Loading...
2019 04 16-pcCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner Weick: I’d like to start off thanking Commissioners Aller and Madsen for many years of really good and dedicated service to the City of Chanhassen and welcoming new planning commission members Laura Skistad as well as Doug Reeder. Tonight we have 3 code amendments to the Chanhassen City Code. These are open for public input. As a reminder the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council. If you would like you can follow any of these items discussed tonight with the City Council on May 13th. Items before the Planning Commission, also as a point of review, we use the following format. We will introduce the item. Staff will make a presentation. Commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions of staff at that point. Once that is satisfied we’ll open the public hearing and accept all public input. Anyone who wishes to come forward and we will close the public hearing. Make comments and then make a motion as appropriate. So again we have 3 items tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW BOARDING KENNELS IN INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICTS. Weick: The first is an amendment to the Chanhassen City Code to allow boarding, kennels in industrial office park district. MacKenzie take it away. Walters: Yep as always I will go through these somewhat quickly but feel free to ask any and all questions that you have. So boarding kennels within the industrial office park districts staff has been contacted by quite a few different entities that are interested in opening up a pet daycare business in the city. We did a review of the zoning code and there are very few areas in the city where these type of businesses can be located. Currently they are permitted as interim uses which are uses that are planned to be phased out and discontinued within the A2 and RR. These are rural single family districts. Minimum lot size 2 ½ acres designed to be residential in nature. And then also within the business fringe district which is basically a holding district we have in the southern part of the city. It’s there to allow for limited low impact commercial use until such a time as sewer and water are extended at which point the plan is for these areas to be rezoned and those uses to be phased out. So this leaves us in a position where there really is no place in Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 2 the city where these types of uses will be permitted long term so what staff did some research. Looked at what other cities did and then also add a business that was operating in one of our industrial and office park districts. Industrial and office park districts are districts that allow office use as well as light industrial and warehousing. That business has been in operation for 8, 10 years. Somewhere around there. Has not generated any significant complaints so staff felt that with appropriate safeguards it’s likely that these types of uses could be accommodated in the industrial and office districts. So with that understanding staff is proposing that boarding and pet kennels that are established without outdoor exercise areas as a pure internal structure be allowed as a permitted use subject to several performance standards. They would be required to have the city’s kennel license. The would need to have a mitigation plan to deal with the potential cause, noise or odor nuisances. And they would also be required to be located at least 200 feet from residential property lines and have employees on site at all time. Staff was concerned that for these businesses when they have the outdoor exercise area because there is more of a potential for them to generate noise or have larger impacts, that a conditional use might be a more appropriate method to, sorry I got tongue tied. That it may be more appropriate to classify them as conditional uses. This would allow for more oversight. Require a public hearing and a chance for the City to impose any conditions they felt necessary and that were reasonable to address the impact of this use on neighboring businesses. We propose that screening would be required. That outdoor areas would need to be 500 feet from residential property or 200 feet if they had sufficient noise mitigation. They would still be subject to the general 200 foot structure setback from residential properties. Require animal supervision when outdoors and again an employee on site at all times. So that’s the very quick rundown and I’d be happy to go into as much depth as you would like. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. Any comments or questions at this point for MacKenzie. Reeder: MacKenzie where’s the one that’s operating now? Is that down on 101? Walters: The one that’s currently in business is the, I believe it’s Hound Dog Hotel now. They recently changed their name. It’s in the Arboretum Business Park. The one that you’re thinking of down by Flying Cloud, was operating under a conditional use permit and they are not currently open. Tietz: MacKenzie what’s that, is that a boarding facility on Crosstown and 494? I think it’s Dog Gone or Dog something. It’s an old, it was an industrial. It was an office building that was turned into a dog I believe boarding and daycare. Can you tell me more about that one? It’s Eden Prairie. Walters: I’m afraid I’m not familiar with it. I only researched the ones in my community but. Generous: Well I know they only have indoor facilities there and so what is it, Doggie a Go Go or something like that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 3 Tietz: Yeah I think that’s it. Yeah. Generous: And yes they provide daycare services for pets. Dogs and overnight boarding. Tietz: But that’s not, we’re going beyond that in providing? What’s outdoor recreation for dogs? Is that really exercise area? Generous: Yeah it’s an exercise area. Tietz: It seems like there’s a lot of language in this document that kind of creates some questions at least in my mind. You know what’s an outdoor recreation for dogs and what’s a sturdy fence and why is it on a collector street when it’s in an industrial park? Aren’t those all kind of semi- collector streets? There’s a lot of things in the document that seem to raise a lot of questions in my mind as to why they’re essential. Walters: I don’t believe by retaining the arterial and collector for the standards for industrial and office park. I had at least so it was not my intention to do so. Tietz: Okay. Walters: That being said outdoor recreation area would be any outdoor area associated with the kennel. Tietz: But just isn’t it just an exercise area? I mean is it going to be clear for anyone who reads the document? Walters: Yeah and if you, I would be, I think we could easily amend it to be whatever language you feel increases clarity. Reeder: Mr. Chair there’s actually, MacKenzie there’s actually some indoor places that I’ve taken my dog to that have indoor/outdoor cages. Which area does that fall under? Walters: If there was any outdoor facility it would be an outdoor area. Reeder: Okay even though it’s not a general recreational thing? Walters: Yep. Reeder: Which is it’s sort of a nice arrangement to have the dog to be able to walk when he’s confined but you’d still be concerned about noise right? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 4 Walters: Yeah and that would be one we would definitely want, I would imagine at least the animal supervised when outdoor to make sure that if the dog begin barking someone brought it inside you know or acted in a way to mitigate that. Weick: Although as it’s written now you would have to keep the dog from going outside after 10:00 p.m. Walters: Yes. Reeder: Or if they do that… Yeah it’s a good point. Weick: Because 10:00 to 6:00 a.m. they can’t be outside according to this code so they’d have to make arrangements. Skistad: So how big would the lots for these new kennels be located on? Walters: The kennel license requires a minimum of one acre standard, as does the minimum size for our industrial office park district. Skistad: So if you’re going to have 500 feet from residential property that’s only one acre and wouldn’t that be difficult because one acre is only typically 88 yards by 55 yards. That would be 264 feet and 165 feet. Walters: Well the goal would be to prevent them from being able to locate close to residential properties so the reason why we put that setback in is to prevent one of these from going right next to a residential neighborhood. To guarantee it would have to be somewhere interior to the office park or situated on a larger parcel with more separation. If that makes sense. Reeder: So you couldn’t have it next to residential? Walters: The idea would be that the 200 foot setback would be significant enough to minimize any noise generated by it. Typically we don’t put industrial parks right up against residential neighborhoods as well so you have an adequate safeguard there. Tietz: Wouldn’t this, if it’s in an industrial park, let’s say it’s repurposing or a building, I don’t view this as a free standing facility. I view it as probably a repurposing if it’s in an industrial park area. You may not get an acre. You may be limited to some old surface parking that’s behind might become an outdoor, and this is really, I don’t know. It’s getting confusing when you talk about an acre and then you’re in an industrial park and if it’s not free standing it’s a repurposing. I just don’t know how it’s going to work. Walters: I guess I’m. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 5 Tietz: How do you get an acre in an industrial park if you’re part of a building that’s existing? Walters: Acre would refer to parcel size. Tietz: No. Walters: Typically they don’t break them out into like condominium units where you’d only be renting the condo. It would be for the parcel. If you couldn’t meet the acre threshold then you wouldn’t be able to get a license and that would not be an appropriate site. If you’re concerned about doing a multi-tenant building we could certainly. Tietz: Well I don’t know, you know there’s a lot of industrial properties in town and they’re not, I don’t think we have 100 percent occupancy and we have there may be an opportunity for a landlord to come in and say you know I’d like to have a doggie daycare or doggie kennel facility. How would you react to that? McGonagill: In a multi-tenant building. Tietz: In a multi, well it could be a one story big building. It could be you know a reconstruction. It could be I don’t know, we’ve got a lot of opportunities I think for repurposing things in town. How does that work? Walters: Well if they met the standards of the ordinance they would be allowed to put the business in that facility. Reeder: With the parking requirements that he’s got in here I doubt you’d be able to get this thing…in any way because you’ve got to have 1 space for every 10 dogs or something like that. You probably have 50 dogs. Yeah plus staff so you’ve got 10 parking spaces or something. Skistad: Depending on the size of the animal. A little toy dog versus who knows what service right versus a hunting dog. Reeder: Yeah I think…want to be able to accommodate 30-40-50 dogs I would think. Skistad: I guess where do we have, where is the opportunity for this? Are there certain areas where we say there’s 10 opportunities based on what we have written down here within Chanhassen? Walters: I haven’t done the site by site survey to know how many parcels would be eligible for it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 6 Generous: But our industrial zone is primarily south of Highway 5 to the railroad tracks from 101 all the way out to the, well the McGlynn’s area. So those are all potential sites. Areas that could be used. Skistad: So they’re zoned and not currently built on? Generous: Not all of them. Some of them are vacant. Some of them are currently constructed on them. There’s a whole area west of Paisley Park that’s guided for office industrial use. It’s currently zoned ag I believe but it’s any development of the site would have to be consistent with that office industrial use so IOP zoning would be appropriate. Skistad: So that’d be by the highway? Generous: Yes. Up to Coulter. Walters: The two or three sites we have received specific inquiries on have all been stand alone structures. Just mentioning that. Tietz: Well I just, I wouldn’t want to limit it to that because of you know to current and future use. Have you visited any kennels that you find to be examples, good examples of it and represent this standard? Walters: Well I think Hound Dog Hotel in here would be one that. Tietz: No in other communities. You list a lot of communities where they have ordinances but have you visited any of those facilities where they have kind of classic examples of a good, a good kennel. Walters: I’ve not done any site visits no. Tietz: Okay. And are there state standards for dog kennels? Walters: The kennel license is derived from state standards and any kennel would need to meet that. Tietz: So there are standards for containment? Walters: Yep there’s state and county standards and one of the conditions they need to get our kennel license is to meet state and county. Tietz: And is that enforced by the state or county or by us? Who would inspect the facility to ensure that they’re getting proper air and light and exercise space and containment space that’s appropriate size? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 7 Walters: County and state would enforce their requirements and their licensing. Tietz: Okay. Walters: We would enforce anything that was solely our ordinance like noise. McGonagill: Let’s talk about the noise part MacKenzie. The limits of noise. There’s not a noise quantitative test in this like so many decibels but it’s qualitative. Talk a little bit about the qualitative test where somebody, they had a kennel, if this happened and they’re in violation. Walters: Yep. So both the kennel license standards and proposed conditional use standards or permitted use, performance standards say they can’t create nuisances and our ordinance defines animal noise nuisance as being you know dogs barking for audible at 500 feet from location for a period of more than 3 minutes or audible outside of the building for a period of more than 5 minutes so it’s both distance and duration criteria. But if they trip those and we have nuisance complaints the kennel license standards require they take proactive measures to address the noise. McGonagill: And that’s true for both external, outside and you said inside as well. So how does it work if you have a multi-tenant building, someone’s right next door? Walters: I imagine quite similar to how Stock and Barrel, the gun range operates. Very good sound proofing. McGonagill: You have to attenuate it? Walters: Yep. And that’d be part of the noise mitigation plan. Waste disposal mitigation plan that’s required for them whether they have an outdoor area or not. Randall: MacKenzie I have one question for you. Not to open another can of worms here and no pun intended but gets you in the dog house. But is there any affect on veterinary clinics with this because they also board dogs or have dogs there and I know that there’s one on 79th. Is this going to affect veterinarians from coming indoor community and opening a business? Walters: That would be considered an accessory use that’s part of the veterinary clinic. Randall: Okay. Walters: So no new provision would be adopted that would affect that. At least not to my knowledge. Randall: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 8 Tietz: MacKenzie you said what 3 people have inquired? Walters: In the last half year or so. Tietz: Yeah. Have you reviewed the proposal with anyone who would be a provider to see if they have any issues with it? Walters: To be honest so far the conversations have kind of ended when we told them they’d have to go through a process of amending the city code and it’d be you know the minimum 60 day timeframe. They’re usually looking to move faster than that so no we have not reviewed with this any potential. Tietz: Might that be beneficial because I’m not in the dog business and I don’t currently have an animal but you know if someone comes to the City and reviewed this code and then just walks away because they think oh my goodness. This, we can’t do this. This is going to add X to the project and I have to buy more land and there’s not a site. I think it may be beneficial to at least review it either with existing kennel operators in another community where they have an excellent example of a kennel or with perspective owners. Randall: I have one more thing on there. I have boarded my dogs in the past and to give you an idea, I mean people are very picky about where they bring their dog to. We always did site visits to check it before we and they’re very busy. I mean there’s a lot of, there’s a need for dog daycare and pet daycare. Also too a lot of these facilities also have camera monitors so you can watch your dog from the phone, or from your phone. You can call your dog in the evening. There’s all kinds of things so I think the marketplace will drive a lot of the quality in these places and the safety standards. Places that don’t have a good reputation are not going to get business and they will be closed so. That is also a concern of mine too because of the traffic. You know did we have that issue with daycare facilities where there’s a lot of traffic. Parents dropping off kids. Picking them up in the evening. Same kind of thing so those are some of my other concerns with it also but I agree with you. It’d be kind of interesting to see what those past people, those inquiries have looked at. Is our, is this broad enough to draw them because there is a need for it so. Tietz: Good point. McGonagill: I guess I would add that, I agree with you Mark and also, but I also think there’s a need for a kennel out in this area. Randall: Yeah I would agree. McGonagill: I mean we’re all having to go, we have a dog as well and we’re having to go deep into the city or way out west to get one in here and a quality facility let’s say like Dog a Go or Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 9 whatever. If it was reasonably priced and that’d be the problem because as a stand alone facility there’s definitely a need in the area. There’s clearly, well there’s clearly just demand for it because it seems you got to almost reserve at certain times you know a month or two ahead so. Reeder: Just picked up my dog yesterday in Mound. McGonagill: Yeah. I think there’s a community need for it but it needs to be put in the right kind of way. Randall: Yes. Weick: And I think we have a responsibility not just to dog owners but to people that don’t want to hear dogs barking. But I’d be concerned about making it so unrestrictive that it could be, you know we could potentially have neighbor, you know neighborhoods that can hear dogs. They’re loud. I mean when I take my dog way out and it’s in the middle of nowhere and I can hear those dogs barking when I’m driving up. I wouldn’t want that you know close to a neighborhood and 500 feet’s not enough. I mean frankly so I think anything that restricts you know outdoor kennels is in my opinion would be a good thing for this but that’s just my opinion. McGonagill: Particularly with the density the way it’s going. Weick: Yeah. Randall: And one of the things, this also benefits too by having more of these come into town with dogs barking at people’s homes there’s an avenue for the city to say hey you can board your dog here you know and have it in an area where the barking doesn’t matter as much too so I agree with you though and I think that sound mitigation thing, I know when I deal with barking dog complaints I sit in front of the house for the 3 minutes and watch my watch and make sure they’re, you know I dealt with one today so but that’s kind of the, it’s tough. I mean for dog owners you know so. Reeder: Well I think putting it in an industrial park really eliminates a lot of problems we’ll have with this because there’s nobody there at night time generally you know which is the worst time for people bringing complaints so I think we’re putting it in the right place. MacKenzie what I was wondering is, are you still, after you adopt this are you still going to allow them in any other district? I don’t know maybe you should. Walters: Yeah nothing in this would change how the ones allowed in the business fringe district or the agricultural estates or rural residential districts are currently treated. We’re not looking to, none of that would be altered. Reeder: Are there, did I read that there are in there now? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 10 Walters: There are none operating in the agricultural estate or rural residential. As mentioned because of the requirement for an arterial or collector street there quite frankly aren’t many in those districts that could accommodate this use. Reeder: Well wouldn’t it make sense to end that right now because I see such a potential problem if one goes in in those areas and then the area develops and you’re making a non- conforming use. That could be a non-conforming use for 50 years. Not good. Walters: Well again in those two districts because it’s an interim use the permit would be revoked upon development. You would put in a sunset clause. Reeder: What does that say? What’s development? One guy next door? Walters: Usually we would specify the extension of sewer and water is typically how we’ve done that for the interim use permits down there so once that becomes available and utilities or the zoning changes they would lose that. Reeder: Will somebody actually build a nice expensive dog care thing if they know it’s going to go away at some time? I mean that just doesn’t make sense to me at all to allow it out there. Walters: Fair enough. Reeder: You get a selected thing that’s in the middle of nowhere but. My other question was what do you do with, I sometimes take my dog to somebody else’s house. No advertising dog care in their house and they may have a dog. They have a fenced in yard. What’s the definition of a kennel that is subject to all this? Walters: Well under the current city code if you have 3 or more dogs you’re supposed to have a private kennel license and if you’re accepting them for pay you should already have a commercial kennel license. However the city responds to complaints and if you’re keeping a low profile and we never find out about it then it’d be the same because we’d never know about it. Reeder: So if somebody complains about somebody doing that you would tell then they are a commercial, if I’m paying them to keep my dog there? Walters: I believe we actually have an enforcement case similar to that going on right now yes. Reeder: Okay. Weick: More questions, comments for MacKenzie. Clarification. Fair enough. We will open the discussion to the public. Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing and open for further commissioner comment or motion. I heard some concerns about you know an Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 11 acre being the right number potentially and does that even, you know does the math work to be able to do that so I hear that. Some clarification on really what do we mean by outdoor recreation and I think we can add language that says outdoor recreation exercise, things like that into it. McGonagill: And I think Commissioner Reeder talked about just taking away the ability to put this in some places where we don’t have them already and starting to put it straight in industrial parks. If I understood you right commissioner? Reeder: That is what I was suggesting. I don’t know if that has to be part of this ordinance but I think it’s a thought that they may want to look at. McGonagill: So what I’m hearing are 3 things. Outdoor. Noise. Limiting it to where it goes now. Narrowing that down. Can we do that or do we need to table it and send it back and have it come forward again? I’m looking for counsel. Tietz: Mike I just have a thought too about. There are some things that are quite specific in here yet they’re not clearly defined like what’s a sturdy fence. There’s other items, if there are some standards that are available that we can plug in that’s one thing but saying a sturdy fence and that’s up, who determines whether it’s a sturdy fence? Is it a 6 foot you know cyclone fence? Is it a 4 foot? Is it wood to 8 feet? I don’t know what a sturdy fence is if I’m a perspective developer of a kennel so I don’t know if you could go too far and say this is the kind of the fence but when you say sturdy fence I don’t know what that is. And then there’s you know other requirements about, oh what’s another one I wrote down? Something about ample heat, light and ventilation. What’s ample heat, light and ventilation? Does the state licensing have a standard for that? Are there examples of high class operations or you folks keep your dogs when you travel that someone else has a standard that we could apply or are we going to be so broad that it’s open for interpretation? Randall: You know and there might be a national kennel owners association that has a standard. You know maybe it references that. That way if they’re, if it’s ongoing changing there’s a new standard that comes in place it automatically follows that. McGonagill: Best practice. Tietz: Yeah best practice. Randall: Yes so. McGonagill: Yeah the kennel association will have a best practice for kennels…but I would almost bet there is one. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 12 Randall: Some of the kennels I’ve been to they have, you know segregated areas depending on the size of the dog and that type of thing so small dogs aren’t with the big dogs so then does that increase your operational space that you have? I like the reference the outdoor recreation. I think that’s important to word that because then that limits the boarding in an outdoor area. If it’s a recreation area they’re not going to be in a kennel. Or a cage if you want to put it that way so. Walters: If I may jump in. I would just like to clarify that these ample heat, ventilation and sturdy fence requirements are currently in our ordinance as standards for the commercial kennel license. Those are not new standards we proposed. It doesn’t mean they’re not problematic and can’t be refined. Skistad: So that’s what it says in the current code? Walters: Yes. That is a current requirement for anyone who’s getting a commercial kennel license. McGonagill: But you’d like to see some of this tighten up a little bit more? Tietz: Well I don’t know. It just seems like if I have a valuable hunting dog and I’m going to go away for 2 weeks and maybe you guys all have valuable hunting dogs or something. McGonagill: Every dog’s valuable. Tietz: Or your dog is a little one. Well I know but it’s just, you know if we’re going to have a standard do we set a high bar for it or do we find something in the middle and then let people come in and at least there’s a minimum standard established. And ample and sturdy doesn’t tell me that’s a minimum standard. McGonagill: It needs to be quantitative. Tietz: Well I don’t know. And like you said if there’s a national kennel club or whatever it is, or some organization that has some standards or if there’s examples you know Doug where you take your dog or Mark that are good examples that could be held up as a baseline, maybe we consider incorporating that so we get a high quality, you know people don’t come in and start complaining about the quality of the standards, of the living standards for their dog when they kennel them. Skistad: I guess I would say they’d just go out of business. You wouldn’t take your dog there. Tietz: Yeah I suppose. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 13 Skistad: I wouldn’t worry about it. I think the business, if they made such poor choices they’re not going to be a business very long. Tietz: Yeah that’s true. Skistad: Especially not in Chanhassen. Randall: It also too there is that you know sturdy fence type thing. Yeah if your prized hunting dog does escape from there it is somewhat of a civil issue because it’s on that kennel owner. They’re responsible for your dog at that time. Who are we to say you know the Great Dane, it has to have a Great Dane standard or the Great Dane can’t push the fence over or I know one of my dogs who’s a small dog was perceived as a climber and I was unable to board my dog there just based on the breed and so is that a standard too? Is it a chain link fence? Is it you know, there’s all these type of things so I agree. I really think it’s going to be more market driven based on the quality and the perceived quality by that customer so. And also too these places might have a standard built into their insurance policy also to run a kennel because of that civil liability issue also. Weick: We can, you’re not required to but we can certainly entertain a motion. I think we could attach if we wanted to amend some of the wording I believe we could attach it to the motion. Walters: Certainly you could also instruct staff to do a little more homework. Fine tune some definitions and come back after we have better information for you. Whatever your pleasure is we’re happy to do. Weick: That’s what I mean. We’re not required to put a motion forward at this time but I would leave that to the group. McGonagill: Well I would, Chairman I would propose that we do ask staff to do a little bit more work. There’s some further definition. I think that particularly Commissioner Tietz suggestions perhaps look at a couple of the type of kennels that we would like to see in the city to see what standards they use. If there is a best practice they use. You know and bring it back. I think we, I think we’ve given staff a lot of good direction and I appreciate them bringing this up and starting the process and we’re just fine tuning something that we all want to have here so. That would be my proposal that we. Randall: I would agree with that. The other thing that would be nice to have more public here for some input on it. McGonagill: Yes. Randall: That would be great especially if we know that’s coming up but I mean it’s out of our control but it’d be great to have the public here to have some input. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 14 Skistad: I would love another kennel here because I take mine a long ways away. I would like to see one. I don’t want to have too many requirements to have a barrier for them to have a business. But at the same time we want to protect our public. Tietz: Yeah I just don’t think we, we don’t want to make it so onerous that people, people come in and then they want to get a variance right away. Let’s get a document that supports the industry and provides for a good quality environment for the critters and hopefully they’ll give them a lot of latitude and a lot of opportunities for, sounds like everyone here has a dog except me. Weick: Well I’ll give it one more shot officially. I will open it up and accept a motion if there is one on the table. Reeder: I’ll make a motion to table this item and bring it back with some more information that the Planning Commission’s requested. Weick: Fair. Randall: Second. Weick: And I don’t think we have to vote on that. Generous: You do. Weick: We do have to vote on that? Okay so the motion on the table. Reeder: Mark made a second. Skistad: I’ll second it. Weick: The motion is for tabling the boarding kennel in industrial office park amendment to the city code. Having staff review the notes and comments that have been made this evening and coming back with a new amendment. Having a motion and a valid second. Reeder moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment to the City Code to allow boarding kennels in Industrial Office Park Districts and bring it back with information requested by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: It passes unanimously. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 15 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO BRING TREE DIVERSITY STANDARDS IN LINE WITH THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Walters: Alright the next proposed code amendment is concerning tree diversity standards. Essentially as you know the city’s been in the process of updating our Comprehensive Plan and one of the requirements that’s placed in that is that the city code whenever it is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated within 9 months to bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals we specifically mention in the Comprehensive Plan has to do with protecting the City’s urban forest as we call it. So that’s all of the boulevard trees. The trees that people plant in their yards. The trees we require to go in as part of the subdivision. As the city code is current written we have a provision that requires for new subdivisions that their plantings be 20 percent from the, no more than 20 percent can be one genus and no more than 10 percent can be from one single species. In order to adopt the most current trends and best rules of thumbs for forestry our Comprehensive Plan calls on adopting the 30/20/10 rules which takes that out one step further away on the telescope and says no more than 30 percent of the trees should be from one family. So staff is proposing that we amend that portion of our ordinance to do 30 percent one family, 20 percent one genus, 10 percent one species instead of as it’s currently is with 20 percent one genus, 10 percent one species and that would also in addition to being good practice for the urban forest bring us into compliance with our Comprehensive Plan. The rationale behind this rule is the more closely related the species are, the trees are the more likely they are to be susceptible to the same past weather events. Disease. Whatever the case may be. It increases the odds that something like Emerald Ash Borer can completely decimate our urban forest. Where if we have multiple different trees one pest can’t do as much damage. It spreads slower. It’s cheaper for the City to fight and generally just helps us preserve that asset. That’s the quick rundown. If you have any questions I’d be happy to do my best to address them. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. We’ll open it up for questions from the Planning Commission. Jump right in. McGonagill: Process question. Will this apply to subdivisions that are currently in process like Avienda and/or the park? Walters: If the new plantings happened after the moment this was put intact and went into effect yes it would. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Tietz: MacKenzie I assume Jill was responsible for a lot of this? Walters: Yes she was. I will do my best to clarify but yes. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 16 Tietz: Well so help me, how did you determine one tree per 1,089 square feet of cover? Walters: That I am afraid is not my area of expertise. Yeah. Weick: Bob. Tietz: Come on Bob Generous: That was one of the first ordinances I worked on here and we had to come up with a standard that said how big a tree was and so we looked at the average crown spread of trees and that came, that was the number that came up with. We wanted to be able to quantify the required plantings so if you need so many square feet of canopy coverage is what we really look at. Not the actual trees and. Tietz: But canopy cover when? When it’s 50 years old or when it’s? Generous: No over an entire site. We look at, we don’t care so much about the individual trees when you’re calculating canopy coverage. It’s a view from above. How much of that site is covered with leaves basically so we get a total canopy coverage on a property and then let’s say they remove 30,000 square feet. Well how many trees is 30,000 square feet? Divide it by 1,089 and that’s how you came up with the number of trees. Tietz: Interesting. Generous: That was back in ’93. Tietz: So if it’s a bare site and you’ve got an acre of 43,560 square feet you’ve got to plant 40 trees? Generous: Well depending on what the canopy coverage requirements are. Tietz: Well I said if it’s an open site. Generous: Yeah but we have standards. If there’s zero, well if there’s zero canopy coverage it’s no removal and you want to bring it up to a minimum standard and when there’s not a lot of, not any trees there’s some. It’s like 20 percent or something canopy overage. You can take that 20 percent of 43,560 and it gives you a number and then it quantifies the number of trees by dividing 1,089. Tietz: Okay well. McGonagill: There’s standards depending on what the existing canopy coverage was. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 17 Generous: Coverage is yes. McGonagill: Before you started. Generous: Yes. McGonagill: Before you started. Generous: Correct. McGonagill: Okay got it. Generous: And what the target preservation or target requirements are. Tietz: Okay. Reeder: So if there’s no trees there what’s the requirement? Generous: I don’t know the specific number but it’s based on the land. Yeah there’s based on the land use there’s a specific square footage for canopy coverage or percentage canopy coverage and then how did you quantify that. You had to have a number that you could divide it. Tietz: So help me out then with, maybe follow up on Doug. If the Lennar project that we just reviewed. So most of that area will be scraped and there’ll be most of those lots will be void of any canopy cover. Then we go back to what’s required of a developer to establish the base number of trees per lot? Generous: Correct. Well the base number of trees per lot is one. The additional tree requirements of how much of that target is not being met. McGonagill: But you started with how many trees were there originally right? Generous: How much canopy coverage. McGonagill: …excuse me, how much canopy coverage there is originally and how much has been taken out. Generous: Yes with the development. McGonagill: And then you build it back to whatever the standard is for a development like that, is that correct? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 18 Generous: That’s correct and if you look at our subdivision review we have those tables that say this is what the baseline canopy coverage is. This is the removal. If they meet the target there’s no additional penalties. Then they have to add so many trees and how did we calculate the number of trees? 1,089 square feet. Skistad: The developer adds the trees or the homeowner? Generous: Well it’s the developer. Homeowners can add additional trees but a developer’s required to provide a minimum number. Skistad: What happens if the trees die? Generous: Well most of them are under warranty for what is it, a 2 year period. Skistad: If a homeowner doesn’t care, doesn’t want to replace it. I’m just wondering I mean. Generous: Yeah that’s it. Unless they have a separate agreement with the developer that he’s going to guarantee their trees for 10 years. Or 5 years or whatever. That’s, it’s up to, it’s people’s due diligence to determine that. If you have healthy trees go in and they’re protected and they don’t compact their soils they have a good chance of surviving and growing to maturity. Reeder: But to her question can I chop my tree down? Walters: Yes. Generous: The resident can yes. Walters: Property rights are property rights and you know we do our best to set stuff up to be as good as possible and folks will sometimes make it even more beautiful and wonderful and sometimes decide they want to clear cut back yards and there’s not a lot we can do about that unless there’s a tree preservation or conservation easement or some protective measure in place. Skistad: Okay so this is just for an initial property development. Walters: Yep. Generous: Right. Walters: Yep. And so same thing is, I as a homeowner, let’s just say I love sugar maples and I’, going to plant 100 percent sugar maples in my rear yard. This ordinance would not tell me no, no, no. You can only have 10 percent sugar maples. You have to put these other species in. I can still as a homeowner having bought the property put up what I want in my yard. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 19 Generous: You love arborvitae. 50 of them along your property line. Tietz: Let the deer eat them. I have another Jill question. You’ll love this. Item number 6 it says plant materials used for reforestation shall be of similar species as vegetation found on the site. So now I’ve got a site that’s all box elder and ash. Generous: Those aren’t in our approved list. Tietz: Well but if it’s similar, you know that’s what’s there now so it’s kind of a ridiculous condition. Generous: I think it goes back to the family. Like the big woods that. Tietz: But this is still mostly for developers coming in. Generous: Yes. Tietz: It doesn’t impact the homeowner at all. It’s just new developments. Walters: Correct. Tietz: Okay. McGonagill: Does the standard raise the canopy or just try to keep it the same? I mean are you with this standard you’re not changing the density, you’re not increasing density of trees under this? Walters: No we are only changing the percentage ratios you’re allowed. McGonagill: Within that. Walters: Yep. Generous: Diversity is what we’re trying to get to. McGonagill: Yes that’s fine. Weick: Other questions for MacKenzie. Hearing none we will open up this item for public hearing. And seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing and open it up for commission comment and/or motion. Fairly straight forward. Reeder: I think this makes sense. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 20 McGonagill: Chairman I’ll propose a motion if you like. Weick: Please. McGonagill: Chanhassen Planning Commission, I would propose this motion Mr. Chairman, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning tree standards. Walters: Having a valid motion, do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: We have a second. McGonagill moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning tree standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: The amendment passes. And we have one more item I believe. One more amendment. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATE FRONT YARDS. Walters: Yep. Sorry my mic got turned off. Yes we do. This one is allowing the City the ability to designate alternative front yards. What this comes down to is in 1990 the City adopted a provision which said that the front yard for properties accessed via private street is determined by the nearest access to a public right-of-way. Unfortunately this doesn’t always mirror how historic developments went in. How folks chose to situate their house or how the subdivision was initially inefficient and it leads to a few neighborhoods having very weird situations where they have their garage and their entire house oriented one direction. They come into pull a permit or do something, build a deck and I have to tell them well no you can’t do that because this is your front yard and they say what do you mean it’s my front yard. It’s literally the back of my house and you look at all the other houses around and it is, it’s counter intuitive. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t make life easy and then the neighbors are not always thrilled when stuff goes in that should only be in a rear yard and it’s what they believe was a front yard. So what we’re hoping to do is given ability for the City to address these issues as they come up. What we’re proposing would allow the Community Development Director to look at these older things and when they come in designate a front yard consistent with the house’s orientation and the development patterns of the subdivision and then also to formally enshrine the Planning Commission and City Council’s ability to designate alternate front yards. So this is similar to what was done for Anthem on the Park if I’m correct where the orientation of some of the flag Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 21 lots, if you applied the strict definition would have given you like a 40 foot wide building pad or 30 foot wide building pad and instead as part of the subdivision the City said no. I believe it was the southern lot and the lot line in that case is the front yard. We designated what made sense. A more recent one would be the Red Cedar Point subdivision where that was the two lot split on 3800 Red Cedar Point where we said the east lot line should be the front yard because that’s how it has access. That’s where the driveway is. That’s where the other houses around it are oriented even though the definition technically would have said it was north didn’t really make any sense in the overall context. So this would be correcting the error that, not error but the situation that came up because of that 1990 amendment. I provided an example of one just to show you a little better of what I’m talking about. So this is a private street and it accesses a public right-of-way to the east. What that means is for this house this is their front yard. This is their rear yard so for them to legally build stuff they have to meet a 30 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot rear yard setback. Never mind that they obviously have a garage up here. Access this road to the north. As far as the city code’s concerned this is their side yard. Front yard. Rear yard. Side yard. Same with all of these houses behind. Again as can be seen all of these houses have what I would call a common sense north yard as their front yard. So if this individual came in and said I’d like to build a shed back here. This lets us say without going through the variance process yeah that seems like a place a shed could go, although in this case you would have to be 75 feet from the lake but, so that’s the gist of what we’re going for here and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: MacKenzie I do have a question. Is this only backward looking? So if this existing properties that want to do something to their property? Walters: I put in two provisions. The second one is the grandfather clause that looks back and the first one then would be what allows or formally allows the City Council to designate an alternate front lot line so the idea is for every new subdivision we’re aware of this issue. We would do what we did with Red Cedar Point or what we did with Anthem on the Park and pre- emptively designate it in the city code. Weick: Up front. Walters: Yeah so there’s no confusion. No doubt. It’s in the compliance table. Everyone knows what they’re getting into. So realistically it would mostly be applied looking back at properties because we will hopefully catch any of these going forward. Reeder: Couldn’t you just say that, is this cul-de-sac is private? Is that why it doesn’t count? Walters: Yep. It is private. Reeder: Couldn’t you just say if you frontage on a private road or a real road that you’ve got the front yard? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 22 Walters: I think there was a rationale for doing it this way. I think a lot of it, just looking over some stuff was designed to avoid any confusion or abuse of flag lots and so I think there is some benefit to retaining the existing provision and the intent there so we don’t you know allow folks on flag lots to reoriented beyond what was envisioned as part of their subdivision, if that makes sense. Unfortunately I don’t have an example of that. Reeder: You don’t have any pictures of that yeah, okay. Tietz: But aren’t there, MacKenzie there are some. These are all new construction so the flag lot didn’t really create a problem. Those are, and you’re, the one that’s on the screen right now. Those homes on the lake side have all been built with in the last 5 years so there it’s kind of controlled but we have a flag lot. Someone makes the back of their lot now a sellable property and they run a, you know it creates a flag lot. This house the old house could have a crazy orientation because it was right at the time it was built and now you’ve got the house behind that’s going to be, presumably it’s going to face the drive that comes in correct? Generous: Well the ordinance currently would require that their front yard would be. Tietz: Facing the other person’s back yard? Generous: Yes. Walters: Yes. Tietz: But aren’t we trying to avoid that? Generous: Yes. Well that’s. Tietz: So this would do that so that it’s. Generous: We designate. Tietz: You can control like the ones on the screen you can control that because you can, when they come in for the building permit or when they go through the flag lot approval process because that’s a variance. But it’s the old ones where they subdivide where this kind of clears that up. Is that correct? Weick: Or want to build a shed or something, yeah. Tietz: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Weick: Some structure. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 23 Walters: Yeah it’s mostly designed to accommodate existing houses and existing weird situations and let us give common sense answers. Randall: Is there a, any other standards that you apply like the actual front door to the home considering that being the front or was it pretty much just based on the orientation of the home? Is that your decision or is it. Walters: This would allow the Community Development Director to make that determination but it does have criteria you know consistent with the subdivision development pattern and orientation of other structures within the neighborhood. So the idea is this has to be a defensible determination. You have to look at how this lot is organized. How the lots around it are organized. How the houses around are organized and then say yeah this makes sense as a front yard. The goal is not to give you know a blank check where I can go to I don’t know we’ll just say River Rock Road and say oh you want to do this. Yeah okay. The east lot line is your front lot line even though it’s clearly. Randall: Yes. And where I see this a lot driving through neighborhoods is the development that was built around the old farm house. I don’t know if you’ve been in a neighborhood and you see the house how it’s orientated differently because it was built in 1927 and every other house was built in 2010 but that’s where I can see a little bit of it too but obviously you guys are taking care of that and that would be included in the development of a new property so. Weick: Great, other questions for MacKenzie? Hearing none at this time I will open the public portion of the hearing and accept any public comment. Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing and open it back up for commissioner comment, ideas, and/or motions. Reeder: Looks good to me. Randall: Can I propose a motion? The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the designation of front yards. Weick: Having a valid motion, do we have a second? Reeder: Second. Weick: And we have a second. Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the designation of front yards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 24 Weick: The motion passes and that is our last amendment. Great. Thank you MacKenzie. That was really good dialogue I thought. You answered a lot of really I think important and good questions. Do we have any new business Mr. Generous? Generous: Nothing new business. I have something on the council update. Oh May 7th Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled. We didn’t get any applications. Unless the kennels come back. Weick: Okay, well we’ll wait and see. Generous: That would be the only item unless you want to carry it forward… Weick: That’s up to MacKenzie now though. He might want to you know woof. Walters: Well I do know there’s one in Hopkins located within their industrial park. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Tietz noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated February 19, 2019; March 5, 2019; and April 2, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Well again I will say welcome again to our new commissions and thank you for bearing with me this evening as I muddle through trying to run one of these meetings. It’s not as easy as you might think. And I guess now we have administrative presentations. City Council update. Generous: The only item for City Council they did rescind or void the final plat approval for Avienda and extended the preliminary plat until December 31st. Weick: So what does that mean? Generous: Well they weren’t quite ready to go forward with recording the plat so, and they’re looking at revising it somewhat. They’re changing some of the lot configurations. They want to eliminate that ring road is my understanding so they’re going to have to come back and do all that. Skistad: The council’s coming back or Avienda’s coming back? Generous: Avienda will come back. McGonagill: To the council. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 25 Generous: For the final plat but it will come back to the Planning Commission because they’re also looking at amending the underlying planned unit development so. Tietz: But didn’t, they got approval for their grading permit didn’t they? Generous: Yes. That’s still in place and they’ll. Tietz: But if they’re going to eliminate a road how do you get a grading permit and eliminate a road? Generous: Well they’re not going to do that part. Tietz: That’s Phase 10 or something. Generous: It could be. They have to, well there’s a lot of infrastructure improvements that they need to do with Bluff Creek Boulevard going through and then the north/south road on the west side and we’re getting sewer and water in there. There’s a lot of grading. They’re bringing that hill down as you are aware. They’re going to have huge retaining walls on the north end and so. Tietz: So is it likely Bob that we’re not going to see much of what we saw 2 years ago? In the final because they had, that was when they had that big 90,000 square foot HyVee and we had all the different variable type of housing and, is it changing significantly? Generous: Yes and they’re shifting it around internally so once they submit that, they’re still working it out on their end so. Skistad: Could you tell me the date again? That you’re expecting to hear from them. Generous: Oh, sometime this summer. In May they want to go to council for a work session item to discuss what their plans are so I would think late summer or in the summer sometime they’d come in with any amendments. Skistad: Okay. Generous: But it’s almost a year of grading out there once they start. But we will get, we’ll preserve that Bluff Creek knoll. The wooded knoll on the southwest corner of the property and they’re providing financial payment to the city for the stormwater, or as part of their wetland impacts and so we’re going to buy, we’re buying property on Pioneer Trail so in conjunction and the watershed district and I believe the DNR we’re all trying to get all those properties in public ownership and then we can, there’s a big wetland back there. And then the next item is you have a joint meeting with City Council next Monday. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 26 Weick: Correct. Generous: And you will be receiving a packet with the items. Generally Steve you get to run it and present anything but if you have any, it’s time for you to meet City Council and get any direction from them so. And Kate will be back next week for that so. Weick: Okay. And that will be an open conversation. I mean obviously bring your agenda. McGonagill: No you’re chairman. Randall: What time is that going to be at? Tietz: I think it’s a pre-meeting. It’s like 5:00 or 5:30 isn’t it? Generous: 5:30 or 6:00. Randall: Okay I might have an issue with being at that. I’m going to be in a training down in Mankato that day and it’s not supposed to get done until 5:00 so. Weick: Okay. Tietz: It’s pretty informal as I remember. You know it’s just. Well not for you Steve but for us it’s pretty informal. Weick: Right. Although there’s new council members and the mayor and so who knows, it will be fun. Okay. Generous: That’s it. Tietz: Do you have an update on the calendar Bob? Any changes in the calendar? Generous: No we’re still waiting for things to come in. Tietz: So we don’t have a meeting then? Generous: The first one in May is cancelled. Tietz: Okay. That’s what you, I missed that. I’m sorry. Generous: Yeah that one we won’t have, unless like I said unless the dog kennel, the kennel comes back. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 27 Tietz: Is there much coming up? I mean projecting out you guys always are looking like a couple three, a couple months ahead. Is there stuff in the pipeline that you’ve been talking to folks? Generous: Just small projects. A couple variances. Tietz: But nothing. Walters: I’ve got 3 variances that have been telling they’ll apply all year and as you can tell they have, we have not received an application so we’ll see. Tietz: Okay. Generous: We talk to people all the time though but they don’t follow through and we can’t dictate that. McGonagill: Bob what’s the process on the park? What will it be? You know where they’re at. Where they’re going. I don’t think it comes back here but it will go back to the council correct? Generous: That’s correct. They did submit revised preliminary plat plans so that we can review it to make sure they met the criteria that council said so they’re down to 169 lots. McGonagill: They did get it down. Generous: They’re showing a parking lot for the development so we’re reviewing that yet and then we’ll get back, and then they’ll come in for final plat approval is the next phase for them where the actually have to submit the construction plans for the development and any phasing plan that they’ll have. McGonagill: Will that come back here when that happens? Generous: No. McGonagill: It will go back to. Generous: It will directly to City Council. McGonagill: Okay. So is the plat submission public? I did not look. Is it out there on the web? Generous: The preliminary revisions haven’t been put out there yet. We’re still going, reviewing. We just got them, what was it last Friday so. McGonagill: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 28 Generous: But yes, eventually those will go back online but yes when they make their application that becomes part of the public docket. McGonagill: Okay thank you. So generally we’re coming back in the way the council directed them to so they’re lining up with that fairly well? Generous: That’s my understanding. I haven’t completed all the review. There’s some undersized lots I think. Walters: Yeah there’s but again having not completed we’re broadly speaking it looks consistent. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Weick: I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Randall moved, Reeder 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 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim