Loading...
09-20-2022CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, Edward Goff, Kelsey Alto. MEMBERS ABSENT: Erik Johnson. STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer, Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer, Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist. PUBLIC PRESENT: Maria and Andy Awes 581 Fox Hill Drive David Bieker Denali Custom Homes Seth Loken Alliant Engineering Francesca Landon 620 Fox Hill Drive Paige Will 581 Big Woods Boulevard Deeann Hale 600 Fox Hill Drive Ella Hale 600 Fox Hill Drive Gary Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Road Jada Sanders 3609 Red Cedar Point Road Dave Bloomquist 8800 Powers Boulevard Mark Bliss 7333 Hazeltine Boulevard PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 581 FOX HILL DRIVE: RECONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION OF 2.47 ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT WITH VARIANCES Senior Planner Al-Jaff gave a presentation on the item, noting the application is for a subdivision of 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a 50-foot right-of-way variance where the City requires 60 feet. The Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this item on July 19, 2022 with direction for the Applicant to reduce tree removal on the site. The four lots meet the minimum requirements for lot area, depth, and width of the single-family residential district. Engineer Henricksen spoke about staff’s recommendation for the dedication of right-of-way to meet the surrounding neighborhood at 50 feet, which is the reason for the variance. Based on comments received, he wants to clarify right-of-way versus roads: right-of-way is an easement Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 2 area but is not the actual street width itself. The updated materials from the Applicant addressed all right-of-way dedication on the resubmittal. Mr. Henricksen spoke about the history of the development, street connectivity, and the 50-foot right-of-way easement. Water Resources Engineer Seidl spoke about the proposed drainage design which largely maintains existing drainage patterns on the lot with stormwater routed to an existing wetland that naturally overflows onto the public roadway and across Carver Beach Road where it is captured by public infrastructure and routed to downstream BMPs and then to Lotus Lake. He noted there will be four underground infiltration BMPs to treat and discharge the stormwater. Environmental Resource Specialist Sinclair noted this is a heavily wooded site with 95% canopy coverage and is a mix of red oak and sugar maple. For low-density residential City Code requires a minimum of 55% coverage be maintained after development. The Applicant is proposing to have a 38% coverage after development which is allowed by Code. When a developer goes below the minimum amount required they take a penalty of 1.2 times the difference between the required minimum and proposed minimum. When that calculation is done it is divided by standard square footage for a tree which is 1,089 square feet. The developer is going below the minimum required but is replanting trees and by replanting those trees they bring the minimum required back up to 55% according to the City’s calculations. The Applicant was asked to find ways to preserve more trees and saved canopy cover on Lot 2 by moving one BMP underground and Lots 1-3 have tried to minimize tree removal as much as possible. Ms. Sinclair spoke about a proposed conservation easement area on the property to protect trees. Ms. Al-Jaff spoke about parks serving the site and noted the Commission has the option to receive additional comments from the public. Staff recommends approval of the application, noting it meets all requirements of the subdivision and zoning Ordinance regulations. The variance for right-of-way was directed by staff to reduce the amount of overall grading and remain consistent with characteristics of Carver Beach. Commissioner Alto asked why there is a need for the road to go through the middle of those lots. Engineer Henricksen showed a slide on screen demonstrating the lack of connectivity for emergency services in the area, as they do not have a redundant way to get to residents along the corridor if there was an emergency. He noted they usually want redundancy in case there was a failure or a tree down blocking a road. Fire and Emergency services plans for the worst and since 2005 it was recognized that having a street here would provide a redundant access. Commissioner Schwartz asked Ms. Sinclair about the conservation easement bleeding over onto Lot 2 and Lot 3, which would be private property, and asked over time how do they protect that conservation easement from future owners. He asked if there will be some markings, a fence, or something to identify the space. Ms. Sinclair replied in the affirmative noting in the past the City has required developers to put up signs saying it is a conservation easement, it is also on building permit surveys, copies are sent to homeowners, and many times in neighborhoods that legacy is also verbally passed on. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 3 Chair von Oven asked about trees and whether someone could raze the entire site and plant their way back to the minimum. Ms. Sinclair noted technically in a subdivision one could. If a property starts under the minimum, such as a two-acre lot with a couple of trees in the middle which were cut down, they essentially clear-cut the lot. Therefore yes, one could go all the way to the bottom and work their way up. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the minimum caliper inch for the replacement tree. Ms. Sinclair noted it is 2.5 inches diameter. Commissioner Soller asked about the redundancy of the road and asked, until the physical street could be built, what is the point of the right-of-way. Engineer Henricksen noted if the City does not secure the right-of-way easement at the time there is no opportunity to have it; it is baked into the subdivision. If it was stricken from this application there is a 99% chance the City would never obtain that to meet a future connection. Maria and Andy Awes, Applicants, purchased this lot hoping to build their dream home. They have invested a lot of time and energy into making this a perfect place and noted they very much love the trees, and even tapped maple trees this year. They have done everything they possibly can to save as many trees as feasible and Ms. Awes walked the woods with Ms. Sinclair and thinks there can be some benefits to planting some new generation growth and planting new trees for the future. She noted if the road was not there they could increase the tree canopy by 8% and it is difficult because they are a couple with a small subdivision and they are being asked to build a road, pay for the road which is very expensive, and they are trying to do their very best to please everyone in this situation. They are trying to navigate all of this as best as possible and have worked very hard to try to get to this point. Mr. Awes knows there are concerns in the neighborhood about the number of trees and he wishes there was a way to save more trees and noted not requiring that road is a way to save more trees. He noted there is no redundancy now, there will not be a redundancy after they build it, and there may never be. He would still be willing to give the right-of-way if they did not have the requirement that they must cut down trees and lay asphalt now. Ms. Awes said many factors go into this and there were utilities stubbed for four properties before they even got to this point. The parcel is longer than the opposite side of Fox Hill with fewer homes, and a dedicated wetland and conservation area. They are trying to do their very best. Commissioner Schwartz said assuming they could get fair market value for the property, would the Applicants consider selling it to the County, the City, the nature conservancy or another organization that would preserve 100% of the canopy. Ms. Awes thinks there are a lot of factors as there are other people who want to live there and have been planning for that. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 4 Mr. Awes noted there is also the question of all the time and money they have already put in at this point. He stated they also want to live there. He spoke about three lots versus four lots and feasibility of making things work and noted at that point they may not have a choice but to consider that option. David Bieker, Denali Custom Homes, would like to answer some questions from the letter turned in by homeowners south of the property. The type of homes to be built will be 1.5 stories or 1 story and he showed examples on screen noting if another developer came in they may put in two stories to maximize what they can get out of the properties; that is not what the clients are requesting. He shared lot sizes of .66 acres, .34 acres, .52 acres, and .41 acres, noting most are significantly larger than 1/3 acre lots. Regarding water runoff, they have been working with Alliant and they do not want to impact anyone outside of the property they are working on. Regarding the road, none of them want the road, everyone is willing to give the right-of-way, everyone loves the trees, and it could potentially be a very long time until that road is of any use to anyone. He understands the economics of asking for a road to be built now as it will cost more in the future, however they do not know how long that will be. He hopes the Commissioners will consider this project and noted the Applicants own the property, they have a right to develop the property, have met all the requirements with a small variance for a road they do not want or need, and they will replace the trees. He spoke about tree counts versus canopies and noted the percentage differences. Commissioner Schwartz noted the road is for safety purposes and assuming the road was not built and a fire occurred or someone had a heart attack, who would Mr. Bieker hold to account that an emergency vehicle could not get to the property in time to save a house or save a life. Mr. Bieker would answer that by saying when the road is able to go through all three properties (two other property owners have to decide to develop and decide to give up part of their land) but until those two properties do anything, whether the road is there or not does not affect anyone’s safety. They will not have the redundancy they are looking for. To him, it would make more sense to dedicate the area, make it available for the future, have money escrowed for that road to be built sometime in the future, but not to build a road until they can actually build it all the way through as it is not helping anyone at this point. Commissioner Schwartz asked Engineer Henricksen if it is possible to escrow money based on the engineering estimate for the cost of the road plus 5-10 years out, accounting for inflation, so instead of dumping $45,000 for what the road will cost today they would require $60,000 or $75,000 and if it only costs $70,000 they would get back $5,000. Mr. Henricksen has not seen that occur within the City and historically he has not seen an attempt to try to estimate a timeline of when a street might go through. The practice of constructing a street prior to connectivity happening is not extraordinary as there are multiple examples within the City where street connections are stubbed and extended to the property line to facilitate future development. It has been common practice for many years. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 5 Seth Loken, Alliant Engineering, asked to address the concern about the wetland by a citizen, he noted most of the perimeter of the wetland is at elevation of 949’ and the EOF for the wetland at existing occurs at a 949.45’ allowing for runoff to occur almost immediately. There is not a lot of ponding depth in this wetland and the elevations on the south side are 956’, 954, 952’ so in order for it to flood up and go to the property on the south it would have to flood up six feet. They will continue to work with City Staff to improve the condition of the road overland. He shared that they proposed to move the stub road to the east to allow for maximum tree savings noting if they keep the red line shown on screen there is a 25 foot wetland buffer, 30 foot wetland setback, and a 30 foot front setback which more or less makes that lot undevelopable. He also noted looking at trees from a caliper-inch perspective versus tree canopies, they are more in the range of 45% tree savings versus the 38% canopy cover with the road. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. He stated to the public, if they have already made a comment at a previous meeting, the Commissioners have pored over the notes from the last meeting, and if they have comments on new information or on the changes he would like to hear those. Paige Will has been friends with Andy and Maria for 17-18 years, they are wonderful people, wonderful neighbors, and she has no doubt that they will do an amazing job if they are allowed to go forward with this development. That said, living on Big Woods Boulevard, Ms. Will has concerns about the road. She noted they enjoy living on a quiet cul-de-sac, there are lots of kids there, it is a neighborhood without sidewalks, very narrow roads, and she thinks in putting that road in, it does not make sense to do it prematurely. She noted if they are willing to put it in paperwork and put it in escrow it makes sense to do that because it does not make sense to add more pavement to the neighborhood, dig up more of the neighborhood, and most of the people in this room are very passionate about the neighborhood. Ms. Will stated she lives on a conservation easement and takes that very seriously, however she does not think it makes sense to put the road in right now. Francesca Landon is happy to hear that nobody wants the road. She knows that both of the people that live along the lake are not interested in a road, either and asked for clarification regarding the road, when they say “when those roads are developed” does that mean physically developed or when there is change of ownership? Mr. Henricksen clarified that means the property owner (current or future) would have to come to the City and go through the development review process to subdivide. It would have to be a willing property owner who wants to subdivide their property. Ms. Landon spoke about drainage and pointed out on the slide shown as the water comes down by the fire hydrant, the drainage systems are a little above the “G” shown on screen. She has concerns about the water flowing to the bottom of the street and flooding that area. She is also deeply concerned about trees only going from 35% to only 38% and was hoping for a better solution. Deeann Hale, 600 Fox Hill Drive, was talking to the owner of the property that Ms. Landon was just speaking about and if they get a good rain it comes down his gravel driveway and goes into Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 6 his backyard which has been flooded. The owner was concerned and unfortunately could not be here tonight but asked her to please share about the runoff because that will be a problem. He also spoke about the lift station noting when they put in Big Woods there was a problem with it and they had sewer drainage into Lotus Lake. Ms. Hale’s disappointment is that the City told them to come back with 55% tree coverage and they came back with 36% with a planting of 19 trees that are 2.5 inches. She thinks the Commissioners have received information from someone who belongs to the Sierra Club and she and her husband went out to measure the diameter of many of the trees, and many are well over 100 years old encroaching in to 200 years. The increase of trees on the plot shows most of the increase around the conservation area which is not where most of the legacy trees are. She wishes the owner would try to preserve some of those, although she knows in building a home one does have to take down trees, she thinks they need to pay special attention to some of the trees that are old and beautiful. Ms. Hale asked about the rest of the people who live on the lake? What happened to being neighborly and talking to a neighbor about this? She would be very upset if she lived on the lake and it affected her possibility of getting as much as she can when she retires and moves away. In cutting away some of her land, what is she to do? From what Ms. Hale understood from the woman who sold to the owners, they were going to be good stewards of the land and try to preserve as much as they can but she is not hearing that. Commissioner Noyes asked about the neighbor with flooding concerns. Is he asking that the problem is fixed, is he more concerned that it will be made worse, or is he trying to bring attention because it needs to be looked at? Ms. Hale replied he was concerned that it would make it worse for him. Ms. Awes noted the tree percentage was actually 38% and 3% may seem like a small amount to some people, but she noted they have tried to work with every single thing they could relating to the Watershed District requirements, and all the other requirements to get to that percentage. She noted they are sort of hamstrung with the road and stated there is nothing they can do about that big piece. It is a little disturbing for Ms. Awes to hear that someone trespassed on their property to measure the size of trees and noted that is an issue for her. They really just want to be good neighbors for everyone and she wants to restate that it was recommended for approval before, the Applicants have done even more, it has been recommended again, and they are trying so hard here. Ella Hale stated when the house was sold, Bob’s widow had the art sale and she bought his father’s life story that he used a typewriter to write it on. She read part of it and assures the Commission that this was never supposed to happen or be developed like this. A lot of these trees are sugar maples which is what the town is named after. If they destroy the trees they will never see them again in their lifetime. When the Applicants bought the property they said they were trying to conserve it and she had turned down other offers from people trying to develop the land because she did not want the whole place to get pimped out like it is now. She cannot explain why one would put four homes on such a small plot and then pimp it out to all their friends to make it cheap for everyone. She stated the owners plead their case to the Commissioners but they should really “be talking to us because you are going to have to live among us and you are not welcome here.” She noted they are threatening her home and it is just Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 7 sad with all the trees and animals that will be displaced, she noted every year they have a family of deer, turkeys, fox, and many animals and now that place will not be special and will not be a home anymore. She asked how they can call it Lotus Woods when there will not be any trees at all, she wishes the Commissioners could look at this and see that maybe this is not the right thing. If the owners really wanted to conserve they would just build a lake house and then sell the rest to conserve it. Mr. Awes clarified they were never misleading anyone about their intentions regarding the property. In the marketing materials, the previous owner put forth that this land was a potential for subdivision, it was in the real estate materials and she knew very well what their intentions were when they purchased. Ms. Will spoke about tree conservation noting trees have died on her property and Ms. Sinclair came out to her property and they had a great discussion. She learned that sometimes by taking out an old dead tree that is not thriving they can help some other trees thrive and open up sunlight. When she walks through the neighborhood she observes a lot of trees in the area that are going down and noted Texas Governor Abbott is paralyzed because a tree fell on him many years ago. She worries about the old trees in the neighborhood that are coming down naturally and she thinks there is an obsession with saving the trees but there is some natural tree loss on a regular basis in that neighborhood. Ms. Will thinks this is good to consider when talking about trees, replanting and taking some out will potentially make some of them grow. She noted there are plenty of saplings all over and she does not think they have to worry about trees replicating themselves there. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Chair von Oven asked if developers are in any way required to provide a conservation easement. He asked if that was a requirement or a choice. Ms. Sinclair replied there is nothing in the City Code that requires a conservation easement. They usually come about between City Staff recommending it because there is a desirable, healthy stand of trees. Sometimes the developer offers it because they know they can protect the trees and it helps their overall canopy cover. She noted it is not required. Commissioner Schwartz acknowledged that the Applicant have increased the canopy, even by 3%, is a lot. In his perspective it is not nearly enough, however they are in compliance and so everyone in the room understands if a property owner is in compliance there is little if nothing the Planning Commission or City Council can do to prevent the property owner from doing what they want on their property. If there is someone to point the finger to in his perspective it is the City of Chanhassen for not requiring a greater amount of trees to be preserved on a piece of property. He noted once those trees are gone they are gone forever and the nature of that neighborhood will be significantly changed. That said, Commissioner Schwartz is sure these Applicants will do the very best job to build on their property the nicest homes they can and make it a pleasant thing. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 8 Commissioner Soller wants to talk about a main point in a letter received on September 16, 2022 speaking about the impact of the right-of-way on the potential future value of their properties, especially if taking the yellow route rather than the red route on screen. He noted it really does seem that they are cutting into that property’s future value in terms of the size of the lot between the right-of-way and the lake. He asked if the City gives consideration to potential negative impacts to that property owner. Chair von Oven said if he refers to the property just south of Fox Hill as “property 2” the dotted lines are considered a ghost plat, meaning that right-of-way never exists if the owner of property 2 never decides to subdivide their property. If and when the owner of property 2 decides to subdivide they come before this Commission in the same way that Fox Hill Drive is coming before them tonight and they will have a very similar discussion about where and how the right- of-way should go. Should they never decide to subdivide, this road never actually exists, therefore the effect on their property from a value standpoint is if and when they decide to sell it they are probably required to disclose the ghost plats. Ms. Al-Jaff replied typically if one can demonstrate these parcels have the potential for further subdivision that could be an added value. Mr. Bieker noted one opinion and stated the top of the subdivision shown on screen where the yellow is, they are building a dream house so there is plenty of room to the east to build a nice house. If it was red they are getting into the wetlands and by moving it to the east it is giving a bit more room if they did want to subdivide. Commissioner Noyes does not want to see big trees cut down, however in his role as a Planning Commissioner he does not get to make the judgment as to what is desirable or undesirable. He thinks big trees are more desirable but this plan is within what is allowed by City Ordinance. He appreciates what the neighbors want and has empathy for them, however when one buys a property like this they also get the right to develop it. This is one of the things that is great about the City of Chanhassen, they allow people to develop their properties. From what he has heard tonight the Applicants have a thoughtful plan and are trying to be good neighbors and take into account everyone’s input. The fact that there is a conservation easement shows that these trees are front of mind for the Applicants and that is a good thing. Is Commissioner Noyes impressed with 38%? No, but he has seen the property and understands the limitations. He thinks the whole road thing is ugly, it is a beautiful property and having the road go through is ugly but his opinion is that it is never going to go through because the owners of the other lots get to determine if the road ever goes through. If they do not like it, they say they will not subdivide, but if they decide to subdivide they will probably be happy that they can at least push towards having a road go through. Commissioner Noyes noted a comment from someone about one developer’s plan and the effect on the value of their property, he understands that but the reverse is also true. Their opinions are affecting the owners of another property here because they do not want the development and it is a two-way street. Commissioner Goff asked about the road and what happened in the Lotus Woods subdivision because it looks like they have a skirt and a stub. He asked if the water is underneath or not. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 9 Mr. Henricksen replied the water main was extended to the property line. There is a temporary hydrant there. There is also sanitary sewer. Commissioner Goff noted the homeowner used that stub as their driveway. Mr. Henricksen replied in the affirmative, their driveway is accessed through there. In the Lotus Woods subdivision they showed a grading concept that ensured when the road went through they would have an adequate connection with their driveway. Commissioner Goff asked if, instead of putting the road in, could they just put a skirt and a stub on the Fox Hill subdivision. Mr. Henricksen replied they could construct a temporary intersection to indicate a future road connection. He noted the reason Lotus Woods did not extend the street was due to grades and the ability to extend the street and not encroach onto surrounding properties. Commissioner Goff agreed if those two homeowners never decide to subdivide this may never happen. He asked why they want a road to nowhere? It would be suggestion to just put a stub in and he is trying to see if they can minimize. Mr. Henricksen noted municipal services usually get extended. With streets there is a practice where if it is not reasonable to have the street stub extended to the property line it is escrowed similar to Lotus Woods. He defers to past comments and the staff report regarding impacts and complications. Chair von Oven asked if the property he previously referred to as “property 2” was before the Commission tonight, would the City be asking the property owner to build a small street that ends on both sides of the property? Mr. Henricksen would defer to fellow staff members but noted that could be deemed a premature subdivision because they would not have adequate access to the extension of the public street. Chair von Oven noted these two properties might run into barriers to subdivide because the outside properties had not subdivided yet and done the work they are trying to do tonight. Ms. Al-Jaff replied that is correct. Mr. Henricksen noted precedence was probably set with the Eidsness metes and bounds subdivision which then granted the easement and set in motion the idea of the planned development. Ms. Al-Jaff stated they extended utilities, as well. Commissioner Schwartz is curious about how the Fire Chief, Sherriff, and EMTs would weigh in on the value of this road from a health and safety perspective. He gets that the road is ugly and is a road to nowhere right now. His understanding is that neighborhoods need redundant access Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 10 because if access is limited to one way in and one way out, in the event of an unpredictable catastrophe, it seems that the City is being thoughtful and reasonable in wanting to ensure the health and safety of residents by requiring redundant access. He is struggling to understand why there is objection. Chair von Oven does not think anyone here is objecting to, if all four of these properties were to subdivide, that they need a road cutting through for the health and safety of everyone. They are discussing that while the City may require the right-of-way in this property, do they actually have to build the road because the road serves no purpose until it is connected. The road is valuable if and when it exists but it can only exist if all four properties subdivide, come before this committee, and go through the process. Commissioner Schwartz asked Mr. Henricksen if it is correct that the only way this road will be built is if the other two properties south of Fox Hill Drive decide to subdivide. Mr. Henricksen replied 99.9% yes. There is always the ability for the City, if a right-of-way is in need (he noted the City does not practice this), to have right-of-way grabs where they can take the right-of-way and construct the street if there is a need. However, that is not a practice in the City of Chanhassen and he cannot recall on a local street scenario where that has happened. To answer the question, yes, it would require the subdivision of those lots to the south. Commissioner Schwartz said assuming the road was built through the Fox Hill Drive subdivision and stopped that short road would not allow redundant access because it would not connect with Big Woods Boulevard. Mr. Henricksen replied in the affirmative, the intent is to connect Fox Hill Drive with Big Woods Boulevard. Commissioner Soller acknowledged that this is not extraordinary and he has seen a ton of developments but many times these happen in corn fields and other places. He wants to continue to acknowledge the unique and special characteristics of the neighborhood. That being said, breaking this down, the recommendation on screen is the approval of the plat to subdivide, the variance of the 50-foot public right-of-way, and noted there is nothing in the recommendation referring to the actual construction of the road. He asked if it is in the purview of Planning Commission to add language to recommend against the construction of a road until it can go all the way through. Commissioner Alto thinks it is and that is her problem with the road itself, it is a waste of time, money, and resources for something that could possibly not happen. Why would they build and let something decay that may never connect which the City would then have to pay to fix, to then connect. She also has an issue with collecting $45,000 from someone and letting it sit in a City account potentially forever. What happens to that money if people never decide to subdivide? Why is the City collecting that when it does not impact those houses at all and does not impact their safety? Yes, getting the easement from the property owners is a recommendation; they should get it and leave the trees there. Commissioner Alto does not agree with the collection of the money, although if that is the way the City does it, if it is in the City Code that is fine, and if Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 11 the Applicants just want to pay and be done to move on that is okay, also. That is her two-cents, she does not agree with either of those practices. Chair von Oven noted they can absolutely put language in the recommendation to the City Council who makes the final decision. He noted Commissioner Alto would just add that language to whatever she believes the right motion to be. When he read the packet and saw the number went from 35% to 38% he reflected on it and went through the notes, coming back to the realization that this committee, whether they were here or not the last time they adopted the City plan, is responsible as they are the ones that adopted it and said it is okay to go from whatever tree cover one is at down to completely nothing as long as they plant some. That said, he does not know that the Planning Commission has the right to tell a property owner that they do not like that number because built into the plan is a recourse for when they do not like that number. Chair von Oven is overly appreciative that they got to 38% and is sure it was no small feat. He likes 46% better and there is no route where he would say to forget about the right-of-way as it is not needed; however, the big question is: do they need to build it right now? He does not know what will happen at City Council and thinks the Planning Commission could come to an agreement such as securing the right-of-way but it does not need to be built, escrowing the money and there can be a special assessment in the future to pay for it, but he is very curious to see what City Council will do with it. He believes securing the right-of-way is the right plan but he does not think they must take that extra step now, and he thinks it is a nice way to exhibit that they do believe this is a different and exceptional place. It does not give them the right to take away rights from developers but it does give them the right to add language to say “can we treat this one a little bit differently.” He asked Ms. Aanenson if they can add language to the conditions of approval regarding the road. Ms. Aanenson replied in the affirmative. Chair von Oven clarified they can add language to the conditions of approval that get at the spirit of securing the right-of-way but not forcing the construction at this time. Commissioner Noyes would be much more comfortable with the Planning Commission making sure they have heavily noted their concern about building this road at this point in the process and making sure City Council is aware of that to take it under advisement that the Commission thinks it is a bad practice. He noted there may be other reasons why this may be considered and he does not think they should stop the project because of this road. He wants to save the trees and likes 46% also but does not feel he is in the position to write something that is technically accurate. He would rather make the City Council strongly aware of Commissioners’ position. Commissioner Alto agrees. She does not want it to go, and if the condition is not agreeable to City Council this comes to a stop. She noted if there is a way to not built right now or to evaluate the escrow portion as well, she would strongly advise City Council to reconsider the City building at this time. Ms. Aanenson suggested making the motion and then adding to that motion that the Planning Commission would like the City Council to consider Commissioner Noyes’ comments regarding the handling of the right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 12 Chair von Oven asked if that would be part of the motion or separately. Ms. Aanenson replied it would be after they make the motion, they would add that the Planning Commission would also like the City Council to consider the following. Commissioner Schwartz wants to be sure the language is accurate and appropriate and asked if the City Attorney or staff needs to look at this further to get the exact language down. Chair von Oven noted this is a recommendation and ratification of whatever language happens at the City Council level. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Soller seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way (ROW) as shown in plans, received September 1, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. The Planning Commission would like to note that they recommend City Council evaluate the requirement to build the stub/right-of-way at this time versus waiting until there is an actual need. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 2. 3609 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SHORELAND SETBACK AND OTHER VARIANCES Associate Planner Young-Walters gave the staff report on the item, noting the Applicant is requesting a 22.3-foot shoreland setback variance to accommodate the construction of a single family home. If decided by less than a 3/4 majority of the Planning Commission the item will go before the City Council on October 10; if decided by 3/4 majority or higher and not appealed it will be decided in four days at the close of the appeal window. Mr. Young-Walters noted it is a riparian property, located on a peninsula with lakeshore on two sides, these properties have a 20,000 minimum lot area, 10-foot sideyard setbacks, 75-foot shoreland setback, 25% maximum lot cover, structures are limited to a 35-foot maximum height and are permitted one water- oriented accessory structure (WOAS) which can be set as close as 10 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). This parcel is 16,501 square feet with 13.4% lot cover, a non-conforming 4.5-foot west sideyard setback, a non-conforming 65-foot south shoreland setback, a non- conforming 79-foot lot width, a private street bisects the property, and a portion of the northern lot is located within the floodplain. The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing home and build a new single-family home on the parcel, they will bring the non-conforming 4-foot sideyard setback into compliance, they feel the variance is similar to what has been previously granted in the area, and the building area is constrained by the two shoreland setbacks. Mr. Seidl noted findings that there is adequate room on the property to build a home that would meet all setback requirements. As such, Water Resources and Engineering cannot support the requested variance. He noted it would reduce the size of the home being proposed. He stated stormwater treatment in the area is deficient and there is a proposed project in the Capital Improvement Program that will invest public dollars into constructing public stormwater Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 13 infrastructure in this area to provide more treatment. If the variance were approved Mr. Seidl would ask that the Planning Commission look into creating the natural shoreline buffer areas which have many benefits including filtering pollutants from stormwater, creating wildlife habitat, and improving the aesthetics and value of the land and adjoining properties. The Applicant could dedicate a small portion of the property as drainage and utility easement where funding from the Capital Improvement Program could construct a proposed rain garden in the one area that would solve some of the issues brought up from the Applicant. Mr. Young-Walters noted staff agrees and appreciates removing the non-conforming sideyard setback, however he showed on screen there is a reasonable building pad clear of the shoreland setback. The Applicant is requesting a house that is about 80 feet from the furthest point of the screen porch to the furthest point of the deck. The City feels the private drive bisecting the property does force a southern shift which is unique and grants some variance from the shoreland setback but not to the 22.3 foot requested. Past practice has been to limit shoreland setbacks to extent of existing non-conformity, in this case a 10-foot setback variance. Staff concluded the extent of the variance request is primarily the result of the Applicant’s design choice. Staff’s recommendation is to deny the 22.3-foot variance and approve a 10-foot variance in keeping with the existing non-conformity. Commissioner Schwartz noted in the staff report it is indicated that this would set precedence so subsequent Applicants would also want the same amount. Mr. Young-Walters stated that is definitely one of staff’s concerns. In the staff report he went through all 21 variances that have been granted in the area and there are two where the City has allowed someone to go closer than the non-conforming setback. One was in the mid-1980’s and the house was not actually built that close to the lake, and the second was due to the very unique circumstances of a lot and the City Council decided to give them an additional 3 feet to have adequate off-street parking. In this case, while staff felt the private drive justified some variance, it did not justify the extent of the variance being requested. Brad Kerber has been working with the Applicant on this plan and they have redesigned multiple times to have courtesy toward the neighbors. He hopes the letter from the Sanders paints the picture of what they are hoping to do on the property and fit in with the neighborhood and respect their neighbors’ views. Commissioner Alto asked about the square footage of the home. Mr. Kerber replied the main level is 2,270 square feet with an upper level. Mr. Young-Walters calculated just under 5,000 square feet of living area. Mr. Kerber noted it would be a slab on grade with one level above. Chairman Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 14 Gary Renneke, 3607 Red Cedar Point Road, lives next door and has enjoyed getting to know the Sanders. He asked to understand where things stand now and noted he does not think he has an objection to the current staff recommendation. He asked if they can show the property lines and proposed setback lines and asked if that would make everything line up or if someone will be sticking out in front of someone else. Chair von Oven clarified the recommendation from staff is that wherever the end of the Applicant’s deck ends right now is where the end of anything in the future would end regarding future development. The setback is the setback whether it is the house or deck, it would be exactly what it is today. Mr. Renneke stated that is a little more relief than he needs, he understands the City’s constraints on that, but if it went farther out than that the Rennekes would not scream bloody murder on it. Mr. Kerber showed an overhead view of the property on screen for Mr. Renneke and demonstrated the proposed home and covered deck. Mr. Renneke noted it looks like it extends further south than his house. Mr. Young-Walters noted if they want a covered deck he thinks that will need a lot cover variance and then they are talking about something quite different than staff is understanding. The survey does not include that deck area in the lot cover, in which case Mr. Young-Walters would recommend to table the item because it will change how staff looks at it. Chair von Oven asked Mr. Renneke about his thoughts about a covered deck versus an uncovered deck. Mr. Renneke replied if the deck is not covered he has no objection to it at all. If it is covered he wants to understand if he is looking to the southwest, is it now interfering with the view he has. He does not know whether he would object or approve until he knows what it actually is and where it would actually be. Chair von Oven noted the original application was 12 feet further than it is today. Jada Sanders, Applicant, showed a photo on screen with a line drawn from the decks of the two homes. She noted they are asking to build their deck to the same distance as the neighbors’ decks. They would still not come in front of the green line on screen and she noted the decks and Gary’s patio (which was inherited) are non-conforming setbacks. Commissioner Alto asked if the intention is to enclose it into a porch or have a deck. Ms. Sanders replied the intention is to have it open, to have a pergola over a dining table in the middle, and possibly have a roof over a future hot tub. Commissioner Alto asked Mr. Young-Walters if this needs to be tabled. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 15 Mr. Young-Walters stated the Applicant has roughly 250 square feet to work with in lot cover. In theory doing quick math, could a roof go over the hot tub? Yes, and that would then cut off any future shed or anything else on the property. Ultimately, the Applicant can choose how to re- appropriate lot cover within the parcel. He has double-checked the math on the survey and is fairly confident roofs are not included in the deck portion. Commissioner Schwartz asked whether they should table until staff has an opportunity to review the plans. Commissioner Noyes thinks the Commission should discuss the variance before sending the Applicant off so if they have to alter plans they understand where the Commissioners sit. Mr. Renneke is not sure drawing the line from his deck is the right spot because he has corner windows on the house so sightlines there could be affected. Again, a basic deck he does not care about but if it has roof, walls, screens, it is all sight/view things he is concerned about. He commented about drainage issues in the area and would like to make sure whatever construction does not adversely affect the current stormwater runoff for his property which is not problematic right now. Chairman Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Noyes asked Mr. Young-Walters if the two neighboring properties are non- conforming today with the lakeside setbacks. Mr. Young-Walters noted the one to the east definitely is, he thinks the primary structure to the west meets the lakeshore setback but the deck and patio encroach into it. Commissioner Noyes asked if drawing those lines is a valid part of the construction. As it relates to the setbacks themselves the City is measuring it on the merits of the project rather than where non-conforming structures sit next to it. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative and said staff’s perspective is the strictest interpretation of the Ordinance. To grant a variance they need to find a unique circumstance of the property in question that justifies the requested variance. That is where staff’s conclusion was that while neighbors got to go closer because they built before current rules were in place, when he looks at the Applicant’s parcel he believes it can be achieved with a smaller variance. Commissioner Noyes follows two tenets as a Commissioner: first, people have a right to develop their land in Chanhassen but there are rules around it. The second is that he is not a big fan of creating precedent, especially on lakeshore. He is very concerned and noted the most egregious variance in the area was three feet. This would basically change the Ordinance going forward; if they grant 22 feet that is then the standard. He understands this is a unique property which requires unique solutions but that solution may be a design change to make this better fit into the space. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 16 Mr. Young-Walters said historically the City has given some large shoreland setback variances in this area. In his memory there are three times the City has granted a shoreland setback variance in excess of 20 feet. However, staff’s policy has always been that they will never recommend going closer to the lake than the existing non-conformity. What Commissioner Noyes was referencing was one where the City Council allowed it to go three feet closer than the existing non-conformity and he believes it was a 49-foot setback which is probably the largest granted because the road was built partially on their property which was the unique circumstance. Commissioner Soller asked if they grant a 10-foot variance the setback would be 65 feet and if they build the existing structure today what does that go out to. Mr. Young-Walters stated it would need a 10-foot variance. He clarified as a non-conforming use the Applicant has the right to bulldoze the house and build a new house in exactly that footprint without any variances. Commissioner Goff noted Commissioner Noyes’ comments were straight on and the City also grandfathers in if there is an existing structure, they give preference to that line and will hold that as a setback. Commissioner Schwartz stated setbacks and buffers are there for a reason unless there was a unique circumstance and there does not appear to be one in this case that cannot be solved by a redesign of the home. A member of the public asked if the houses on each side would redevelop, they would be grandfathered in and could build back to the patio area. Chair von Oven clarified the City, in recommending the granting of a variance, would regularly recommend holding the line where it exists today. If the homes went through a redevelopment they would still have to come before the Commission to request a variance, but staff would draw the line at the existing non-conformity but not go past it. Mr. Young-Walters clarified noting he does not believe it likely that staff would recommend the principal structure to cover the deck and patio area. Staff would say the principal structure can go to the edge of the existing principal structure, a new deck could go to the edge of the existing deck, and a new patio could go to the edge of the existing patio because under non-conforming law that is what they are allowed to do. They would not allow an intensification of that non- conformity within the shoreland, for instance converting the deck to living area. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 22.3-foot shoreland setback variance, and approves a 10-foot shoreland setback for the construction of a home and deck, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 17 GENERAL BUSINESS 1. Short Term Rental Code Amendment Associate Planner Young-Walters noted on September 6, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this item. After hearing from various members of the public, the Planning Commission tabled the item and directed staff to revise the proposed Ordinance to incorporate feedback form both the Planning Commission and public and bring it back today. Staff heard that residents were concerned that the proposed standards were too rigid, did not adequately consider unique circumstances, and did not align with how people actually use the properties during the day. There were also concerns about dogs, daytime parking, and property upkeep. Commissioners directed staff to amend the Ordinance and based on that staff made the following proposed changes to the Ordinance: 1. Clarified that accompanying children do not count towards the proposed occupancy limit. 2. Allow the City to approve higher occupancy limits based on home size, number of beds, and distance from neighboring properties. 3. Allow the City to approve higher parking limits based on presence of off street parking pads, driveway length and width, and availability of street parking. 4. Require fencing for short term rentals permitting dogs. 5. Clarify that City staff only is requesting permission to access exterior areas of the property when responding to complaints. 6. Remove limit on the number of daytime visitors. 7. Clarify hours for which overnight parking rules apply. 8. Require pets to be leashed when not in fenced in portion of yard. 9. State that licensee can appeal staff's determination on occupancy/parking limits to City Council. Mr. Young-Walters stated a few outstanding questions from residents including language about pets and whether it is excessive, whether the daytime noise and nuisance Ordinance is enough to deal with situations of noisy pool parties, and the suggestion to exempt properties zoned A-2. He found 125 A-2 properties with houses, 22 of which are on lots of less than 1 acre, 40 are from 1- 2.5 acres, and the rest are over 2.5 acres. Many properties have the ability to impact each other in a way similar to the other districts. For this reason, staff does not believe the large lot zoning A-2 guarantees lower impact and staff feels strongly that the Ordinance should be global to all short- term rentals. Commissioner Schwartz asked about addressing an exemption based on a property’s unique circumstances. Mr. Young-Walters stated staff’s understanding was that the concern was that the parking and occupancy limits did not make sense for those properties; their way of granting exemption was not to exempt them entirely from the need to be licensed but to give them the ability to request exemption from the standards to guarantee the license they are issued allows them to conduct business in the manner they are accustomed. In Mr. Bloomquist’s case he has a very long driveway and staff could discuss it with Mr. Young-Walters likely signing off on it and if he did not, Mr. Bloomquist could appeal to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 18 Commissioner Noyes noted it would be an exception rather than an exemption. Commissioner Soller asked if they will write guidelines for staff in granting the exceptions or if it is purely up to the opinion of the employee in that role at that time. Mr. Young-Walters put loose guidelines in place and there is administrative discretion in that, however if someone was granted a license one year with no issues it would be atypical for staff to reverse course and change it the following year. The City Council appeal process also adds a level of consistency because if staff cannot defend their decision before the City Council it will be overturned. Commissioner Soller asked if he applies the first year and gets exceptions, in year two is it the default that those exceptions would continue. Mr. Young-Walters would assume it would continue. He has not drafted the forms and would probably include that in the paperwork. Commissioner Schwartz asked if parking in the driveway excludes street parking. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative noting when one asks for an overnight parking limit staff will assume the most restrictive conditions. In Chanhassen that is in winter where one cannot park overnight on the streets. Any parking granted for overnight would have to be entirely off-street in garage stalls and driveway only. Commissioner Schwartz asked about a request from Ms. Bliss regarding daytime parking limits. Mr. Young-Walters stated it gets very challenging to track down who owns a vehicle, especially with street parking during the day. He tries not to put things in that he does not feel there is a practical way to enforce. A daytime vehicle limit would be very challenging. Commissioner Schwartz noted given the photo Ms. Bliss included in the email it is obvious that she has a huge problem to deal with on a daily basis. Commissioner Alto said if Ms. Bliss is blocked in and calls the City to report it, what is the violation track and at what point does the City revoke the permit. Mr. Young-Walters noted in Ms. Bliss’ case it says “at no time may vehicles be parked on grass or so as to obstruct access to neighboring residences.” If Ms. Bliss sent the City a photo they would note that as one strike and for something severe like obstructing access the City could jump to suspending a license. To be honest, the City would figure that out based on how the owners react. Chairman Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Dave Bloomquist, noted under B1 the non-refundable amount is not determined although he heard $50 thrown around. He noted that needs to be clarified. Maximum overnight vehicles, he thinks these rules need to be better explained and it is his experience that City employees have made personal decisions on how rules are enforced rather than following Code. Mr. Bloomquist stated the members of the Planning Commission will change January of 2023 along with Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 19 members of the City Council; he noted the rules will be subject to interpretation and they need to be tightened up a lot. Chair von Oven noted every word the Commissioners are discussing is recorded tonight so future members may always go back and listen to understand their intent. Mr. Bloomquist spoke about dogs noting it must include suitable fencing and asked how he explains he has a big yard (bigger than a baseball field) but someone’s dog cannot play in it? Regarding listing the advertising property license, Mr. Bloomquist shared that there will be people who will backtrack that, go onto a VRBO, look up the license, figure out who owns it and then go around VRBO to rent it directly from the owner. Contact information is not given until the renters have paid and are one week away from moving in and also do not know the location. If people know where the property is they can work around the system and cutting VRBO out of the system VRBO will not cover liability insurance. He spoke about noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and noted it would be hard for noise to leave his property due to the size, and the ambient noise from High 212 and Powers Boulevard is about 65 decibels. He asked how someone would measure that? They would have to go out, stand off the property, wait for Powers to die down and say they can hear something. Commissioner Noyes knows Mr. Bloomquist has an impeccable record with his property and he seems to be nitpicking what the Commissioners are doing here as it relates to other property owners. Mr. Bloomquist is looking at his property and it is very hard for noise to leave his property and even hard to overcome the ambient road noise. Commissioner Schwartz replied the Commissioners understand all that. Mr. Bloomquist is the exception. Commissioner Noyes agreed, he is not worried about Mr. Bloomquist, he is worried about the other homeowners. Commissioner Schwartz stated they are trying to get relief for Mr. and Mrs. Bliss. Commissioner Soller asked if Mr. Bloomquist is the exception or if Mr. and Mrs. Bliss are the exception. He thinks they should consider that. Mr. Bloomquist spoke about vehicle parking and the long driveway, noise, the posting of a good neighbor policy. Regarding providing renters information on emergency egress, Mr. Bloomquist noted it is fairly obvious if the house is on fire, they get out, if one cannot get out a door they get out a window. He asked how does he translate that? There are fire extinguishers on every level which is told to the renters. He is hoping the City targets the bad actors rather than one which is a large lot. He does not think the Ordinance can be a one-size-fits-all and suggests the rules apply to properties zoned Residential and granting exemptions where appropriate. Mark Bliss sees where Mr. Bloomquist is coming from with a big property that will not have problems. Mr. Bliss is not so fortunate, the previous weekend was a bachelor party and even though the owner said it wasn’t, it was just a “staging area” there were still 10 cars there, 14 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 20 people, his parents could not get up his driveway, and he said some of the modifications the City is making is good. Mr. Bliss is still concerned that there should be some limits on daytime parking, noting the neighbors’ house is a 4 bedroom which is 10 people per the overnight limit. He asked should 20 people be there with 10 cars out front? It is getting a little old every weekend and he noted this is the 3rd or 4th bachelor party. Mr. Bliss asked how will residents become aware of overnight parking limits granted to the licensee if they receive an exemption and if there is an appeal process where Mr. Bliss can push back? He asked if the homestead status will be questioned, because in looking at the neighbor’s house it is a rental but still listed as a homestead. It is clearly not a homestead and is a commercial property. Mr. Bliss asked if the City will go back and review the homestead status? He sees where Mr. Bloomquist is coming from but noted he is trying to help all of Chanhassen living on the 1/3 acre houses because there are problems there. He noted it is getting old. Chair von Oven asked if the revised Ordinance tonight were in place, speaking about the last bachelorette party, does Mr. Bliss understand what recourse he would have? Mr. Bliss does, noting one problem from that party, he complained to Air BNB, and when they checked out the owner of the property was notified and asked Mr. Bliss if next time can he not notify Air BNB as they do not want the site getting notified of the complaint because it will get a ding against them. Mr. Bliss noted it is not his place to manage their property and all the cars. The owner is asking the Bliss’ to go around the system which they are not going to do. Mr. Bliss noted it is not the noise, it is the cars, the people, and asked if they want 10 cars with 15-20 people coming into the residential neighborhoods in Chanhassen because it will spread. He never thought this house would rent out so much but it is non-stop every night for the last two months. He noted they have Prince’s estate, downtown Excelsior, weddings, and there is more and more demand. Mr. Bliss shared they do not have on-street parking because it is Highway 41 so there are no options other than the shared driveway being filled to capacity, the grass is all gone from people parking on it, and he noted his recourse is to call it in but it is a nuisance. Chair von Oven clarified regarding the bachelorette party, he assumes the women were there for the night, as well. Mr. Bliss replied it was three nights. Chair von Oven noted they would have violated what is being proposed for the nighttime vehicle limit. Mr. Bliss would then make that complaint to the City which would be strike one against this homeowner. Two more times and that license would be revoked. Mr. Young-Walters clarified the nighttime limit is two vehicles plus available garage stalls. The service the City is looking at to help with this has a 24/7 phone number which would be texted in, immediately send a text to the Air BNB/VRBO short-term rental owner noting this issue has been reported, and they must deal with it and tell how you have dealt with it. Depending on that response the City may issue a strike or, if the response was extremely lackluster, the City may just suspend the license at that point until the owner gives an improvement plan. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 21 Mr. Bliss would be okay with that. He is glad about the verbiage regarding blocking the driveway and still thinks there needs to be some bounds to daytime parking. He noted they are attracting a certain vibe by allowing 8-10 cars during the day. Chair von Oven noted if they only had four cars during the day yet are blocking Mr. Bliss’ access they are also in violation. He appreciates the Commissioners looking at this. A member of the public asked if the City requires a license and someone does not follow the rules and the license is taken away, how will they actually get them to stop renting the house. Mr. Young-Walters replied worst case scenario, the City would have to go with a court order. A member of the public asked if the City is prepared for that. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative, noting he thinks the City Council is, they directed staff and have talked through enforcement. In 2017-2018 when this came up they discussed the challenges of enforcing these Ordinances when there is someone who does not want to cooperate. The City Council is aware of that, directed staff to draft this Ordinance, and draft licensing. He has to assume that means the City Council is committed to following through on it. Mr. Bliss asked in documenting these infractions, does he have to call it in or is photo evidence sufficient. Mr. Young-Walters understands from the vendor that Mr. Bliss can text the complaint to the number and include photo documentation. He also believes there is online reporting for small videos to be included which goes into the record. If the City needs court action that becomes what is handed to the attorney. Ms. Aanenson noted that is one of the reasons they went with the vendor, they get more documentation, it saves staff work trying to put the work forth for enforcement, and that is one of the benefits of this system. A member of the public asked once this passed to an Ordinance, if there is a problem the public would go to the police? Or would they bring the problem to the City? Mr. Young-Walters noted it depends a little bit on the problem. If it is a life safety issue, they should call 911. If it is a technical violation of an Ordinance standard such as the Bliss’ private drive, that limits law enforcement authority, so for a license violation they should contact the hotline for the license violation. If they are being extremely loud and disorderly, certainly the Carver County non-emergency number is one route to go as they can respond to a noise nuisance or violation. Mr. Young-Walters would also suggest they still report to the City so they can hit them on both ends. Ms. Aanenson shared the City will put a lot of information out to potential neighbors and also the vendors so they would know what the process will be. Mr. Bloomquist asked if there is a notification process for his neighbors in the case of an exception that says he has a little different scenario than the rest of the City. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 22 Mr. Young-Walters noted that is definitely something the City can and should add. Commissioner Noyes spoke about the shared driveway and asked if the permit could say shared driveways cannot be parked on. He thinks that is another thing to think about as staff writes their final documents. Mr. Young-Walters noted shared driveways are tough because they are governed by a private agreement and he does not know that he can override something such as “all parties have the right to park on it.” Staff does the best they can but he cannot create an Ordinance that perfectly touches on everything. Mr. Bloomquist asked how far out do they go with contacting neighbors. Chair von Oven thinks it would be the same as what they do for proposed developments which is 500 feet. Mr. Young-Walters noted they can fine-tune that. Mr. Bloomquist stated he has one neighbor within 300 feet. Chair von Oven noted Mr. Bloomquist will be so good with this Ordinance when it is all done. Chairman Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Soller noted fences for dogs are in the proposed Ordinance. Chair von Oven noted it does not matter if one has a rental property or not, they cannot just let dogs run wild and people cannot make all the noise they want. On Mr. Bloomquist’s property they can do both because nobody is going to complain. The rules are in place but if nobody complains it will be perfectly fine. He does not feel the need to repeat those rules as part of this because it says “property must be in compliance with all State and local regulations.” This includes keeping a dog on a leash and not violating the noise Ordinance. Commissioner Soller would prefer it not be in the Ordinance. Chair von Oven agrees and thinks they can strike numbers 2 and 6. Mr. Young-Walters shared item C2 is essentially a restatement of the City’s noise nuisance Ordinance. Staff’s rationale was that things that are super important such as the noise Ordinance, it was justified to reiterate and make it front-and-center that an outside entity not familiar with the City’s Ordinance had it flashing red in their face. Chair von Oven clarified the inclusion of items 2 and 6 is more for the prevention based on knowledge and education of the renter. The Commissioners discussed the verbiage about suitable fencing for dogs. Commissioner Soller noted B2 subpoint 4 seems like overkill to him. Commissioner Noyes asked if they keep it do they want to change “dogs” to “pets.” Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 23 Mr. Young-Walters noted if they keep the phrase yes, if they strike it the animal Ordinance would prevail. Chair von Oven is a fan of not duplicating and removing item B2 subpoint 4 altogether, as well as removing items C2 and C6 at the time of licensing the City could point out noise and pet information within the City. Mr. Young-Walters would also include that in the good neighbor brochure that they ask renters to display. Commissioner Goff asked if fees collected from licenses will cover the administrative expense and the 24/7 service at a net zero. He wants to clarify that this will not cost Chanhassen taxpayers money. Mr. Young-Walters shared ultimately fees and budgets are outside the purview of this Commission which is why they were not discussed. The City Council will determine the fee structure. He believes the goal is to offset the majority of administrative costs with fees. Commissioner Schwartz asked at what point is a rental property no longer a “homesteaded property” for tax purposes. Mr. Young-Walters clarified if one does not live there it cannot be homesteaded. The County is a little behind on their GIS updates and he strongly suspects the property is not still homesteaded but the public-facing records have not been updated to reflect that. He noted he could be wrong. Commissioner Noyes owns properties in Chanhassen and can vouch for that, they are still classified as homesteaded but the taxes are accurately reflected. Chairman Chair von Oven moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning short-term rental licensing, striking Sections B.2.4 under License Required, striking Section C.2 and Section C.6 per duplication of the existing local laws and regulations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 Commissioner Noyes noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 6, 2022 as presented. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Ms. Aanenson updated regarding the last City Council meeting, noting approvals for RSI Marine and Avienda and shared about the agenda for the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 24 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Soller 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 10:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director