Loading...
10.03.2023 Planning CommissionCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2023 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Kelsey Alto, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe. MEMBERS ABSENT: Erik Johnson. STAFF PRESENT: Eric Maass, Planning Director; and Rachel Jeske, Planning Intern PUBLIC PRESENT: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER A VARIANCE FOR 7301 LAREDO DRIVE TO BUILD A DECK Planning Intern Rachel Jeske gave a summary of the staff report, noting the applicant is requesting to demolish an existing deck and replace it with a deck addition of a larger size. This deck would meet the existing shoreland setback requirement of 60 feet. The proposed deck allows for current usage of property. Commissioner Jobe asked when the site survey was done to establish the setback for the lake. Planning Director Eric Maass stated the DNR establishes the elevation of the ordinary high water level for the lake. Commissioner Goff asked where the stairs would be in the new deck project. Ms. Jeske stated there would be no stairs. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the variance request to permit the applicant to reconstruct the deck with a 15-foot variance subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 Commissioner Soller requested to update the minutes so the motion reads that the Planning Commission recommends that the resulting acronym for the Business District is not CBD. Commissioner Schwartz clarified the terminology differences between CBD and THC. He clarified these terms are not used interchangeably. He stated CBD is not psychoactive. Chair Noyes shared that individuals may be confused by the acronym CBD, which is why he hoped to update the acronym. Planning Commission Minutes – OCTOBER 3, 2023 2 Commissioner Soller moved, Chair Noyes seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated September 19, 2023 subject to the insertion of the word “not” in the sentence to state: “district is not CBD” to reflect accurate discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Commissioner’s Alto and Soller recused themselves from this item. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. DISCUSS CITY CODE DEFINITION UPDATES PURSUANT TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENTS Planning Director Eric Maass shared the updated permitted uses in the CBD ordinances. Staff prepared proposed definitions for the terms now included as permitted uses within the CBD zoning district. The terms Commercial Office, Commercial Retail, Commercial Services, Entertainment, Government Services, and Restaurants will be formally defined by ordinance. Chair Noyes asked how they would see the draft at the next meeting and whether the commissioners would vote. Mr. Maass stated it would be in a formal ordinance form and that staff would seek a formal recommendation and vote from the planning commission on the proposed ordinance language. Commissioner Soller asked if they are questioning if this list encompasses all that is desired in the Central Business District. Mr. Maass stated yes apart from Commercial Services and Entertainment. Staff has included examples of these in the definition, but it is not limited to these options. Commissioner Goff asked if there would be a limit to the number of liquor licenses granted. Chair Noyes asked where breweries, distilleries, and wine-tasting rooms fall into these definitions. Mr. Maass shared that those types of businesses were already included as permitted uses within the CBD zoning district and therefore already have existing definitions in the City’s ordinance. Commissioner Schwartz asked if movie theaters were included in the code. Mr. Maass stated it would be an entertainment use. Commissioner Schwartz asked if a movie theater should be included in the ordinance. Mr. Maass stated the term entertainment would be a catch-all for a business like a movie theater. Commissioner Soller asked if there would be proposals brought forward ten years from now that did not fit within the definition, what the process for exceptions would be. Mr. Maass stated staff would bring forward a proposed use that did not fit within the definition before the Planning Commission for a zoning decision. Commissioner Soller questioned the inclusion of the term indoor for entertainment. Mr. Maass shared the intent was to promote indoor entertainment, but there could be considerations for other outdoor activities. Commissioner Alto wondered if indoor entertainment was useful to ensure entertainment options would be operational year-round. Mr. Maass stated they would amend the entertainment definition. Commissioner Alto asked where fitness establishments would fit in. Mr. Maass stated this would be defined as commercial services. Commissioner Schwartz asked how we account for semi-permanent or outdoor activities, such as rides during the 4th of July. Mr. Maass stated these would fall under the temporary event permit. This document would not impact those opportunities. Planning Commission Minutes – OCTOBER 3, 2023 3 Commissioner Goff asked Commissioner Schwartz for clarification on the differences between outdoor spaces. He shared examples that could be a splash pad or a rooftop experience. He did not want the word indoor to detract businesses. Mr. Maass stated they would ensure there would be fair enterprise between public and private amenities. Commissioner Soller asked if the commercial office definition would permit a large-scale office building. Mr. Maass stated there would be multiple considerations in the scenario, such as the zoning and setback and the location of the business. Commissioner Alto stated that it would be permissible if there were retail on the first floor of the commercial office. Commissioner Alto asked about the difference between commercial office and commercial industrial. She asked whether we wanted the extra traffic if it is not commercial. Chair Noyes suggested providing examples of commercial offices. He also questioned whether considering health offerings should be its own definition. Mr. Maass shared that the difference between commercial services and commercial retail would be whether you can walk in without an appointment for services, but stated they could provide additional examples within these definitions. Commissioner Soller asked what the government services definition would entail and whether other government offices could take up valuable downtown space. Chair Noyes shared these offices could be priced out of the downtown space. Commissioner Alto asked if we would consider the percentages of these categories in the Central Business District to consider the ideal balance for local option sales tax purposes. Mr. Maass stated this is provided by the legislature through the legislation and has already been established. Mr. Maass stated the percentages would not be applicable to the district definitions. 2. DISCUSS MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY, SENIOR, OFFICE, RETAIL, AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Planning Director Eric Maass shared the importance of periodically reviewing sections of the city code to consider if it is appropriate. Mr. Maass shared other cities they referenced when comparing the code. He reviewed the recommended spaces for multi-family uses. Staff recommends changing requirements from 1.5 to 1.0 parking spaces for efficiency units. He reviewed the parking requirements for senior living and recommended changing assisted living to 1.0 parking spaces for every 4 units. For office space, staff does not recommend parking changes. For retail, staff recommends moving to require 1 space for every 250 square feet. For shopping centers, the proposed incorporation of a cap of no more than 125% of required parking allowed. They recommended no revisions to the restaurant parking standards. Mr. Maass requested the Planning Commission’s feedback on these revisions. Chair Noyes asked for clarification on the math for townhome parking spaces and whether they included garage space, driveway spaces, and guest parking spaces. He also asked if the driveway spaces were a viable parking spot, would it take away the need for guest parking requirements. Mr. Maass stated the Chanhassen code requires a certain length for a driveway to accommodate parking. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the fractional spaces shown in the presentation. Mr. Maass stated these are the averages based on the other communities that were surveyed as part of the analysis staff completed. Commissioner Schwartz asked whether these requirements would apply to a building project such as Avenda, noting the established PUD with Avenda has established required parking standards. Commissioner Schwartz asked whether the width was considered within these definitions. Mr. Maass stated they have considered the dimensions and the drive aisle. The drive aisle is impacted based on drive Planning Commission Minutes – OCTOBER 3, 2023 4 aisle for fire apparatus movement, head-in parking, 45-degree angle parking, or parallel parking. Mr. Maass stated there is a standard already. Commissioner Jobe asked for clarification on assisted living over 20 units if the garage stalls are underneath as well. Mr. Maass stated he would clarify. Chair Noyes questioned where handicap-accessible spaces would fall into these requirements. Mr. Maass shared building code stipulates the number of handicap spots per ratio of total spots required and mandates handicap spots be most accessible to the building. Commissioner Schwartz asked if electric vehicle (EV) chargers were considered in these requirements. Mr. Maass stated that when working with multi-family developers, they encourage them to provide all the electric conduits necessary for EV charging for future use. Mr. Maass stated the private developers are often already making these choices and he can do further research into other cities’ ordinances to see the EV ratios. Commissioner Soller questioned whether we should allow EV parking spots to be constructed in the Downtown Business District in the future. Mr. Maass stated the current ordinance would allow for an established business parking lot to provide these spaces. Mr. Soller requested a comparison with the other cities to see their discussion on EV charging. Mr. Maass affirmed that this would be an option and recommended considering other cities’ data as well. Commissioner Goff questioned whether providing a bank of Tesla parking chargers would be a commercial service. Mr. Maass stated the chargers would be secondary to the office or building use. The Tesla charger alone would not be permitted use and would need to be connected with a specific permitted use. Commissioner Jobe asked what the typical unit split between efficiency, one bedroom, and two bedroom units are for multifamily projects being constructed. Mr. Maass stated that one-bedroom buildings are most common, but staff are encouraging more opportunities for efficiency spaces and two- and three- bedroom spaces. Commissioner Soller clarified that apartment buildings under twenty units do not require a garage stall. Mr. Maass confirmed this but shared they do not frequently see building proposals that small. Commissioner Soller asked why underground or covered parking is required in residential buildings but not for other buildings. Mr. Maass stated this requirement is to avoid detached garages and encourage underground parking. Commissioner Soller questioned whether we were losing out on appropriate development by requiring this standard. Mr. Maass clarified the functional differences between residential and commercial parking. Commercial parking is more free-flowing and not assigned to any individual. Commissioner Soller stated some cities that require vertical or underground parking can be considered more attractive. Mr. Maass shared the cost difference between structured parking and a paved parking lot, which is why there is a preference for the surface lot for commercial or industrial use. Commissioner Schwartz asked for the price difference between a parking ramp and underground parking. Mr. Maass stated the underground parking lot would require additional excavation and both involved added structural work. These would both be more expensive than a surface parking lot. Commissioner Jobe asked whether we enforced any requirements with permeable asphalt. Mr. Maass stated there is information for permeable paver portion for residential lot cover. They could consider Planning Commission Minutes – OCTOBER 3, 2023 5 permeable pavements as a BMP solution to satisfy water resource requirements for a site plan review. Mr. Maass would defer to the Engineering Department for more information on this topic. Commissioner Soller confirmed there was no change to single-family parking requirements. Mr. Maass introduced Planning Intern Rachel Jeske. Mr. Maass shared there were no vacancies in the Planning Department. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Goff moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Planning Director