Loading...
11-17-20-pcCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist PUBLIC PRESENT: Connie and Joe Perttu 681 Sierra Trail MJ and Al Olson 7461 Windmill Drive Weick: Just a quick review of the guidelines for this evening’s meeting. This is a Zoom meeting and we are getting I think good at it. Please be patient with us as we work through different types of phone and other methods of communicating. Please, to the commission members please do not hold conversations, chats or instant messages outside of this meeting with each other. All of our discussions must be public and on the public record. Again we have one item on tonight’s agenda. Staff will present the item. Planning Commission will have a chance to ask questions or clarifications of staff. We don’t have an applicant right? Aanenson: No, we’re the applicant, yep. Weick: Right. And after staff’s presentation and questions we will have a public hearing. We will summarize any emails that have been sent in and they will be read for the record. I believe those are summarized for us in the presentation. Anyone present in chambers may come forward and for their opinion of this item for the record. And we will also take telephone calls and a number will come up on the screen at the appropriate time if you are watching. At that time we will close the public once we’ve heard from everybody and everybody will be heard. We’ll close the public hearing and at that time the Planning Commission can comment and consider motions and a vote. This evening again we have one item. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A CODE AMENDMENT REGULATING THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF BOATS, TRAILERS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 2 Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. I think it might be helpful too tonight that if after we make our presentation that we take the public comment before we go around the Planning Commission because the public hearing might be a lot of genesis of some of the questions so. Weick: So your presentation directly into, okay. Aanenson: Yeah unless that’s something that is a burning question that we missed on that but I think that might help in the summary there too so. As you mentioned Chair the Planning Commission just makes recommendations so this item does go to the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. So this, the genesis for this code amendment was based on the fact that there’s been some residents who have expressed a desire to store boats and trailers or recreational vehicles on their property. …history in our staff report goes back, the history goes back to the 70’s. 1972 and it said all storage had to be in the back yard and then that was modified to put it into a side yard. As we pointed out over time some of those lots in those PUD’s only have a 5 foot, 7 foot setback, side yard setback so it doesn’t always accommodate. And then in 1986 the storage of vehicles, again as I mentioned moved to the side yards. Again this ordinance has been in place for a number of years. I think people are kind of used to it and but there has been a lot of push to say you know, why can’t we put them in the driveway so what this amendment proposes to do is kind of look at all sides and come up with a potential solution. So the proposed solution is really look at one boat trailer or recreational vehicle be located within the driveway limits just storage the maximum of these two items in the outdoors. Adoption performance would mitigate any impact to the driveways so if you look through there’s 6 main criteria that were identified as concerns. And potentially those have changed you know. The storage area, and that storage area, one of the things we want to make that was identified is the storage area that it didn’t go over, because we wanted to make sure there’s sight lines if someone’s backing up that they can see around the neighbor’s driveway. You know whether it’s an RV or a large sailboat so that was one of the issues that was addressed. And then in addition to that the second was, has to do with the side yard setbacks, the 5 yard setback. We talked about that. It’s no, that’s kind of been the more prevalent one especially in the PUD’s so, but that flexibility of that and then whether or not there was hard cover so looking at how much hard cover would be added if you tried to enforce that sort of thing so right now people that are parking on their side or in their rear yard, typically that’s where you see the RV’s. They’re not always on hard surface and sometimes people put the rock on the side to accommodate that sort of need so those are some of the issues that we looked at too. And then the four was the size. Again an RV is a lot different than maybe a fishing boat. Looking at that sort of thing again. Looking at the setbacks to make sure that that’s being accommodated so you’re not creating a sight line. In addition to that you know there are a number of subdivisions that are governed by a homeowner’s association. Those homeowner’s association also regular outdoor storage but the City does not enforce those sort of things so this did not supersede that. Any HOA would have preference over that. So again staff believes that the limits, the indirect limits creating those vehicles would be in the front line. Addressed some of the concerns regarding sight lines and the hard cover and the like so just outdoor storage in general. Again people in the summer, they’re in, they’re out and some of it for the staff is that if you get a complaint you go out there and then Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 3 the neighbor says well I had it out for a couple days and it’s back in. Sometimes it’s a little hard to enforce to stay on top of those kind of issues. So many other cities permit outdoor storage in the driveway and prohibition again as I mentioned is difficult so the proposed changes would kind of make a more common practice within the city and still allow some outdoor storage. So as a part of this exercise MacKenzie Young-Walters on our staff who wrote this ordinance surveyed a number of other cities and looked at what they do and everybody, it’s kind of all over the map. Some don’t allow any. Some say seasonally and the number. Typically limits for the number of vehicles. The type of vehicles. The length of the vehicles. The height of the vehicles. Curb setbacks. Demonstration of viable alternatives so if you have nowhere else to put it then you could put it in the driveway. And then the required side setback. Again typically there must be, meet the building setbacks so, so it wouldn’t project if the garage is the, or the fence is the furthest point going forward then it couldn’t exceed that so then the number of vehicles. Some had no limit and some had limits on the numbers of vehicles and then permitted surface. Whether or not that was improved surface or unimproved. Again that’s one of the things that we run up against to. A lot of times people are parking them on the side yard want to put some sort of improved surface for them so that came into play so again while this is good anecdotal information every city kind of reflects their unique attributes. Whether there’s a lot of lakes in the community like we have in Chanhassen have a number of lakes and along for that so this proposed change would allow trailer and boat or recreational vehicle be stored in the driveway. It limits the property the storing a maximum of trailed boats or recreational vehicles. So if you had a, maybe a camper with a snowmobile trailer, you know fishing boat with some other type of trailer, looking at those sort of things as being part of the two. So includes boats and trailers and provision requiring stored items to be clean, well kept and operable condition. So and that’s the same process we do if there’s unlicensed vehicles stored in your driveway. Those are also, those would get a letter from code enforcement on that too if it’s unlicensed or inoperable so as not to be junky. So again prohibit the storing of extraneous materials within the recreational vehicles so again to be kept in slightly. You know maybe there’s like a topper on, or the like so the proposed code amendment represents a change to the highly visible long standing city ordinance so we really wanted to make sure that we raised awareness of this. We put an ad in the paper. It’s been out on our Facebook and then we wanted to make sure that we had the opportunity for a lot of feedback to provide comment on a number of social media platforms. So we did received some feedback. I’m not going to try to read the whole thing so but we did receive I would say it’s 60/40, 50/50 it’s pretty close so the first comment came in before we met tonight so it wasn’t actually formalized yet so…that person may want to speak. So the next one would be from Grover, Jeff Grover against the proposed changes. Many people have too many cars in their driveway already and so then there’s the Jeff and Barb Piesheck against the changes. If not enforced maybe it could look awful. People…relatives, friends maybe they might store their boats there so it’s kind of different like when you store maybe a docking rights it has to be in your name. The boat, you can’t be leasing out your storage space. I guess that’s kind of what that concern might be there so then the comment from Ms. Simpler, enforcement difficult to comply with, unfair enforcement. Difficult to comply with existing and we would concur with that. I mean it is hard right now to enforce you know if someone sends us, a typical process is we would send out a letter that says you’re in violation. You get so many days to rectify the Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 4 situation and maybe the boat’s moved but not for long and then it comes back so, so then McRyan’s support the change… Steven Brown…damaging landscaping. That’s another problem we talked about. If you have shrubs or trees or something and you’re not going to get your storage in the side yard so they are not looking… Mary Jane Olson. Against the policy change. Already complained that there’s a lot of driveway storage in neighborhoods that can change the property values and aesthetics. And that’s the one complaint we get right now when someone’s having maybe a graduation party or wedding group and they don’t want to have to do their group to have to look at the outdoor storage. Then…someone supports ordinance. Change to allow boats, trailers, recreational vehicles be stored in the driveways even in the summer. Then Jeffrey Williams absolutely not. Each one has some…regarding this. Chanhassen…should the ordinance change so our property values, you could add garbage cans to out of sight too. We do try to enforce that. That’s another that is difficult to enforce. People put them out in the morning. Go to work late that night so that is, they don ‘t pick up the next morning. That one too we’re supposed to be behind. That’s one we do enforce. To go back to the other comment about long time to change. This is something if the council did choose to act on it that we would really do a large media launch on this and talk what the rule change would be. If it didn’t change you know talk about we didn’t or the council didn’t change it to make sure that people understand that. Doug Peterson, don’t see a modification with staying in place at this time in relations to outside storage. Allen Nickolai, the less government intervention the better. Pete Keller enforce the current ordinance. It’s meant to keep our neighborhoods looking nice. Krissy Erwall. Outdoor storage in the winter sure. Outdoor storage if used, outdoor storage junk in back yard and we do get that complaint too. Sometimes people put an RV or boat in the back yard and that can also be unsightly. Sometimes someone’s back yard might be somebody’s side yard so. And then the last one we got today was from Alan Goshen. I personally think that if the resident wants to store their boat and trail, RV in their driveway, that’s perfectly fine. I prefer to see the alternative of putting them on the grass next to the house. I’d like to see the residents move at least to the side of their house if the driveway allows for it these objects move to the side of the house as much as their driveway allows and again that’s sometimes the length of the side yard isn’t large enough then that’s something we could take into consideration then that maybe they shouldn’t have it there so these are all factors that we thought about too. You know maybe it doesn’t make sense so with that we went through, I’d take any questions on the ordinance itself before we open up the public hearing but what I would recommend then is opening it up for comments but before we do that I’d be happy to answer just any general questions that the Planning Commission, just general questions on the ordinance and then we would, yep. Weick: Yeah the public will be just in a minute. I’m going to open it for Planning Commissioners if there’s any specific that you would like clarified about the code change with Kate we can do that at this time. And I think I’ll give people a chance. I’ll start. Can you clarify the before and after position on duration so long things can be stored on the property? Aanenson: Well the duration, there is no limit on that. Weick: There is not, okay. I just wanted it clarified. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 5 Aanenson: So right now if it’s on the site so, that’s the way they’re supposed to be. So if you take it out of the lake it’s supposed to be in your side yard. Sometimes people say they’re going to go out again in a couple of days so that’s kind of that chase that we’re always making and that’s where the complaints come in. It’s like well why do I have to put it away when I’d be out again in 2 days. Weick: And we’re not proposing a change to that policy moving forward? Aanenson: Right. What we’re saying is you could have it parked in the driveway, yep. Weick: Right, okay. Any other, any questions or clarifications specifically on the code? Reeder: Mr. Chairman what’s our position on the hard surface? Weick: We do not have a requirement. Aanenson: Correct. We do not have a requirement that that be on hard surface. I think some people are reticent to take them off the driveway because they don’t want to park it in the grass so therefore often they’ll put rock or patio blocks or the like to get a hard surface on the side or the rear yard so they’re not parked on the grass. And it’s easier to get it out in the spring. Weick: So there’s no, there were no requirements for hard surface before or after? Aanenson: Correct except that we would assume that the driveway would be the hard surface. Weick: I’m sorry, yeah. Aanenson: No worries. Noyes: Commissioner Noyes here. Is there any requirements related to setback from the property line from a neighbor’s property? Aanenson: No. That’s a good question. So right now if you’re in your side yard setback there is none so I think that sometimes is a rub depending on the location. So the proposed ordinance says you have to, you can’t be over that property line. The sight line. Currently if you put it in your side yard that’s the one thing that there’s no natural setback from. If you were to put any other structure, a deck or something like that there would be a setback because was viewed back in the 70’s as temporary and has never evolved from that. It could be a while for the winter. Weick: But there’s a front yard setback for the driveway. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 6 Aanenson: It goes with this one correct and that’s for sight line purposes, correct. Reeder: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Reeder. Tell me again what you just said about the side yard and the front yard. Aanenson: So there could be a front yard setback. So limiting that. The storage. The length of a vehicle would be affected so they’re not exceeding the front yard setback. But currently today if you wanted to park a boat in your side yard there is no setback. So if you had 10 feet and your boat width was 9 ½ and you could fit it in there, that would be permitted. Reeder: In the front yard. Weick: In the side yard. Reeder: Side yard. Aanenson: Yep. Reeder: But what is being proposed you could put it in the front yard in the side yard setback. Aanenson: No. Just in the driveway on the front yard setback. Reeder: I’m sorry, I can put my boat beside my driveway in the setback or not under the proposed? Aanenson: The proposed allows you to put it on your driveway. So you’re on a hard surface. You’re on your driveway so it’s easier for you to get it in and out to use. Not having to back it up, put it into your side yard. Reeder: So you’re saying you cannot put it in the side yard. Aanenson: The goal is to allow you to put it in your driveway, correct. Weick: I’ll give it a shot. As it stands today you can put a trailer, RV, boat in your side yard if it does not protrude past the front of your house so it can’t stick out past the front of your house and it can go as close to, there is no setback rule so it can go as close to your side yard property line as long as you don’t go over that, right? So if you have 10 feet on your side yard, Kate’s point was you could put a 9 ½ foot trailer there wide but you couldn’t put a 10 ½ trailer because you’d be into your neighbor’s property at that point. With the new proposal that doesn’t change. So you can still store trailers and RV’s that way or you can put them in your driveway. The setback for the driveway is from the street so there is a, every property has a front yard setback. It’s usually 10 feet and I’m guessing ish so you cannot encroach, so you couldn’t park your RV or trailer within that 10 feet of the street roughly, and don’t quote me on that but it’s roughly 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 7 feet. So you couldn’t have it real close to the street where people couldn’t see potentially if they were pulling out of their driveway or something. If a neighbor was pulling out or if there was a sidewalk, you can’t block the sidewalk. Aanenson: So the language that we’re proposing is on page 11 of the staff report and so what we’re saying is that, just as you said Chairman, it allows you the additional opportunity to park it in your driveway but so what we struck out is the old, it used to say you could only put it in your side and rear. That’s the only place it could be stored. So now we’re giving the flexibility to put it on your driveway. We’re not saying you can add additional hard cover and put it on your side yard. If you want to continue to use your side yard because that’s obviously out of sight, that’s your choice but it does allow you the opportunity to store it on your driveway. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Reeder. Weick: Yeah. Reeder: Why are we not allowing it in the side yard setback next to the driveway? Aanenson: In the front yard? Reeder: In the front yard. Sitting next to the driveway where mine is. Aanenson: Well we felt it was probably more sight aesthetic when you’re pushing it closer to someone else’s property in the front yard as opposed to behind the house where you don’t have the line of sight. So I think part of the challenge there too is, by default it creates what you can store on your driveway. So if you put your RV and your additional off to the side in the front and you can still put 2 or 3 cars in there so it’s, having a boat or trailer there it’s limiting the capacity so it’s kind of a capacity issue. So it comes down to aesthetics too. Reeder: The problem is if you put your boat or trailer in your driveway you can’t get your out of the garage. Aanenson: Correct. That’s what I’m talking about it’s a capacity issue, right. Reeder: So essentially you’re not allowing them to store it in the driveway. Weick: There’s going to be potential limitations with several different types of properties. There could be driveway limitations. There certainly could be side yard limitations. We have a lot of different types of property designations that have very small side yards and side yard setbacks. That’s a limitation right? They can’t put trailers on the side of their house because it’s not wide enough. And unfortunately those conditions exist. I think we’re doing our best to try and talk about proposing something that you know potentially helps, you know helps the Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 8 situation. Certainly if we’re not helping it then we should consider that as well. But yeah it certainly isn’t going to solve it for every home and for every situation. Von Oven: Just another clarification point I guess. Where do, where would personal watercraft fall under this definition? Is that a boat? Is it a recreational vehicle or is it not covered by this language? Aanenson: The way…boat or a trailer in the city code. Von Oven: Okay so we would say a pwc is a boat? Aanenson: Yes. Von Oven: Okay got it. And then this is a really dumb question but I’m going to ask it anyway. Because boats and trailers are called out separately, if one has a boat on a trailer is that two? Does that now make the maximum that they are allowed to store? Aanenson: No. Von Oven: So a boat trailer combination is one. Aanenson: Correct, that is assumed. The same as a snowmobile and a snowmobile trailer. That would be, yep. Or it could be a trailer with some canoes on it. That would be considered the one. Von Oven: Got it, okay thank you. Weick: Commissioner Randall it looked like you were trying to say something before. Randall: I had the exact same question. I do have a question about enforcement. Who determines if a vehicle is operable or not and how is the code enforced? Aanenson: Yeah so that’s how we’re enforcing vehicles right now. So typically those are complaint basis. Maybe it hasn’t moved all summer and so that would just be an inquiry. Or maybe it’s been sitting there for 2 or 3 years and hasn’t moved so that would be complaint driven. Randall: Okay. Aanenson: Just to be clear I said that in the beginning too. We don’t have the staff to go around and driving looking for those kind of things so just like any other, trash being left out or something, those are all complaint driven. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 9 Weick: Anyone else right now for Kate? Okay great, we will have a chance again to talk. Do not worry but at this time I would like to open the public hearing portion. Kate did summarize the emails and/or calls we received prior and thank you Kate for that. That was very helpful. At this time anyone present who would like to come forward and offer an opinion on this item please do so. Just state your name and address for the record and then I would ask that you, there’s plastic over the microphone and just talk as loud as you can so everyone can year you. Joe Perttu: Testing? Keep the mask on? Weick: That’s your choice. That’s fine. Joe Perttu: Good, good. Thank you for the opportunity to talk. My name is Joe Perttu. This is my wife Connie. We live at 681 Sierra Trail in Chanhassen. 681 Sierra Trail so we overlook Kerber Pond and it’s funny to me that the person that actually created a lot of these complaints isn’t even here right now I mean to address why you know he felt like it was his duty to complain because obviously this is complaint driven. That’s the way that I was told that after 15 years of living here that we have to move our boat off the driveway. I had some notes here I was taking. Can you continue to talk? Connie Perttu: Well I mean our’s has always been in the winter, we have a storage place for it in the winter but in the summer you know it’s like, we have like a 3 wide driveway but a 2 car garage so in that third area is where it’s stored. Joe Perttu: And it’s improved. It’s tarred. Connie Perttu: And we have a, you know it’s always clean in perfect shape and has a cover on it and everything too. I mean it’s never been an issue there. Joe Perttu: Also I’d like to add that in the winter time we do store it somewhere else so it’s not on the driveway. I understand the situation where people don’t want all kinds of clutter. I think we all are here to make sure the city stays beautiful and we’re not over using it with old rickety junk that doesn’t work so I mean I think the establishment does some guidelines of that car ought to be usable or off the driveway for at least a portion of the summer. I think we can all agree that that’s reasonable, right. So for me it’s a financial issue too. Like I say when, if I was not able to keep my boat on the driveway I mean it costs me about $400 to have it stored for the summertime and it’s far less convenient to use and you know recreational vehicles are, they’re to be used and hopefully you can get them out without having to take a drive for 10 minutes or so. I want to make sure that you understood that I have improved property. Improved surface. Again 3 stalls. We have that third stall for this particular purpose. To park a boat and we happen to be one of those homes that do not have enough of a side yard. It’s not like I have a cruiser boat that is ready for the ocean here. We’re talking about a 19 foot boat. Just a regular fishing boat but it’s like 9 ½ feet wide at the base of the trailer and I’ve got like a 9 foot 8 inch side yard and it ain’t going in there that’s for sure so thank you for your patience but I just wanted to let Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 10 you know there’s financial impacts to these families that would have to move their vehicles off the driveway and I find it nonsensical. Again we’ve been here for 15 years and we have a very nice home and none of our neighbors are complaining about my boat on the driveway so. Connie Perttu: I just have one quick question on this as well. Is there a limit to how many cars can be in the driveway? Are those conditions of the cars that are there? Are there any of those codes? Aanenson: No. Connie Perttu: I’m just curious, okay. Aanenson: So just to be clear this is allowing, this ordinance amendment allows to keep your boat in your driveway. Connie Perttu: Yeah, right. Just checking to see… Weick: And cars are not included. Aanenson: Cars are not included. Connie Perttu: How many cars someone wants in their driveways. Aanenson: That would be a nuisance if they’re blocking or sight lines, yep. Connie Perttu: Got it. Joe Perttu: Thank you for your time. Weick: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to come forward. Just please state your name and address and talk loudly into the microphone if you can. Mary Olson: Hi, I’m Mary Olson. I live at 7461 Windmill Drive. Weick: Welcome. Mary Olson: I’ve lived in Chanhassen at this current location 26 years. We were one of the neighborhoods that had the covenants where we had our own bylaws and for the most part everybody followed them and they over the years have kind of gotten lax. Disappeared. People have moved, moved out, never saw the covenants and I get that but we’re very concerned about our neighborhood and the way that it looks and I understand it’s an issue trying to get around and enforce this but I think it’s very important because we already have a lot of people that are taking advantage of it or you wouldn’t be getting the complaints and I appreciate the way that you guys Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 11 are handling it with your boat and you have a nice boat and you have it clean and you keep it in a hard surface area and, but not everybody is that responsible and we currently have people, you talked about the garbage bins. They’re not just left out overnight. They’re there every day, every night, always because that’s where they keep them and there’s the recycling bin. The garbage bin. The yard waste bin. Then we’re now going to let them have 2 boats. Most of them have 3 vehicles so those vehicles are going to end up in the street so that they can come and go and I’m just very concerned about the people, unfortunately we’re not all responsible and you always have the ones that push it and I’m not saying we need to complaint about everybody and everything that they do. We have to get along. I understand that but there also has to be some way to kind of push responsibility on the ones that take advantage and that’s my concern. Thank you. Weick: Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to come forward may do so at this time. I don’t know if we want to show the phone number as well. We have the phone number up as well. We’ll just give that a minute. I’ll take that time to say thank you to everyone who took the time to come in this evening and meet with us, especially with the health issues and everything like that. I can speak for the entire Planning Commission when I say that I don’t believe that there’s a more important voice than the voice we hear from neighbors and residents on issues, especially issues like this. It’s something that we were talking about earlier and we all, you know we all have opinions but it’s so important to hear everybody’s opinion and to really weigh that heavily. Especially if we’re thinking about making a code change. So thank you and thank you to everybody who emailed or called in prior as well. With that the phone’s not ringing so I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s matter and open it up now for commissioner discussion and comments and/or motions. Skistad: Commissioner I would just like to confirm that I believe that there’s covenants already in the neighborhood that this does not supersede the covenant so if a neighborhood has bylaws set up they still follow their bylaws so I just wanted to, that’s just a point of clarification. Aanenson: That would be correct, yep. Weick: As we’re thinking about this I jotted a couple notes that I ask the commissioners to think about. You know it’s a big decision to make a code change obviously and I would say consider you know in your opinion do you feel like we’re improving the situation or the physical appearance of the city. I think that’s an important thing. That’s something I was considering as I was reading through this is, you know we want to be sure that we’re not doing something that is detrimental to the overall appearance so I would ask you to keep that in mind as well. You know that being said I think you can make, I mean I’ve seen boats and RV’s stored around the city in a lot of different ways. I’ve seen them look really good in driveways. I’ve seen them look not so great in driveways. I’ve seen them look really great in the side yard and I’ve seen cases where I’m like wow, I wouldn’t want to look at that in my side yard right so I think that that scale can go either way as far as aesthetics are concerned. I’m just kind of thinking out loud but hopefully that helps as you think about this item. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 12 Von Oven: I know in the report it said we don’t have the staff to proactively monitor. Do we have stats on in a given year how many, I don’t even know what to call this but how many front yard boat related complaints we receive that we then react to and try to deal with? Is that a weekly thing? Is that a monthly thing? Is that everyday? Aanenson: Not everyday. I would say there’s probably one every week or two for sure, yeah. Audience: With different people or? Aanenson: Yes. Yeah. Weick: Maybe as people are thinking about this and thinking about if they want to read a motion or not, I will, I’ll walk through what are kind of the six areas that were laid out in the report and as I understand it what the revision to the code would include. The first was driveway. Right now we do not permit RV’s or boats and trailers in the driveway. Under the code amendment we would allow up to one in the driveway. As it’s written. Aanenson: Up to two. Weick: Up to two as it’s proposed. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: Okay, thank you. Kind of was wrong on that. For side yard setbacks there’s no side yard setback other than what the property line that exists today and that would continue. We do not have any requirements for the surface to be finished underneath the vehicle or the trailer and that would move forward except the understanding that a driveway is finished, that’s an assumption. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: There’s no change, there are no size requirements today and there’s no change to that. This is one I probably need your help on Kate. The number of vehicles, as I understand it right now is unlimited. Just RV’s and boats and trailers. Aanenson: Two. Weick: It is two today? Aanenson: No, now that’s unlimited you’re correct. Weick: It is unlimited and it would be going to a maximum of two. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 13 Aanenson: Correct. Weick: Okay. And then there’s no change to the duration. Aanenson: And then just to clarify again, you kind of said this but this is to Commissioner Reeder’s comment. So you can still park in the side yard but you can’t go past the front yard setback. So if you still choose to put it in your side yard, some people have hard surface on the side…but you can still continue but you can’t move it to the front of the house and put it in the side yard. It can’t extend past of the house. Weick: Which is no different than today. Aanenson: That’s exactly right so that wouldn’t change. So you could still continue to put it on the side. Von Oven: So just to clarify Commissioner Reeder is currently breaking the law. Weick: Don’t make this more difficult. So on the first thing I’m going to kind of throw out maybe the first curve ball to this but when you think about the driveway I’m just posing a question to my fellow commissioners. Would it make sense to limit the number of vehicles in the driveway? Does that make any difference at all in your opinions? In other words it’s one thing, you know one RV or trailer in the driveway and then somewhere else. That would be your two instead of two in the driveway. I don’t know. I’m just asking that question. Von Oven: I’m glad you asked the question actually because I was under the understanding that that’s the way the code is currently written. So if I’m page 11, Section 4, Part A, one impacted vehicles in the driveway and then I read it to say Part B says they can also be stored over there but somewhere along here there’s a maximum of two. So Part 4(A) to me says that only one can be in the driveway. Aanenson: That’s how it’s written, that’s correct. Von Oven: Okay. So I believe that from the way I read it there is a one vehicle, boat trailer limit in the driveway and then if I have another one and I want to throw it in the back or on the side yard as long as it doesn’t protrude into my neighbor’s yard then that’s okay so I think that limit actually already exists. Weick: Okay, thank you for that clarification. Maybe that’s where I remember it from. Okay. Audience: Are we allowed to speak at all? Weick: We’ve closed the public portion. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 14 Reeder: Mr. Chair? Weick: Yes sir. Reeder: I think we’re not solving the whole problem that I see here. There are in my estimations a number of recreational vehicles, boats or whatever on the side yard in the front yard now and at same time we’re trying to deal with the problem that there are people parking in the driveway. I would argue that there are a similar number of people that are parking on the side yard in the front of the house and there are houses that have no side yard possible to on their side of the house so I think that we should allow whatever number we agree on to be parked also in the side yard in the front yard. Weick: If I could just get clarification on that. You really mean front yard. You don’t mean side yard, you mean the front yard. Aanenson: All the way to the property line. Reeder: I mean in front of the house in the side yard. Off the driveway. Do you understand? Weick: I guess yeah. And I think that would be, I mean today that’s not permitted and I think it would not be permitted in the new code either. Aanenson: Right and that’s what he said. Reeder: With that I would suggest that we should change it and I might offer that amendment because I think you’re only solving part of the problem that staff is trying to deal with. They will be able to get rid of all the non-conforming vehicles that they have that are now also on the side of the driveway in the front. Weick: Okay. Any other thoughts on that point from Commissioner Reeder from other Commissioners. Von Oven: I think I would maybe offer a different opinion. I think while there’s probably no perfect code amendment that is going to solve this problem perfectly in every single person’s best interest, I was really impressed by everything that this hit on the way through. Everything from not making people create more paved surfaces so that we live in a concrete jungle but limiting the number of vehicles that could actually be put in the driveway to one when it comes to these boat and trailers and RV’s. I think expanding it to say go ahead and put everything in the front yard whether it’s on the side of the front yard or in the driveway or in the middle of the front yard I think that creates a little more mayhem for, I forget who said it but the people who are not really conforming. The people who don’t have things kind of put together and they want it on display in the front yard so I would not, I would not be in favor of expanding it to the rest of Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 15 the front yard. I think the whole point of all of this is trying to keep things in your own yard. Out of the view of your neighbors but we’re going to allow one in the driveway. You know if I think about how many calls we’re getting a year and now I’m just going to make up statistics because we don’t know but if we’re getting a call a week right, what are the chances that all 52 of those are for somebody’s boat that is on the side of the driveway versus in the driveway right, so I disagree that we’re not going to be solving any of the problem. I think this actually will solve a lot of the problem. It’s still going to leave something to be desired but I’d be open to ideas of how to perfectly solve this so I am in favor of what’s being proposed here. I know there will be some push back but I think, if I think about the best way to allow what we should be allowing people to do on their property without creating mayhem in the front yard, I think this is a nice balance that along the way as this goes to City Council might there be an amendment to it that makes it even better? Maybe but I think it’s a really, really good start. Weick: Thank you. Skistad: And I would second what he said. I agree with him. I thought MacKenzie did a fabulous job writing this up and listed all the issues and it was very clear overall why we’re looking at the changes and some of the best ways to go about that. Aanenson: If I may Chairman, I think one of the things we talked about internally is this is a big change and so we want to, you can start an ordinance on a certain date so we anticipate maybe this is the summer. We started at the end of the summer, we spend some time because there are people that are non-conforming and have been for a while. So to, so we could start that adoption at a later date but spend the summer educating people the direction, the general direction that you choose to go and try to get compliance and conformance and explain all that. Noyes: Chairman, Commissioner Noyes. I would also agree with Commissioner Von Oven. I think the word that he used that I think really kind of epitomizes this is balance. This isn’t going to be perfect but I think we’ve got to balance the needs of the people who have the boats and the RV’s and whatever to store with the views of the neighbors in that neighborhood. There’s many more people that are not storing things in their yard than there are and some of those people are not real happy about you know their neighborhood having a different look because of all of this but I also think we’ve got to make sure that we have solutions for people that do have these things and I think the way it’s set right now is I think that balance is struck pretty well and would be against expanding this so that the front yard was included in it. I think that would start to really kind of change what we’re trying to do here and I think push the balance too far in one direction so that’d be my comment. Weick: Thank you. Randall: Commissioners I also feel the same way. I feel maybe some comments about the balance. These were really good. People that know me know that I believe in personal property rights. However there are, this is a good balance. It allows for people to still have these items in Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 16 their driveway. It’s just not wanting to accumulate to the point where it becomes a problem so I think it’s a good balance for the neighbors that have to look at this stuff and also to that these people who want to have these items also. That’s all I’ll say. Weick: Thanks Commissioner Randall. Sounds like we’re working towards a decision which is nice. I think balance is hard. We’re taking the harder route having to get to this point. I think it’s easier to say all or nothing you know, those are easier things to do. I think it’s much more difficult to try and reach a balance. And I will admit I struggle. In one minute I think awesome and then in the next minute I think what are we creating but I think at the end of the day there’s a situation that already exists here and I think we’re, I think we’re trying to help. I do. Von Oven: So here’s what I would offer for folks who may not know. So we’re the Planning Commission and as you said right we have the opportunity to take what MacKenzie has created and move it forward to City Council but we’re not the end all to be all. So at the end of the day the City Council has to vote on this and as much as I think we have an important role to play, I think people pay a lot more attention when things go to City Council than when they come to Planning Commission so it’s my hope that if we as a council approve this, or recommend this tonight and it goes before City Council it will get a bit more attention and it’s also my hope that people will offer potential amendments to even make this better. I’m fine personally with it as it is but as a city we might be able to group think our way to a slightly even better motion so with that I would offer a motion. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the outdoor storage of boats, trailers and recreational vehicles. Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Von Oven. And do we have a second? Randall: I’ll second that. Weick: A fervent second from Commissioner Randall. Before we vote I give anyone a chance to offer any last opinion for the record. I would say that I don’t believe we are suggesting any changes to what’s been written and proposed by staff. I guess that’d be one of the purposes that we have which is, is there anything that we found that we would like to see added or changed from the new code as it’s written and so I think we’re by offering this motion we’re saying you know we’re good with this code kind of moving past this step in the process. So we have a valid, anyone else? That was really rude. Is there anyone else that would like to make comment about the item before we vote? Reeder: Mr. Chair? Weick: Yes sir. Reeder: I’m going to vote for this motion because I do agree with staff that this moves in the right direction. My thought was that it could move even a little further but I think that’s Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 17 something that we could take up maybe several years after we see how this change goes. And just for the record I wasn’t proposing that we put vehicles all over the front yard. I was only suggesting that the area between the driveway and the side yard setback next to the driveway could be used to allow somebody to be able to fully use their driveway for what it was intended for cars, and also get their recreational vehicle in a place that they could use it so I will support it but I think it could go further. Weick: Thank you. And to Commissioner Von Oven’s point as with all the comments that have been made tonight. They are part of the record. That record is reviewed by City Council in detail and that point could be one you know that is reviewed and possibly added at the City Council level so thank you for that. Anyone else with comment before we vote? And hearing we’ll do a roll call vote. Von Oven moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the outdoor storage of boats, trailers and recreational vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: So the item will move forward to City Council with a unanimous recommendation of 6 in favor, zero against. Again thank you to everybody on the commission, staff, residents who came tonight to voice their opinion as well as those residents who emailed and called in prior to this meeting. That is the most important part of this. This isn’t difficult and I do feel comfortable that we’ve passed something to City Council with good research and good opinion so thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 20, 2020. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: And Kate do you have a City Council update? Aanenson: While I’m looking for that I was also going to give you an update on your next coming agenda. We actually have 3 items on the next agenda. We’ve got a rezoning for a piece of property that wants to do a PUD. We have a subdivision. I think we talked about that before. Deer Haven on Yosemite and then the final one is the, this auto repair business at 101 and Lyman Boulevard so it’s a 10 day. Sharmeen Al-Jaff on our staff worked really hard to get really nice architecture on that and so they did resubmit. They asked to be tabled so I think it’s a much better drawing. So City Council update. Here we go. So the Bluff Creek, the Bluffs at Lake Lucy there was a restriction on Saturday work hours so that was modified and then they approved the preliminary and final plat for the Berrospid. That one that you saw. The City Council did approve that. There was some discussion on that. I think a little bit more than Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 18 maybe even so the owner of that property actually does a lot of commercial development so he was very knowledgeable on actually had done to the watershed district. Very knowledgeable on the stormwater containment and that was really the driving… He originally was going to do two lots but the complex water treatment that was done so he’s used to installing those so I think that was a great conversation so that project will be proceeding forward. And so as I mentioned we have 3 items on your agenda then for your last meeting of the year, December 1st and we already have a couple of projects in the queue for January so that’s all I had Chairman. There’s open discussion after close the meeting regarding potential commission vacancies and what to look for in making new commissioners so we’ll discuss that when we close the meeting. Weick: Tonight? Aanenson: Yes. Just for a couple minutes, yep. So if everybody stays online. Weick: I don’t know if you heard that but please stay online but with that I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim