PC SUM 2012 02 21
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WORK SESSION
SUMMARY MINUTES
FEBRUARY 21, 2012
7:00 P.M. – WORK SESSION, Fountain Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Tom Doll, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Kathleen
Thomas and Mark Undestad (Kevin Ellsworth resigned from the Planning Commission).
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Alyson Fauske,
Assistant City Engineer and Bob Generous, Senior Planner.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Bill Colopoulos, Kelsey Nelson and Mary Rabai.
Kate Aanenson welcomed the commissioners and the applicants for the Planning Commission
positions. Those present introduced themselves.
1.Discuss Planned Unit Development, PUD, Process and Standards.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on the PUD process and standards. She stated that
the City had been reviewing PUDs for over 20 years. Many residential projects had been
undertaken through the PUD process. However, there are concerns about the existing
ordinance: that the Concept review is not as informal as it is intended and that the ordinance
may be too prescriptive and not sufficiently flexible as intended for Planned Unit
Developments. The potential flexibility is from existing zoning requirements in order to
achieve some vision or development objective. The City should be reviewing projects to
determine the most appropriate process to review the proposed development: with existing
zoning or as part of a PUD.
The ordinance currently provides for a public hearing and creation of findings of fact as part
of the concept review. This requirement is beyond the expectations of a concept review,
which is to give initial direction for proceeding with a proposal. The existing ordinance
provides standards for the different types of development that should result from the review
of the proposal, rather than forcing the development into a specific development parameter,
e.g., building setbacks, lot sizes, etc.
Generally, the City does not undertake PUDs for single-use projects unless there are unique
circumstances and site constraints that warrant the flexibility of the PUD. The goal of the
PUD is to provide sufficient flexibility to meet city expectations.
The Planning Commission consensus was that it was clear that the process was not correct.
Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to proceed with preparation of amendments
to the PUD ordinance.
Planning Commission Work Session Summary – February 21, 2012
2.Discussion of Potential Code Amendments: Driveways, Festive Banners, and Sign
Lighting.
Driveways.
Alyson Fauske presented the staff report on the driveway standards. The issue is to provide
sufficient area for snow storage and storm water runoff. A PowerPoint presentation showed
the outcome of the existing ordinance and the difficulty in providing reasonable access to a
third stall garage. An option using the structure setback was also presented. It showed that
allowing the use of the structure setback would reduce or eliminate a significant amount of
snow storage area.
Tom Doll pointed out that the situation of driveways next to each other usually occurred at
the high point in a street.
Alyson concurred and stated that driveways are usually located on the high side of the
property. Finally, Alyson presented staff preference to revise the ordinance to change the
point at which the driveway can be angled toward the property line to 10 feet from the
current 20 feet. She stated that they had discussed this change with several buildings and
they felt that this was an acceptable solution. It is believed that this change will address over
95 percent of the driveway issues.
Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to proceed with the code amendment.
Festive Banners.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on the banners. The intent of the banners is to
provide opportunities to provide seasonal or event-specific banners on buildings and in
commercial areas, potentially in concert with City events, to create more lively shopping
areas. Staff had included comments from a property management professional and since the
report staff has received comments from sign providers. Generally, a maximum banner sign
was supported. It was suggested that the width of the banners or flags be enlarged to 2.5 to 3
feet. It was also recommended that the clear height of 10 feet be used.
Kate Aanenson pointed out that this idea was initially suggested to the City by a property
manager in the downtown area as a means to give additional visibility to businesses within
the development.
Staff pointed out that our concern is primarily with the height, location and size of the
banners and not usually with their content. However, it was recommended that product
advertising not be part of the banner, while acknowledgement of businesses or sponsors may
be appropriate.
The Planning Commission had a general concern that the use of banners could lead to visual
clutter and that limitations in the number and locations be investigated. Staff was directed by
the Planning Commission to provide additional background research, pictures and criteria
prior to proceeding.
2
Planning Commission Work Session Summary – February 21, 2012
Sign Lighting.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on lighting. City code currently limits illuminated
signs to back lighting. However, it does not permit the full range of signage lighting
opportunities available due to new technology. Staff pointed out that the primary concern is
glare. However, light intensity can be controlled by reducing the transformer power to the
sign. The City also learned as part of the review of the electronic message center signage
that brightness and glare can be eliminated through the measurement of the light intensity
called a nit which can be submitted as part of the sign permit application.
The Planning Commission was concerned that this may open up signage too much. Staff was
directed by the Planning Commission to provide additional background research, pictures
and criteria prior to proceeding.
3.Update on AUAR Amendment Process.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Kate stated that the conditions of the
AUAR area meet the requirements for amending or updating an AUAR including five years
expiring since approval of the AUAR and changes in land uses within the AUAR area. The
Planning Commission will be holding public hearings to update the 2005 AUAR. There will
be two parts to the process. The first will be to determine the correct development scenerio
for the area and to update existing development. The second part will be to review and
approve an update of the AUAR.
The Work Session concluded at 8:30 p.m.
4.Planning Commission Interviews.
There are two positions that are up for 2012: Lisa Hokkanen and Tom Doll. Additionally,
Kevin Ellsworth has submitted his letter of resignation. The Planning Commission does not
interview existing Commissioners, just new applicants. City Council will interview all
applicants.
Kim Tennyson, Kathleen Thomas and Mark Undestad interviewed Bill Colopoulos.
Andrew Aller, Kim Tennyson, Kathleen Thomas and Mark Undestad interviewed Kelsey
Nelson and Mary Rabai.
Interviews were completed at approximately 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Robert Generous
3