Loading...
PC 01.16.2024CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2024 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Erik Johnson, Kelsey Alto, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Jeske, Planner; Eric Maass, Planning Director; Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Kevin Brueggeman 2840 Tanagers Lane Tiffany Brueggeman 2840 Tanagers Lane Holly Bussell 651 Bighorn Drive PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDING LOT COVER STANDARDS IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) ZONING DISTRICT Eric Maass, Planning Director, gave a summary of the current ordinance for Residential Single- Family (RSF) zoning district and the proposed ordinance for RSF zoning district to increase the ordinance to 30 percent impervious lot cover. Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer, provided background information to define impervious surfaces and highlighted problems for stormwater management. Mr. Seidl shared information regarding the best management practices to offset these problems along with government regulations of impervious surfaces. Mr. Seidl reviewed the potential impacts residents could experience, including increased pollutant loads, increased frequency and duration of street flooding and high water levels, increased erosion of natural and manmade stormwater conveyance systems, and an increased frequency and duration of nuisance drainage. He noted that increasing lot cover limits was inconsistent with the goals and policies adopted in the Local Stormwater Management Plan. Mr. Seidl shared that the Water Resources Department does not support the code amendments as written. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. Kevin Brueggeman, 2840 Tanagers Lane, stated he built a new house in 2021 and considered using permeable pavers. He was informed by his builder that there were necessary certifications Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 2 to obtain to install permeable pavers and they were unable to locate an individual with these requirements. He questioned what brought the amendment into consideration. Mr. Maass shared the background considerations of this ordinance. The City Council discussed this topic on various occasions and the Planning Commission discussed permeable pavers during 2023 sessions. Mr. Brueggeman stated they would enjoy additional lot cover opportunities but also value water management issues. Mr. Maass shared that the City Council has heard concerns from residents about the lot cover limitations. Tiffany Brueggeman, 2840 Tanagers Lane, asked if there was data about the amount of pollution over time, based on a lot cover increase. Mr. Seidl stated he did not have a certain answer. The city would need to hire a firm and complete many hours of modeling to find a concrete answer. Mr. Seidl explained there are standard models, such as the mids-model, which would allow a resident to consider the lot cover in a scenario to see how many average pollutants would be generated. Holly Bussell, 651 Bighorn Drive, requested the city analyze the proposed changes. She constructed a shed and considered how it would impact her desire to expand her kitchen in the future. She stated if this change is made, all residents would use the additional 5 percent lot cover. Ms. Bussell stated that she and her daughter utilize the lakes in Chanhassen, and it would have a negative impact on the water quality of the lakes if this change was made. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Chair Noyes stated it is important to consider the why behind changing the lot cover. He stated residents can readily consider the lot cover requirements when purchasing the property. Commissioner Alto said the Planning Commission considers variances for lot cover carefully and often says no so as not to set a precedent. She questioned the purpose of changing the ordinance. Commissioner Goff asked about the new developments being built and the model used to consider the capacity of climate change for heavy rains. He asked how the old stormwater systems and new stormwater systems interact. Ms. Seidl stated that city staff does not build the infrastructure for new developments. Those engineers design infrastructure based on current rules and regulations and reference an Atlas 2014 dataset. Those engineers use updated data and can consider climate change. When building infrastructure, engineers consider 10- and 100-year storms. Mr. Seidl asked if Commissioner Goff is wondering if there is built in room with existing best management practices to treat Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 3 excess lot cover. He explained the more impervious area that is built out, the more volume is conveyed and there is decreased performance. Commissioner Goff asked about tying in other sites to increase capacity. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the requested change to the ordinance is due to aligning Chanhassen with other cities. Mr. Maass confirmed the City Council brought this change forward based on concerns from Chanhassen residents who observed Chanhassen is more restrictive than neighboring towns. Commissioner Schwartz inquired what factors are motivating the city to consider the ordinance when staff has not recommended increased lot cover. He questioned whether there were additional factors aside from neighboring districts. He noted that increasing lot cover would negatively impact the red areas highlighted on the map. Mr. Maass shared that the City Council took into account water resources, planning, future infrastructure, and other perspectives before providing direction to city staff. Chair Noyes asked if the information presented to the Planning Commission was already seen by city staff and the City Council. He inquired about information flow. Mr. Maass explained the City Council receives the Planning Commission packet. The City Council held a work session and provided direction for the basis of the ordinance. The ordinance specifications required coordination with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Maass stated the City Council has seen approximately 75 percent of the ordinance presented tonight. Commissioner Schwartz shared that if this ordinance is approved, the likelihood of a property owner maintaining permeable pavers is very low. He encouraged the City Council and the Planning Commission to take this information into account. Chair Noyes recognized the proposed ordinance does not include a requirement to use permeable pavers. Property owners could install a bigger driveway or kitchen if they were under 30 percent lot coverage. Commissioner Alto stated the Planning Commission previously did not agree to an additional five percent lot cover with permeable pavers. The ordinance focuses on 30 percent of lot cover. Commissioner Soller clarified if the current ordinance allows for 25 percent lot cover with five percent additional coverage with permeable pavers. He questioned the current ordinance language if permeable pavers do not work long-term. Chair Noyes shared a resident could increase lot coverage by five percent with permeable pavers but not other materials. The math is similar, but the materials are different. Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 4 Commissioner Soller asked if there were different degrees of impervious surfaces. He noted that whether residents use pervious or impervious surfaces, the runoff increases. Commissioner Alto stated the Planning Commission might not agree with permeable pavers. She wondered if the ordinance should consider allowing 25 percent lot cover and not allow additional permeable pavers. Commissioner Goff referenced the difficulties of installing permeable pavers and wondered if the additional five percent of permeable pavers are not utilized due to costs. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the property owner could not find a contractor to install permeable pavers and does city staff know of what steps the property owner takes. Mr. Maass stated residents submit a lot cover calculation worksheet with an image of what they are proposing to build on their property. Staff reviews this worksheet to ensure the lot cover falls within the current ordinance. Mr. Maass agreed pervious pavers are expensive and difficult to maintain. Commissioner Soller requested clarification about the map with different shades of red. He asked if they have the potential to get worse and whether they are trending towards a worse degree. Mr. Seidl shared that if a water resource is below a threshold for its intended use, it is considered impaired water. The city is responsible for managing the resource. Commissioner Soller asked if other agencies assist in maintaining water quality. Mr. Seidl answered the local government agency is responsible for taking the lead on maintaining the bodies of water. Commissioner Soller asked if the city can continue to improve water quality. Mr. Seidl explained it is rare to take lakes off the impaired water list and many more lakes are added to the impaired water list than are being removed. The city has projects planned to improve the quality of local water resources. Commissioner Schwartz questioned if there were metrics that defined the water quality level on the maps in red in comparison with neighboring communities. Mr. Seidl did not have a direct answer and stated the information would have to be gathered through an extensive research project. Commissioner Alto shared that without data from other cities, it is difficult to consider the impacts of this ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 5 Mr. Seidl stated the lot cover is dependent on when the specific cities were built out. The concept of best management practices for stormwater regulations did not exist when older areas of the metro were being constructed. Mr. Maass highlighted that new developments are designed according to the ordinances at the time of construction. New developments are more capable of satisfying stormwater runoff generation volumes. It is difficult to manage existing lots that would impact stormwater runoff generation. He stated they would need to manage and mitigate for both future and existing properties. Commissioner Schwartz questioned if it would be easier for Chanhassen to develop construction if the lot cover was increased. Mr. Maass shared that the Chanhassen development is strong and did not think the lot cover would be a determining factor for a developer. Chair Noyes stated the new developments are creating stormwater management systems for lot sizes. The new developments can create an infrastructure for whatever current lot cover requirements are in place, but properties undergoing rebuilds do not have the infrastructure in place if there is a five percent increase so there would be further stress on the system. Commissioner Soller asked for the lot cover restraint on commercial and industrial development. Mr. Maass did not have a specific number available. In the downtown area, there is not a maximum lot cover requirement. Often, commercial and industrial have larger lot cover requirements. Commissioner Soller questioned if new commercial developments can mitigate their impact with new infrastructure being built. He asked if these commercial developments are having an adverse impact on water resources or if they are fully mitigating their impact. Additionally, he wondered whether the 5 percent increase in residential lot cover is minimal when compared with these other properties. Mr. Maass shared that commercial properties walk through the same process to determine the best water management practices and generate permitting with watershed districts. These properties also consider soil type and design a specific solution for their property that aligns with city ordinances and watershed district requirements. The five percent increase in lot cover is minimal compared with these properties, but these commercial properties create private best management practices on site. On a residential aspect, no offsetting best management practices are required to be installed. The exception is with subdivisions, which trigger the subdivision ordinance and requires stormwater mitigation such as rain gardens. Commissioner Soller wondered if commercial properties with a majority of paved surfaces have a negative impact on water bodies to such a large degree, that the proposed five percent increase of lot cover for houses has negligible impact. Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 6 Mr. Maass shared that these commercial areas with large impervious surfaces manage their water runoff through onsite best management practices prior to being discharged into the city’s systems. He stated the comparison between a commercial and residential lot are not even on the same scale. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the pollutants generated by business parks significantly impact bodies of water or if they are mitigated on-site by best management practices. Mr. Seidl explained the best management practices are designed to meet the removal requirements of pollutants in stormwater. There should be no net impact on the downstream water resource as the pollutants should be removed. Commissioner Soller wondered if the lot cover increase would have an impact on water quality resources in the future. He also wondered what the appropriate balance between lot cover increase and water quality would be and stated it is difficult to decide. Commissioner Alto referenced the number of current impaired waterways. She stated it does not make sense to increase lot cover requirements if there are already negative impacts on the waterways. Commissioner Johnson asked why best management practices were not included in this section but were included in the Shoreland Overlay District. Mr. Maass noted that best management practices were discussed originally. The priority was placed on the shoreland overland district for offsetting best management practices, as there is stormwater management infrastructure in place in these residential zoning districts. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed ordinance amending lot cover standards in the RSF zoning district. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 2. ORDINANCE XXX: AMDENDING LOT COVER STANDARDS IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT Eric Maass, Planning Director, gave a summary of the staff report, noting the proposed ordinance amendment for the Shoreland Overlay District that would allow lots platted before January 1, 1976, to have an increased impervious lot cover up to 30 percent. For riparian lots, there would need to be 25 percent or 20 feet of vegetative lake buffer of the shoreline. Mr. Maass shared that the city worked with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to establish the draft ordinance in accordance with the DNR’s alternative approach method for deviating from the DNR’s template shoreland ordinance. Rachel Jeske, Planner, provided multiple examples so the Planning Commission could understand the diversity of the shoreline properties. Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 7 Mr. Maass stated the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources wanted to see one square foot of impervious area over 25 percent with one square foot of best management practices. There would be the ability to scale the width and the depth of the best management practices based on the lot and property owner’s preferences with the guidance of the city. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Chair Noyes understood the association of the platted lots with the ordinance. He asked if there were other considerations beyond the date to fall into the lots that are allowed to have a five percent impervious coverage increase, such as the lot grade. He gave an example that if a lot had a certain grade above a specific amount, they would be ineligible for increased impervious lot cover to protect the lakefront. Mr. Maass shared that city staff consider the slope for erosion control measures in terms of construction. He stated the city could explore additional regulation options such as the rate of discharge in this measure. Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer, stated the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources considers the aesthetics and characteristics of the lake with the goal of naturalizing the shoreline rather than the considerations of the slope. Chair Noyes asked if a property owner was granted a five percent increase, if they would need to have the best management practices in place before project construction, or if it was a simultaneous requirement. Mr. Maass answered the impervious lot cover and best management practices are all in one permit so city staff would investigate the information for both. The best management practices should be installed at the same time as the project completion. Chair Noyes asked whether the Planning Commission should not allow the ordinance for Shoreland Overlay Districts considering the previous ordinance vote. Commissioner Jobe asked why the plant species were selected for the buffer zone. He questioned whether the buffer zone was just for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Seidl shared that native vegetation has deeper root systems, so there is more water and pollutant uptake they can take on. The deeper root system also better holds together the shoreline and helps stabilize the site. Commissioner Schwartz shared that his neighborhood association is applying for a grant to install a vegetative buffer. Certain plants are required for the vegetative buffer. He asked for clarification about the vegetative buffer on the examples provided by Ms. Jeske and why it is not required to expand upon the entire shoreline. Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 8 Mr. Maass understood applicants might prefer options for a beach or a dock. There are requirements that the best management practice would be located where it would capture runoff directed towards the lake due to increased lot cover. He shared that vegetative buffers are beneficial as they provide a deep root system and would provide diversity in vegetation to capture pollutants. Commissioner Schwartz asked if staff could direct and enforce the property owner to place the vegetative buffer in a certain place on the lot based on runoff. Mr. Maass confirmed for a best management practice to work, it needs to be in a location that the stormwater runoff is moving towards. Commissioner Schwartz asked who would monitor the compliance of this ordinance. Mr. Maass stated this would be monitored through the building or zoning permit process. Property owners would need to complete the math and figure out the amount of run-off generated. Commissioner Schwartz questioned who would monitor the vegetative buffers in future years after installation. Mr. Maass shared that an operations and maintenance agreement would be established along with an easement and boundary markers would need to be installed. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there would be passive or active enforcement of these vegetative buffers. Mr. Seidl shared these best management practices could be turned into assets and placed into the assets management system. City staff will need to travel out to these sites to ensure they are maintained. If they are not maintained, city staff will need to work with the resident to re- establish the best management practice. Chair Noyes asked if the 1-to-1 ratio was the minimum the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources required. Mr. Seidl confirmed this was his understanding. Chair Noyes asked why the city did not require larger buffer requirements to help protect the lakes. He questioned whether the city could go above and beyond what the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources required. Mr. Maass stated the shoreland vegetative buffer could be used as the required best management practice if it is of an adequate scale to treat the additional stormwater. If the vegetative buffer is not adequate, there would still need to be a best management practice created to capture the increased stormwater runoff. The city staff did not discuss an additional requirement beyond the Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 9 1-to-1 ratio but could do so after discussions with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Seidl explained that part of his job is to consider the naturalization of the shoreline while still allowing property owners to utilize their properties. He considers reconstructed areas to ensure regulations are applied to improve water management options. He provided an example that a new home construction would allow for the potential for better water management options. Commissioner Soller questioned whether the best management practice needs to create a net zero impact on the new construction. He wondered if there was an algorithm to determine this number. Mr. Maass shared that Mr. Seidl's review of the design and calculations are effective and are the best solution. Mr. Seidl explained the department reviews the permits and confirms they are good designs that operate properly. Commissioner Soller wondered if a trade-off system in place with a net zero or a net positive impact would allow the Planning Commission to approve the proposed ordinance. He asked if there was any evidence that would support a net positive impact and increase lake health by requiring a larger trade-off above a 1-to-1 ratio. Mr. Seidl answered any treatment beyond the current proposal would be a net positive but he would need to study the information further to understand different limitations. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there could be language in the ordinance that stated the minimum trade-off for impervious lot cover and best management practices would be 1-to-1 to allow residents to go beyond the minimum requirements. Chair Noyes questioned how the city would respond to a resident in the residential single-family district who desired to increase lot coverage to 30 percent and was willing to put a stormwater pond in their yard, as this would meet the requirements in the Shoreland Overlay District. He stated affirming the Shoreland Overlay District would potentially provide a variance route for residential single family district members. Commissioner Soller stated a stormwater pond is not a vegetative buffer on a lake. Chair Noyes stated not all lots in the Shoreland Overlay District are on the lake. Mr. Maass confirmed there are riparian and non-riparian lots in the district. The basis is the offsetting best management practice to mitigate the increase of stormwater. A vegetative buffer could be the best management practice if it meets the requirements and design needs. Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 10 Chair Noyes asked if the best management practices in the non-riparian lots could be employed in the residential single-family district as well. He thought there could be confusion for residents regarding this differentiation. Commissioner Alto inquired whether Mr. Seidl engaged in a discussion with the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District regarding this topic and the letter sent and reviewed at the May 16, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Seidl stated staff did engage the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District in a conversation but did not hear back in a specific memo. He stated the information read in the letter still applies to the situation and the watershed district does not support the construction of impervious surfaces without offsetting best management practices. Commissioner Alto stated it is more important not to have an increase in lot cover closer to the bodies of water that are already negatively impacted. Commissioner Soller asked if there were differences between the residential single family district lots and the non-riparian Shoreland Overlay District lots and if the runoff with these lots would be similar. Mr. Maass shared that the difference would be the distance to the resource. Lots farther away have a diminishing effect on the lake, as there are streets with stormwater infrastructure to assist in catching stormwater. Commissioner Alto suggested the city should implement the best management practices without allowing increased lot cover. Commissioner Soller asked if the water resources city staff had a negative impression of the first proposed ordinance tonight. Mr. Seidl said the water resources city staff is not in favor of the code amendment for the residential single-family district because it does not have best management practice requirements. For the Shoreland Overlay District, he recognized there are impaired waterways in Chanhassen. The ordinance might not go far enough and there could be consideration to move towards a net positive rather than a net neutral. Commissioner Schwartz asked how far the ordinance would need to go to be acceptable to the Water Resources Department. Mr. Seidl did not have this information prepared for tonight. Commissioner Goff stated this ordinance is designed for a very small portion of residents in Chanhassen. Residents can propose a variance if necessary. Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 11 Chair Noyes said residents can know the standards when purchasing the lots. By approving this proposed ordinance, residents might try to submit variances to move beyond 30 percent lot cover. Commissioner Soller asked if the riparian lots could be significantly improved by this proposed ordinance. He questioned why the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources wanted to limit it to specific properties if it was truly beneficial to the lake. Mr. Maass shared that the model ordinance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources does not require the naturalization of the shoreline for a certain percentage of impervious surfaces. The naturalization of the shoreline was viewed as a tradeoff for additional lot cover. Commissioner Alto stated all roads lead to water, whether in the Shoreland Overlay District or in the residential single-family district. Both districts are responsible for the water moving towards the lakes. Commissioner Soller stated improving natural vegetation along the shoreline helps improve the Shoreland Overlay District in ways other properties could not. Chair Noyes said this idea is accurate, but there are additional ways to approach this topic. If the Planning Commission is trying to improve and protect the lakes, it would be beneficial not to tie it to the five percent impervious lot cover. Commissioner Schwartz shared all residents are impacting a water resource, whether residents live on a lake or not. The Planning Commission should consider the total impact on water resources from all residents. Mr. Maass stated variances in the past required naturalization of the shoreline as a condition. Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed ordinance amending lot cover standards in the Shoreland Overlay zoning district. The motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Commissioner Soller voted Nay. GENERAL BUSINESS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2023 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated December 5, 2023 as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024 12 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Planning Director Maass shared there will be an open house at the Chanhassen Recreation Center on January 17th to share about the improvements to the redevelopment of the Chanhassen Cinema and Country Inn & Suites. Mr. Maass stated January 9th was Bob Generous Day. City staff ate beef jerky in honor of Bob Generous. He noted that Rachel Jeske accepted a full-time role with the city. Mr. Maass announced that Jamie Marsh had accepted the position of Environmental Resource Specialist. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Alto seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Planning Director