Loading...
PC 06.18.2024CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 2024 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Steve Jobe, Ed Goff, Ryan Soller, Jeremy Rosengren, Katie Trevena. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Rachel Jeske, Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager; Samantha DiMaggio, Economic Development Manager. PUBLIC PRESENT: Donna Pickard, TruNorth Solar, 1215 Lilac Lane Gerald and Karon Story, 6281 Teton Lane Gary Dohse, 6251 Teton Lane Rod Provart, Hope House ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. CHANHASSEN BLUFFS RECREATIONAL FACILITY PROJECT UPDATE Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, gave an update on the Chanhassen Bluffs Recreational Facility Project. The local option sales tax will be on the ballot for a referendum on November 5. She presented concept design images. She requested assistance in spreading information about the project at various community events. Commissioner Soller asked if the referendum is approved, if the Planning Commission had a role in the decision-making process and what that would look like. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, responded that they would have a similar decision-making role as the Civic Campus project. Commissioner Soller asked if the recreational facility would exist within the Avienda PUD. Mr. Maass answered that the Avienda PUD does contemplate a regional recreation center in the proposed location. Commissioner Goff asked if it was considered to build one sheet of ice and a pool rather than two sheets of ice. Planning Commission Minutes – June 18, 2024 2 Ms. Hokkanen answered that adding a pool to the facility would cost approximately $35 million. She stated no pools can cover their operating costs and they have a shorter amenity life. She commented that they discussed phasing the facility, starting with one rink and having the turf section of the sports floor be outdoors. When phasing a project, the project becomes more expensive overall with the integration. She commented that operating one sheet of ice was less efficient and could not attract tournaments, which is desired for business support. Commissioner Soller asked if the rink was built to be used for the high school team. Ms. Hokkanen responded that the rink will be operated by the city, and they do not have a formal agreement for the high school hockey team to use the rink, but there is potential for an agreement. Commissioner Jobe inquired if any club teams had expressed interest in utilizing the recreational facility. Ms. Hokkanen commented that the facility is meant to be self-sustaining via operating costs. A large part of this would be hourly rentals of the ice rink, gym space, and turf. There have been regular conversations with local sports groups who have expressed interest in utilizing the space. Chair Noyes asked about the current price tag of the project. Ms. Hokkanen answered that it is an $85 million project. Half of this is proposed to be funded through a local option sales tax. The sales tax would be half of a cent and some of the proceeds would come from individuals not a part of the community. The overall sales tax impact for residents would be $35 a year. The other half of the project cost would be funded by a property tax levy, which would be phased in over three years. She stated that the $85 million is forecasted for construction in Spring 2026. Chair Noyes asked how the project changes the dynamic of the tenants of Avienda. Ms. Hokkanen responded that the facility would most likely attract a hotel to the Avienda project. Other businesses would be attracted because of the likely increase in business traffic. Commissioner Trevena asked if it does not move forward in the referendum, would there be additional state funding available. Ms. Hokkanen answered that the local option sales tax is a limited time offer. They received permission to ask about the sales tax in 2024. She stated that the legislature required them to hold the vote in 2024. There have been conversations in the State legislature about tightening up regulations of local option sales tax to not allow for funding for the construction of recreational facilities. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Planning Commission Minutes – June 18, 2024 3 1. CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ARRAY TO BE LOCATED AT 6251 TETON LANE Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, gave a summary of Planning Case #2024-07 and the request for a ground-mounted solar array to be located at 6251 Teton Lane. She presented the zoning code overview and a staff summary and assessment. Commissioner Goff asked about what part of the solar request needs variance. Ms. Arsenault responded that the ground-mount solar requires a variance. Commissioner Soller referenced subpoint B on the staff summary and assessment and asked where the language was in the code. Ms. Arsenault responded that it was in the administrative code in Chapter 20. Mr. Maass stated that these specific standards met are established by the State and adopted into the City Code. Commissioner Trevena asked if there was any precedent for ground-mounted solar. Ms. Arsenault responded that she was not aware of any precedent. There have been some inquiries. Mr. Maass commented that any one variance does not provide precedent for future requests. Commissioner Goff stated that 17 panels could fit but they would need 24 panels. Ms. Arsenault answered that was a request from the owner. Mr. Maass responded that they could fit on the roof but would not have adequate access to sunlight to be effective. Donna Pickard, from TruNorth Solar, and from 1215 Lilac Lane, voiced excitement about putting ground-mount solar in this location because there is natural screening already and it has great sunlight. The roof would make it difficult to meet energy needs. She explained the shading analysis program. Commissioner Rosengren asked if it was an inverter being installed or an inverter battery system. Ms. Pickard responded that there was no battery, but it was a grid-type system. She stated that the inverter will be mounted on the array. Commissioner Rosengren asked about power cabling from the inverter to the house. Ms. Pickard answered that the power cabling would be buried from the inverter to the house. Planning Commission Minutes – June 18, 2024 4 Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Gerald and Karon Story, 6281 Teton Lane, shared that their property would be most impacted by the proposed solar panel project because their backyards meet and that they believed the proposed solar array would alter the essential character of the locality and single-family neighborhood. Ms. Story stated the trees should not impact the roof. She stated that the solar panels should melt snow so it would help the roof. He stated that the trees lose their leaves in the winter so the sun can reach the roof. Ms. Story shared her belief that the property is the highest point in Chanhassen and would be 30 feet even though it is only 10 feet. There is a lot of wildlife. He commented that their property would have a total view of the panel. She says they need a 40-foot retaining wall so that they would not be able to view the solar panel from their property. She voiced concerns about the possibility of fire associated with the solar panel because of the amount of vegetation in the area. Mr. Story says it would be the size of a house, and Ms. Story says it would be like having a power plant in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Story discussed her concern about toxic panels, billions of panels losing efficiency, fires, and how solar panels are disposed of when they lose efficiency. Chair Noyes reminded Ms. Story that the public hearing is for the variance and not for the effectiveness of solar power. Mr. Story invited the Commissioners to come and view the proposed location from their property and requested that no variance be granted. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chairman Noyes stated that whether the solar panel array is located on the ground or the roof, it is visible, and the neighbors don’t want to see it. Commissioner Soller commented that the provision in the code that would have an impact is the screening. The code states that ground-mounted solar needs to be screened as adequately as possible. The neighboring residents claim that there is not enough screening. He requested clarification since the code does not quantify the needed level of screening, but clarified that screening is the only part of the neighbors’ opposition that can be discussed. Mr. Maass showed the aerial map and responded that the staff considered what was around the home, and the property elevation; it seemed a reasonable amount of screening with the existing six-foot privacy fence and the vegetation. If the Planning Commission would like additional screening, there could be additional trees planted, specifically spruce trees for year-round screening. Chairman Noyes asked what the difference in elevation on the property line was. Mr. Maass answered that from one bold contour to the next bold contour, it is ten feet in elevation change. The map also showed two-foot contours. It is approximately eight feet in elevation change from the property line on the south. Chairman Noyes asked about the purpose of the screening trees. Planning Commission Minutes – June 18, 2024 5 Mr. Maass stated that the distance from the array to the trees and the grade needs to be considered. The recommendation would be to put the trees along the existing fence line to allow for mature growth. Commissioner Goff commented that the shadow pattern on the roof was not consistent with the manufacturers. He voiced concern that the solar panel company could utilize their data in a different way which allows a variance, and only using one data source. Commissioner Rosengren stated that even if the roof had enough sun, it would only be able to support seventeen of the twenty-four needed panels. Chair Noyes commented whether the solar panels are on the roof or the ground, they are still trying to sell solar panels. The solar company will make a profit either way. Commissioner Rosengren stated that the way you calculate the required solar panels is a standard calculation. He stated that since the roof cannot support the required number of solar panels, the variance seems logical to support. Chair Noyes commented it might be beneficial to consider a solution to help shield the view of the solar panels. Commissioner Trevena asked if the ground solar panel array must be 24 solar panels or if there was flexibility. Ms. Arsenault answered that all twenty-four solar panels would be on the ground. Commissioner Rosengren asked if additional screening was recommended, and how that would impact the variance. Chair Noyes answered the motion could include the stipulation to incorporate trees to help shield the solar panels. Commissioner Jobe commented that he did not feel comfortable telling the resident where to plant trees and that it would take time for the trees to reach proper maturity to provide benefits and would be a similar lifecycle as the solar panel. Commissioner Soller commented that the City Code prohibited ground-mounted solar panels without a variance. He stated the conditions meet the requirements to receive a variance. The City Code requires being screened from view for ground-mounted solar panels. Commissioner Rosengren stated that the code did not mention the extent of the screening. Chair Noyes commented that the developer, property owner, and the city needed to work together to come up with a solution. Planning Commission Minutes – June 18, 2024 6 Commissioner Rosengren voiced appreciation that the variances are not a precedent, but it will serve as a reference for future variance requests so there should be a good-faith effort to have an appropriate screening strategy. Commissioner Soller stated that it would be beneficial to have boots on the ground to consider what would be appropriate screening. He stated it would be unreasonable to guarantee one hundred percent screening, but there should still be screening to the extent possible. Mr. Maass stated it might be beneficial for the property owners to voice their willingness to plant additional trees on the property and whether they would be willing to accommodate that. Gary Dohse, 6251 Teton Lane, stated that they have already installed two thirty-foot maple trees between the fence and the array. He invited the Planning Commission to come and look at it to see what the house looks like. He commented there is a lot of vegetation already on the property. Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the requested ground mounted solar energy system variance for the construction of the system at 6251 Teton Lane subject to the conditions of approval and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision as amended based on Planning Commission discussion regarding addition of appropriate screening as determined by City Staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 2. CONSIDER ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDING CONDITIONAL USES IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONING DISTRICT Rachel Jeske, Planner, provided an overview of low-density residential zoning districts. She reviewed the requested changes and background. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Rod Provart, Hope House, thanked the City Staff and the Planning Commission for their service. He explained the purpose of the Hope House to support teens. Commissioner Jobe asked if they were operating the Hope House as a 245B or a stat one independent for licensure purposes. He also asked if they were licensed through the Department of Human Services. Mr. Provart explained they work with the Department of Human Services and would need to be relicensed to accommodate additional bed space. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Mr. Maass stated that Hope House and Westwood Church are requesting the amendment. The proposal is a change to the overall City Code. They would return with a future conditional usage permit if the City Code change is adopted. Planning Commission Minutes – June 18, 2024 7 Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending conditional uses in the rural residential zoning district as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 3. CONSIDER ORDIANCE XXX: AMENDMENT TO THE CHILDREN’S LEARNING ADVENTURE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Eric Maass, Community Development Director, reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment for the Children’s Learning Adventure Plan. He explained the development limitations beyond PUD, the setback from West 78th Street, Galpin Boulevard, and the west perimeter lot line. Chair Noyes asked if the city purchases the property, and how the economics would work. Mr. Maass answered that the city could purchase an easement for stormwater, or they could condemn it by the land and utilize it for stormwater. Chair Noyes asked if there was any other potential development that could use stormwater runoff capacity. Mr. Maass responded that they consider regional stormwater ponds and the location for them. He provided an example of one current regional stormwater pond. He stated that this site is not an opportunity for regional stormwater. Commissioner Goff asked about the theory behind number ten of the proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Maass explained that the PUD is a negotiation. The limitations from setbacks and the limitations of the site, it was not a large attraction to the city. He stated he did not anticipate things to change that much on that side of the road. Commissioner Goff asked if this was the best solution or if there should be an additional number eleven providing an opportunity for a pond. Mr. Maass responded that the Excel site was replaced and relocated a wetland. At this location, there would not be a way to relocate wetlands on this piece of property. Commissioner Goff asked about the logic of striking number ten. Mr. Maass answered that in the discussions with the property owner, eliminating number ten would make it easier in discussions with the city. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes – June 18, 2024 8 Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending the Children’s Learning Adventure Planned Unit Development (PUD) as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 4, 2024 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Soller seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated June 4, 2024 as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: OPEN DISCUSSION: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, suggested rescheduling the July 2, 2024 meeting to be a work session to talk about accessory dwelling units. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director