Loading...
PC 2007 06 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2007 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad and Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner TH LAKE RILEY WOODS 4 ADDITION: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE SIX OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PIONEER CIRCLE ON 3.43 ACRES ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2, LOCATED AT PIONEER TRAIL AND PIONEER CIRCLE. APPLICANT, CARVER COUNTY, PLANNING CASE 07-14. Public Present: Name Address Anne Nelson 9870 Pioneer Circle Steve Taylor Carver County Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Start down here to my right and let the ladies begin. Thomas: I don't have any questions right now. Larson: Ditto. Dillon: When you say it's going to be conveyed to someone, what does that mean? I mean I know kind of what conveyed means but in the context of this site. Generous: By platting it they can legally transfer the parcel as a separate entity to the abutting property owners. And you may want to ask the County how they're going to go about that specifically but it's just a way to unite them under one ownership if you will. But with 6 different parcels. So like I said, the County would retain Outlots A and E and then the abutting, the B, C, D and F would be transferred to the neighboring properties. Dillon: Okay. So then, alright. Process on that for a second. That's the only question I have for right now but I might have another one. McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Papke: The map shows a recreational trail in the area, what on Outlot A. Did you speak to that perhaps before I came in? Generous: No I didn't but that's, currently there are some tracks from people using it for four wheeling. ATV's on it. Papke: Okay, so they're not, these aren't intended to be city maintained trails? These are informal trails. Generous: Yeah, informal that are existing right now and any storm water project they'd be obliterated. Papke: Alright, that's all I have. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No. McDonald: Dan? Keefe: I have no questions. McDonald: I'm not sure if I'm following up on Kevin's question or not but you talked about Outlot B and Mr. Peterson wanting a line to shift so that he has enough property. I'm not sure I quite, is the line, what's the impact on Outlot B? Is it as drawn or are we going to shift something in the future and this isn't solid or what? Generous: Well the plat would be approved as it's shown on here. He would like this line shifted up so that, he currently has 1.21 acres so he would need another 1.3 acres approximately to get the 2 1/2 acres. That would shift the line somewhere up here. Need a 75 foot strip in there. However he never in the past had the 2 1/2 acre. He has a legal non-conforming status on the property so they'll always be able to use it for the single family home and accessory structures. But he says, since they're going through the process now they would like to, if possible, bring it up to there and our concern by doing that, then you'd have a drainage and utility easement over private property and we run into issues when we try to do storm water projects on private property, even though we have the easement so that's. McDonald: Because what I wasn't sure of was, are we going to shift it in the future. I think what you answered is no. It's as drawn. Generous: No, it'd be as drawn unless you decide tonight that you want to make, have that shift made. McDonald: Okay. Kevin, do you have a follow-up? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Dillon: Okay. So then kind of like along that line, there's I guess really no need to shift the property line if he's got a house there and it's, everything's hunky dory. I mean. Generous: That's correct. There's no, besides having more land, they have this, he doesn't gain much. Well he gains additional land but. Dillon: So then it kind of gets back to, so will then these property owners own all this new land? It will be like their's? Generous: That's the idea that it would be transferred to them as part of their lots, if you will. Their parcels. McDonald: Does anyone else have any questions? Is the applicant here? Steve Taylor: Yes. McDonald: Come on up and state your name and please address the commission. Steve Taylor: Thank you. My name is Steve Taylor. I am the Administrative Services Division Director with Carver County and good evening to you Mr. Chair and to the commissioners here. This issue has been going on since I would say 1987. Since the road realignment and what we're doing here is we are completing the clean-up of that. Pioneer Trail being realigned and this was caused by the realignment of Pioneer Trail. That's what caused this issue. Originally these residences were, had road frontage and they don't anymore, and so what we're trying to do here is to clean-up what took place back in 1987, and frankly should have been done some time ago. And we are, our intent is to make these homeowners well, if you will, as a result of the realignment that took place in '87. Get them to where they were, although they do benefit from the increased land that's being conveyed to them so that's our intent here. Also we are looking at a Torrens action taking place, and that will clean out the property lines. It will deal with the easements that are in place. It will deal with a prescriptive use. Land issues that are in place at this point in time, and it's also going to deal with a gap that's in place that the survey found. There's approximately, it's a 4-5 foot gap of ownership that has unknown ownership at this point so there are a host of issues here that this Torrens action will clean up and as a part of that we are looking at conveying these various outlots to these homeowners and we have met with all of the homeowners except for one. One owner lives in Florida actually for part of the year but I talked to that individual on the phone and faxed him some of the information we were looking at here so. So that's kind of the background of about 20 years worth of background in about 5 or 6 minutes so. McDonald: Okay. Dan, you want to start? Keefe: Just a quick question. You're cleaning up a lot of problems but you know there is some value perhaps to the land being conveyed to them. Are there any dollars being exchanged? Steve Taylor: No. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Keefe: So the value will just be conveyed in their increased taxes to them because they have larger lot sizes now. Steve Taylor: Well right, they have larger lot sizes and they pay taxes and they own more land of course as well. There was a letter that was written in 1987 that said that we would be doing something like this eventually. Even though it's taken 20 years but we said that we would look at re-platting this property so. Keefe: Sounds like you kind of as an equal exchange… Steve Taylor: Right. Keefe: Okay. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Just to clarify that. Nobody's lots will be up to 2 1/2 acres even after you do all this, right? Steve Taylor: You know I don't know the answer to that. Generous: No, they would not. Undestad: Okay. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: I'm all set. McDonald: You're all set? Larson: The property that, where the road was before, so it would have been on the north side of Pioneer Trail which is what, where this is shifted, correct? The road went further north so that's why it created this piece of land? Steve Taylor: Actually it went south. It went. Larson: I meant the land was further north. Steve Taylor: Oh, correct. Larson: So who owned that prior? Was that…I'm trying, I agree that this is a good plan but I'm trying to understand what, going back to the conveyance part you know. There's no money exchanged. Did somebody lose out on the deal? Steve Taylor: Well the County owns this land right now. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Larson: The County, okay. Okay. Steve Taylor: Right now. And this is what's called a remnant I believe. This is not my area of expertise, but this is a remnant from that road realignment essentially. Larson: Okay. Because I kept reading it and reading it and, alright. Steve Taylor: Yeah, good question. Yeah. Larson: That's all I got. Thank you. McDonald: Kathleen. Thomas: Okay. So I heard a remnant. Is there, it's a planned time that it becomes an even…now that it becomes within their property lines or are we just going to leave it the way it's been? That's kind of the plan? Steve Taylor: Well the intent is to create these outlots here and the homeowners, and you can see that the boundary lines, we've just, we've tried to extend them to the extent we can here. And Outlot A and Outlot E would be retained by the County but the others would be, would be actually then conveyed to the property owners. That's the intent. Thomas: And then allow them to do whatever it is they want to technically with that? Steve Taylor: Right. Thomas: And if they wanted to go and mow it or something, that'd be okay? Steve Taylor: Right. And actually improvements have been made to county owned property right now. I mean trees have been planted. There's been some landscaping done. I mean 20 years is a long time. Thomas: Yeah, okay. That's it. McDonald: I don't have any further questions, unless someone wants to ask a follow-up and say thank you very much for your discussion with us. This is a public meeting so at this point I would open the podium to those who wish to come forward and make comment on this. What I would ask is that you come up, state your name and address and address the commissioners. Well seeing no one come forward, I will close the public meeting. I will bring it back to the commissioners for discussion. Start with you Dan. Keefe: Nothing. McDonald: Mark. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Undestad: I'm good. Papke: I think this is a good thing. It doesn't get us to 2 1/2 acres but I think it's our duty as a planning commission to always get legal non-conforming lots into the positive direction of conformance and I think this is in that direction so I think it's the right thing for us to do. McDonald: Okay. I'm not sure I fully understand the 2 1/2 but I'm not sure it's worth asking questions about. I agree with what Kurt's saying. It looks as though we're trying to move in the right direction so this seems fine to me. Kevin. Dillon: I agree with all those comments as well as the Outlot A and E which you know have some of the most visibility here will be kept by the County and so they'll be kept up you know without having to wait for an individual party so I think that's good. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: Pretty much everything's been said. Looks fine to me. McDonald: Okay. Kathleen. Thomas: Ditto. McDonald: Okay. Then ready to accept a motion. Keefe: I'll make the motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a 6 outlot subdivision, plans prepared SRF Consulting Group, Incorporated dated May 24, 2007, subject to two conditions, 1 and 2. McDonald: Second? Papke: Second. Larson: Second. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a six outlot subdivision, plans prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., dated 5/24/07, subject to the following conditions: 1. Outlots A and E should be deeded to the City or entirely encumbered by drainage and utility easements granted to the City in order to accommodate future stormwater improvements. At a minimum, all property below the 914 contour should be reserved for future stormwater improvements. 2. Provide the City with a set of as-built drawings of the road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING, CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay, Kathleen. You want to start? Thomas: Just give me a second. No, I'll come back. McDonald: Okay. I'll come back to you. Debbie. Larson: So you wouldn't consider the one, is it 1304, the signs size. It seems to me that the 80 foot as opposed to 65 would make more sense in light of the new highway corridor. Generous: State highway corridor? Larson: Right. Generous: It may. You would have, if you're going faster, it may be appropriate to have larger signage but the way this is written, it wasn't clear. Larson: Well, why was it written like this in the first place? For what purpose? For where? Generous: It was like that and it was pointed out to me that we have conflicting standards. Larson: So which was first? Generous: Well 64 is pretty standard. It's an 8 by 8 panel if you will. And we allow 8 foot tall signs so that made sense of that. 80 square feet would be an 8 by 10 sign area. I think that's more, you know. Larson: Well that's what I'm saying. Which came first and why are we changing the 80 down? If you wanted to question that. Generous: Yeah, I'm not certain which came first. McDonald: Excuse me. Do you have any examples you could give us of signs that exist or something as a frame of reference for us? Generous: None that are the 80 square feet. Mostly we see the 64 come in. And even smaller than that for monument signs. Larson: Target? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Generous: But that's a different zoning category and they have a pylon sign which you're allowed to have the 80 square feet. Larson: Oh! Okay. Explain the difference between pylon signs and what we're talking about here. Generous: Well the pylon signs are allowed to go up to 20 feet in the air and you can have a 80 square foot sign area, if you're on the state highway corridor. However, and that's where the question, if they didn't do the pylon, would they do, and they did a monument, would we allow them to maintain the 80 square feet? Larson: Oh, from the ground it would look too big. Generous: Yes, it would look. Larson: Okay. Papke: How big's the Halla sign? Generous: I don't know. McDonald: Is that a monument or a pylon? Generous: That's a monument sign, but it's over the 8 feet. Because that was, the original sign there was non-conforming as part of the settlement agreement that was allowed to remain and then because of the widening of the intersection they had to remove it and as part of that he was upgrading it and now we're where we are. But I think that's about 12 feet tall I think, if I remember correctly. Larson: Just curious. McDonald: Okay. Kevin. Dillon: I've got a few questions on Section 20-91 there's one of the items you said if the deck's less than 30 inches above the ground and not attached to the principal structure. Why are they being, what is the, why not deck's over 30 inches above the ground? Generous: Well if they're over 30 inches tall they need a building permit. Dillon: Oh, okay. Generous: And if they're attached to the principal structure you need a variance. Dillon: Got it. So for some of these you know changes like this first one that would arguably affect a lot of homeowners and stuff, how is this communicated and then how do you ensure compliance? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Generous: Well we try to put it out in our newsletter. We have it in the city's, on the city's web site. We write articles about it and try to get it out there. If people call in, do I need a permit for this? Again that's, at one hand this is called a zoning compliance review and people weren't coming in because they'd call and said do I need a permit to do this and we'd say well no, you don't but you do need to have it reviewed and then they're, well I don't need a permit so I'm not coming in. Dillon: And then so then if someone is, isn't aware and they do something that runs afoul of the new guidelines here, then what do we do? Generous: Well if we discover that someone has built it with, there's no fee involved in this but if we discover that they're over on impervious or something, then we try, we work with them to try to reduce that and get it back to code compliance. Technically it is a violation of the zoning ordinance and we could cite them for being above impervious surface or hard surfaces on a property or too close to setback and compel them to make the corrections. Dillon: Okay. On page 4 it's the issue that starts out with city codes require storage of boats, so on and so forth. How about ice fishing houses? Do you need to spell them out too? Because there's one on Powers Boulevard going north towards Excelsior that's obnoxious and it's in front of these tennis courts in ill repair and there's also trailers and stuff in the driveway, like way in front of the house. You know you've got to kind of look kind of hard to see them because there's like trees around there and everything but they would certainly not be in compliance with the code. Commissioner Larson made a comment that was not picked up on the tape. Dillon: Well I think it's Carver County, Chanhassen I'm pretty sure but I don't know. Maybe it's over the border but it's right near the northern end of Chanhassen that's for sure. Anyways so, you might want to throw all season, ice fishing houses in there. Generous: That would be under a separate section under the outdoor storage requirements. I can check into that but. Dillon: That was, you know I was just reading this the other day and I just, literally about an hour before I read this I walked by that property and I said this has got to go. Then so, the other things there were the signs which I think you already answered some questions on that so those were my comments. I just wanted a little clarification on. McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Papke: On the perpendicular driveways with the right-of-way, no one's going to have a perfect 90 degrees. At what point are you going to enforce this? Do you need a tolerance on that, plus or minus something or? You know what I'm saying? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Generous: Right. And actually that was part of our discussion with the engineering department. What if we had a steep driveway and you come down at an angle and they said well we'll give it some relief from the strict 90 degree angle. Papke: So you would just handle that on a case by case basis. Generous: Right, and it'd be more site specific. Lot specific. Papke: On the accessory driveways, I have several, there's several driveways in my neighborhood that are made of gravel and there's no mention of gravel in here. Does that need to be included? Excluded? Do you care? It's permeable so, but I only bring it up because it's a case that you haven't covered and they do exist. My driveway is gravel. Generous: It may be appropriate to include that language for gravel. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: I just, my only comments on the size, I would leave the 80 on the highways and 64 on the… Generous: So you would have us clarify that they be, low profile sign on a state highway may be 80 square feet rather than just going with 64. Keefe: I've got a question on that façade transparency. Why are we…something on buildings before 2001? From the windows…on their expansion. Generous: Prior to 2001? Keefe: Yeah. Generous: Because the standards weren't in place prior to then. So we have buildings that have architectural detailing that while it may be attractive and comply with ordinance at that time, the new ones would require that they put more windows in. Keefe: So if you're going to expand the building, wouldn't we still want to have that transparency thing? Part of the transparency is the, add more window space. Make it more… Generous: Right and that. Keefe: …on their old you know, if they didn't have the standards weren't in place and they're just putting in a flat wall. I guess the way I'm thinking of it, wouldn't we say to the buyer that they need to have the transparency. If they don't have the transparency then they can… Generous: Well then, then the question, do we want to take them through the variance process to do that? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Keefe: Yeah. Undestad: Part of that problem when you look at expanding the building or somebody's on the façade of their building, that they have X amount of feet on there. They might have to make that whole thing transparent in order to comply with this because back in, prior to 2001 they didn't need nearly as much. It might be tough for some of these other… Keefe: And it wouldn't be practical… Generous: Right, and you may get a funny looking building. We always push them to provide us with a lot of architectural detailing but so, but whether or not it should be windows or the use of span row if it's appropriate. It provides us with the same architectural feeling but currently it's prohibited. You need a variance to do that and it may make sense to allow that use and you get a lot of the same affect. McDonald: Okay. I guess the one thing I wanted to ask about was, you talk about snow storage. That you can't, you know on your driveways, if you have a larger driveway now and you're clearing off your driveway, you can't use adjacent, I think what you mean is like property lines to the next person over to store snow on. Some of these driveways are pretty close together. I mean don't, aren't you going to have a problem as far as getting that enforced because of the way, you know if we have big snows, you can end up with quite a bit of snow storage on the sides of your driveway. Generous: Right. Primarily we were looking at the construction of new driveways. That they be designed so that they don't encourage that type of. McDonald: Okay. But that's new driveways. What about old driveways? I mean the way I read this, it implies driveways. Generous: Well except for anything before this wouldn't have those standards. It'd be non- conforming if they were, but they'd be legal non-conforming. They had a right to be like that at one time. McDonald: Okay, you've got me totally confused now. Be like what? Generous: Well let's say they're built, they're in place now. McDonald: Okay. Generous: Before this ordinance is adopted and it's 2 inches from the property line. McDonald: Okay, I got ya. Generous: So they have legal standing to keep that. It's only when they altered that, this would take in and we would look at the design. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 McDonald: Okay. Then the other question I had about this was, and this may be in here and I'm just not seeing it but okay we're now looking at having to have a zoning permit if you want to expand you driveway to put the extra space on and stuff. That's within 1122, is that correct? So that you know that if I'm going to expand my driveway, it says within that section. I don't have to go to another section and see that I've also got…ordinance. You're not following? Generous: Well now it's in Section 20-91 that says that we require a zoning permit for it now. McDonald: Okay. Generous: But it doesn't specifically say it in the driveway section that you have to do it. McDonald: Right, and so if I go to, you know I want to see what I can do to my driveway and I look up and oh, access and driveways and I look at 1122, there's nothing in there that tells me about this you know in order, a zoning permit is required if I'm going to do this. Generous: If you're going to expand, right. McDonald: Expand my driveway. So there's nothing within 1122. I have to go to another section to find that out. Why couldn’t it also be in 1122? Generous: It could be. That you're required to. We were just trying to put into the zoning permit what things we require. McDonald: Okay. But I hear you're having a problem you know getting people to do things and part of it is, if they call up and ask about driveways and they don't ask the right question and if you don't think, oh and by the way you've got to get a permit also, again they think oh okay. All I've got to do is you know do it at this and keep it and again they're putting something in without getting a permit. Generous: Right. McDonald: I mean do you follow? Generous: Yeah, I follow if they're connecting to our roadway, if they have a separate permit under engineering for road connection. This is just for… McDonald: The side thing goes up to the garage. Generous: Well if they're trying to do a turn around or something on the property. We could include it in there, expansion of driveways require a zoning permit. McDonald: Well I only bring it up because again, that's what you're trying to accomplish here but yet if I don't know to go to another section which 1190 and look at zoning permits and everything, I'm probably not going to go there. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Papke: That's really a usability issue. Generous: Yeah, generally what happens is they'll call and can I do it and then we go through the whole list of zoning requirements that you can't exceed 25% site coverage and these are the design standards for that and by the way, you also need a zoning permit. You have to show us what you're going to do. McDonald: Okay, well that was the only thing I really had. I mean it's something to take under consideration. Okay. Now this is a public meeting so I guess at this point what I'll do is open up the podium to anyone wishing to come forward and make comment on these changes to Section 20. I'm sorry, before I do that. I forgot Kathleen. Thomas: That's alright. McDonald: No, I'm sorry. Thomas: I thought of a question but you… Thank you for. McDonald: Okay. Does anyone wish to come forward? Seeing no one come forward, I'll close the public meeting and bring it back, bring the discussion with the commissioners. Keefe: No additional discussion. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No. McDonald: Kurt? Papke: I do agree with Mark's comments. It almost seems like with the signage, that perhaps the original intent was that state highway signs you know should be 80 square feet regardless of whether they're a pylon or a low profile. That would seem to make sense. If I was trying to put in a business along Highway 5, that's what I'd want. So I'd support a friendly amendment to strike that one line. The deletion of that one line and leave it at 80 across the board and just make sure it's clear in there that state highway corridors it's 80 and low profile for non-state corridors 64. McDonald: Okay. Kevin. Dillon: No additional discussions. I think those are good comments and suggestions. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: I tend to agree with what they said too on the 80 square foot. McDonald: Okay. Kathleen. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2007 Thomas: I agree also with being on the highway. I think it makes more sense. What we're trying to accomplish and I think if we have any doubt, we should make it… McDonald: Okay. I think I would pretty much tend to agree with what Kurt and Mark have also said so at this point I'll accept recommendations. Yeah, I'll accept a recommendation from the floor. From the commissioners. Larson: Okay. I'm ready. McDonald: Okay. Larson: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. Do you have friendly amendments? Papke: Yeah, I'd like to make a friendly, propose a friendly amendment that we strike the deletion of the ground low profile may not exceed 80 square feet in height and leave that sentence in there and just to clarify that it is for state highway corridors only. McDonald: Would you agree with that Kathleen? Thomas: I do. McDonald: Okay. Do I have a second? Dillon: Second. Larson moved, Dillon seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Section 20 of the Chanhassen City Code with an amendment to Section 20-1304. Industrial Office Park Signs. Leaving in the sentence, "A ground low profile may not exceed 80 square feet and eight feet in height.", with clarification that that applies to state highway corridors only. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission dated June 5, 2007 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 14