the space. Generous: There's no, this is just the district regulation that tells you what the lot has to be. What you can use the lot for. Janet Paulsen: You have it in the PUD. 60 by 60. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Generous: As part of the review. Sacchet: So let me just clarify to understand what we're talking about. The 60 by 60 is the building pad that we put in for conceptual planning. Aanenson: Or building envelope ! think is how. Sacchet: Or building envelope, okay. Aanenson: Because most again, most of the houses don't come in. Sacchet: And your point is that here we're talking about the minimums that we're requiring. Now how do you think the 60 by 60 goes in here Janet? I'm missing something. Lillehaug: ! agree. ! mean on the previous section it was for a PUD, correct? Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: Why wouldn't we want to put a 60 by 60 foot pad requirement for a single family? Generous: Well we do that as part of the subdivision ordinance. Aanenson: Right, it's not in the, we're in. Generous: But this is once you have a lot, what's the, how can you develop that lot. You have front setbacks, side setback, rear setback. You have maximum house size. You have the uses that can go on the property. Lillehaug: So you're saying a 60 by 60 is already required. Generous: As part of a subdivision. Aanenson: In chapter 18 when you're doing a subdivision, you have to demonstrate a 60 by 60, correct. Lillehaug: Claybaugh: Generous: that' s. Claybaugh: So if we put it here we'd be doubling up? You're talking about lots of record there. Well then ! don't know what it would mean. If you have an existing lot You're talking about lots of record, correct? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. There isn't anything, there's no change to be effected. Aanenson: Correct. It's already covered in a different section. Sacchet: The 60 by 60 aspect has already been looked at when it comes to this point. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Is that what you're saying? Now we've got some reinforcement here. Debbie, did you want to add something to this? Debbie Lloyd: Well I'd like you to review, I'm sorry, Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Claybaugh: That's better. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. In the code, Section 20-505. Sorry, 506(b), there's a 60 by 40 building pad. Now ! don't know if this is for the single family residential PUD. It does state the 60 by 40. And it' s in the same, ! mean. Aanenson: Yeah, it references PUD and the other's in the subdivision. Claybaugh: If you took for instance a lot down on Carver Beach, that had inherent reasonable right uses, and they came in and it is, let's say it's a 9,000 square foot lot, they're not going to be able to incorporate a 60 by 60 pad, but they still have reasonable use of that lot, and we are talking about lots on record under this heading. Aanenson: That's correct. Claybaugh: Okay. That would be the point is that they couldn't meet that requirement. When we're reviewing new subdivisions, and the developer has the wherewithal to dictate the size and dimensions of those lots, then they have the wherewithal to affect change in that plat. Someone comes in, purchases a single family lot over on Carver Beach, or wherever it might be, the parameters are set. Janet Paulsen: Well ! didn't think we were talking about lots of record here. ! thought we were just talking about RSF. Claybaugh: That's why ! asked for the clarification. Aanenson: The application comes in with the subdivision. Sacchet: So under the subdivision part we look at the 60 by 60. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: Correct, when you're creating lots. Sacchet: Okay, that's my understanding too. Does that answer your question? Janet Paulsen: ! don't know where that is in subdivision. Aanenson: Chapter 18. Janet Paulsen: What? Generous: Well it shows up under the tree preservation section. Janet Paulsen: ! thought you took that out. Generous: No, council didn't act on that. They took Section 18-61 has been pulled and will be reviewed separately. Janet Paulsen: So it hasn't been decided yet? Generous: Right. Sacchet: But the idea is that we have the 60 by 60 in there. Generous: Yes. Or. Aanenson: Or that it appears in the subdivision portion. Generous: Not in here because really what dictates the house pads is the supplemental regulations that talked about the building size than the type of unit. Sacchet: Okay. So yeah, it's a preliminary step then. Claybaugh: Is there anything in under this article that identifies under the RSF single family residential district that we are speaking specifically to lots of record? Aanenson: ! think it's kind of inherent that this would be applying if this is what your zoning is, or if you're subdividing to get to that standard. These are what you'd have to have lots... Claybaugh: Well in the interest of redoing this for clarification and ease of reading and ease of understanding. Aanenson: How about if we get a legal opinion on that and make sure we have it in the appropriate place. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: Yeah, ! think it'd be good to cross check to make sure we don't have... Lillehaug: I'd like to further comment on it. From previous discussions you did indicate that if there was a subdivision that came through, and so these lots are subdivided and it's recorded that way, a property, they haven't been developed yet. If one of the owners wants to kind of change the lot sizes around, then it wouldn't come through the subdivision process again. Aanenson: Administrative split, correct. Lillehaug: Okay. And then there's no, then there's nothing to apply to that to ensure that a 60 by 60 foot pad can. Aanenson: Right, now is there anything to apply to it to say they have to maintain a certain width or area. It could also go under the area requirement too and they couldn't stop that, so whether it's a 60 by 60, whether it's a lot area, lot length, lot width, if they were to sell off a piece of property administratively, the only thing we do is sign off on it and advise them and for the record the file says they did this, you know. Again, if there's another interest in the property, typically a bank, before you transfer a piece of property, that's your other check point. A bank, which usually has to give the title interest would also have to approve it, and typically if there's a mortgage on it. Sacchet: So you would advise them that they're creating a self created, non- conformance. Aanenson: And that's very clear unless somebody owns a total piece of property because if anybody that had title interest has to sign off on it, things can happen. Lillehaug: You know ! continually hear, it doesn't happen very often but ! think that should be thrown out because when it happened once, when it happens once it's a problem, right and we should look at it in every single piece. Aanenson: Right, but we can't build an ordinance to protect something to happen once. You know. Lillehaug: Sure we can. Aanenson: Well, I'm not sure that's good policy, that's just my opinion... Generous: Unless you get the legislation to change the statute. Aanenson: Right. Claybaugh: ! think we've probably exhausted this one. My question is specifically that the RSF district be identified that there is nothing ambiguous about that it pertains 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 specifically and solely to lots of record. And that conversely that the 60 by 60 pad is and will in the future be addressed under the subdivision section of the ordinances. Sacchet: But I don't know, what was exactly the point Steve? What were you proposing? Lillehaug: I'm not going to further comment on it. Sacchet: Okay. Because I mean, I don't know whether I understand this correctly but with the issue that we're discussing is if somebody does the administrative change to a lot line, creates a non-conforming lot, when they want to build, they have to get a permit. They have to come in and we look at it and it's going to state that this is non-conforming. Therefore they have to come in front of us, and because it's self created, they might be out of luck. Isn't that pretty much the sequence there? Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: But isn't, I am going to comment. Since it doesn't have to meet a 60 by 60 foot pad so you wouldn't even send it to anybody. Like you said, it's administrative. Since there's nothing, you wouldn't send it to the Planning Commission or the Council. You would just send it to. Aanenson: Okay, we're all clear of the situation you're talking about, whether they had a 60 foot pad or not, they would still have the right to appeal for a variance so it'd still be the same process, whether you know. Sacchet: And that it would need a variance because it's non-conforming. Aanenson: Right. If you put, if that was the issue and a non-conforming lot. For example the lot you just saw before on the Koehnen, they probably wouldn't get a 60 by 60 pad. I'm not sure on that, but if they didn't, it's just another you know requirement to get a variance. So it's a lot, what are you going to do? It's a lot of record so it seems to me that. Claybaugh: You're creating another step in the process. Aanenson: Exactly, it's punitive. It's a lot of record, so. Sacchet: So it doesn't really bring anything. It just makes it more complicated, which is what we want? Aanenson: I guess that's how I would see it. If it's a lot of record. Now again, if it's self created hardship and they need a variance under that circumstance, now if the Koehnen's would have came in with no impervious surface requirements, and he would have met all the setbacks. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: We wouldn't have to see it. Aanenson: No, you still would because our ordinance says that under the 75 percent but even, he met all the setbacks so additional things would you, it's a process. Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that Jerry? I see you standing there. Jerry Paulsen: Not this particular one. Sacchet: Not this one, okay. Generous: Is it a future one? Janet Paulsen: I'd just like to point out though, Section 20-615 talks about lot requirements and setbacks and until the minimum 15,000 square feet. Now if someone has a lot that's very long but it's not really wide enough, then a 60 by 60 would help you decide whether this is going to be a property lot for a developer to make. Sacchet: Yeah we discussed, and that's one of the main discussion points we have with the 60 by 60. Generous: That gets back to the subdivision. Sacchet: Right. Aanenson: Right, which is back to minimum house size. Sacchet: ! believe we settled that one, didn't we? Aanenson: I thought so, right. Sacchet: Any further comments to this one? Janet Paulsen: I'd just like to point out one inconsistency concerning 4. (4) under 20- 615. It's about neck lots and ! just want to how a neck lot looks exactly the same as a driveway easement. Now on a neck lot, the striped out area shows, that's not included in your lot area. But in a driveway easement, all they exclude is the private street, but you still have the same space going down to the house below. Since they're exactly the same, they both have a 30 foot minimum requirement. Why should the driveway easement lot be able to include that in their area? ! think this is why we're seeing so many driveway easements come in. Sacchet: So we have an inconsistency, is that your point? Janet Paulsen: That's my point. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: I'm not tracking that at all. Generous: The neck lot in that one, if it has an easement the property would belong to the lot in front.., lot in the back so we wouldn't count the area. Aanenson: It wouldn't be counting. It's not double dipped. It can't be. Janet Paulsen: A neck lot you don't include that whole striped out area. Generous: Until you hit the 100 feet. Janet Paulsen: Until you hit the 100 feet. Generous: So if you had a big pie at the 100 foot line, you would start counting area. Janet Paulsen: But in the driveway easement, that first lot there, they get to include the easement in their lot area. Just not the private street area. And ! think it should state in code that the private street, ! mean if you're not going to go the way I'm saying, but it should state that the private street is not included in the area. Just so people know, because it hasn't been always attractive. Sacchet: But your thought is we should clearly state it. Janet Paulsen: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Janet Paulsen: But ! also would lobby to have the whole easement not included in the area that it's in. The lot that it's in. ! mean it's included in the lot but the area is not counted, just like the neck lot. Claybaugh: For the calculations for the square footage for this lot. So just so ! understand, you perceive both conditions being the same but treated differently and in some way kind of a loop hole for one of the lots to acquire more square footage. Janet Paulsen: Right. Claybaugh: Okay, it's a calculations issue. Okay, does that help? Janet Paulsen: Okay, that's all. Sacchet: Is that something you want to look into? Aanenson: Yep. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: Please, because ! mean if it is an inconsistency with the calculation of the lot, you want to make sure we're fair. Between the two cases. Alright. On with the show. Generous: 77, again 35 feet. 78 same thing. 35 foot high building height. Page 79, this is the residential low-medium district regulations. At one time ! had some pretty pictures to go with this one. Sacchet: Are you itching to say something Jerry? Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I think it was good that you extended this maximum house height to 35 feet from shoreland to include all RSF, but you should be aware that 35 feet doesn't mean 35 feet because there's fudge factors in here in the way the gable is built. There's houses that exceed 41 feet now near Lotus Lake. Sacchet: So the gable doesn't necessarily mean the highest point? It counts like. Jerry Paulsen: One half of the height. Sacchet: Top of gable basically. Aanenson: And also average grade, so if it's a walkout, you take average grade. Sacchet: Okay, so you average between the gable and elevation side. Aanenson: Elevation, correct. Jerry Paulsen: So a very high pitched roof you can end up with a 3 story house. Excluding the basement. Sacchet: So the steeper the roof, the higher it can go, right? Generous: Yeah, and this is for the RLM district regulations. We're trying to show this would create a different housing type, potential different housing type in the community. It would permit either a single family homes on 9,000 square foot lots, twin homes on 7,260 square foot lots or townhouses on 5,445 square foot lots. We were trying to draw some pictures, and unfortunately you have a copy in there. ! don't have the single family detached, but that has the largest lot area, and it comes too, if you look at the density, it comes to 4.8 units per acre. And we just tried to show this representation, if they did the minimum width, what the minimum depth would have to be, or if they did the minimum depth, what the minimum width would have to be. And so then we went with the twin homes and did the same thing to show a minimum depth or minimum, what the lots would look like, and it's kind of funny, if you would flip these two together, they almost fit like a key. And the lot area would actually increase somewhat but it worked out that way and for the twin homes the density comes in at 6 units an acre. On a net basis. And then we have several examples of the multi-family. Again if this was a condominium, so each unit, they only unit individually for 8 units on 1 acre, that's how it'd work out. Or if 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 they were going to plat into individual lots, if they, we looked at a 50 foot wide lot, and then the minimums for the width are 30 feet. And that forces a deeper lot area. We envision this as an opportunity directly adjacent to the corridor to get housing in there, but with the bigger rear yard and we could have more open space, it would be both the common and as part of the properties. And that's an example. We did look at the Chaska development for Clover Ridge. They went down actually to a 20 foot wide lot. We kept a little bit bigger than that. We've talked to some builders and they didn't, they said that wasn't working for them so that's what, these, and again a lot of the uses would follow what you'd see in other residential districts so we created the permitted uses for RLM Districts. Conditional uses and there are no interim uses as part of this. Claybaugh: So who else besides Clover Ridge in Chaska has got this? Aanenson: Eden Prairie has some that are similar. Generous: And we have some developments in Chanhassen that would be. Slagle: You're not going to refer to Town and Country are you? Aanenson: No. Slagle: Okay. Claybaugh: Is that a problem Rich? Slagle: I'm sorry? Claybaugh: ! withdraw the question. Generous: Well they don't have any.., so we don't know. So this was the Highland Ridge development on Galpin and Highway 5 that showed the example of mixed housing types. You have the attached 4, 6's, 8's, single loads, double loads. The Walnut Grove development where we had more traditional single family, and then transition to the single bungalow type homes on the smaller lot, and then you go to single loads and double loads. This is an old subdivision, Chaparral. It's just north on Powers Boulevard and Kerber. Again it has single family detached, twin homes and town houses. This is the Mission Hills development down on 101 and West 96th Street. Aanenson: Let me just clarify too what you're looking at there is, so all those, there's everything else in the common is the way we applied those was on the PUD so the ownership is just the individual structure itself. The rest of it in common space, so this just gives an opportunity for people to have their own property lines. Generous: And this last one is North Bay. It was an example of the detached townhouses. The first project we did like that in the city of Chanhassen. And this last item, it doesn't show up as well but that's the Arboretum Village, which is on 5 and 41. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 So these standards would created something similar but different because again they'd have the individual lots potentially around them and what would be prescribed, PUD's generally the lots are very small. Just around the unit and then the rest of the area's in common. Aanenson: Again when we looked at that is we're trying to find another tool to provide an opportunity for different housing opportunities because right now with the PUD, and ! think that's something we have to discuss as this project comes in on the concept level is what are some of the goals that we're trying to achieve. Maybe more common space. Density transfer, or if we want to do, give an opportunity for maybe a little bit smaller lot. Rambler, maybe some of those kinds of opportunities and as we open up that 2005, where we can apply that so. Sacchet: So we see a real need for this new district? Aanenson: Yeah, something inbetween, and again ! think under concept we'll be taking those to you to get your input. Which direction you think based on the application that is coming forward, what seems to be the best zoning that would come into place. Claybaugh: This is all within the PUD envelope or? Aanenson: No, this would be a separate zoning district, but everything in that area is zoned for future, ! mean it's agriculture so you would have the ability. It just gives a density allocation. What zoning you apply to it, whether it's a PUD, a straight zoning is you know, you'll get comment through your public hearings so what we're saying is as we bring those forward, we'll be asking you for feedback as the developments come forward to say, what are the goals we're trying to achieve? If we're trying to do a density transfer, to save some open space along the creek, or in a different area, we want to provide some different housing, this gives us an opportunity besides the twin home R4, to give some different lot sizes. Otherwise then we talk about PUD, you can just go to 11,000 so. Sacchet: Okay. Any comments to this? Questions? Issues? Everybody happy with it? Good. Generous: Then on page 82 we start the R8 district. We just... We are recommending that boarding houses be removed. We have rental housing in the community. They need to be licensed. Sacchet: Craig? Claybaugh: Sorry Mr. Chair. Can we back up to that? ! wanted to, I'm sorry ! didn't ask the question when you gave us the opportunity but with respect to that R4 zoning, how's that relate to the comp plan? If you could just walk me through what the process would be. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Generous: The R4 zoning? That would be a consistent zoning for property that's guided low density. Residential low density. Claybaugh: Okay, so anything that's currently guided low density would be, that would be available zoning for that. Generous: Yeah, that would be appropriate or RSF or again the Planned Unit Development. Aanenson: Over the 4 would have to be a medium density or high density. Claybaugh: But because this isn't necessarily under the PUD envelope, they could come in just as a subdivision. Aanenson: It has to be consistent for what we've guided it. Down there, in some places we've guided, opportunity to go low or medium, and you know, again what we want to look at is how does it relate to the land forms, the product type, what's matching so that's where you have the ability to say, in this sense we think we want to put low over here to balance, and that's the discussion as each development comes in, we'll take place. Does that make sense? So if it's medium density, or guided for medium, it's zoned agricultural right now. It's guided for medium. It doesn't say it has to be a PUD. Doesn't say it has to be, it could be an R8 or just RLM. You have that opportunity to say this is what we think it should be based on the goals that we see. Sacchet: So it could be any of those. Aanenson: Yes. Right. Sacchet: Good, thank you. We're ready to keep going. Generous: Page 84 again the 35 foot building height. R12. We're getting into the more, it's towards the commercial but it's not health care facilities. They're all health services and they're all specified under our standard industrial classification. Again because it's residential, the 35 foot building height. These are all the 3 stories so that hasn't changed. It's just the maximum height. Interim uses. We just want to specify that it's a temporary real estate office in the R12 district. Eventually it has to go away. And we did develop some standards previously as part of a CUP criteria. Page 86 again, health services. Number 7 is they're not commercial towers. They're just a tower. It doesn't matter what kind. It's there, a conditional use and the antennas are permitted on them. Again on page 87, the 35 feet. Page 87 we begin the supplemental's. The first change is just there's some errors in the typing and so we're taking out some brackets. 88, it's not the uniform building code, it's the Minnesota State Building Code and the city may not amend that. So we clarified that. And then you have to, unfortunately when I printed this up the commercial stuff was in a different section and so I printed that, and I gave you all a copy. That said 1 through 9 I think it was, pages. And again it said, we were trying to revise the uses in the district. We were trying to look at what made sense, and also to 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 alphabetize things. So if you look, and I don't know if you grabbed it but on page 1, the BN district, we're making antennas a permitted use. This is just the antenna portion of the communication device and so we see them on buildings all the time. Again and this one should have been bold but home furnishings were proposed to be added to the neighborhood business district. Offices, we're consolidating. Right now we have professional offices and business offices and office so we're classifying all those as one use. Personal services, they're not established. They're classified as personal services. Specialty retail shop. That includes all those, we have a long list, jewelry and things like that. It's specified in the standard industrial classification and so then, neighborhood oriented business, that's a convenience store. It's specialty retail but it's not. We didn't have that defined so we got rid of that. Self service laundry and dry cleaning are personal services and professional offices, they should say offices. Under conditional uses we did add motor fuel stations and these would permit gas tanks and minor repair as part of that neighborhood use. Page 2 again, under the highway business district. Again it's an antenna. It doesn't necessarily have to be commercial. Financial institutions, we added or without drive through services because you may have a bank that's not. Sacchet: That'd be the day. Generous: Well you see them...inside other uses. Again personal services and then specialty retail we added retail. Institution or offices...talk about the drive through or not. Financial institutions. This is actually a duplicate. Conditional uses, auto services center or actually auto repair shops, we don't have a definition of that. Auto service center is a bunch of repair shops put together. Outdoor storage by definition has to be screened so that's redundant. On page 4, under CBD District, add antennas. Those would be something that would be attached to a unit. Again take out state license for daycare, and health services. And on page 5, specialty retail encompasses retail shops and apparel shops, the jewelry so that's a clarification. Then under the BG district we added antennas, hardware goods and we clarified health services because it goes beyond, and then I did find a typo that was in here. Shoe repair is actually a personal service so it shouldn't be listed under number 25. Sacchet: So that comes off?. Generous: That portion will come out, yes. Sacchet: Alright. Generous: Again specialty retail. We have the standard industrial classification so we looked at that, which apparel is a portion in that. Permitted uses in the BG... Business Fringe District. At one time we looked at completely eliminating this. Sacchet: So we're keeping it? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Generous: Well because we couldn't determine what the property that are currently zoned BF, we would have to rezone to a category and we didn't want to up zone to like the ones on 212 either should be zoned A2 or 1OP. Sacchet: So it was best to leave them? Is that what we're saying? Aanenson: Because ultimately when there's municipal services, those will change to a higher, better use that are consistent with the comp plan, because right now there's some legal non-conforming down there so it's hard to put them into something else, so it's really kind of, which was I believe the original purpose for that adoption is just kind of a holding zone. Sacchet: Holding tank so we keep it as a holding tank, alright. Generous: On page 9, it was a duplicate. It should say public park and open space, not public park... Under wholesale nursery, and I just noticed this. It should say conformance with criteria of Section 20-267. That would relate to the new numbering system we have and since it's a permitted use, we also wanted to comply with the standards we've established for that so. And then under conditional use, automotive dealers includes everything that was there before. Miniature golf. We would take out pursuant to Section 20-265 because we now have those criteria in there and so we don't have the same number. They have to follow it. Interim uses again, outdoor storage. It must be screened by definition. 10, the OI district. Again that's so antenna, it's not specifically a commercial antenna. A professional business and administrative offices are just offices, and public parks and open space. And then we're deleting public buildings because they are, they're either an office or a park or whatever. In IOP district, again antennas. Body shops are automobile repair shops. Light industrial is a better than light manufacturing because it includes other things. It could be assembly. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: Number 9, printers are print shops. Under permitted accessory uses, it's a day care center. Again they have to by definition they have to be licensed by state. Conditional uses, daycare centers, outdoor storage again has to be screened. And towers, we had it in there twice. And again public buildings are either an office or whatever. And then we're back to the supplemental regulations, which would be page 89. Sacchet: Alright, back to the big book. Generous: And we're just adding in here that you can put in the front yard fences and retaining walls. Because retaining wall we treated as type of fence. Number 6 is that the placement of structures within the easement is prohibited without engineering, unless they have an encroachment agreement for those. If they don't, and... Also exclude driveways and sidewalks. And this is the attorney's office caught this on page 90, number 6. And I knew when we drafted it, it was a little convoluted but it should, continued storage of boats, all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and trailers may be stored in 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 the side or year yard behind the required front setback if owned by or a resident owner, or lessee of the property and that's to, we have people that are running minor businesses on the property and they. Slagle: Say that again Bob? Sacchet: Yeah, say it again. Generous: Yeah, strike out the bold in there and then at the end you would add, if owned by a resident owner or lessee of the property. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: So you have to be living there to be store your stuff. You can't stuff all your friend' s equipment. Sacchet: It has to be your own stuff basically. Aanenson: Or if you do have a rental, then it could be someone that's renting. Generous: And then we added a number 8 for personal on demand storage. Those little mini trailers that people have. We want to allow people to do it but if it stays too long and we get complaints about them being there, and we don't address it currently. Page 91, under (d). And this is an issue we had before. We did try to revise it to just address commercial industrial and institutional districts, but they required that they be shine downward and have a cut off angle and be shielded. And then under (e), this is the only time that we would allow lighting to be directed skyward would be for the U.S. Flag. Section 20-919. These telephone equipment buildings are a type of utility and we permit them in our district. However when we do have them in conjunction with like a communication tower, then we're, we usually review it under as part of that, and so this is redundant and we believe it was unnecessary. Page 92, Section 20-920. This is for privately owned underground amenities. Again this was directed by our engineering department. That they not be allowed within the right-of-way. Sacchet: That's a little sticky issue isn't it? Don't most people put their irrigation all the way to the road. Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: Invisible fences. Sacchet: Invisible fences, same thing. So we're saying they could not do that without an encroachment agreement. Generous: Well they couldn't do it within the right-of-way at all. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Lillehaug: I thought we talked about this before and we said we didn't want to do that. Aanenson: You thought it was onerous, right. Lillehaug: I thought we had talked about this one before and we gave our recommendations that we wanted to exclude that. Aanenson: Correct, that was my understanding too. I think engineering still wanted it in so I think what we'll advance forward is that the Planning Commission felt it was onerous, and the planning department. Sacchet: Well, it's never going to work. Aanenson: I'm not sure right now if we require a permit for an Invisible Fence so you don't catch it. Sacchet: I don't think you do. Aanenson: Right, because there's no permit required. Sprinkling permits, they typically have to get a permit, or plumbing permit so you'd probably catch that. But right. Janet Paulsen: Does this apply to existing fences? Aanenson: No, because they're all over the place. Sacchet: Yeah, I think that needs to be brought. Generous: It would create a non-conformity and as long as you can maintain it you can have it. Aanenson: It's a legal non-conforming, correct. Sacchet: And I think we, and we mentioned that before, we've got to be careful that we don't put regulations in place that are not realistic. Aanenson: To defend the engineering department, I think their concern is when they do reconstruction or maintenance, if they hit something. They don't want to go back and be putting in an Invisible Fences, so I think what we talked about before is that we do a better job of communications through the newsletter, things, just reminding people when you're doing that, just to keep that in mind when you're doing Invisible Fence or the like. Sacchet: Yeah, and see that's what I think was very important. If our aim is to be covered when we go out there and have utility work or something and we break somebody's sprinkler or somebody's invisible fence, I do want to make sure we're not liable for that. Then we should say that and we shouldn't say for every irrigation system and for every... 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: I think that's how we put it in. I think we just said, you know the city's not responsible, that was I think the catch all to be the coverage to say you know what, if you put it in there, you're putting it in at your own risk. Claybaugh: Well actually it says shall not be allowed. Aanenson: Yeah, so that's what we need to fix. We want the last sentence in there. Sacchet: Yeah, that's the point. Yeah, the last sentence is really just the meat. Aanenson: So we'll work on word smithing. Claybaugh: More if you do, you do at your own fare. Lillehaug: Let me put another twist on there. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Bruce kind of hit on this before and I've given it some more thought that. Claybaugh: He lives on. Lillehaug: You know I'd like to promote the resident's maintaining that portion of property that's not their's a little bit more. And if the city comes in and has a reconstruction project and damages the irrigation system, pay for it. It's not that much of an expense and I'm willing to put a little extra tax money into helping the land owners maintain that little piece of property by just paying for the irrigation systems. Sacchet: It's a good point. If we make a deterrent to a land owner actually putting in irrigation there and it's going to be dried up while the rest of the yard is nice, then we hurt ourselves. Lillehaug: Yeah, it's not as easy on engineering but you know what, it's not that huge of a task. Sacchet: In terms of the interest of the city as a whole, I think you've got a good point. Lillehaug: That's my spin. Papke: What about the Invisible Fences? Lillehaug: Well... Claybaugh: It keeps the CSO's from having to pick flatten animals from the public right- of-way' s. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Lillehaug: Bruce hit on this before too. Usually you don't want your Invisible Fence right up to the sidewalk. You know you want to have a buffer there anyway so. Aanenson: Right, for the most part you don't want your dog right to the edge. Lillehaug: Right, so. Papke: So it's not as onerous? Slagle: That's assuming there's a sidewalk. I had to throw that in. But my question is on this irrigation, if I hear you right, you're suggesting that the city, if they came in and were doing some repairs, damaged a sprinkling system, that the city would actually pay for the repairs? Lillehaug: Yeah. Other cities do it. Sacchet: Other cities actually do that? Okay. Slagle: Because the thinking is that it encourages homeowners to irrigate out to the street almost? Lillehaug: It's not that big of a deal. It's not a huge, it's not that huge of a cost if something gets damaged. In comparison with the reconstruction project itself. You know you've got $100,000 project. You damage a few sprinkler heads, it's going to cost a couple thousand extra dollars. It's an insignificant cost. Papke: But there's administrative overhead and it's never as easy as just writing out a check for a couple hundred bucks. That'd be my guess. And you know, hoses and sprinklers. Lillehaug: It'd be more than a couple hundred bucks. Papke: ... actually put a sprinkler out there. Lillehaug: I'm just giving you my opinion. Sacchet: Alright, we got the balance. Aanenson: I think we, we had discussed it before. Claybaugh: I think at a minimum we're all fairly adamant that they be allowed. The residents can be put on notice that it's at their own peril, but not that the activity be disallowed. Sacchet: You don't want to discourage it basically. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: Right. I think what I'm hearing too is that there's an obligation for us, the city to educate the homeowners... Sacchet: Yeah. And if the homeowners understand that they're responsible, we don't have to have that clause in there. That kind of says, unless you have special... Claybaugh: With respect to the sprinklers, if they can go into that, you'll have half those heads watering the street, you know, if you can't go back to those 180 degree sprinkler heads so. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: Section 20-962. Camping. We wanted to come up with some regulations to limit the amount of camping that can happen. There was concern about what if there are camping that's been approved, and so we did add language that states unless in city approved campground or prior city authorization. Sometimes the parks department does have a camp out as part of some of their summer programs so ! hope that addresses the concern that was before us last time. But we do have problems with this and so we, the attorney's office is highly recommending that we adopt some language. Slagle: Can ! just ask how you have problems? Just curious. Aanenson: We have someone that's camping that is. Sacchet: Permanently? Aanenson: Permanently camping that's a nuisance to the neighbors. Slagle; Okay. Oh, is that the story? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay. Janet Paulsen: But you're including hammocks? Sacchet: Hammocks? Where are the hammocks? Janet Paulsen: That's camping paraphernalia. ! think this is Chan hassle. Sacchet: Do we say hammocks somewhere? ! missed it. Generous: Camp paraphernalia includes but is not limited to. Janet Paulsen: Tarps. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Claybaugh: ! think this one's going to be selectively enforced. Janet Paulsen: ! think you're using a big bat to combat one little problem. Sacchet: Cots, sleeping bags, hammocks, and similar equipment. Well, well. Lillehaug: Are we fixing just one problem here? Tjornhom: Is there no way you can just decipher if someone is just camping recreationally or if they're living. Aanenson: No, it's been to court and no we can't, so we have to have stricter language, yeah. Tjornhom: You can't? Sacchet: So legally it's being. Aanenson: It's been challenged, correct. Janet Paulsen: Can't you just require him to have a port-a-potty there? Aanenson: That doesn't meet our definition of acceptable waste disposal. So we'll look at that again with the attorney's office regarding the hammocks. ! don't think we're going to go out and chase someone out of their hammock but ! think the argument back is that there are people that are camping in cars. That are camping in not necessarily tents so if the argument comes back in court, I'm not in a tent, so how do you separate that unfortunately, so we'll see what we can do on that part of it. Papke: Tarps might be an issue. Many people have wood piles in their back yards too. Aanenson: Oh ! would agree, yeah right. Claybaugh: And ! also think, from the standpoint of some of that language, if you don't enforce it equal handedly, then you have a problem conversely on the other side. So as you get hammocks and you start getting really broad with it like that. Aanenson: We'll follow up on that one. Tjornhom: Couldn't it just be simplified where you have to have an address? ! mean if you're living in a car, obviously you don't have an address. Aanenson: Yeah, but you...there's a P.O. box, yeah. So we'll take a look at it. ! agree, it seems broad. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Janet Paulsen: It's just one person? Claybaugh: Right now Jan. Aanenson: We have had other complaints about people camping down on beachlots in a camper, so it's not, this is one we pursued because we're not getting compliance. We have had other complaints that typically you get compliance after you visit the site or send a letter, you tend to get compliance. We have had other people camping on association beachlots and the like. This is a circumstance where we've shot down to court. We challenged and we don't have the correct language in there. So most the time you get compliance. Tjornhom: So then if ! understand correctly, if my kids wanted to camp this summer in my back yard. Sacchet: They can't do it more than 7 days in a row. Tjornhom: Right. It seems kind of restrictive ! guess. Aanenson: Again you have to recognize how our ordinance is adopted. Typically nuisance basis. We don't drive around checking, we just don't have the staff to do that. Typically it's driving by a nuisance. A neighbor calls and says there's someone sleeping on the beachlot every night for the past 3 weeks. Now it's a nuisance. Tjornhom: Okay, but what if my kids were in Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts and pitched a tent and they had friends over every week or something sleeping or they were doing their camping. Aanenson: ! guess I'd ask you, does anybody know of a circumstance where that's happened in their neighborhood? Generous: 21 days or more? Tjornhom: No, no, no, no, but what I'm saying. Aanenson: It's not going to happen so we're supposing what if, what if, what if. Again we're trying to be over here saying, we do have that. Janet Paulsen: Just don't allow camping on beachlots. Aanenson: Well, this isn't on a beachlot. The other problem that we're pursuing. Claybaugh: ! appreciate your situation. ! don't think we're going to get it resolved so. Aanenson: No. ! think we'll look at the language. ! agree, it seems onerous. And then we talked about that last time. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: Just balance it a little bit. You don't want to get carried away to the point where. Tjornhom: I don't like someone to tell me what I can't do in my back yard for a certain amount of days, if I'm not doing anything wrong necessarily. If it's just a tent in my back yard. Aanenson: Or how we define a nuisance or. Tjornhom: Right. Aanenson: Well the other thing is we talked about before, when you're in your back yard, you have access to acceptable facilities, and that's part of the issue too so. Keefe: Does it include RV's? Generous: Those are covered separately. Keefe: They are separate. Aanenson: Yeah. Janet Paulsen: Well couldn't you apply the same reasoning to camping as the city applied to boarding houses and said the city has no way to regulate the duration of the stay, nor is it appropriate? Generous: That's for a bed and breakfast. Janet Paulsen: Yeah, bed and breakfast. Generous: At this we could because someone's camping on property. You know that they're there for more than 7 days or more than 21 days. Several years. 20-978, just contractor's yards are prohibited so I modified that. 20-1017. Fences or a permit required for any permanent fence. And this is again at the behest of engineering that we include Invisible Fencing. Papke: Just to go back to that contractor's yard... Is there a grandfather clause for this? I'm thinking of like Buck's down on Pioneer Trail. Aanenson: Correct, there are legal non-conforming ones that were permitted back in the early 80's and those are continued. They have restrictions on them. Those are legal non- conforming. Yep, there's quite a few of them. Probably 10. Generous: Yeah, this would just be for anyone trying to start a new business, home occupation. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: So we do Invisible Fence again? Generous: Yes. Also...temporary fencing we would not require a permit for that, like a fence around your garden or a little one around the tree. And then if it's over 6 feet, then you do need a building permit or retaining walls in excess of 4 feet. Again later we talked about the separation between retaining walls, and stuff. On page 94, fences and retaining walls. Again we treat retaining walls like fences. Back to encroachment into city easements requires an encroachment agreement. And you can't put fences in the public right-of-way. Wetlands. This is right now you can go up to the high water elevation, but we also have a buffer requirement. If you go into that buffer you start removing it's effectiveness and so we added the language that it would also have to be outside of the buffer. Section 20-1025 is we added the language about the retaining walls. And if they are separated by at least their height, then they would not be required to be engineered. Then basically I've combined the language that was in two other sections and put it here under, where the supplemental's which talks about fences and retaining walls. Citing Minnesota State Building Code. Page 95 at the top which is the correct citation based on the attorney. Janet Paulsen: Retaining walls aren't allowed to be made of wood? Generous: Under this, no they wouldn't be. Sacchet: Be concrete or natural stone. Yeah, we don't. So it has to be over 4 feet to need to be concrete, natural stone or brick. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Yes. Claybaugh: Could we come back to 20, 1025 retaining walls. Aanenson: That's where we are. Sacchet: That's where we are. Claybaugh: Okay, outstanding. Outstanding. You passed the test. Alright. On the walls, in terms of how many cumulative incremental 4 foot setbacks they could do with respect to that. That's the equivalent of 1 to 1 ratio but taken to an extreme, is there, right. ! start thinking in terms of some of the retaining walls I've seen in Eden Prairie and such like that, if some of those are 20 feet high. If you've got a set of circumstances where, for abuse for that particular. Aanenson: ! think we have something we may want to put in there. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Lillehaug: ! think we should get rid of that second portion where it says, where it is not separated by at least the height of the wall. ! think you should exclude tiered retaining walls. My opinion is they should be engineered. Aanenson: Anything over 4 feet? Lillehaug: Yeah. Aanenson: Right, and that's how the ordinance reads today. Lillehaug: But that's not what this reads. Generous: Yeah, and this was based on the discussion last time. Lillehaug: That's not what we discussed. Claybaugh: I personally with respect to you know, a 2 section wall, you know that's 1 to 1 ratio on an overall height of 8 feet, but taking something to 16 feet, then you need to get into certainly. Aanenson: The perception is by separating it, it doesn't guarantee the safety, we'd still want it engineered if it's a cumulative. Claybaugh: When it's extrapolated to you know 3 and 4 and 5 fold, yes. ! think you need to get into soil compositions and knowing what kind of soils you're dealing with under those circumstances. On a 1 to 1, on an 8 foot overall height, that seems, at least in my experience, reasonable but I'm not a soils engineer, but once you start, ! think it's... ! think 80 percent of the applications aren't going to be over 8 feet high certainly. Aanenson: Yeah, we do have a few but. Claybaugh: Right, and those ones I'd hate to see somebody come in and say I'm going to make 5 separate tiers for a 20 foot high wall. Sacchet: So if it's more than 2 segments. Claybaugh: ! would say yeah, more than 2 segments or 8 foot overall height that they're going to be. Aanenson: More than 2 or a distance if they're so far, would that make a difference? ... too many variables but if it was a distance of you know 10 feet between the walls, and it equals the height, if that would make any difference or not. Claybaugh: There is stuff that's available through this that's basically stock engineering that takes all those things into consideration. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: And ! think it would be helpful to have a graphic in this section too. Lillehaug: What did our engineering recommend? Because I don't want to get into the technicalities of it but tiered retaining. Aanenson: Actually we talked to the building official on this one so. Lillehaug: ! think we should talk to the engineers though because if you've got a structural engineer and he did a global stability on the wall, those tiered retaining walls need to be engineered. Even if they're separated by the height of the wall. So my recommendation would be, is you go up to the first comment and then it says including stage walls which cumulatively exceed 4 feet in height and delete the rest of that. Aanenson: So anything more than just one 4 foot wall should be engineered. Is there a consensus on that? Lillehaug: That's my opinion. Aanenson: Or do you want some more information or? Lillehaug: You know I'm going to give you an example. You go out on Galpin and you look at that stone retaining wall, where they put that 20 foot driveway in there, and it's very, very poor. ! encourage everyone to go out and look at that retaining wall there. Slagle: Which one is that? Lillehaug: It was where, there was a 20 foot fill done to get a driveway across.., and it was a conditional use permit. It's for sale right now and boy they threw that in there. ! don't think, I'm not too sure if they did any geotechnical consultant, like we had on the conditional use permit. I'm not too sure if that retaining wall. There's a stone retaining wall but it's just, it looks pretty shabby out there and I'm not too sure if that was engineered or not but, ! think it needs to be enforced. Sacchet: We want to be careful. Any other comments? Slagle: I'd like to hear from staff. Generous: Yeah, we'll do additional research on that so when we bring it back we can... Claybaugh: And I think additionally, depending on what type product you use, is going to have some different calculations in it as well. Lillehaug: And just to hit on it a little more, there is just more parameters into that because if you have a steep slope on top of the retaining wall going at a 1 to 3, you just can't. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: Lillehaug: Aanenson: There's a lot of variables, right. You can't just say this. Or adjacent to a right-of-way or public street. They have a lot of variables. If it's in someone's back yard, side yard, there's nothing, agreed. Sacchet: Yeah, you want to be on that side of caution with something like this. Claybaugh: Yeah, what ! was alluding to, if you go with like a Keystone, if you went down to Timberwall, in Keystone there's certain calculations that they'll make and they're very conservative calculations. But that's for a given product again so. Aanenson: Correct, yeah and we have a lot of those that are actually on the lake side. For example Lake Riley has a lot, it's pretty typical to put the boulder walls in so. And those are tall. Sacchet: Okay. That's it about retaining walls, right? Generous: Okay. And 95 again, the correct citation. EFIS. ! think ! was just trying to clean up the spelling on that. That's the only change we're making in that. We'll leave it as it is for now. For site transparency, it's limited. If it's a 1 story building that's 20 foot tall you won't penalize them for the.., be reasonable. Aanenson: Again that's kind of some of the industrial. Generous: Right, we had 24 tight foot walls and half of that would be unreasonable. Aanenson: Yeah, punitive. Generous: Then this is a new one. We're actually transferring it from Chapter 10. It's a separation requirement. ! did have, as part of this we did include the, a little map. This is a larger one. And basically they separated it. First of they're committed wherever the underlying uses would be. Sacchet: You're talking about the sexually oriented stuff?. Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Or SOB's, that's what the council called. Sacchet: SOB's. Aanenson: ...but that's the acronym. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Generous: So when they first adopted this back in '92 they were looking at you can either concentrate them or disperse them and so they also looked at making it the uses based, not say sexually oriented theater, or just a theater or book store or whatever it may be. Video store. So wherever those uses it would potentially. However there are.., areas, schools, churches, residential property ! think and so the area in yellow basically would be where they could go in the community. And then once one goes in, there's also a separation requirement between them so there's a 500 foot separation that would need to be maintained, so. We haven't had any, the ordinance is already in place. It's just the attorney's office has said that, recommended that this is a setback requirement. That it go under the zoning ordinance rather than under the licensing requirement. Papke: Is the County Board looking at a similar issue? Aanenson: Yeah, and that kind of comes up to, you know if we have a combat zone where they're all concentrated, or separation. Again we've had this ordinance in place. We don't have any currently, and like Bob indicated, what we're trying to do is put it in a zoning ordinance because there's separation we want to put in place. Papke: So you look at what the county is doing and there's no conflict? Aanenson: No, and their's is a little bit different again because of, they have such wide separation already. ! mean our's is, because even if you put one in, there's a separation so if we got one, we probably couldn't have more than 2 is they were... Generous: In the downtown. Aanenson: And we've got uses in place, if you look at that map, that would be target going. So there's some uses in place. Could there be a lease space that opens up? But it's currently available now that it could happen. Don't anticipate that but. Generous: The demographics just don't seem to be right in our community but we have, Constitutionally you have to permit it. You can have restrictions but if you're overly restrictive, then the courts throw them out and say that you're being arbitrary and so. Sacchet: So this one would be balanced? Generous: Yes, this is what they adopted in '92 after a long period of study and like said, we're just pulling it out of Chapter 10 and putting it into Chapter 20. Sacchet: So we won't need to study it alone, that's fine. Generous: And again the map shows up on there. Then on page 99 we start on the parking requirements. Driveway separation have to comply with the transportation engineer's publication. We're going to a minimum 9 foot stall width. Right now we have a 8 lA foot. We're also an 15 foot aisle on 45 degree parking and if you remember our discussion, Matt had those nice little pictures drawn up and it provides a little more 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 room for people to maneuver. Now on page 100, this is one I've been struggling with. We have language in the ordinance and it does, it's not very clear. ! don't know that this language is but it does specify in this one that for the first 20 feet your driveway has to be at least 10 feet from the property line and then it can go to 5 feet as you get back, unless you have an encroachment agreement and then you would be able to go to the property line again. Sacchet: What is it currently Bob? Generous: Pardon me? Sacchet: What's the, it's different, the numbers are different from what we currently have? Generous: Well it says driveway shall be set back at least 5 feet from the property line beginning at 20 feet from the front unless an encroachment agreement is received, so. Aanenson: It's just clarifying it. Generous: Yeah, because you can be right on the property line the whole way. Actually this language would require a 10 foot setback for the first 20 feet. Now if that's not what we want. Aanenson: ! think a drawing would be helpful on that too. Sacchet: Yeah. ! wonder whether we're creating an issue though for some lots that have very narrow fronts, like on cul-de-sacs and all that. I'm aware of several lots that could not comply with that necessarily. Aanenson: Right, and mind you, the ordinance does allow for you can, people do pave on the side of their garage to store their boat because that's an acceptable place in our ordinance to store a camper or a boat. That's why we allow that 5 foot encroachment up to the, for that extra car. Slagle: Or boat or trailer. Aanenson: Exactly, but you're not camping. Claybaugh: This isn't any more restrictive than the side yard setback that's going to dictate the inset for the garage so, from that standpoint. Aanenson: Well the garage has to be set back 10 foot, right. Claybaugh: Right. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: So typically this is if you're maybe 15 feet away, you may pave 8 feet to park your snowmobile trailer, whatever on the outside. As long as you're within 5 feet, but again the engineering, if you're within that 5 feet you need an encroachment agreement because typically that's for your utility easement. Slagle: Just a quick question. If you lived in a neighborhood that had an association, and covenants and bylaws and they restricted that, in this case those would not be applicable. The city ordinances would prevail, right? Claybaugh: No. Generous: No. Slagle: Just the opposite? Generous: The city ordinance would direct what they could do. Their covenants may be more restrictive but then the association would be enforcing that. Aanenson: Right. We would not enforce something that's more restrictive than our ordinance. Papke: But it couldn't be less restrictive? Generous: Correct. Aanenson: Right. The homeowners association, and we do review those to make sure they're not. That's a good point. To make sure they're not less restrictive because sometimes they are in conflict with. Slagle: Actually I'm wondering how many people actually think that someone would go to 5 feet from their property line and put a trailer. Aanenson: We did a slide show. It's, a lot of neighborhoods have that, yeah. Papke: ...have like a circular drive or something like that. You could ostensibly take reasonably close. Aanenson: Correct. I think that's Uli's point. And maybe we need to look at them a little bit closer to see how that works and maybe give some examples. Yeah. Lillehaug: What's it on a corner lot? Maybe you talked about it and ! missed it. How far can you go into the, can you encroach to the 30, if you're on a corner lot, is it 30 foot setback? Generous: There's no structure setback. It would be this 10 foot. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Lillehaug: Generous: structure. Lillehaug: Generous: There's a 30 foot structure setback. Yes, this isn't, a driveway is not considered part of that. It's not a building So how far can you go up the driveway? Well there is separation requirements from the corner but ! don't know exactly what those are from an engineering standpoint. Lillehaug: Right. Sacchet: ! really think you want to look at that a little bit because ! think both places I've lived in Chanhassen ! don't know that I've been able to comply with this. Aanenson: And it is, ! mean there are people with a lot of boats in this community and campers and it is pretty common now. Now the associations do manage how they let people store their. Slagle: Toys. Aanenson: Yeah, equipment. Janet Paulsen: I'd just like to point out with the driveway easement that it's included in driveways and you could end up with a driveway coming right down next to a person's property. He doesn't have any right to complain about an encroachment agreement or anything else. Shouldn't the neighbor be notified and have a chance to object? Also there'd be no privacy with trees or anything. Essentially like having a road go right by. Aanenson: Right now it's not regulated. Right now people just, because it doesn't require a building permit. If you were to pave, there's no requirement for paving. If you're going to pave next to your garage, most people would call the city to ask if they're close on the impervious surface, but that's not a permit that's required. If you want to put in a concrete patio at grade, there's no permit required for that. So right now what we're trying to do is actually have some control on it because there isn't right now. Janet Paulsen: It's considered a structure though. Aanenson: No it's not if not's over 30 inch, it doesn't require a building permit. Janet Paulsen: A driveway's considered a structure. Sacchet: So at this point they can put down hard top or concrete. Aanenson: That's correct. Again, a structure, we wouldn't consider a driveway a structure. Again we'll go back to this argument that we had before. If it was a structure 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 it would have to meet a setback. All structures have to meet building setback. A driveway doesn't have to meet a building setback or it couldn't come out to the street. ! think that point was addressed before. Lillehaug: Is there a definition that excludes a driveway as a structure? When it defines a structure. Aanenson: The building code defines what's a structure and that's again, ! think it's over so many feet in grade. And it'd be like a dog run. We don't require a permit if somebody was to put in a dog run on their side property line, which is another common thing that goes in the side yard. People putting a kennel or a fence. Lillehaug: Janet, do you know something contradictory... Janet Paulsen: Well I think something should be set aside for a driveway easement because it's a special situation. Also there's nothing to prevent the person who has the easement, which is this house, from putting his driveway right next to this house. We have a situation in our neighborhood next to us where they put the driveway just 3 feet from the house. It's just ugly. Sacchet: You mean 3 feet. Janet Paulsen: Plus it's shoreland and there's no place for the water to go. It runs straight down the driveway into the lake. Sacchet: And we don't get involved with that, as a city. Janet Paulsen: There's nothing regulating that. Aanenson: No, what we're putting in place right here would regulate that. How you would address that. Sacchet: So we're making a step in that direction at this point. Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Sacchet: And your point is we should do more Janet or? Janet Paulsen: It doesn't regular a driveway easement from either being right next to a house or right next to the neighboring property without an objection by the neighbor or the property owner. There's no provision for privacy. Lillehaug: ! mean ! definitely see the concern. I'm not too sure how to address it because if you have a house that's 10 foot off the property line, like you're showing there, if something develops further back and splits and there's a private driveway that 42 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 serves 4 or 5 houses back there, ! mean there's going to be a driveway running right by that house just a few feet off from it. Aanenson: Right, but you would see that as part of your review of the subdivision if it was created, that would be addressed. Sacchet: So it should not be a surprise, is that what you're saying? Aanenson: Correct, but again, ! mean we can throw all kinds of what if's. What if someone was to go out and put paver blocks on the side of their garage to park their boat, we wouldn't see that either and it's the same thing. They would put their paver blocks there and our ordinance doesn't say you can't, that's where we want them. That's where most people, so when they look in their back yard, they're not looking at the storage. Some people do store things because they're bigger in their back yard but for the most part that's typically, if you look through the metro area, the most common place to store their additional trailer, boats, yeah is in the side yard, and that's kind of the most acceptable for neighborhoods. Claybaugh: ! think the driveway easements fall into a little different category. Granted they're akin to that but there's also a monetary consideration for someone who's looking at possibly granting that driveway easement to facilitate the development of a lot behind him, and when there's monetary consideration, they're a little more open to doing something that previously may not have been acceptable to have done in their yard. So ! think in that context that the driveway easement does fall into a little different category than just somebody looking at putting pavers or a concrete pad on the side for a boat. It runs the length of the lot more often than not and like ! said, with that monetary consideration ! think the person that' s doing it looks at it with a different set of eyes. Aanenson: We'll just leave it the way it is. That's actually probably easier and we'll just continue to do it the way it's being done now, that's fine. Janet Paulsen: ! think it should be addressed for the driveway easements. Especially in RSF. And in shoreland. Lillehaug: Do you have any specifics on, I'm trying to think how to address it. Aanenson: It's appropriate to the subdivision that's next to them so that's what's driving this. So ! mean those issues were addressed and we've amended several ordinances already to address that. Slagle: Kate, let me ask this. Just for my I call an ignorance standpoint. If I own the home and ! had a 10 yard, 10 foot setback to my neighboring neighbor. To the property line. And they had the same, okay. Are you suggesting that if they wanted to develop a lot behind them and wanted the driveway to go through, they could go to, how close can they go to the property line? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: Well first of all it would require a variance. Slagle: ! understand. Generous: Within, based on the language we have, they can go to the property line. Slagle: Okay. And the neighboring, the neighbor, me in this case wouldn't have any recourse other than hoping that the commission or. Aanenson: Would deny the variance, right. Slagle: Would deny the variance. Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: And what this would put in place is that it has to be a minimum of 5 feet. Generous: No, that's what it is now. We were trying, because it says driveway shall be set back at least, if you look on the bottom of 99, that's the existing language. So there's a 5 foot setback actually begins 20 feet back. So out in front property line you can be up to the property line. We were wondering did we need, really want to say, you have to be separated from the property line at the front. Then as you go back you would be able to get closer and that's what the drawing ! had initially showed. Now ! don't know exactly what, how we want, you're right. This is a tough. Sacchet: ! would agree with you Kate. ! think the original language is probably more like it personally. Janet Paulsen: But if they can get an encroachment agreement and it's going to be right on the line and there's nothing the neighbor can do. Sacchet: Now who do they get the encroachment agreement from? That's a good point Janet. Janet Paulsen: The city. Sacchet: From the city. Aanenson: But that can happen today. Whether there's a private drive or a single driveway. Janet Paulsen: Exactly. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: Right. But we had that discretion again. Let's go back, we had this discussion about boat storage and this, we decided that in the council, the Planning Commission and the council decided that that wasn't an appropriate place to put boat storage and made that decision, so ! don't know. ! don't think we want to do that, unless you want to make that recommendation but. Sacchet: No, ! don't think we want to go there. Anybody want to go there? Aanenson: We'd be chasing everybody out of Carver Beach that all have their. Lillehaug: Storage yes, but ! mean we're talking about... Claybaugh: ! was looking at it in a different context. I'm fully in agreement with you with respect to the storage issue. Sacchet: So your point is the driveway issue. Janet Paulsen: The driveway easement. Sacchet: The easement issue. And to get an encroachment agreement, there's notification to the neighbor or anything like that. Janet Paulsen: Or wouldn't be because the neighbor approves of it. Neighbor wouldn't have anything to say about it. Sacchet: Does neighbor have a chance to. Aanenson: If it's a variance. Sacchet: If it's a variance so the neighbor can come and speak up in a public hearing and all that. Aanenson: As part of the subdivision, correct. Sacchet: Okay, so there is involvement. It's not. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. That's what ! wanted, ! think that's important. Does that help at all? Janet Paulsen: Well ! think if it' s in the code it says they can do it, ! don't know how you can prevent it. Sacchet: Well it would need a variance. For the encroachment. Aanenson: They would need a variance to do the flag lot, to do the common driveway. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Generous: Or to do the easement for access to the new property. Sacchet: Okay, because this specific case that you're talking about is when you have the drive situation. Papke: When they get that variance, does it specify where? Aanenson: As a condition of approval, that's exactly right. You can decide where it should be, and the limitations of that. As a part of the variance, what based on the location of the houses next door, where that easement should be. Should it be wider? Should it be narrower? Claybaugh: So with respect to Jan's property, did they go through the variance process? Aanenson: Correct. Claybaugh: And did you. Generous: Well the ordinance wasn't in place at that time. Claybaugh: That's helpful, thank you. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying, all those changes that we made since then. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: So we should be able to address a similar situation much better than we were at that time. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: That's the moral of the story? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay? Claybaugh: Okay. That's important clarification. Sacchet: Doesn't do much good for your particular situation but looks like it's been taken care of to some extent at least. Janet Paulsen: ! just think for a driveway easement it should be 10 feet, not 5. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Papke: The crux of the issue seems to be, is we don't have any way of discriminating between storage and a driveway that's going to follow traffic. Aanenson: That was my opinion. Papke: We can't discriminate with the way it's written now. We can't distinguish between, is that correct? Aanenson: Well we can say the driveway easement but...what difference would it be? Sacchet: But it is a different process. I think that what we just established Kurt is that if it is for a driveway, accessing the property behind it, that it comes in as in the subdivision process and it would be potential variance... If somebody just stores it, then it's a, ! mean there's a difference. Am ! interpreting this correct? Aanenson: That's right because it's part of the variance. You can attach reasonable conditions. That would tell you what you need for setback. We also talked about the reason we wanted a variance to talk about orientation of a house so it fits, whichever the way the houses are flowing in that neighborhood, and that sort of thing. Sacchet: Okay. Craig, did you have something? Claybaugh: Yeah, I just want to clarify that I didn't understand that there wasn't any process in place with respect to what transpired with Jan's property. That there wasn't any opportunity to address it in front of a variance here. Sacchet: Yeah, this was an unfortunate situation. I don't think we want to go back there. Alright. Generous: Section 20-1124. This is for parking for multi family. You know we're trying to, the parking should really be based on the number of bedrooms that are in the unit, not just that it's multi family so we're recommending that for efficiency and 1 bedroom, that 1 lA stalls be required. For 2 bedrooms or larger, that 2 stalls be required. For senior housing we already provided but we're looking at 1 parking stall for independent living and 1/3 stall for per dwelling unit for assisted or dementia units. And then finally for all multi family, you'd have 4¼ stall per unit for visitor parking, so you'd add the total of those all up. Section 20-1124 again. Slagle: Quick question. How do you work it if you don't have the number of units that divide into either a half or a quarter? Generous: Then it always goes up. Sacchet: You always round up. Generous: You round up. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Slagle: Okay. Generous: For office buildings we were increasing initially the number of parking spaces per 1,000 feet from 4 lA to 5, and then for the first 50,000, then the next 50,000 it would be 4 spaces and then the next 50, or above 100,000 it would be 3 spaces per 1,000. We'd also exclude a common areas and we did this variance exercise for one of the office buildings in the community and showed that we're over parking in a lot of our buildings. Next Section 11. Sacchet: So with these adjustments we should be boiled hard with this? Generous: Well we think so because for offices we'll get a little bit more, if it's strictly an office use initially. That we'll exclude the areas that won't, can't be used for offices. Kind of common hallways, elevator shafts, things like that. Lillehaug: Then someone can do a parking study and just throw all this out the window, right? Generous: Potentially. We're seeing offices actually might be coming in with 6 per 1,000. Aanenson: They want to go higher, and again, especially if it's, they're going into more flexible cubes, which tend to be more concentrated. Generous: The next section is just there are 2 per brackets that were in there that need to be removed. Page 102. Again for landscape islands or peninsulas, we want to be at least 10 feet from behind the curb. Sacchet: So we would have to. Generous: So we won't have the aeration. We'll have more actual area for the trees to grow in and you get healthier trees. Page 103, for landscaping. If you want to count it as an understory tree, evergreens are 6 feet tall and 1 lA caliper inch. If you want them to count for overstory trees, they have to be a minimum of 8 feet tall. Under (c), we're removing that materials list. We require landscape professionals to do this. We have a landscape professional on staff to review it so having this list is not necessary. And on the next page we are removing all the listings. Signs. Page 108. These are established in Chapter 4. We wanted to on number 11 add, we don't currently have anything for open houses or realty signs. We have been treating them sort of like garage sale signs and so this is very similar language. It cannot be in public right-of-way. If you want to put them up, you need the property owner's permission. And then if the city has to go out and collect them, we want to be able to assess a fee. We'd rather them put it in the right place and not have to do that, but so we have language to discuss that. ! did make a presentation to the Edina Realty and tell them we were working on this. ! haven't heard back from them. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: Do we actually have to go out and remove signs like that? Aanenson: Yes...especially if it's in a sight line, which they sometimes do over the weekend. The other complaint we get is from homeowners that are on the corner lots. They get stuck in their yard a lot and if they don't ask the owner, and it's in their yard, they'll probably get removed, and we advise the realtors of that too. But it's kind of a burden for those on the corner. Sacchet: So it's an ongoing issue. Aanenson: Yeah. Papke: What about political campaign signs? Aanenson: Those are separately. Papke: Addressed? Aanenson: Yep. Actually there's limited control on that, except unless they're in the sight line or right-of-way. Generous: Yes, it's mostly size and notation restriction. Otherwise you get into the private. Aanenson: I think it just references the state statutes on that. Slagle: So there's not a question on the party affiliation. Keefe: ! had a question on the wording where it just says they may be removed within 2 days after the end of the event. If it's a house for rent, what's the event? Aanenson: Right, correct. Right, I'm not sure we can say that...and when it says open house, it doesn't have a date on there so you, ! would concur. That's probably not the best language. Generous: Okay, page 109. We just wanted to add RLM district as a residential district and R-16. Down on 109, the bottom, we were talking. We had this drawing. Currently to get at wall sign you have to have street frontage. In this instance, hypothetically this is the street here. You'd only be permitted signs on this side and this side. While we're requiring a lot of people to design their projects and they have parking on an interior, this language would permit them to do that provided that this is a main entrance for the unit. And so in this instance we show both that this was the main entrance for that one. It doesn't front on the street but it could have that sign over it's entrance. That's the case in each of the districts... 49 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: And again ! think you've been seeing requests on that. Claybaugh: Buffalo Wild Wings. Generous: Chipotle. Aanenson: Holiday Inn even too wanted, you know depending on where there's street frontages, and they did have an agreement, they wanted one on the other side which they didn't have a public street. They're going to share parking with that restaurant. We don't know what it's going to be yet, so we see that as a problem so we just wanted to put that in the code. Claybaugh: ! would like to, ! know going back to Buffalo Wild Wings was, there's some discussion regarding the need for the size of the lettering. And if there's anything that we could reference for any standards for that based on, there was, they were basically indicating they just needed to identify which was which because there was the signage and the monument was on the street side of the building. And they came out with, ! forget how tall the letters were but ! think you could see them from the theater. And like to be able to reference some industry standards for what would be reasonable for sight line distance. Aanenson: There is proportionality for the area that it's going on. Currently. Generous: ...talk about the size of the individual letter. Aanenson: Just the wall area. Generous: Yeah, just the total sign area so we can look at references and standards. I'll have Sharmeen look into that. Claybaugh: So we have some consistency. Generous: Beginning on the bottom of 110. Lori wanted us, just to add paths in the bluff protection ordinance. That people can put those down, and that they comply with the standards. Again the bottom of that page, Community Development Director instead of Planning Director. Towers and antennas, just taking out a couple brackets on the page 112. And the Bluff Creek Overlay District is Bluff Creek Overlay District, not the Bluff Creek Watershed regulations. Clarify that. Community Development Director. Overlay district again. The zone. And that related to, on the last page, talked about development of continuous greenery. Then finally structures must be, and this is an attorney talking setback, two words, and they wanted us to put the word twenty as well as 20 feet. Sacchet: Alright. We did it. So with that, and is there any more comments? This is still open for public hearing. ! guess we need to close that eventually. Jerry. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen once more. Just a comment, I'd like to thank all the commissioners who are serving on the Planning Commission. ! realize it takes a lot of time to do this job properly and some of you volunteered to do it with a chance to retire so that speaks well of you. I'm a 34 year resident of Chanhassen and ! would like to comment that ! think you're taking the code more seriously than some of your predecessors have taken and that's good as far as making your decisions so thank you for having us make our public comments here and for taking your time to do that. One other comment on the 35 foot house height, ! guess ! mentioned this before. The DNR says it should be 25 feet max in shoreland, which is 1,000 feet from a lake. Chanhassen chose to go with the 35 foot. And just as a matter of discussion, in Section 20-479 on page 59, there's a table with lakes and there's a proposed addition of adding a column for the ordinary high water line. Is that to be a source for surveyors or where did they get it prior to this if they didn't have it in code? And the DNR sets this, ! assume the DNR would be the source for that information but. Generous: Correct. These are the numbers that we did receive from the state. We put it on our map and we're just putting it here for. Jerry Paulsen: It's convenience of the developer? Generous: Well convenience of the city or property owner. Aanenson: Or anybody, any homeowner because if you're going to do an addition to your house, you still have to meet a setback to the OHW so it's for anybody. Any resident that lives in, adjacent to a riparian lot. Sacchet: And those numbers are... Aanenson: Right now they're posted on all the city maps but it's easier to have it in the code where they can download it and figure out how to read that. So again we're trying to make this more user friendly for the code too, and what's not turning up in here is a lot of the graphics that we'll be adding in, so what we'd like to do. Sacchet: A lot of pictures? Aanenson: Correct. As we close the public hearing, come back in the next meeting with a draft .... so there's opportunity to comment before that next meeting. Our goal is you should close it now and review with you those final comments so we can get it back to you and up to the City Council. So again kind of talk about the discussion points if there were still some issues you wanted clarification on... and that were raised and get some answers to that. Those questions too. Lillehaug: Can ! ask a question on that? What is the date of the mapping used for your OHW elevations? Is it recent? And the reason ! ask is, if the DNR changes their OHW out, and we have something in our code that's contradictory to it. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Aanenson: We'd have to amend it. Lillehaug: Do we have, are we going to get the proper, timely notification to do that? And the reason ! ask is if a homeowner comes in here, puts his house in at this elevation, and the OHW increased, while we put it into something that's in our code but it may not be proper in the DNR. Aanenson: I'm not sure that they're that fluid but we can check on that for you. Lillehaug: And typically ! think the city is the one that petitions an elevation change. Aanenson: Correct. We can check on that. Lillehaug: But just in case ! guess. Jerry Paulsen: ! think Lotus is 1963 so it doesn't happen very often. Aanenson: Right, ! would concur. It's been. Jerry Paulsen: But it is a point well taken ! think. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Well, unless anybody has a closing comment, ! will close the public hearing. This has been going on for a while. ! want to thank everybody for your comments as well. It's great to have residents that take such a good interest in the code and then give us all this input. It's my understanding, just as you summarized Kate, that staff will take the comments and refine them and basically bring them back to us so at this point it would be suitable for us to table that until you bring it back, is that the idea? Aanenson: Correct. And I think the goal is too is to do an executive cover memo, kind of highlighting the salient points that were raised and how we addressed them so everybody understands. You're not trying to go through the code and find those. The retaining walls for example, so there will be quite a bit of executive summary on that. Sacchet: So at this point there is no further need for discussion of the Planning Commission? We hold our discussion until we get your executive summary, directed at commission as well as staff?. Generous: We would request that you provide us any additional comments for revisions to it before we make it into the ordinance form. Like those issues that you want additional information, like Kate said, we will point that out as part of our executive summary next time. It will be, so there will be a clean copy next time. You won't have strike through and underline and zoning ordinance. Aanenson: So it's a go with the executive summary and a clean ordinance that you can advance up to the council. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2004 Sacchet: In view of that commissioners, is there any further comments, discussion that you would like to have now? Aanenson: Otherwise if there's something too you can e-mail us if you have questions. Sacchet: So if not, ! would suggest we make a motion to table so that it can be brought in front of us with an executive summary to close that out. Lillehaug: So moved. Sacchet: Second? Claybaugh: Okay. Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded to table review of changes proposed to Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Generous: Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you Bob and Kate. That's a big job there. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Slagle noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated March 2, 2004 and March 16, 2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 53