Loading...
4. Potential Ordinance Amendments, Chapters 18 & 20MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: November 1, 2005 SUBJ: Potential Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendments Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code We last amended the subdivision and zoning ordinance in the spring of 2004. The Planning Commission has review responsibility for Chapters 18 and 20. A public hearing is required to make changes in these chapters. We are requesting that the Planning Commission review Chapters 18 and 20 at the work session to determine if ordinance changes should be prepared. In addition, staff is investigating changes to portions of the ordinance that should be revised. These changes include: Chapter 18, Subdivisions Issue: Plan sets submitted to the city do not always contain all the information necessary for review. Recommendation: Revise section 18-40 (4) to add the following requirements: 1. All proposed retaining walls must be shown on the plan. The top and bottom elevations of the wall must be noted. 2. The preliminary and final grading plans must be 50 scale or larger. The final grading plan must comply with the following design standards as well as the requirement of Chapter 7 of the Chanhassen City Code: a) The lowest floor elevation must be minimum 3 feet above the highest known groundwater elevation and must meet the minimum requirements set forth in Section 20-481 (e) (1). b) The style of home (eg. slab on grade, split entry, lookout, walkout, full basement) must be noted on the plan. c) The standard lot benching detail for each proposed style of home must be shown. d) Drain tile service must be provided to all properties where runoff will flow from the back to the front of the lot. e) Identify proposed soil stockpile areas and note stabilization measures that will be taken. Planning Commission Chapters 18 & 20 Amendments November 1, 2005 Page 2 Issue: The final plat submittal requirements do not correspond with our GIS system. Recommendation: Revise Section 18-41. Final plat -Generally as follows: Add 5) The digital files must be in the Carver County coordinate system. Issue: The current ordinance does not specify a length for cul-de-sacs. Rather it states that "the length shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street". Cul-de-sacs in excess of this distance would need a variance. Recommendation: Amend section to specify a maximum distance. Section 18-57. Streets k) The maximum length of a street terminating in a cul-de-sac shall be 800 feet. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the intersection of the centerlines of the cul-de-sac to the intersecting street to the centerpoint of the cul-de-sac. Issue: Streets that will be extended in the future with additional development may stay a dead- end for an extended period of time. In these instances, we want the developer to be aware that until the extension is made, a temporary turn around will be necessary. Recommendation: Add new section — Temporary cul-de-sacs must be constructed at all locations where a street stub will be constructed and will be extended in the future. The temporary cul-de- sac must be 90 feet in diameter and lie within platted right-of-way or easement. The developer must submit an escrow for the cost of removing the temporary cul-de-sac and vacating the easement (if applicable). Issue: Codification does not properly differentiate sections. o) Private streets -the numbering goes from 1) to 3), then goes 1) through 8). Modify subsection 8 to specify "private" utilities. Recommendation: Revise Section 18-57, Streets, subsection (o) — numbering system and following subsections. I believe this is a codification error. Amend subsection (8) Maintenance and repair of private utilities located within the private street shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property. Issue: Are lot sizes sufficient to accommodate the type of single-family detached housing we are seeing? (e.g., Lundgren Bros. has told us that their latest housing plan is 74 feet wide). This also relates to the issue in the zoning regarding lot width. Recommendations: • Leave code as is Amend section 18-60 to require a 60'x 60' building pad Amend section 18-60 to require a minimum 75-foot wide building pad Planning Commission Chapters 18 & 20 Amendments November 1, 2005 Page 3 • Require as part of the subdivision process that lots specify the amount of hard surface that would be included for each lot • Require that house sizes be shown on the subdivision plan and limit future building construction to those sizes, etc. Issue: Inconsistency of collection of park fees between Chapter 4 and Chapter 18. Recommendation: Amend Section 18-79 (p) — park fees are due at time of final platting, consistent with Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code. Issue: Development of either large lot subdivision or alternate subdivision in areas outside the urban service area or where urban services are not currently available. Due to poor soil conditions in the community and the city's desire to eliminate individual septic systems, we would like to look at the possibility of either providing the infrastructure for eventual hookup to a centralized sewer system or require a collective septic system as part of the subdivision. Recommendation: Permit development with individual septic systems, require the installation of a Collective Sewer System, or require the installation of the infrastructure for the eventual connection to a centralized sewer system. Chapter 20, Zoning Issue: Proliferation of after -the -fact variances and Zoning Compliance Reviews. Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. Zoning Compliance Reviews are required for any structure that does not require a building permit. As we are all aware, the City of Chanhassen has experienced a marked increase in the number of residents constructing nonconforming structures resulting in the need for a variance, partial removal of the structure or total removal of the structure. Staff feels the most important task at hand is educating the public on the importance of contacting the City before beginning aU home improvement project. The City has been making an effort to "get the word out" regarding zoning compliance reviews. A zoning compliance review handout (attached) has been created, is being printed and will be available to all those who visit City Hall. An informational article on zoning compliance reviews will be printed in the winter issue of the Chanhassen Connection. Also, the idea of creating a zoning compliance review link on the City of Chanhassen website is currently being discussed. It was pointed out that the layperson most likely has no clue as to what a zoning compliance review is. Staff considered changing the title from Zoning Compliance Review to Zoning Permit. We feel the term "permit" is more universally known and carries more weight with local residents and contractors. A common excuse used by those who build structures creating nonconformities (i.e. sport court built with nonconforming setbacks, backyard patio installed putting the lot over its hard cover max) is that they were told that such structures do not require a permit. If the title is changed to Zoning Permit then we can state that everything from sidewalks and driveways to retaining walls and patios require a permit. Planning Commission Chapters 18 & 20 Amendments November 1, 2005 Page 4 Recommendations: • Leave the title as is, "Zoning Compliance Review" • Change the title to "Zoning Permit" Issue: Incorrect ordinary High water elevation Recommendation: Amend Section 20-479 (c) (1) change the OHW for Lake Harrison to 993.6. Issue: Ordinance Section 20-517 (c) (4), requires a 4/5th vote for concept plan approval, yet concept approval does not provide standing. Recommendations: Leave as is Require 4/5th vote if proposed development would potentially change use from residential to commercial (consistent with state statute) Amend concept approval to simple majority from 4/5ths vote. Issue: Lot Frontage vs. Lot Width: We have encountered some narrow lots that may not be able to accommodate a house with a three -car garage. The City Code defines Lot Frontage as the lot width measured at the front lot line. In a Residential Single Family District, the minimum lot frontage required by ordinance is 90 feet, except lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be 90 feet in width at the building setback line. Planning Commission Chapters 18 & 20 Amendments November 1, 2005 Page 5 PAD P�aD PA00 1 PAD i r4TSF l I 33224-W— I241S SF REQUIRED 22,89 SF 50%50 19,202 SF PAD r All the lots in the exhibit meet the letter of the ordinance. However, a close look will show that Lots 1 and 2 are only 80 feet wide. The City Code defines Lot width as the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks in the RSF district does not address lot width. Recommendation: The City Code may be amended (for low density developments) to: • The lot must maintain a 90-foot width at the setback line. • At the time of subdivision approval, the developer should submit house plans. • Clarify the definition of lot width to be the shortest distance at the front setback line rather than the midpoint of the building line. • Require a 90-foot lot width at another location on the lot. Planning Commission Chapters 18 & 20 Amendments November 1, 2005 Page 6 Issue: Lots Fronting on a Curve: 00 r�7 4Zg�]' obi ltit 9& ]a b=� °Q7'3s'_ti L J A---y`-- sa, oo 9R 79 � f rsg 89 R=6da-Ov - r& 59'33" P5 f o rn l l a 18, 727 sf ��� � � L— % J f j 18,180 sf ,�++ ++ n L_ � � � ` 76,450 s f �, 16,498 sf ----� L--- 4---_j In a Residential Single Family District, the minimum lot frontage required by ordinance is 90 feet, except lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be 90 feet in width at the building setback line. A curve is anything that is not a straight line. The example above shows a street with a radius of 600 which is close to being a straight line. Recommendation: The City Code may be amended to: • Only allow lots that front on a cul-de-sac to meet the 90-foot frontage at the setback line. • Limit the radius of a curve that qualifies as a curve. Issue: Development is permitted with individual septic, rather than providing for future centralized sewer. This makes future sewer systems prohibitive. Recommendations: • Leave as is • Amend Section 20-906 to require a collective sewage system • Require the installation of sewer lateral lines for later connection to a centralized system Planning Commission Chapters 18 & 20 Amendments November 1, 2005 Page 7 Issue: Driveways can be located on the property line from the street to 20 feet back, and then must maintain a five-foot setback unless an encroachment agreement is approved. This has become a drainage issue when individuals have storage areas (driveways) on the side of their homes. Recommendations: • Section 20-1122 remain the same Section 20-1122 be amended to require a five-foot setback Only permit driveways on the property line in instances where a private street is being used Issue: Location of wall signs on multi -tenant buildings. Sections 20-1302, 1303 and 1304 of Chanhassen City Code state: (2) Wall business signs. One wall business sign shall be permitted on the street frontage for each business occupant within a building. In multi -tenant buildings where individual entrances do not front on a public street, a wall sign may be permitted on the entrance facade if the following apply: The entrance is an individual unit entrance and not a common hallwa b. The entrance is not an emergency exit or "exit only" for the unit. It is believed that the provision underlined above could be too restrictive for local business owners. In multi -tenant buildings there are often tenants whose individual unit is located within a building in such a way that they do not have street frontage or parking lot frontage. On top of that, the only way to access the particular unit is through an entrance to a common hallway for multiple tenants. In certain circumstances buildings are designed in such a way that placement of a wall sign over the entrance to a common hallway either makes the most sense or is the only option. The City of Chanhassen encountered a similar situation with the Spalon Montage site plan amendment. Planning Commission Chapters 18 & 20 Amendments November 1, 2005 Page 8 d\ Spalon Montage rr� Common Entrance (Spalon Access) Bebi Baby Store Recommendations: Eliminate the following language from Chanhassen City Code: The entrance is an individual unit entrance and not a common hallway Require developers to make provisions for all future tenant signage through a detailed sign plan to be submitted as part of Site Plan approval. Allow wall signage on street frontages, parking areas, or entrances to a unit which is not a street frontage or parking area. MISCELLANEOUS Issue: Business directory signs are only permitted in shopping centers, medical centers or professional office buildings. It would not permit a building directory monument sign for a group of buildings sharing a common entrance or within an individual development. Recommendation: Amend the definition of business directory sign in Chapter 1 to include names of multiple businesses that share a common entrance or are located within a single development. Issue: We need to specify the requirements of an acceptable grading plan. Recommendation: Amend Section 7-22 to add specific requirements for grading plans including: a) all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements must be shown. b) all existing and proposed storm sewer must be shown. c) existing and proposed top of casting elevations. d) slopes shall be minimum 2%. e) slopes shall not exceed 3H:1V. f) identify all existing and proposed retaining walls. Note the top and bottom elevation. Planning Commission Chapters 18 & 20 Amendments November 1, 2005 Page 9 Issue: Construction hours are overly restrictive and significantly different from previous code. Heavy construction operations are limited through the development contract and site plan agreements to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. However, building construction activity is not as noisy or invasive. Recommendations: Amend the nuisance ordinance (Chapter 13) to revise the hours of permitted construction, maintenance and repair activities from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, with limitations for Sundays and holidays, which is consistent with the previous ordinance (see attached hourly restrictions handout). If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1131 or bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. g:\plan\bg\city code\pc memo 2005 revisions.doc HOURLY RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES No person shall engage in or permit construction, maintenance or repair activities creating noise, including, but not limited to, the use of any kind of electric, diesel, pneumatic, or gas -powered machine or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, and no such activity is permitted on Sundays or on the following public holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Residential construction, repairs or maintenance, including lawn maintenance, conducted by the homeowner or occupant shall be permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sundays and public holidays. The use of electronic insect deterrents (aka, "bug zappers") is limited to use between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. during the seven(7) weekdays. Residential snow removal is not limited by this section. (City Code Section 13-2.23.c) g:\safety\insp\handout\Construction Work Hours Revised 8/05 Important Telephone Numbers: Planning Department 952-227-1130 Engineering Department 952-227-1160 Building Inspections 952-227-1180 Zoning Compliance Review City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-227-1100 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us What is a Zoning Compliance Review? A Zoning Compliance Review is required for the construction of structures that do not require building permits. The purpose of such a review is to ensure the improvement meets standard zoning requirements such as setbacks, hard surface coverage, structure height, etc. Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements will be denied. What types of structures require a Zoning Compliance Review? • Sport & tennis courts • Patios & sidewalks • One-story detached accessory structures used as tool or storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses, less than 120 square feet in building area • Retaining walls less than four (4) feet in height • Docks • Agricultural buildings By completing a Zoning Compliance Review, you are protecting your interests as a property owner, and best of all... a Zoning Compliance Review is FREEM How do I apply for a Zoning Compliance Review? Contact City Hall and ask to be directed to the appropriate staff member regarding your project. In some cases it may be necessary to meet with city staff in order to receive a thorough and fair review. By submitting a survey and building plans, and simply speaking one-on-one with staff, it is possible to complete a Zoning Compliance Review in a short time frame, usually within a matter of days or even hours. Once a Zoning Compliance Review is complete AND approved, relative documents will be placed in the property's building file. This will stand as proof that the property owner has done their due diligence by ensuring the improvement project complies with Chanhassen City Code.