Loading...
PC 2001 09 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING THE PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISIONS. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to table this item to get further clarification from the City Attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE TO PERMIT ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY ACCESS PER LOT. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, we did see this before. Does anyone have any new questions based on what we see before us tonight? LuAnn, why don't you go ahead. Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. Sharmin. In, I guess is it part (h), or whatever, it says one driveway approach. I'm wondering if approach is the term we want to use or should we use access point? Or could you clarify that please? Because that's a word that's been thrown out but not clarified. A1-Jaff: Okay. We can use access. Saam: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. Access would be fine with me, unless planning has an issue with the word approach. A1-Jaff: Either or. Saam: We were struggling I think with what word to use so we're looking kind of for some feeling from you. Sidney: Yeah, I'd suggest saying one driveway access. That's consistent with the rest of the amendments. And the one other point that I noticed, and this is grammatical. In the first section there, access from Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 driveways. The intent is, and then.., so it should be a semi-colon to reduce and then it's consistent throughout that paragraph. That's all I saw but it's well clarified and I understood when I read it what the intent was. Blackowiak: Uli any questions? Sacchet: Yes, it'd be real clear at this point we're not going into the setback issue at all with this? There's no setback requirement? We're not reducing one, we leave that alone? Aanenson: Right. That's our recommendation, correct. Sacchet: Okay. And then you made a point that the first 100 feet of a driveway need to be bituminous or concrete. And that could possibly reduce to just cover the easement stretch. Matt can you give us a little more context for that please. Saam: Sure. At the last Planning Commission meetings one of the commissioners raised that point. We left it in. At a minimum I would like to see it at least to the edge of the right-of-way. What we're trying to get at here or avoid is erosion from, this is dealing with areas outside the MUSA so typically they're agricultural type lots or parcels. We're trying to avoid a gravel driveway which you see commonly in an agricultural setting from eroding into the drainageway. Putting sediment in ditches. Getting in the culverts, that sort of thing. The ditches are out in the right-of-way so I would be okay with the minimum going with driveway surface to the right-of-way. Sacchet: And a detail question. Is there reason why when we talk about that 100 foot stuff, you're saying concrete.., don't saying bituminous. Why don't we say both or? Saam: No. No reason. Sacchet: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Saam: We could add bituminous there. Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions. Blackowiak: Alright. Deb, any new questions? Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I'd like to touch on the side yard setback issue that was discussed at the last meeting. Staff originally suggests the driveway should be setback at least 5 feet from the side property lines and after the last meeting that was taken out. I'm interested in maybe putting that back in because this is our opportunity to address this issue and that is an issue that happened in my neighborhood which someone on a straight street wanted to put a side load garage and proposed to put the driveway right on the property line in order to achieve that. And that put the driveway 10 feet from the neighbor's window. And this is a situation that I would like to avoid and I would like to see us consider putting a side yard setback for driveways. And this is our opportunity to do it. We don't, right now we don't have anything that prohibits that. Slagle: Why did we take it away? I was trying to remember. The setback. Why was it? Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Aanenson: Well some of the issues that staff had is that is boats and trailers in yards is a big neighborhood issue and the place that you can put it is in your side yard. The most common place, acceptable place is next to your garage. And most people put some sort of surface next to their garage to park their boat or their camper. If you eliminate that, you're causing another problem by forcing someone to put their boat in the back yard which tends to cause more neighborhood concerns so. Kind: My question would be, I believe we allow patios so if it wasn't going out to the street, I think you could call it a patio. And then you don't have to have a permanent driveway to get your boat back there, as long as, I mean we drive our boat across the grass all the time. Just one at a time, not daily. But this would preclude somebody from having an end load garage that's used daily with headlights shining into neighbor's windows. Just throw it up as consideration. This might be our opportunity to do something about that. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other new questions or any other questions I should say? Deb. Kind: Well actually one other and maybe it comes more under directing staff for future amendments but I think Section 20-908, if we do decide to allow driveways to encroach only 5 feet, I think we would need to amend that ordinance. So it kind of depends on what we decide here tonight but I want to bring that up. Blackowiak: Okay. Any new comments? Or new questions, sorry. Not comments. Claybaugh: This is for Matt. The definition of access, is that determined by the curb cut or what are you? Saam: Well yes. Claybaugh: Essentially people come. Saam: Yes, the access from the street. The curb cut, correct. Claybaugh: And this is aimed at basically scattered lots like you're already regulating subdivided lots but what I'd considered a scattered lot. Where I left most the acreage in there is 4 ½ to 10 acres so there's a purpose for people living on 4 ½ to 10 acres. So they can have some of those accessory buildings so on and so forth so. Saam: Correct. Claybaugh: It doesn't do them much good if they can't get back to them but, is there any distinctions whatsoever made between the subdivided and scattered lot in this ordinance? Saam: I believe, and maybe Kate can help out too. We brought this up before on the larger lots. How they could get back to their accessory structures. Yes, we are trying to limit the amount of street access that one lot has to a street. Whether you be in an agricultural setting or a suburban setting, a quarter acre lot size. You're concerned with getting back to accessory structures. Claybaugh: ... is the purpose of living on a larger lot. If you're living on something and you have accessory out buildings on the rest of it, it makes it very logistically difficult to get to them under some circumstances. Certainly not all, but under some circumstances and isn't really conducive to why people Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 occupy those properties. I'm just trying to run through my mind how restrictive that would be in some circumstances. Saam: Kate, we had talked about this the last time this was here. About the bigger lots getting back to an accessory structure or another house back there. I think we talked about, it would have to be platted if they wanted to do another lot. So then you'd need a private. Yeah, then you'd need to come in for a variance. Then we'd look at it separately from this and we could put any conditions you wanted. Claybaugh: And then subdivide. If you're platting another lot that's subdividing. What I'm talking about is, there's a lot of properties. Saam: You want to put a barn in the back. Claybaugh: Well maybe a barn. It may just be that you want to access the back of your property to store your boat or your trailer or whatever. It isn't. Aanenson: A lot of people do that without a driveway. They take it in once and out and they don't use a driveway approach. Claybaugh: Right, but most the people that live, that I know that live on 5 to 10 acres at some point in time put up an accessory structure and use it for substantially more. Aanenson: And that's the problem because they become other than accessory structures and that's probably one of the biggest problems facing the city right now is the illegal use of some of the outdoor structures because they have a secondary driveway, and our recommendation is we want control over that. If they want to come in for a driveway, we want to know how they're being used. Claybaugh: What kind of illegal? Aanenson: Running businesses out of them and neighborhood complaints. Claybaugh: Okay. Aanenson: That's what we talked about last time. Claybaugh: And you feel this is the best vehicle to deal with it? Aanenson: Correct, because then if they're coming in for a variance we can attach a condition that says if you want a secondary driveway you will not be running a business out of that. We're reviewing cases right now, that is a big problem. Or people that end up renting sometimes there's an accessory garage that turns into a rental property and we have a few of those that are causing a lot of problems right now too in some neighborhoods so, what we're trying to do is, for those neighborhoods it's a big concern so we're saying... Claybaugh: Okay, so for the person that genuinely wants a use, a structure, a barn, whatever in the back of their property, it's purchased that way and the out accessory structure's already there and wants to use it purely for their own purpose, they still have means to. Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Aanenson: And most of them do. I mean we just approved a stable permit today that already has access. I mean they come in pretty regular. People buy horse property and get stable permits. They go through the process but they use an existing driveway. It's pretty rare that someone had an agricultural property needs to come in based on the way their property's laid out and topography. If you're looking at the southern end of the city there's not a lot of secondary access points that come in. If you look even in the Hesse Farm neighborhood, those sort of things. Most of those already kind of have existing driveways. If there is an anomaly there and they want to come in, I think we also want to look at it for grading purpose, etc. We kind of went through that exercise internally in stall to say you know what, we don't want to make it punitive but looking at the number of cases that we think that variance is probably the best way to go. If there's something really unusual that they can't get at their property, and they need a secondary access, we maybe want to look at it. Saam: If I could add something. In most agricultural settings you're abutting county roads, maybe even state highways sometimes. You'll have to get a driveway permit from the county and the state to access the road so. I don't have a problem with if you own 10 acres and your house is here and you have a barn way out here, accessing off another road. From an engineering standpoint but I know planning's been seeing these as Kate said, accessory structures being used for other purposes so. Claybaugh: Okay. Blackowiak: Did you have another question? Uli? Sacchet: Yes. I want a point of clarification that you're suggesting that we keep in the minimum setback of 5 feet for the driveway. Would we then also want to keep in the letter (g) that says on lots not meeting the minimum width requirement at the right-of-way line, driveway setback may be reduced subject to the following criteria. One, the driveway will not interfere with any existing easement. And two, the location of the driveway must be approved by the city engineer. Are you thinking to put that back in as well or how do they correspond? Kind: I don't see that they necessarily correspond. I think we can still leave (g) out. Sacchet: Okay. What's staff's position on that? Do you have an idea whether the two kind of go hand in hand? Does this seem to be correlated? Saam: Yeah, yeah. That was the intent of (g) with (a) initially. Because they're tied in with the setback reference so if you're going to limit or set a minimum for a setback, we might want to consider putting (g) back in. Sacchet: Okay. And then one more real quick point. In (b), driveway grades shall be a minimum of .5% and a maximum grade of 10%. I think we talked about that briefly last time. That you may want to clarify that that's anywhere in the driveway. If we would want to say at any point or in any portion of the driveway, something to that effect. I think that would be consistent with other statements last time. Blackowiak: Alright, any other questions? Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I thought of another one for staff. Would you object to including language in the intent statement that clarifies that this is for single parcels? I know that our driveway definition includes that but I think it behooves us to be really clear in the ordinance itself. For instance the first sentence could Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 say, the purpose of this sub-section is to provide a minimum design criteria and slope standards for driveway construction on single parcels. Aanenson: I guess I'm looking at individual lots and if we can. Kind: Individual lots? Aanenson: If we can get a legal opinion. I know what you're trying to say. You want to clarify the intent. This is for a multi-family, we're bringing this in the code just to make sure it's not ambiguous. Is that what you're? Kind: Yes, which is just for clarification. If you feel that the driveway definition covers it, and this may be something we could actually get, get half this on tonight and get the opinion before it goes to council and then give them the option of adding or not adding that based on the attorney's opinion. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty, this item is not open for a public hearing but I see we have people here tonight so if anyone wants to get up and briefly add any new comments to what we're seeing before us, feel free to come up. State your name and address for the record. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive in Chanhassen. I feel like a broken record up here, but I want to clarify. The difference between driveway and a driveway cross access easement, whatever they want to call it. A driveway that allows a homeowner access to his property from a street. Like this. That's a driveway. It goes into, you turn around and you come out. This driveway has a private street accessing it. It goes into, through, out, into another lot, turn around, come back out. It's like a Bernstein Bear book. Into, through and out. This driveway goes through somebody else's property. It goes out and then into the lot that it's support to serve. It's unnecessary because a private street already accomplishes that. In the recent past this type of driveway was called a private driveway and it was described in 18-57 and regulated in 20-615. It had a 20 foot easement along it's length or a piece of land 30 feet wide. It could serve 2 to 4 homes. It had to be 20 feet wide at the common section and then 10 feet for the uncommon section. And a 10% grade. The common section had to be built to a 7 ton construction. Now there's nothing in this code that they're proposing that says anything to do with that. It is going to be going through somebody's property. It's only 10 feet wide and it doesn't have an easement covering it over. You step off the 10 feet, you're in somebody else's property. That doesn't make sense. Also, the former private driveway was governed by Chapter 20-615 which says that in order to have it the lot had to have 100 foot frontage. And they determined the front of the lot by how it faced the public street. Now that code was all changed to be the private street. The language wasn't changed, only they changed the word driveway to street. So now that is their private street. But now we have nothing mentioned in this proposal to determine what is the front of the yard, access via a private driveway easement, or how wide the yard should be for frontage. Why are we lowering our standards here? The purpose of it was to have access to a landlocked lot. A private street does that. It only requires a 30 foot width and a 10 foot pavement, or 20 feet at the common section. Why don't we want to stick with that? You're crowding our properties together. Another question. Can this access driveway go through a front yard setback parallel to the frontage of the lot? If this is a private street and here's the first driveway and here's the second driveway, can it go into this 30 foot front yard to access this house back here? That's not a driveway. We'll have driveways winding all over. It just permits the kind of infill lots in established neighborhoods. A developer can buy a lot with a home and a larger back yard and throw in a 10 foot cross access driveway to a house built in the rear and ruin the privacy of the neighbors and make an ugly situation. Why would you want to permit this? Now as to the fact that you don't need a 10 foot setback, a driveway is, what Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 they're quoting here in Chapter 20-908, it says it can be allowed to go into any required front, rear or side yard, driveways, sidewalks, and stand wire agricultural fence. Into. It doesn't say through and out. It says into. A driveway can go into a front yard, into a side yard or into a back yard, but that doesn't have anything to go with going through. Kind: Madam Chair. I hesitate to ask but I just want to clarify for Mrs. Paulsen, we're not talking about private streets tonight. Aanenson: Thank you. Kind: This is driveways for single lots. Every example you showed me, that I saw tonight, involved more than one lot and this is just for single, individual lots and that's why I'd like to include the language in the intent statement that clarifies it's for individual lots and that would be my recommendation. Janet Paulsen: If they state it the way it is, they're saying there's a variance to have 2 driveways. Kind: They still show this, this is 2 driveways. That's a private street example. Janet Paulsen: This is a private street. This is a driveway. Kind: That would be a private street as well. Janet Paulsen: Well you're calling it a driveway. Aanenson: It requires a variance. Al-Jarl: You will have control over it. You will decide whether you want to approve it or not. Whether such a lot should be created or not. Kind: And then that would be a good reason to approve, my other suggestion which is they must, a private drive must stay at least. Not private drive. A driveway must stay at least 10 feet away from the side. Aanenson: 5 feet. Kind: 5 feet for the side yard setback. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Deb, I love your idea about a side yard setback. I think that setback should be 10 feet. 10 feet is what a setback is. If you look at the definition of structure in our city code, a concrete slab is a structure. So I think 10 feet from a neighbor's property line is reasonable. It's what a structure setback currently is. To make it 5 feet, we're reducing our standards. Thank you. Blackowiak: Kate, could you clarify. Is a concrete structure. Kind: A patio? Blackowiak: A patio, or is a concrete slab a structure? Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Aanenson: The city attorney already made an interpretation on the definition of the driveway structure when we reviewed the previous ordinance. A driveway doesn't meet the structure setbacks. If you had to maintain the setback you'd have to maintain the 30 foot setback approaching the street .... 30 foot setback. If you're interpreting it the same way they are on the side yard, you'd have to have a 30 foot. Well then how would your driveway touch the street? It doesn't work that way. Debbie Lloyd: The side yard has a 10 foot setback. Aanenson: And a front yard has a 30 foot setback. Debbie Lloyd: But the street, the driveway comes from the street into the house. Into the front yard setback and typically would run into a house. If you were moving that to the side... Blackowiak: I think what Kate's point is, ifI am hearing you right Kate, is that if we enforce the front yard setback, which is 30 feet, then your driveway could never go through that. Aanenson: Right. Debbie Lloyd: Well then you could clarify and say the 10 foot side yard setback... And on page 11, 58-4, Chapter 20, definition of structure it says, anything structure means anything.., or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on... would be temporary or permanent in character including, but not limited to buildings.., hard surface parking areas, boardwalks.., concrete. Aanenson: I would concur with that and also exempt in Section 209, which the city attorney gave a legal opinion on that driveway's are exempt from setback requirements. Blackowiak: Okay. So we're comfortable with the city attorney's opinion that the driveways are exempt from that. Aanenson: Right. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Point of clarification, since we're talking about setback numbers. What's the minimum frontage of a lot? Aanenson: 90. Sacchet: How much? Aanenson: 90 in RSF. Sacchet: In RSF, okay. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, any other new comments? Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Aanenson: I was going to clarify that. Just if you're on a cul-de-sac you can measure it at the 30 foot setback line. If you're on an elbow, it could be a little bit narrower if you take the radius. Just for clarifications so I'm not misquoted. Sacchet: That's why I'm asking. Aanenson: Yes, you could be maybe 80 at the street and 90 at the 30 foot setback or something like that. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Saam: Madam Chair, if I could add one point. One thing I noted was mentioned, a comment that we were possibly lowering standards. I think as staff our point here was to make the standards a little more strict so we'd have more control. Right now we don't have any control. You can put 4 driveway accesses off a street if you want to and we can do nothing about it. And our city attorney couldn't believe it. That we didn't have control so we're, I think, trying to make this a little more structured. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alrighty. Let's move on with this. If anybody has any new comments to add before we go for a vote Rich. Slagle: I just wanted to throw out, I think Matt I agree with that and I think probably the group here agrees that we're taking the right steps. I think the concern becomes that, and I don't know if it was driven by Roger's legal opinion to whether it requires a setback or not but if there's a desire on this group to have a setback for more what I'll just call practical reasons, seeing two lots with a driveway right next to it coming close to someone's house, we probably don't want it. And so what I would like to throw out, and I do think we should have a setback for side yard. I don't know if it's 5 or 10 feet but we should have it and we would then I think by enacting that, or proposing that, take care of Matt's desire, the staff's desire to control it and then hopefully make it easier for neighborhoods to manage. So I'm in support of that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other new comments to add before we go for a vote? You weren't here last time I know so go ahead. Sidney: I think if we do talk about setbacks we have to look at that first paragraph and include setback in slope standards for driveway construction as part of the verbiage. I do agree with Deb's comments and if we're talking about driveways that are used for vehicular traffic. Kind: Oh yes. Sidney: Not just parking of trailers and boats or something. We are talking about a driveway which is used, and not just a method to access a spot. And I think that really makes me think that we should have consider a setback of at least 5 feet, which had been struck before but I'd include that. And that sounds like that if we do that, and include point (a) again, then (g) should be included. But we're talking about an active driveway which I think is the concern. Kind: Right. Blackowiak: Okay, any more new comments? Sacchet: Real quick. I do believe the comments were well taken by Deb and also our visitors that it's good Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 to have a setback. It's definitely making this requires more stringent because right now there's none. I feel comfortable with 5 foot setback. I would want to leave in (g). I would want to say that at any point the grade is within the restrictions. I personally would be comfortable reducing the requirement of what has to be surfaced to the easement portion of the driveway in the rural area. I think that would suffice. I want to emphasize once more that we're talking about driveways, not private streets. It seems like there's still some confusion about that. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Deb? Kind: Madam Chair, I think I'll probably just say no comment. I think I did enough commenting all along here. Blackowiak: Okay, Craig anything to add? Claybaugh: Yeah, I likewise would be in favor of a greater side yard setback for the road. I'm a little concerned about how tedious the process is for someone who genuinely wants to just access or put up an accessory structure, not for the purpose of business but for the purpose of their own convenience and whether it be a hobby shop or whatever, what the process is for them. Or what it will entail in the future. Saam: IfI could. I would be fine with just reviewing those on a case by case basis. That's what we had talked about. Maybe it's not spelled out in here. If you would like to have some... Claybaugh: ... contradiction and if there's a number of places down there that have structures to the back that are used for the intended purpose, that we're well within the city ordinances and as you come off Powers Boulevard, I believe it'd be the second property to the north there where you've got that private street. That highlights exactly what Ms. Paulsen was describing where someone come in and drop the property right in the back of another two there, split the lot up. So now that's the least desirable outcome, but at the same time I'm just concerned that for people that want to pursue it for the means that I described previously that then it's not too labor intensive for them to try to navigate that process. They can still do that in the future. That's kind of one of the driving purposes for owning a larger lot. Blackowiak: And Kate, that would just be a variance process, correct? Aanenson: Right. Blackowiak: And that's already in place. We're not re-inventing the wheel here. No, okay. Alright. Well with that, I'd like a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission approves the attached amendment to Chapter 20 with the following changes. The first paragraph should read the purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce erosion, and then it continues on as it's shown in the staff report. I would like item (a) added back in, and changed to state, driveway shall be setback at least 10 feet from the side property lines. And I would like item (g) added back in and item (h) changed to read one driveway access is allowed from a single resident lot to the street. And item (i), add a period at the end of that paragraph. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Sidney: Second. Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any comments? Sacchet: Yes, please. In the first paragraph, that double strike out part, did you leave that out or? Kind: I left it out. Sacchet: Since that is relating to setback I wonder what anybody thinks to put that back in also. It doesn't make that much difference to me. Blackowiak: Is it relating to setbacks or is it relating to neighbors? I mean I think the 10 feet is more ofa. Sacchet: Okay, that's fine. Blackowiak: I could be wrong. Kind: Yeah. I mean that adds more substance to the rationale by leaving that in. Sacchet: I think since we put back in setback, since this is somewhat related, it makes sense to add that back in as well. Kind: I would accept that friendly amendment. Sacchet: And then (b), I would like to clarify that this is at any point or in any portion of the driveway. Kind: Sounds fine. I'll take them one by one. Sacchet: And (c), yeah that makes sense. (c) I'd like to, in order to be consistent, like to add bituminous and concrete. Kind: With concrete or bituminous? Sacchet: Yeah because. Kind: Or other hard surface material? Sacchet: Yeah. Kind: Last sentence. Sacchet: Just to be consistent with how it's worded before in the other context. Kind: I'll accept that. Sacchet: And then the one you may not accept, I would feel going 100 feet is encroaching a little bit on these property owners. I'd like to take that down. The right-of-way's usually 30 feet? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Saam: Yeah, in the agricultural settings those county road right-of-way's are sometimes 80 feet and wider so if you say to the right-of-way edge then it's irrelevant. Sacchet: Okay. So I would like to propose that we say instead of for the first 100 feet of the driveway, that we say at least to the right-of-way portion of the driveway. Kind: I would accept that with the caveat that I would like Matt to research what other cities do and have rules before going to council. Saam: Okay. I'll just mention that we did gather information from roughly 6 to 10 other cities. 100 feet is what we found in a couple of them. I can't guarantee it's in every city but that's where that number came from. From other cities data. Kind: I don't feel strongly about it either way. I just think the council should have that information. Saam: Okay. Blackowiak: Do you accept those amendments? Kind: I do. Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the following amendments to Chapter 20: Section 1. Section 20-1122 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 20-1122. Access and Driveways. The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility easement by providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface for all driveways; to limit the number of driveway access points to public streets and to direct drainage toward the street via establishment of minimum driveway slope standards. Parking and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public right-of-way. The number and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria: a. Driveways shall be setback at least 10 feet from the side property lines. Driveway grades shall be a minimum of 0.5% and a maximum grade of 10% at any point in the driveway. In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as identified on the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as approved by the City Engineer. In areas outside the MUSA, driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the right-of-way portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as approved by the City Engineer. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 On comer lots, the minimum comer clearance from the roadway right-of-way line shall be at least 30 feet to the edge of the driveway. For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 24 feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum driveway width shall not exceed 36 feet. The minimum driveway width shall not be less than 10 feet. For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the roadway right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. On lots not meeting the minimum width requirements at the right-of-way line, the driveway setback may be reduced subject to the following criteria: h. 1. The driveway will not interfere with any existing easement; and h.2. The location of the driveway must be approved by the City Engineer to ensure that it will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties. h. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street. A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city streets where this is deemed necessary by the City Engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades, or other relevant factors. If a turnaround is required by the engineer, this requirement will be stated on the building permit. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING THAT AMENDMENTS REZONING PARCELS REQUIRE A TWO-THIRDS (2/3) MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Blackowiak: This is something we saw before and we did ask for the opinion of the city attorney as to whether or not we were required to do this. Bob's not here tonight so Kate, are you going to be taking this one or is Sharmin? Aanenson: I'll be covering this one. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Thank you. The way our current city ordinance reads is that for a zoning ordinance amendment requires a 4/5 vote. As you know we have changed the zoning ordinance. The way our zoning map is set 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 up is that areas that are outside the current MUSA are left in agricultural. We do have a comprehensive plan so the way it's set up is that if we were to amend the zoning ordinance we have to make it consistent with the comprehensive plan or also amend the comprehensive plan, which we've done in some circumstances. For example, Puke Homes we had to change the low density in order to get the twin home attached on that northern side. So we have used that process in the past. What this new amendment, which was passed by the state legislature as part of the very end of the session, part of the discussion as the city attorney pointed out, there's some people proponents of affordable housing, wanted to for those communities that do have a 4/5 majority, gives some opportunity for some input. So as the city attorney has stated in his letter that it is, the voting requirement is mandatory. The city does not have the discretion and we do not have the right to pre-empt that requirement. So the language as stated in the proposed amendment is consistent with the state law so I hope with the letter that we, and the cases that he cited, it clarifies that issue. So with that, staff is recommending again being consistent with the state law. Amending this language to make sure that we are consistent with the law and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Blackowiak: Okay, given that does anyone have questions? Sacchet: Is there any difference between what we saw last time and this time? Aanenson: No. Same language, just clarification. Blackowiak: Just that the attorney.., well it was a little ambiguous before. But he says we have to do it SO. Kind: I have just, it's probably a stupid question but how is 2/3 any different than 4/5 for our city council? It still takes 4 out of 5 votes. Aanenson: That would be required. The 2/3 is only the 3 votes. Kind: But it says of all members of the city council, so it still needs to be 4. Aanenson: But if you have 4 people there, you'd have to have all 4 present. Kind: You'd have to have all 4 vote in favor of it. Aanenson: Right. And this way you would not have to have all 4 vote in favor if you didn't have a super majority. Kind: The language is not quite that way here. It should say all present members of the city council, but I'll leave that to Roger. Aanenson: That's the way the statute reads, correct. And that's how it's been interpreted. Kind: Okay. Interesting. Blackowiak: I know. That's why we wanted the clarification. Aanenson: That was the issue that came up last time. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Kind: Okay. Blackowiak: So with that, could I have a motion please. Sidney: Public hearing? Blackowiak: Oh wait. Is this a public hearing? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Yes, thank you. As our revised agenda says, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak to this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Any comments? Okay, I'd like a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment that shown in the report of September 18, 2001 to an ordinance amending Section 20-41 of the Chanhassen City Code. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment to Section 20-41 as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. AMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: I just want to be clear that basically the discussion type of stuff I guess towards the end of the meeting would be under ongoing items? Aanenson: Correct. If you want to direct the staff or there's any issue you want to make public. Sacchet: Okay. Blackowiak: Any comments from commissioners before we vote on this? Kind: I just have one nit under the secret ballot section, 4.1. I wonder if the language would be better to say each member shall cast it's vote for the member he wishes to be chosen for the chairperson. If no one receives a majority voting shall continue until one member receives the majority support. Ballot to me feels like there's a piece of paper involved. Blackowiak: Physical, yeah. Okay. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Kind: As long as you're cleaning it up. Blackowiak: Let's clean it up. Okay. Any other comments? Changes? Proposals? Alright with that, I'd like a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt these changes to our by-laws as proposed by staff with the addition of using the word vote instead of ballot and voting instead of balloting in 4.1. Kind: I'll second that. Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussions? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the By-laws amended to use the words ballot and balloting instead of vote and voting in Section 4.1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated August 21, 2001 and September 4, 2001 as presented. Sacchet: I would like to note also that one is incomplete. The one from the 21st and the one from the 4th is pretty spotty. ONGOING ITEMS. Blackowiak: Kate you have an update on Villages. Aanenson: Yes I do. First I just want to talk about our next meeting. We do have a site plan coming forward to you. You'll have one item on your next meeting. As I indicated the item that was tabled tonight, the large site plan has been withdrawn. I don't believe we'll see it back yet this year. But you will see a site plan for Dell Road and 5. That's an office building. Also we'll be talking about Presbyterian Homes, but they should be in this week and you'll be seeing them and we do have a work session scheduled for the 16th. I'm going to try to get you out to look at some projects and we'll come back and kind of go through the things that we'll be working on this next year and get some feedback from you. Blackowiak: Okay, Kate was that work session on the 16th, are you looking to go earlier than 6:00? I mean is light going to be an issue. Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: So are we going to be touring? Aanenson: Thank you for bringing that up. Yes, I would like to start a little earlier if that works for people. If we could maybe leave at 5:00, if that works for people. Blackowiak: Okay. Again if they know they can't make it at 5:00. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Aanenson: Commissioner Kind has informed me that she is unavailable. Blackowiak: Who is? Aanenson: Commissioner Kind. Blackowiak: Commissioner Kind is unavailable. Kind: Vacationing. Aanenson: It is the MEA. Kind: It's MEA. Blackowiak: There's still school Tuesday, isn't there? No pressure. Slagle: Should we consider this vacation request? Blackowiak: We should maybe go back and review the official by-laws. Vacations must be approved. Okay, but I suppose if there's anybody else that can't make it maybe we should. Aanenson: Yes, I'd like to know because we have...try to make space for that. It is an important time. Again we want to gear up for what things we'll be doing this next year. Get some feedback and we'll spend a little more time at the different areas within community development so we'll talk about some forestry things and some environmental things.., and get some feedback so it is an important meeting. And again I'd like you to get out and see some of the things we've done this year too. Blackowiak: Okay, so RSVP to Kate by what? End of this month? Is that too late? By the end of this month, is that too late to tell you? Aanenson: No, that's fine. Blackowiak: Okay, let Kate know either way. Call her. Kind: Madam Chair, one more comment on ongoing items. I miss having that little list. I just want to give you positive feedback for improving that. I like having that in there. Do you want it in every time? Aanenson: Kind: I do. Aanenson: Okay. No problem. Kind: Preferably with things checked off. Blackowiak: Okay, Villages. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Aanenson: Okay, I wanted to give you an update. When we looked at the Culver site plan there was a discussion based on the fact that this was a PUD, as to whether or not the Planning Commission wanted to deviate from that. Where the council was going with that on that. So what we did is we know there's some other changes coming forward and you're to see one with Presbyterian Homes and so what you did on your work session, went to the City Council and kind of went through some of the changes to get some feedback to see where they're going. And staff also gave their input of how they felt about some of those changes. And what you've got is a very brief synopsis of the work session. They're not the verbatim but I want to go through those with you. Kind of what's in place right now. When we did the, this whole project again is being driven by the PUD, the design standards and the environmental assessment document that was in place. As you recall when we looked at this area over here that there's the three apartments. Originally we also looked at one of those could actually be an office building. The PUD. It had to be either or scenario so it came in with all the apartments. The other change on that is we looked at trying to do the affordability. The EDA looked at that and the margin was so great so there has been some changes in that and when this originally came in. The Americlnn is in place. The retail space. Starbucks. Quizno's. Retail space. Furniture store. Addition of the Culver's. The Foss Swim School which you recall there was a lot of discussion on that. The architecture and so each one is unique and we try to work through those. That was one where we used the, actually we used the open discussion. Rolled up our sleeves and spent a lot of time trying to figure that out. Again the driver in this whole thing, the St. Hubert's project. We had approved it. Office building. This kind of held them at bay to see what St. Hubert's was going to do as far as their expansion. Whether they use that or not. And Bookoo Bikes, not to leave them off. And Houlihan's, what's in place. Right now the configuration for the Presbyterian Homes will be coming in. Approximately 170 units. They are going to be asking for a height variance. We apprised the City Council of that. The staff does support it. It's in the core center so it will have underground parking. It's providing additional parking also for St. Hubert's. But based on the uniqueness of that and how it lays out, we think it makes sense. Originally they were going to come to the next meeting and ask for some variances. The staff's preference is to always do it with a project. It's more palatable to see how it's working. Whether it makes sense. Based on the last discussion we weren't sure where to go so we ran this past the City Council, just to make sure both groups on the same page. They also want to look at some of the changes to the sign ordinance, and I know there's been a lot of discussion when we did, even the Americlnn, putting the sign up there on the cupola. Spending a lot of time on that. The staff's recommendation and the developer agreed that I think through everybody's good wisdom, we make decisions. We may not all agree with each other but collectively this group made a decision and the council maybe even has tweaked it a little bit more but we'd just as soon leave the sign ordinance as it is. If somebody has a unique circumstance, I think we're all reasonable to make the recommendations to modify that so they agreed to leave that. The other thing goes back to the EAW where we specified there's different sectors and I didn't bring that map down but it's in the environmental assessment. There's different sectors and within each of those there's only so much residential, commercial. You can change those based on traffic. What the applicant's apprised us is there may actually be a little bit more residential than we had anticipated. You know we had set the goals to keep that commercial in the core. We will still have the commercial on the first level. It looks like there will be another building coming in, probably an extended care. Commercial on the first floor, maybe some meeting space on the second floor. But there may end up being some more residential depending how that mix works. We're saying we may be receptive to look at that and try to get some more owner occupied in there too. Again the Presbyterian Homes is obviously.., and what we're trying to get is some of the owner occupied long term residents in there. So with that, really we said we're going to let the process be the process. You're going to look at the plan with a variance at the same time. The Presbyterian Homes. There's no, we're going to give you a height variance. They're tied together, which is the right way to do that. The council agreed. They're saying they're willing to look at it. They're expecting you to do your job and look at it. Put your 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 fingerprints on it and then it will go through the process. So I just wanted to let you know that we have talked to them. They're aware of these changes are coming forward and again, we look at the energy that was spent on this project as far as the thought process. Where we were then and how it's been evolving. We've had to compromise in certain areas but I think as it's coming together, good things are happening. We want to make sure that we're taking our time and not just saying you know we're going to completely deviate from what was in place. And being careful about those and so far I think we've taken that approach. Any questions on that? Blackowiak: So we expect to see this? Aanenson: If they submit this week you'll be seeing it I believe the first one in November. Your first meeting in November. Blackowiak: Okay. Anybody else? Slagle: I have a couple questions. Could you put that map up again? Kate, if you can talk about the center of the development. What those buildings on all four comers of that center are supposed to be. Aanenson: Those are retail. The retail core on the first floor. Slagle: Okay. And then possibly residential above? Aanenson: Correct. And that's where when we say maybe more residential above on those, correct. Slagle: Okay. So let me, ifI may just try and summarize what I think is happening. This development was proposed some time ago. The idea was a pedestrian friendly community. There's been some difficulties developing it for whatever reason and I've heard comments from the developer that times are changing and we have to change with it. And now I'm seeing in this short minutes that there was a comment along that same thinking that things are, you know we have to go with the changes and maybe that's what the idea of the variance is. Or we look at it and pass it onto the council. I mean is that? Aanenson: Well I don't want to say, I don't think we're throwing the baby out with the bath here at all. I certainly don't want to do that, and I don't think there's anybody that's saying that. But what we're saying is that they're going to, when something comes in and asks for a change, everybody throws their arms up. What my point is, is when we put this together Presbyterian Homes wasn't even in our thought process and what they're trying to do and complimenting what's happening there and the architecture, we've seen the plans, we think works. Just like I didn't anticipate Foss Swim School and it's a nice compliment to that area. It's a nice asset to the community. So sometimes some of those uses. Nobody's saying change the uses. We anticipated residential in there but we're saying some of the architectural things, some of those other little fine points sometimes we have to shift. The staff did make their recommendation on the drive through. We didn't support it but the fact of the matter is there was a small loophole in that a bank or a pharmacy could have a drive through. As the community survey pointed out, there is a need for more sit down, or desire for more sit down restaurants, which we hope still will happen. We anticipate a lot more, but no. As far as the overall mix of uses, we still anticipate... Slagle: Were all the councilors present for that work session? Aanenson: No. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Slagle: Who was present? Aanenson: I believe 4 were there. One left shortly after. Slagle: Okay. Then last question would be, if you remember the last meeting on the Culver's discussion, my closing points of really wanting to stress that because of what I feel, or see here in this development and what I've read about it, the way the streets are configured, I'm concerned about traffic volume. Is it fair to ask the businesses, what are you guys laughing at? Sacchet: Feelings. Slagle: Oh that's right, I'm sorry. I can't think of another work for it. But is it fair to ask these applicants to develop traffic patterns, studies, what have you based upon this site versus using in the case of the previous applicant an average of a national restaurant. Because either this development, and I don't know if you guys agree or not, but I think this development is a very unique with the way the roads are structured and I think trying to imagine all of these buildings and traffic in there, it's just going to be a nightmare. And I don't agree with the thought that more traffic brings safer streets. Sacchet: People drive slower. It slows them down. Slagle: Oh yeah, sure. So anyway. Aanenson: You points well taken and that was one of the discussion points, if you read through the minutes, is that any changes has to go back to the underlying EAW which studied the traffic. If you're putting in a, if you looked at a residential use and now you're putting in office that's generating twice as much traffic during the peak hours, that's going to be a problem. That's what we're saying. There are certain driving forces to this that. Slagle: So questions at least will be raised by staff too? Aanenson: Absolutely. That's a good question, and that was our issue with the Culver's thing too. What are the peak hours? What does that do to the rest of this site and that was a concern. Blackowiak: Okay Kate, if we're going to be seeing this, I know that there are certain commissioners that probably don't have a copy of the EAW or have even a copy of the design standards for Villages so if you've. Aanenson: I think I'll put that out in the next packet. Then you'll have plenty of time. Blackowiak: I was going to say, make sure that you ask for it or get it before we see this again because that might be helpful. I know I've got mine but I don't know Deb, do you have a copy? Kind: No. Blackowiak: I was going to say, I think I might be the only one. Kind: That's old enough. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001 Aanenson: Sure. i'll put that in a binder for you. That's a great idea. i'll put that out in the next packet and then you'll have plenty of time before Presbyterian Homes, and then if you have questions at the next meeting. Blackowiak: Okay. Well i will adjourn the meeting. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 21