Loading...
PC 2010 06 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 2010 Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Larson, Tom Doll, Denny Laufenburger, Kathleen Thomas, Kevin Ellsworth, and Andrew Aller MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner and Angie Kairies, Planner PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING - ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS, PARKING AND SIGNS. Kairies: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Again we will be discussing code amendments for arterial and collector streets, parking and sign requirements. Arterial and collector streets. There’s an inconsistency between the City Code and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as well as a change for the old Highway 212 which is now County Road 61 or Flying Cloud Drive and then the addition of the new Highway 212. So if you could turn to page 2 in your planning, in your staff report. Just go over the changes real quickly. County Road 19, which is Galpin Boulevard south of Trunk Highway 5, County Road 61 or Flying Cloud Drive, Dell Road, Highway 5 south to corporate city limits, US Highway 169 and US Highway 212. Those are all under arterial streets. For collector streets we have an addition of nd 82 Street, County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard north of Trunk Highway 5, Dell Road, Trunk th Highway 5 north to the corporate city limits, Great Plains Boulevard, West 78 Street to th Grandview Road, Park Road, and West 78 Street Trunk Highway 41 to Trunk Highway 101. Next we’ll be discussing parking. When calculating parking stalls there was an inconsistency between two ordinances. The first is Section 20-1119 which requirements that any fractional space be rounded up to an additional space. Where Section 20-1124 requires that each fraction of one-half or more shall constitute an additional space. Staff is proposing to change Section 20- 1119 to be consistent and say that each fraction of one-half or more spaces, excuse me. One-half or more shall constitute an additional space. And as you can see in the slide, this is a gas station that’s 5,280 square feet which would require 26.4 parking stalls. Because it is less than half there are 26 stalls required for this building. Larson: Where are you seeing this Angie? Kairies: Oh, I’m sorry. The slide didn’t show up. There we go. Sorry about that. Okay. So again this is a gas station. The convenience store is 5,280 square feet. And then the ratio for gas stations is 1 stall for every 200 square feet. So that’s 26.4 stalls required. Because it doesn’t meet the half marker, there’s 26 stalls that are required for this site. Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 15, 2010 Al-Jaff: So had it been 5,300 square feet, the total number of stalls required would have been 26.5 which translates to 27. Larson: Now I have a question about that and this was, every time I read that I thought why does that not make sense to me. So if you have a half of a stall and you round it up to another stall but you still only have half of a space. How does that fit another car or is it just on paper? Kairies: Because it is a faction of a stall you have to add the addition of an entire stall. Larson: But if there’s not room for it. Or is there? Kairies: There would have to be room for that additional stall. Larson: They have to make for it. Okay. Kairies: Yes. Larson: That’s what I was, I was thinking well if there’s no room for it then wouldn’t you go down on but you have to make room for it. Kairies: Correct. Larson: Got it. Okay. Kairies: The ordinance now requires that you make space for that additional stall. Larson: I see. Alright. Thank you. Kairies: Sure. Next we’ll be looking at accesses and driveways. The ordinance requires that a, if there’s a 10 foot driveway setback within residential zoning districts. So the driveway must be 10 feet from the side property line. In the case of cul-de-sacs where the front property line is smaller due to it being on the curve of the bubble, that 10 foot marker is sometimes difficult to meet. And that’s also true for flag lots as you can see in the left hand picture. A flag on a flag lot, the neck of it, the minimum requirement is 30 feet so to meet that 10 foot width on either side is virtually impossible. So in order to do that staff is proposing an amendment that would state that if a property is located on a flag lot or accessing off of the bubble of a cul-de-sac, that that driveway setback be reduced. The distance would be, would be the existing drainage and utility easement. They’re often typically a 5 to 10 foot drainage and utility easement located on properties so the driveway would have to stay outside of that drainage and utility easement. And then again I just want to stress that it’s for properties that are accessing off of the bubble portion of the cul-de-sac and not just on a cul-de-sac street. The next amendment is to clarify when driveway permits are required. Often times people will come in and request to redo their driveway. If they are simply redoing the driveway and not going into the right-of-way they are not required to get a driveway permit. This ordinance would state that if they’re doing what’s into that driveway, into the right-of-way portion which is this portion here that’s between the property line and the curb, they would be required to get a driveway permit. Whether they have 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 15, 2010 a driveway permit or just use a zoning permit they would be required to meet all of the required construction materials, bituminous, concrete, etc. Next we’ll move onto signage. Typically directional signage does not require a permit or council approval. However, if a business is requesting a permanent directional sign such as the Park Nicollet and the American Legion, the sign is not located on either site so they needed council approval to be able to post that sign in that location. The intent is when access is confusing and to help guide people into those businesses. There have been issues where temporary signs are used in lieu of permanent signs so we want to also clarify that temporary off premise signs are prohibited unless otherwise specified in the ordinance. This is specifically for permanent directional signage. The next clarification is for flags. To limit corporate flags to one flag instead of multiple flags. That would be in addition to a federal flag, a state flag, and then their one corporate flag. Larson: Would you be referring to those feather type flags? Is that a flag or? Kairies: That we treated signage if it has a sign on it. If it has wording on it. It would have been limited to height. If it’s just a flag it would be. Larson: Like what comes to mind is maybe some of the buildings, the condo projects, the townhome projects when they have lots of signs all over. Is that something that won’t be allowed? Kairies: We would limit those using the signage ordinance. Or temporary sign ordinance I should say. Larson: So they could have them up there temporarily to attract people into the model homes or not necessarily? Kairies: If they’re just the flags, these are for specifically corporate flags. Like the American flag or. Larson: That’s not a corporate flag. Kairies: Right, or the city flag. Well that size is what I’m referring to. Kairies: It could be because like for example Rosemount has an Emerson flag and a Rosemount flag and an American flag you know they’ve got. Thomas: We’ve got 3 flags at Rosemount. Larson: Right. A lot of places have 3 so is that no longer allowed? Kairies: This would just limit the number of corporate only. So you could have. Larson: So if it’s not the American you could have the Minnesota state flag and you could have the corporate flag and you’d still be okay. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 15, 2010 Kairies: Yes. Thomas: Except the aspect if they have their Emerson flag and Rosemount flag so. Larson: But is that two different corporations? Thomas: Well it’s one, it’s weird because it’s Emerson like encompasses everything. They only make a bunch of different stuff and they have sub you know. Larson: So are they out of compliance now? Kairies: That’s something that we can look into and just see. Larson: Or are they grandfathered in? Kairies: That’s something that we’ll look into. Take a look at it. Laufenburger: The commission’s not about enforcement. Thomas: I know what you mean. Like I was just curious because there are definitely other businesses that have the same kind of thing where you have a major, large corporate entity but then you’re a sub you know. You’re a sub group of that corporate entity and you might have a flag yourself. Larson: Got it. Okay. Laufenburger: We don’t enforce the laws here at the commission do we? Larson: Yes we do. Thomas: We recommend and approve. Larson: Remember that little oath we all took. Laufenburger: Oh yeah that’s right. Kairies: So that’s answered? Larson: Yeah I’m sorry. It’s just easier to ask these as you’re going through it because it’s complicated. Kairies: Sure, no problem. Larson: If you don’t mind. Thank you. Continue. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 15, 2010 Kairies: The last proposed amendment is, in 2009 we had amended the sign ordinance and split up wall signs and monument signs. We found kind of a glitch in the wall signs and inadvertently deleted the monument sign section. So what we are proposing is to re-add Section 2, which is monument signs. So when it was all codified staff realized that this portion was inadvertently deleted. And just to recap what that is, is in the example we have here is the overall name of the building in a multi-tenant building such as Dell Professional would be required to meet the half inch dimension letters and then the tenant signs do not have to meet that requirement. They can be flat panel signs. They’re often changed out more frequently. And then also the logo. We don’t have a logo in this one but a logo would have to meet 30%. It couldn’t be any more than 30% of the overall sign area. And they would also be allowed a small portion of a flag cabinet as long as it’s not larger than 20% of the overall sign. And this was the same thing that we had presented in 2009. We just want to make sure that it gets, that we’re proposing it again for approval. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments of Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code and I’ll take any questions. Larson: Should we start with you Tom? Doll: Is there some sort of an issue regarding the number of flags people have at their business? I’m just curious as to why this came up. It seems kind of odd to me that there’s a limit. I didn’t know that people were out flying. Kairies: Right, there have been, I think there’s been a policy to have one federal, one state and one corporate. There have been requests for up to 8 corporate flags and so just to make sure that that policy becomes an ordinance. Doll: And just as far as the driveway goes, I wonder if not having any setback or trying to keep them out of their drainage utility easements may cause the city problems in the future. Kairies: Right. The intention is that their required setback would be their drainage and utility easement so that they would have to stay outside of that area. Doll: Okay. I guess I didn’t see that anywhere. Kairies: Or they would be, we’d request an encroachment agreement through the engineering department and then they would analyze it and see if it would become an issue as far as snow storage, runoff, things of that nature. Doll: And do you see an issue with people not exactly knowing what the right-of-way is because I’ll bet you a lot of people think they go up to their curb. Kairies: They do and we do try and educate people as much as we can. The zoning permit is catching on more and more so we’re able to explain it at that point as to whether you need a zoning permit versus a driveway permit. And often times they’re coming in to do the accessory driveway pad where they store their boat or their extra car or whatever it is on the side of their house. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 15, 2010 Doll: I have no further questions. Thomas: I do have a question but I feel slightly dense so sorry Angie. Kairies: No problem. Thomas: Public right-of-way. It’s, when you look at your lot it’s from the curb up into your property, right? So wouldn’t that, everyone would need a permit for your driveway. Kairies: Not necessarily. Because if you’re not going to change this and you’re just going to add, if you can see the cursor here. If you’re just going to add this kind of wide piece. Thomas: What if you’re ripping the whole driveway out? Kairies: If you’re going to rip the whole driveway out. Thomas: And start fresh. Kairies: Right, and you’re going to do from your curb. Thomas: Right. Curb to like the driveway, no extra or no ancillary, nothing. Just straight driveway. Curb to. Kairies: Then you would need a driveway permit because you’re going into the right-of-way. Thomas: Into the right-of-way, okay. That’s what I was, yeah. Larson: Is that it? Thomas: Yeah, that was it. Laufenburger: I’m good. Larson: Kevin. Ellsworth: Angie I had a question on the street. I was trying to find, you know familiarize myself with some of these streets and so on and is 169 still in the city? Kairies: 169 is going down to Shakopee so it’s 101, 169 was what it was called in the past and I think our. Ellsworth: But they don’t call that anymore. 169’s the freeway in Scott County. Kairies: At the bridge down, the bridge is 169. Ellsworth: I thought that’s 101. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 15, 2010 Kairies: 101. Larson: There’s a 169 bridge isn’t there? Ellsworth: It used to be 169/212 that wound through there and they’re both gone now. Kairies: Right the 212. Ellsworth: Is the new freeway. Kairies: County Road 61 or Flying Cloud Drive. Ellsworth: Okay, yep. Kairies: And then where the bridge is it’s still 169 and 101. Larson: Can’t they come up with like new numbers? Laufenburger: So you’re saying the causeway, the causeway from the triangle, the three, all the way to Shakopee, that’s 169 then? Kairies: And 101. Ellsworth: It’s got Scott and Carver County signs on it and I think that trunk highway or the US highway signs are gone. Kairies: Okay, I will double check that before. Ellsworth: It was just confusing trying to find 169. Kairies: Sure. Laufenburger: Looking at the comp plan map it does still show 169 and State Highway 101. Kairies: Right, so it’s still designated in the comp plan and that’s definitely something we’ll look into. Ellsworth: I think the comp plan map is wrong for 212 and 169. And then I didn’t know if the designations of principle arterial or minor reliever…are more important. If you look at Carver County and some of the Met Council designations, they’re different than what the comp plan and now the ordinance would say and I don’t know if that distinction’s important to the City or not. For instance Pioneer Trail in the Carver County, they call it a minor reliever. An A Minor Reliever and we call it just plain arterial. Same with 212. I’ve seen other designators, that’s a principle arterial and we’re calling it just an arterial and I don’t know if that matters. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 15, 2010 Al-Jaff: We can definitely check on all of those. Our engineering department looked at our Comprehensive Plan and tried to stay consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the designation that Carver County has but we definitely will double check on that. Ellsworth: Yeah, I was just looking for consistency and trying to understand if we’re all naming things the same and it looked different. I thought it raised a question so thank you. Larson: Is that all? Ellsworth: Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. Aller: No questions. Larson: And you already answered mine so, any comments anyone? Tom? Doll: No. Larson: Okay, at this time we’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody out in the audience wishes to comment, please step up to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Seeing nobody coming up, I will close the public hearing. And I guess with that, if nobody has anything else to say? Laufenburger: No. Larson: I’ll entertain a motion. Thomas: I’ll do a motion. Larson: Alright. Thomas: I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. Larson: Do I have a second? Laufenburger: Second. Thomas moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18, 2010 as presented. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 15, 2010 Larson: City Council action update. There was they approved the extension of the preliminary plat for Powers Crossing Professional Center. The agreement to allow an auto repair garage in property zoned Planned Unit Development, West One PUD was approved. Lakeside Fourth Additional final plat was approved. I’m anxious to see the plans for that. Commissioner Laufenburger moved, Commissioner Aller seconded 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 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 9