Loading...
05-17-2022CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 17, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Kelsey Alto, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, and Edward Goff. MEMBERS ABSENT: Erik Johnson. STAFF PRESENT: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT: None. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO INCLUDE CANTILEVERS IN THE LIST OF PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS AND REMOVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OTHER CANOPIES Associate Planner Young-Walters gave a brief presentation on the item. Staff would like to formally add cantilevers to the list of encroachments in the City Code. Currently, they are under the “other encroachments” section which allows them to go up to 2.5 feet into the required yard setback. Staff also want to clarify that encroachments cannot stack as several creative builders over the years have tried. He noted the removal of another sentence that says other canopies require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which should be a variance process. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning yard regulations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CLARIFY THE DIVISION CONCERNING FENCES Mr. Young-Walters gave a brief presentation on the item noting the addition of decorative fencing as it is also regulated. He explained the City cannot be stricter than the State Building Code when requiring building permits. The City Code states that fences 6 feet or higher need a building permit which is incorrect as the State standard is 7 feet; Staff would like to bring the City into compliance. He noted there have also been some issues with subdivision landscape buffers leading to some very frustrated residents. The intent of the ordinance is that roads have vegetation along them rather than a wall of fences and staff proposes amending the Code to say the fencing just needs to be on the Planning Commission Minutes – May 17, 2022 2 inside of the vegetation rather than entirely outside of the buffer area so that homeowners will retain more usable yard. Mr. Young-Walters also spoke about fences in the Shoreland setback and to Staff on how fencing is defined as a structure which would not be in line with the intent of the Shoreland Ordinance. Commissioner Schwartz asked if this would affect invisible fences. Mr. Young-Walters replied it would not. Commissioner von Oven asked about shoreline fences and if they are now considered structures. Mr. Young-Walters clarified fences have always been considered structures and that is the reason Staff would like to clean up the Code as there is a conflict. City Code defines fences as structures and says fences on the lakeside of riparian properties cannot be over 3.5 feet high. He noted two ways to read that Code: first anything on the lakeside of a house cannot be over 3.5 feet and cannot go in the structure setback; the problem with this is swimming pools are required to have 5 foot fences. He stated situations where someone has a pool and cannot put a fence around it or cannot legally put a pool where the Code says they must. Staff has reconciled that by adopting the policy that the shoreland height restriction only applies to fences within the shoreland setback. Staff discussed proposals regarding fences and the position they took in the end, as there are aesthetic reasons for not wanting fences by the lakes, as well as environmental implications. The Code as currently written, in theory, goes all the way to the ordinary high water level. He clarified that Staff went with the stricter interpretation that would still allow pools in a yard. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning fences. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF STORIES FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT Mr. Young-Walters noted the City used to allow both primary and accessory structures in the RSF district to be 40 feet height; the City changed that to 35 feet for single-family home primary structures and 20 feet for accessory structures. He stated every other accessory structure within the city has a story limit associated with the height limit but the RSF does not. He showed examples of a two-story versus a one-story structure, noting the intent was to allow a garage door for RV’s with a bonus room above, rather than a two-story structure. The City would be looking at stopping office space, party space, and potential apartment space from going in, as well as, the visual bulk and profile. He noted current structures will be grandfathered in. Planning Commission Minutes – May 17, 2022 3 Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning accessory structure height in the RSF District. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION ON PAINTING CONCRETE, BRICK AND BLOCK Mr. Young-Walters noted this would amend the design standards for commercial, industrial, and office institutional buildings. Current Code does not allow painting of brick, block, rock or concrete unless it is used as an accent. He gave history on the Code noting 20 years ago the City had problems with owners not repairing chipped, flaking paint so the City looked at design standards and this provision was added. The goal is to allow flexibility and recognize improvements in paint technology. Staff recommends removing those prohibitions from the City’s design standards. The Commissioners discussed paint technology and quality of paint, as well as, clarifyed that paint is considered an architectural material which is in Section 20-1065. Mr. Young-Walters noted Staff would hang their hat on the language “weathering characteristics and ease of maintenance” and consider paint an architectural material. If the Planning Commission considers it of architectural importance, then Staff says it is, as well. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning design standards for commercial, industrial, and office institutional developments. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING RESTAURANTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) DISTRICT Mr. Young-Walters gave a presentation on the item, stating there is one neighborhood business district in the city. There are another five Planned Unit Developments (PUD) that have this as the underlying zoning; however in all of these the City has only listed restaurants as permitted uses. He pointed out the affected area, noting a daycare, the Legion, Bongards Creamery Headquarters, and the old Marathon gas station site. Mr. Young-Walters clarified none of the PUD that allow restaurants have generated a single complaint due to having a restaurant. He noted the Conditional Planning Commission Minutes – May 17, 2022 4 Use Permit (CUP) requirement is just bureaucratic red tape for any restaurant looking to go in and is an extra $500 fee as well as an appearance before the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff recommends removing this and allowing restaurants to be permitted uses within this area as they do not believe any restaurant would have any greater impact than the current businesses. Commissioner Alto asked if a restaurant is separate from a bar. Mr. Young-Walters replied the City of Chanhassen does not allow bars and does not give intoxicating liquor licenses to exclusive liquor stores, which would be a bar. Therefore, they must have food service from the City zoning standpoint. Commissioner Alto asked about the brewery. Mr. Young-Walters noted the brewery does not have food service and is operating under a taproom license so they cannot serve intoxicating liquor. He noted a plain and simple bar could not go into any District within the city. Commissioner Soller would love to see that corner within the District be revitalized. Mr. Young-Walters agreed and said Staff would also love to see that area redeveloped. The Commissioners discussed the area impacted, differences between zoning districts, and options for businesses in the area. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner von Oven moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning restaurants in the BN District. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE SCREENING Mr. Young-Walters gave history, noting in 2004, the City made a change to the Zoning Code adding the Residential Low- and Medium-Density (RLM) District and removed the old Agricultural Preserve (A1) District. When the change was made, every reference to A1 was not removed and RLM was not added to every section that it should have been within the Code. One in particular that was missed was landscaping standards. As Mr. Young-Walters was looking, the R4 district seemed out of place, which is a District that allows both detached single-family homes and twin homes and falls within the category of a Low-Density District. City Code exempts single-family housing from most of the landscaping provisions (except density-related ones), and in reading through the provisions it says things like “x percentage of the total development value must be spent on plantings, there must be foundation plantings, etc.” These are intended for things like apartment Planning Commission Minutes – May 17, 2022 5 complexes, industrial building, and large townhome projects. The City does not look at a single- family home and say they do not have $15,000 in hostas surrounding the house therefore are in violation of landscape standards. Staff felt it appropriate to make it explicit that a duplex or twin home would have the same exemptions as a standalone single-family home and not subject to those planting standards. He showed a table that breaks out how landscape standards between different zoning districts are treated. He explained the different densities of vegetation and landscape requirements, noting higher density locations require higher density vegetation. Mr. Young-Walters clarified what they are doing with this is saying those minimum planting and landscaping valuation standards do not apply to single-family housing. Commissioner Schwartz asked how the buffer yard examples factor in. Mr. Young-Walters replied if one goes by a wider buffer the City multiplies the plat by .4 and because the developer has granted more space between one development and another, they do not need as much density of plantings. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the City dictates the types of plantings. Mr. Young-Walter replied yes and no. They have a list of approved plants and the standards that require no more than 30% of the same family, 20% of the same genus, and 10% of the same species. Commissioner Goff asked Mr. Young-Walters to speak to the three alternatives and differences between them on Page 41. Mr. Young-Walters noted the first would have created a break between attached and detached housing types where duplexes would not be treated like detached single-family homes and instead would be treated like an apartment building. Staff is proposing Option 2, which concerns multi- family versus single-family. Attached units of three dwelling units or more will begin to be considered a townhouse or row house and would get the higher screening requirements. Regarding the Option 3, Mr. Young-Walters does not think it should be in here at all. This option would not have looked at housing types at all and instead makes all landscaping entirely dependent upon land- use guidance. He noted this is somewhat present anyways, because of the fact that none of these are exempt from the four-unit break or threshold. Option 3 is basically keeping the current system with no tweaking except cleaning up the Districts that do not exist. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning residential development landscape screening. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ADD A 30-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR COURT APPEALS OF ZONING DECISIONS Planning Commission Minutes – May 17, 2022 6 Mr. Young-Walters stated the City Attorney has recommended the City amend City Code regarding this item. A district court case came down and another City had a premise saying if one disagrees with a City Council decision on a variance they have 30 days to appeal at the district court or it is final. He shared that someone tried to appeal a decision after that 30 days and the court said no and dismissed the appeal. The reason Staff would recommend this amendment is to provide a clear process, provide certainty for the developer or homeowner who requested the variance. This is helpful for all parties and clarifies the Statute of Limitations. The City Attorney recommended this for all of Chapter 20, not just for variances, as she believes the decision would hold for all zoning decisions. Therefore Staff is adding it to cover any decision by the City Council under Chapter 20. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning district court appeal deadlines. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Goff noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 19, 2022 as presented. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Mr. Young-Walters updated the Commissioners noting the City Council approved an amendment to the Dakota Retail Site Plan Agreement at a work session. Staff was directed to investigate the possibility of short-term rental licensing; the Erhart Farms subdivision was approved, as was the 855 Pleasant View Road subdivision. The City Council approved the Code amendment relating to outdoor storage of water craft but the April 1 to October 1 timeframe was approved. Mr. Young-Walters reminded the Commissioners that the next Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Schwartz 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 8:19 p.m. Submitted by MacKenzie Young-Walters Associate Planner Prepared by Jean Steckling Senior Admin. Support Specialist