Loading...
PC 2009 06 16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2009 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Kevin Dillon STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Angie Kairies, Planner PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING: A. FARM ANIMALS B. LED LIGHTING C. YARD REGULATIONS D. SIGNAGE PUBLIC PRESENT: NAME ADDRESS Jennifer & Rodger Nuesse 6251 Cardinal Avenue Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on the zoning ordinance amendments regarding farm animals. Papke: Denny, start with you. Laufenburger: I have one Sharmeen. On the definition of farm animals, I’m just reading the last portion. And other animals commonly accepted as farm animals in the State of Minnesota. That feels like a loose interpretation. Does the State of Minnesota have clear language about what other animals are accepted? In other words, how would we, how would we respond to a citizen that says well wait a second. Up in Itasca County, animals up there, that’s not considered a farm animal. Why do you consider it a farm animal here or something like that. Al-Jaff: What we try to do, rather than, I’m sure there is an animal or there are different types of rabbits for instance. Laufenburger: Right. Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Al-Jaff: Those can be farm animals. Rather than listing each and every different type, that’s one of the reasons why we left it open ended. Is there a, go ahead Kate. Aanenson: No I was just going to say I believe that the State Statutes have some definition of that. I think that you raise a good point and we should probably put that in there just for, when this moves forward to council that they can see what, how it’s defined by State Statute. Laufenburger: Even if you’re referencing something that the State of Minnesota uses as interpretation of commonly accepted, I think that would be good. I just, it feels like it’s loose. Could be loosely interpreted. Papke: Yeah. It almost seems like a circular definition. You’re defining a farm animal as being a farm animal. Laufenburger: Right. Aanenson: Agreed. Al-Jaff: Okay. Laufenburger: That was all I had. Papke: Mark? Undestad: No, no questions. Thomas: And I don’t either. Keefe: I have questions. The first one is why now? I mean we’ve got, I mean we’ve got a, you know I mean you’ve got 20,000 people living in this city. I mean you know, we’ve had farms before and we didn’t have a definition of farm. Why do we need to do this now? And what’s the driver behind this? I mean is there a reason for restricting now, something now that you know was allowed before? I mean is there. Al-Jaff: The city is continuously growing. First of all why is this before you? A question was raised by the Planning Commission asking staff to do some research on farm animals. How other communities deal with it. We presented our findings to the Planning Commission and the following, after we presented our issue paper and our findings is to draft an ordinance that addresses the issues that were raised. City code is an always evolving document and we always need to gear it towards the demographics within our community and how best to regulate things. Chanhassen is growing. It’s no longer a small suburb. It’s becoming more urban and as a result we conducted our research and we brought the findings to you and now we are at a stage where we are recommending the amendments to the city code. It’s in the Planning Commission. Aanenson: If I can just add to that, if I may commissioner. Again this was put on by the Planning Commission’s request as far as work item. As Sharmeen mentioned we did have it in a 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 work session. And also there has been other complaints for some exotic animals and just looking at maybe tightening up our definitions just to make sure that there wasn’t, so we went through, not only just domestic animals, farm animals because that has moved around too. Definition of how many household pets you can have, so looking at all those related things we bundled that all together so as Sharmeen stated, now is the time after the issue paper to kind of formalize it into ordinance so. So we have had some complaints too. Keefe: Yeah, I mean more now than you know you ever had or you know is there sort of a trend? Aanenson: I think so. And we’ve had some requests that have been more unusual too. That kind of fall between, birds of prey we’ve never had a request for before. Falconers kind of request. We’ve never had those before in a residential lot. So just to make sure we’re consistent in the standards so, often that’s what drives that is a request you haven’t had before. Keefe: Second thing really relates to you know if someone, a kid wants to do some sort of 4H type of project or something, do they then you know based upon your language here, need to come down for a variance or approval from the City Council to be able to raise a mallard duck in their back yard? Al-Jaff: If they are on farm property then they would be permitted to. Keefe: Right. But if they’re in residential neighborhood, according to this they would need to get a variance? Is that what the statute? Aanenson: That’d be correct. Keefe: Requires. Aanenson: Yeah. Keefe: Yeah, okay. I’m not real happy about that. Al-Jaff: I know and you raise the same issue. Keefe: Right. I mean I think it’s you know, I guess one thing that I would, do you ever look into you know from the other cities, did you look into some sort of time limit associated with some of these things because you know for instance like a 4H project you know would be to hatch a duckling or hatch something and then take it out to a farm after that and there’d be a time limit around that. Al-Jaff: City of Minneapolis permits, I believe it was two chickens. Two pets. And one of the things that they require is that the neighboring properties sign off as they have no objection to having these, the chickens or the ducks. Staff thought about this. We really looked at all of the options that were before us. Often what you’re going to see happen is if a neighbor moves out, a new neighbor comes in. Staff will get the phone call saying I moved into a residential 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 neighborhood and you have a chicken next door to me and I don’t want them. Next door to my house. Aanenson: Well I think the problem is bigger than that actually and that’s the fact that we don’t have a full time animal control officer and you know I’m not aware of that many people that are raising ducklings for 4H but so, so you get 2 ducks. They don’t go away. Or you have 2 chickens. They don’t go away. Who’s going to enforce that at that point? So it’s that part of it too. As we move through more urbanization, our lots are smaller so. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Well and then, how does, how do nuisance laws play into you know enforcement in terms of you know if you were to do something like this, wouldn’t nuisance laws come into play at all? Because at least I read somewhere in here that you know, if there’s noise or if somebody that complains that you know something could be done you know along those lines. Al-Jaff: And it is another mechanism for us to regulate animals. Noise is an issue for instance with roosters. It could be an issue with dogs continuously barking. So yes, there are other means for us to regulate this, but we just wanted to make sure that the language is clear as to what is permitted and what is not. Keefe: Right. Okay. Fair enough. Aanenson: Mr. Chair we put each of these separately so, so what we’d ask if you open a public hearing on this item and then make a motion. Papke: Okay. One at a time? Aanenson: One at a time. That’s our direction. Papke: Okay. That sounds good. I do have one question before we open it up. The public hearing up. With the farm animals and wild animals we give tons of examples but with the birds of prey we don’t. Is there any merit, you mentioned specifically falcons. Is there any merit including some examples of the birds of prey in the definition? Like you do with the other ones. Al-Jaff: There is a definition for birds of prey. Birds of prey, because of the species if you will, it’s a limited number of. I can go into the encyclopedia and it will list. It will enumerate each individual. Papke: Okay. Unlike farm animals? Al-Jaff: Unlike farm animals. Aanenson: And also it’s regulated by the DNR. The DNR, you have to get a DNR permit to have a birds of prey license. Papke: Okay, so there’s no need to list examples. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Okay. I just wanted to make sure because you know it just seemed inconsistent but that’s fine. Aanenson: That’s a good question and actually anybody that wants to get a falconers license you also have to get a DNR permit which they have high standards for. Inside storage. Outdoor fly areas. That sort of thing so, but that’s a good point. It might be good to even just help attach it for the City Council, those standards. Papke: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. If there’s anyone from the public who’d like to comment on this, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record and let us know what you think. Jennifer Neusse: Thank you. My name is Jennifer Neusse. I’m a resident of Chanhassen. We live in Cardinal Avenue area up by the Koehnen neighborhood and we’ve been residents of Chanhassen for almost 20 years. My husband Rodger is here also this evening. The reason we’re here this evening is because we attended a class in the middle of May at the Gale Woods Farm in Minnetrista where they were teaching about raising chickens in the back yard specifically, and the reason we were interested in this is because we’re adopting a more sustainable lifestyle. We have a large garden on our residential property in Chanhassen, and we thought it would be fun to raise chickens for pets and have eggs and we do not plan to, or intend to have roosters or anything that would cause a public nuisance. After attending the class we learned about all of the care that it takes to raise chickens as well as I was in 4H when I was youngster and chickens were one of the animals that we raised on a farm in Cologne so I’m familiar with how to care for the animals properly. The reason we want to raise chickens is for having eggs and having them as pets. I believe that the term farm animals applies to animals that are raised for profit, slaughter, reproduction for slaughter or those kinds of things and another reason that we’re interested in raising chickens for eggs is that we believe that the practices that are used commercially in raising many animals that we eat or bear the opportunity to have things like cheese and milk are unfavorable conditions and we would rather be able to produce them ourselves or purchase from locally produced organic farms. So we’ve rather effectively changed our lifestyle in order to do that and we thought this would be done other way in order to allow that. In our research we found that the City of Chanhassen had an ordinance that states farm animals are allowed on farm property and there was a lack of definition and I did have a chance to speak with Sharmeen yesterday on the phone and I appreciated her time there. We believe that these animals are not going to be farm animals for the purpose that we’re raising them as pets. We intend to have them live a long life as long as they are healthy and not slaughter and not make chicken soup out of them. We also think that it’s important to have a sustainable lifestyle and we believe that nationwide that’s becoming a more popular and acceptable form of lifestyle so we would like to offer that it be considered that chickens should be allowed in the municipality of Chanhassen with certain regulations. As in other cities in Minnesota. The City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Paul, the City of Willmar, Rosemount and Duluth, just to name a few, allow chickens on residential property with permit that’s issued annually. In some cases it eliminates, you know a certain number that you can raise. Most of them disallow roosters 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 entirely because they are considered a public nuisance. And we also have a dog at home. We keep pet fish so we are accustomed to having pets and we would not see this as being any different from the other pets that we’re raising. So along with the other municipalities that are accepting and updating their ordinances to be more sustainable and a lifestyle that other states are accepting now, we’d like to have this considered as an alternative to the ordinance that’s under consideration. Papke: Thank you. I really appreciate you coming in and speaking up on this. Getting back to Commissioner Keefe’s question, it’s precisely because of people like yourself that I actually initiated this as a topic because I anticipated that with, between the economic downturn and the interest in sustainable and eating locally, that there would be you know a surge in requests for people to do this kind of thing. Whether it’s chickens or ducks or whatever, and so rather than having this be undefined or ill defined, I wanted to kind of take it head on and you know let’s get things out on the table and get it resolved so I really appreciate your folks coming in and speaking up on this. This is exactly what I was anticipating happening so that’s great. Any questions for. How many chickens are you considering? Jennifer Neusse: We’re thinking 3 or 4. Less than 5 because we don’t really have the room to support more than that. Our lot is. Rodger Neusse: You really can’t keep just 1. Jennifer Neusse: 8/10of an acre. They need to have a companion. Rodger Neusse: And then 2 become viable but 3 is better in case 1 would die. Or if a raccoon got it or something like that. Papke: Right. That tends to be one of the key issues here is you know, at what point, at what count of them do pets become. Rodger Neusse: I think Minneapolis… Aanenson: …taping and it’s hard for them to hear. Papke: Oh yeah, that’s true. Thanks. Appreciate. Aanenson: If you want to just step up… Jennifer Neusse: I have the Minneapolis ordinance right here and it states that, well it talks about the duration. Aanenson: Yeah, we have a copy of that. Jennifer Neusse: Yeah. Most of the cities either give a number or based on an animal unit and the ordinances that I looked up where it talked about animal unit, a chicken was 1/100 of an animal unit. If that means anything in the weight of you know per acre or per square footage of 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 the lot. Our lot size is about 8/10 of an acre. We’re not a real small property but of course we’re not 10 acres either. Laufenburger: Is it Jennifer, is that right? Jennifer Neusse: Yeah. Laufenburger: You’ve been in Chanhassen 20 years. Jennifer Neusse: Yes, and I’ve been a resident of Carver County for probably more than 35 years. Laufenburger: Wonderful. Have you done any talking about your plans with your neighbors? Jennifer Neusse: Not yet because there’s nothing now that states that we can legally have them. If the permit were to allow like other cities, it says 80% of the people who border your property must allow or must agree to let you have these pets. That seems very viable to me. If even one neighbor were to move in and they disagreed but the other 80% agreed that it was okay, then it would be viable in my opinion. I think that’s a reasonable permit guideline myself. You’re never going to have 100% of everyone that thinks it’s okay. Even people don’t like dogs you know but they tolerate them. Laufenburger: Do you have any experience that the presence of chickens draws, well your husband mentioned raccoons. Want to talk a little bit about that? Jennifer Neusse: Well, I know a little bit about it from living on a farm but we had a good dog that kept the wild animals away and incidentally, we had a raccoon in our yard not more than 3 weeks ago and had to call for. Laufenburger: Did you get a permit for that then? Jennifer Neusse: No we didn’t but we caught it in a live trap and called public officer to have him remove it. Very unusual to see in the middle of the day. In an open shed you know. We know there are raccoons in our neighborhood. There are also deer and wild turkey and other. Rodger Neusse: Horses. Jennifer Neusse: Horses. There’s a stable not even a block and a half from us. Laufenburger: That’s my only question. Papke: Okay. Anything else? Alright, thank you very much. Appreciate your speaking up. Would anybody else like to speak up? Sir? Rodger Neusse: She said it. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Papke: Okay, given that I’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion. A lively discussion. Dan, any further comments? Keefe: You know I’d like to see it expanded a little bit to maybe allow for 4H or something along those lines. Papke: How would you define that? Keefe: Well that’s a good question. You know if any of it could be, it could be something along the line of what Minneapolis does. You know where you get your neighbors involved. Papke: Any particular set of animals that you would propose? Keefe: You know we allow horses, right? So something you know probably smaller than that. Papke: Smaller than a horse? Keefe: You know a typical 4H type of animals. I mean it seems to me a bit of conflict when you know because horses are fairly you know, it’s unclear to me why we would restrict some of these other animals and allow horses. Papke: Well we only allow horses on 1 ½ acre lots, is that correct? Aanenson: 2 ½ acre. Keefe: It says 1 ½ in here. Papke: That’s what I thought too and. Aanenson: No, but we don’t have any that are that size. Most of the residential lots that are in the, they have to be zoned RR or A2 which are all larger lot minimums. There’s a contradiction there. Papke: Alright. So there is a limit in that? Aanenson: There are some non-conforming ones out there. Not to diminish that. There are some non-conforming ones out there. Keefe: And you know I think, the point is a good one. You don’t want people you know winding up with whatever they want to do. I mean I can understand you want to have some sort of order around things but having said that I think to restrict everybody and require maybe the small percentage who want to come in and do something, you know to the extent that they have the support of their neighbors and you also have the nuisance laws in place, I don’t see why we just sort of blanket say no, you can’t do that. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Thomas: Thinking about it. I get what they’re saying about the chickens and I’m just kind of torn between what, how do they belong in with you know house pets and if we do that how do we then regulate that, especially with not having an animal control officer and my concern is, while these people would obviously take very good care of their chickens. I don’t have any doubt about that whatsoever. Papke: Right. Thomas: My concern is, unfortunately I hate, it’s like we punish people you know, the good can’t do it as well because I have to be concerned about the people who will not take good care of you know their animals. But and I just worry. Like will people want to come in and want turkeys as well for their house you know because, look at them. What are you going to do with a turkey but eat it but I don’t know, people probably eat their chickens too to be honest so I wouldn’t be. Papke: I think it does bring up a point we should discuss a little bit in that the difference, I would consider the difference between a house pet and in this case farm animal or whatever is you eat stuff. Okay? You don’t eat your house pets typically. Thomas: Right. Papke: Unless you swallow goldfish. Thomas: Right. Papke: But not that you’re going to eat your chicken but you’re going to eat the eggs or whatever. Thomas: Right. Papke: Okay, there’s some part of the animal that’s being consumed and so there is a differentiation here and I think. Keefe: How do you compare like a chicken to a rottweiller? Papke: You don’t eat rottweillers. Keefe: You know but I mean, you know eating it is one thing but if it’s a dog which you know your neighborhood kids might feel unsafe about but it’s unregulated. Papke: Right. However I think if you purchase such a dog, people expect that that is a pet in the classical sense of the term. We could have a long debate about you know breeds and the issues around that but. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Thomas: Well because again it’s that whole thing you punish one, you know what I mean? The good for the bad. You hear all the people’s rottweillers you know and not all of them are horrible. Papke: Getting back to the issue of consumption. I think the one slippery slope we do have to be aware of is there’s kind of a history in the Twin Cities and in the upper Midwest of running into issues when people begin to slaughter their animals and you know that’s a whole different deal so okay, you allow chickens or ducks or whatever. Are people allowed to kid them in their back yard and eat them? Okay, and how do you stop that? Keefe: Has it been an issue here? Papke: Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Keefe: Off of farms? Papke: Yeah. Aanenson: Chickens. Papke: Yeah, there was quite a controversy with pigs here with, I think it was the Hmong community that was setting up slaughter operations and such, so you know just that, not that this is a big deal but I just want to make sure that we’re allow aware that there is a facet of what happens if that kind of thing happens. We’ve got to consider the consequences. Mark you were going to. Undestad: Well yeah I just think this conversation is probably exactly why we tried to word this and put this package together like this because how do you differentiate everybody that comes in. The fact that a lot of people are wanting to buy organic and home grown stuff, yeah we all are kind of gearing towards that but there’s a lot more farms close by raising our chickens and our eggs and things like that that we can buy locally and organically and… Papke: Right. CSA’s. Community Supported Agriculture I think has some co-ops. Denny, your thoughts. Laufenburger: Yeah Kurt your language just really drove home the message for me. A chicken raised for the purposes of sustainable lifestyle, eating the by-product or eating the fruit of the chicken, that moves it outside of a pet in my view. And that moves it into an agricultural process as opposed to a companion process, which is what a pet is. Now I have no doubt that Jennifer and Rodger would take very good care, certainly based on her history in Carver County. Cologne I think she said. I’m sure she would do a wonderful job but we don’t know that every family that was presented with that same ordinance would do the same. I do happen to like, by the way I like the notion of having a permit that must be secured every year so you have a check point that something that gets out of hand in the eyes of the neighbors could be curtailed or could be stopped at least after one year. But in general I don’t think a chicken raised with any purposes 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 that are of a agricultural, sustainable nature, I don’t think that’s something that should be done in the city. That’s my viewpoint. Papke: Let me throw out just one other wrinkle here, just to complicate matters. I know there’s a family in Chaska that raises angora rabbits and shears them and spins the hair into angora yarn. So we have rabbits as a pet. Listed on our pets I believe Sharmeen? Al-Jaff: Yeah. Papke: So is that an allowed situation where you’re making yarn out of your angora rabbits? Where does that sit? So you know if that’s the definition, if using the fruits of the animal if you will, the by-products is the definition, then we have another sticky issue then so. This is a real interesting one. Aanenson: we’re focusing on chickens but there’s other people that want to do bees. Bee keeping. Goats. We’re kind of taking the soft one but we, just to be clear that we have a lot of requests for those two also. Goats and bees. Papke: Yeah. You know I think what this kind of boils down to, right, wrong or differ is what kind of community do we want this to be. You know if we like everything to be prim and proper and you know nobody has any messes in their back yard and we’re real upscale and not in my back yard kind of stuff, do we want to be that? Or you know the other extreme is, is you know do we want this to be kind of a barn yard environment where geez, everybody’s got half a farm in their back yard? Now obviously those are the two extremes okay and we want to be you know not necessarily in the middle of the road but we want to be somewhere you know, where do we want to be in that spectrum. And I think what the folks that spoke up are getting to is certainly a trend in our culture right now and to be frank with you is something I think deserves some encouragement. I think there is value in sustainable agriculture, but it’s going to cause some issues. Once you allow this stuff, it’s the slippery slope problem where how many and administering this and licenses and which animals? You know okay when you allow chickens and ducks and next week we get bees. People clamoring for bees. You know how much of a task do we want city staff to cope with and is it worth it for the city? Again getting back to what kind of city do we want so. Laufenburger: I don’t think we can ordinance prim and proper. I’ve driven through Chanhassen and I’m very proud to live in Chanhassen, but there are some homes that if it were mine I’d clean them up a little bit frankly, but what we can do is we can, we can prepare or we can ask the community to follow a guideline that we believe matches the kind of community we want to be. Papke: And what do you think the average person in Chanhassen thinks? Do you think the average person in Chanhassen thinks a couple chickens in the back yard laying eggs is what we want to be? Laufenburger: I don’t think that’s the average person in Chanhassen. I think if that was we’d have more chickens in Chanhassen already. And there might be more people here tonight. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Keefe: Right. I guess it just depends on you know do we want to restrict everything? I mean do we want to go all the way to, because I read this as being way over on one side. You know let’s just nobody can do this. Undestad: But the problem is trying to define, pick and choose. Thomas: Right. Keefe: No, I think Minneapolis has taken a stab at it. I mean do you disagree with that or? In terms of allowing, and I’m not saying we want to be like Minneapolis but I mean, they’ve brought it back a little bit. Undestad: Well I think again we don’t want to be like Minneapolis, not that there’s anything wrong with Minneapolis but I think if you look into probably where those, I mean they created that ordinance for a reason and there’s probably neighborhoods that have a lot of chickens in the neighborhood so they had to do something. Keefe: Right. Undestad: Again I don’t think you drive around, you know I haven’t seen too many chickens. I don’t see any chickens running around Chanhassen but you know I think it’s just the difficulty of trying to pick and choose and how do we do that? I think you have to kind of come up with what staff has here is, alright. Let’s break them down this way. You know I mean I guess if it came to the you know, well I guess looking at this way I’d probably just kind of leave it myself… There’s just no really way to say okay chickens are good. Pigs are bad. Turkeys are maybe. Or for a week or a month or 6 months or. Keefe: How does the nuisance law kind of, the zoning ordinance says the animals may not be kept if they cause a nuisance or endanger the health or safety of the community and factor into you know, into this? Papke: The issue I have with nuisance laws is they’re generally quite vague and open to interpretation. It’s kind of in the eye of the beholder and I think what the intent was here is to try to not put ourselves always in that situation of trying to figure out what a nuisance is. Aanenson: Right, because you’d be trying to figure out is it smelling too much? Is it making too much noise? So that becomes, we even defining noise can be tricky. Duration and frequency so some of that’s going to be different…different neighborhood tolerances. Keefe: But it seems like getting the agreement of your neighbors, consent and then sort of you know a review of that seems to be you know sort of getting at that. How do you enforce the nuisance basically because there you know, they would be the ones that are affected. Undestad: But again unless you get everybody you know is it fair for the 1 or 2 or the handful of neighbors that say well I was here the longest. I don’t like chickens. Everybody else over here 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 says yes and these poor guys have been there, you know again, that kind of goes into the whole how do you pick and choose? Thomas: Or you say yes and then it becomes a nuisance and then you’re tied. Undestad: Trying to clean it up, yeah. Papke: We have a similar situation though even with dogs and so on. I may not like my neighbors dogs. Undestad: Oh yeah, I’m sure we do probably get some calls on the dogs. Aanenson: Oh yeah, sure. Papke: So it’s not like we don’t have to. Undestad: No, but everybody knows there’s dogs and cats running around so. Papke: So maybe they should all know that there’s chickens. Keefe: Chickens, ducks, pigs. Papke: Have we beaten this one to death? So bring it to a vote here. I guess I’ll entertain a motion. Do we want to take a motion on each of these? Aanenson: Yes. Papke: Okay. So I’ll entertain a motion at this point. Undestad: I’ll make a motion here. I make a motion that, have you got it? Thomas: No. Undestad: Wrong page. There we go. That staff recommends amending the City Code to add the definitions listed in this issue paper and delete any reference to the A1 district to the City Code. Staff also requesting direction on whether to allow other animals in the city through a conditional use permit or prohibit them. Papke: Is there a second? Laufenburger: Second. Undestad moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve amending the City Code to add the definitions listed in the staff report dated May 26, 2009. All voted in favor, except Papke and Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Papke: And just to in retrospect here, I think there’s been plenty of discussion around this but you know I think our somewhat divided vote here is reflective of the fact that this is certainly not a clear cut issue and I think it’s going to be indicative of what will happen when we roll this out. I think there will be, you know if it goes out as it stands right now, I think they’re over the long run there will be some friction in the community. Laufenburger: Well the good news is, it can be changed. Papke: Yes, it certainly can. Laufenburger: Based in a response from the community and how it’s perceived. Papke: Exactly. Okay. Next item. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on the Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning regarding LED Lighting. Papke: Okay, questions for staff. We’ll start with you Dan. Keefe: You know I think you know we touched upon, and I don’t know if you had any more information to share but the issue for me on this, and I like the energy savings stuff. I like the LEED stuff. I like all that. The issue is more the color that LED casts off. I mean the typical, at least maybe the early generations were more of this white hue where HPS lights are more of a yellow hue. I happen to prefer the more yellowish. It’s a softer lighting. If we were simply to go sort of this other way, you know I think the technology is coming around some now. Is that? Al-Jaff: Well one of the delays with this type of lighting is the fact that they want it to become as white as possible, so we started with the colored LED and it’s been, it’s taken a while for them to take out all of the color and just have a purely white light. But the technology is moving towards more white than the yellow. Keefe: Yeah. Yeah, it’s awful. You know in my opinion. I mean I just think from an aesthetics standpoint it’s a lousy color but you know to each their own. Papke: Kathleen. Thomas: I am the opposite. Papke: We’re at questions for staff. Thomas: Questions, let’s see. No, I don’t think so. I think I’m alright with it. Undestad: Just one, maybe just to clarify. The, when they base on foot candles, I mean it might help Dan but on the different color lights really doesn’t matter. It’s when they have the foot candles out. Perimeters. Property lines. Street lines, that kind of stuff. The LED and the high pressure, are they the same foot candles? Same illumination out there. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Al-Jaff: When you’re looking at LED lights, because you have multiple sources, it just evens out the way the light is, maybe in this photo. With high pressure sodium it is concentrated on one spot and then it starts to fade out. With the LED lights you cover more of an area and it’s more even throughout that area that is covered. As far as foot candles, we would still apply the exact same regulations that we have today. We still would say no more than half a foot candle at property lines. We would require the developer to insure there are no dark spots within a parking lot for instance. Aanenson: Can I just answer a little. Can you go back to the other slide? I think too with the diodes, the number of diodes you can, that panel just shows one. You can add more on that one and also you can do it on the other side too so in effect it could be more cost effective because you can make that head bigger as opposed to a typical high pressure sodium which kind of has one spec so you actually can make a broader span if you’re doing a parking lot or a bridge deck. Whatever you needed to get that scale, you just add the more diodes so. Al-Jaff: This is a 3 bar and they can go up to 12. So they can really. Aanenson: So you’re using one pole to get a significant amount of lights so I think that was your question as far as is it going to cost more because you have to do more fixtures? No, not necessarily. You can also face them on the other side too. Undestad: Okay. Papke: Denny. Laufenburger: Sharmeen, under your proposed recommendations, would you just clarify? You have 5 options I think is what you have. Number one you say do nothing. Two is allow a mix. Three is allow developers the choice. I read 2 and 3 as essentially the same. This is on page 4 of 5. I read 2 and 3 as the same. Is there a nuance there that differentiates Option 2 and Option 3? Do you find where I’m looking? Al-Jaff: Correct. One of them would have, or with number 3 we’re giving them the choice. We’re giving the developer the choice. Either or. Laufenburger: So in other words, developer meaning new light placement they could choose either? Al-Jaff: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay, and how about. Al-Jaff: Or if a brand new development that’s coming and then again they have their choice. With number 4 we don’t. Laufenburger: No, between 2 and 3. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Al-Jaff: Oh, I’m sorry. Papke: And what’s the difference between a mix and a choice? Aanenson: I think they’re the same. Al-Jaff: They are the same. Laufenburger: Okay. Papke: And what are you actually proposing here? This lists a number of options so which one are you proposing for us to vote on this evening? Al-Jaff: Staff is recommending that it becomes an, it’s the developer’s choice. Papke: Option 3. Al-Jaff: Correct. Which is the recommendation that is on page 1 of the staff report. Papke: Okay. Laufenburger: That’s it. Papke: And I have none. Keefe: Number 1 is all fixtures must be, oh I’m sorry. Yes. Papke: Anything else with that? And seeing no members of the public here to ask questions I will open and close the public hearing with one stroke of the gavel and bring it back for comments. Denny, we’ll start with you. Laufenburger: I don’t find the LED offensive. I think the, one thing I like about the LED lighting is that it’s a smoother migration from brightness to darkness, as was pointed out by Sharmeen. The high pressure sodium light is focused in one area and then it quickly dissipates to a darkness and I think the direction of the, or the technology of the LED allows for ever a broader range. I find that not only safer but certainly the economy is in there. I’m in favor of giving developers a choice. I think given a choice, they will migrate to the most economic and I think that will likely be LED in the long run. However, 15-20 years from now, there may be a newer technology. Papke: Thank you. Undestad: Well yeah I agree. I mean it’s, also I kind of see where Dan’s at. I mean it took me a long time to switch flashlights to LED just because I didn’t like that light but you know I see it. I agree with it. I like having the option on there so. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Thomas: I too like the option. I do like the lights. Probably because it’s you know for me it’s more common. You know we have LED flashlights. You know we have all that kind of stuff so it just, I like the way the light looks. I like the whiteness so maybe it’s my generation. Keefe: I think you know where I stand. Papke: Okay. My perspective is I think this is kind of the inexorable march of technology and back to Dan’s issue, I think a big piece of this is what we’re accustomed to. You know 30 years ago we had mercury vapor which gave off that horrible blue glow which made all of our acne stand out when we were kids. And then we went to sodium vapor and we got used to that and you know, so I think this is kind of a habituation thing that after a couple of years then we’ll all become accustomed to it and we’ll march on so. Okay, with that I’ll entertain a motion. Laufenburger: Mr. Chairman, I may not get this language right but I move that the Planning Commission recommend for approval Option 3 as noted on page 5-5 of the findings allowing developers the choice of either LED or HPS fixtures. Papke: Okay. Is there a second? Thomas: Second. Laufenburger moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Option 3 as the attached ordinance amending Section 20-913 Lighting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Papke: Next item, which would be yard regulations. Angie Kairies presented the staff report on the City Code Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning regarding Yard Regulations. Papke: Dan, we’ll start with you. Keefe: No questions. Thomas: Me either. Undestad: No. Laufenburger: Just Angie if, as I read this and as I listen to you, it looks like what you’re trying to do is to give residents of Chanhassen an opportunity to make, make use of a large expanse of property that they own but previously they’ve been prohibited because it’s specifically marked as utility or drainage easement. Kairies: Correct. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Aanenson: Exactly. Laufenburger: Okay. My understanding. I have no other questions. Papke: The only question I have is there any issue or concern here that geez, we allow this with drainage easements. What if it’s a wetland? Aanenson: We do check that. Kairies: There are specific setbacks for wetlands and buffer strips so they would not be allowed in those areas. This is strictly the drainage and utility easement. Papke: Okay. Kairies: So as long as there’s not an easement that it would be interrupting. If it’s not going to impede the purpose of the drainage and utility easement, we don’t see a problem. Papke: Very good. Okay, and once again seeing no public remaining to comment on this, we will close the public hearing and bring this back for discussion and perhaps a vote. If there’s no discussion. Laufenburger: I wanted to ask one other question. Has the Planning Commission, to your recollection commissioners or staff, has the Planning Commission made any decisions or made recommendations within the last year or 18 months that would be reversed or would be modified by the presence of this ordinance? Aanenson: No. Kairies: No. Laufenburger: Okay. Papke: Discussion? Issues? Seems like with given the few number of questions that we can move forward so if someone wants to make, practice making a motion. Thomas: Sure, I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code as outlined in the staff report. Undestad: Second. Thomas moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Section 20-908 Yard Regulations as outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Papke: Next item, the signs. Favorite topic. Angie Kairies presented the staff report on the City Code Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning regarding Signage. Papke: So could you clarify what that, could you do the math for us and so for each of these categories how many square feet of electronic sign is allowed. Kairies: Sure. For a 24 square foot sign, 50% of that would be 12 square feet. And then 64 square foot sign would be 22.4 square feet and that’s 35%. And then for an 80 square foot sign it’s 20 square feet and that’s 25%. Papke: So why did we allow a bigger one for the medium sign than we did for the large ones? Kairies: It goes by percentage. So we did a stepping system so it was all signs were 25%. Papke: Yes but, if I have a 64 square foot sign I can have a 22 square foot electronic message board but if I make my sign 1 square foot bigger now my electronic sign shrinks by a couple square feet. That seems inconsistent and undesirable. Aanenson: Well I think the feedback we got at the work session was. Papke: I agree with the. Aanenson: No I’m just going to go back and say, and we can revisit this, and maybe we need to but I think some of the direction we got is how loud do we want to be? How bright in intensity. Papke: I agree. All I’m saying is, the way we’ve got the tiering set up here is it seems. Aanenson: Yep. Right so let’s talk about where those signs would be located. An 80 foot square foot sign is typically found in a larger commercial district or industrial. Entrance to industrial park. Probably the biggest percentage that we would see would be the 8, the 6 foot, it’s either the 64 square foot is probably the most common type in the downtown. And so you know we kind of thought you know what, the discussion we had was if you’re driving down th West 78 what would be, you know what kind of uses, and actually one of the attachment I think that’s in your packet. It’s not on the slide. I don’t believe you have that in the slide. Kairies: I don’t have that in a slide. Aanenson: Yeah, we actually kind of looked at what potentially could have electronic message centers. Trying to think of scale of the building. Scale of the sign and try to match that up to the percentage. So while it seems like you’re getting, a 24 square feet 50%, if you actually do, I think we had, you know the 12 square feet is still pretty small. So if I was at 80, if I was allowed 20 square feet, I guess that would be the only rub. At 64 you get 2.4% more going at a smaller sign. But maybe there’s a rationale basis for that because you’d say well, it’s less overall 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 signage so it might be as simple to make a smaller monument sign, because that’s what all of these are. You get a smaller percentage. Papke: Well I just, I fail to see the logic in having this weird break here. Let’s do the math okay. Aanenson: Okay, yep. Papke: If I have a 24 square foot sign and I get a 12 square foot electronic board. Laufenburger: Up to. Up to. Papke: Up to, okay. But if I have a 24 square foot sign and I have a 12 square foot electronic board. If I have a 25 square foot sign, 35% is like 7 ½. All of sudden my sign shrinks way down. To me this just seems really, really silly. The way the math is set up because it’s going to cause all kinds of problems. Well, you know if I make my sign 1 square foot bigger I’m screwed. Undestad: Well but isn’t it there you’re going, yeah you’re in the 25 to 64 square foot, right. I mean 1 foot up. Papke: One foot up and all of a sudden my electronic sign shrinks. I don’t get it. I don’t get it. Laufenburger: I think what it says to me, Mr. Chairman, is that the people who are evaluating the signage that they want for their business for their commercial district, for their office building, whatever, they have to decide. What’s important to them about the make-up of the sign and is it more important for them to have fixed lettering on a major portion of the sign or is it more important for them to have a dominant or prominent position of the LED? I think the percentages perhaps can be a little softer in there grading but I support the concept of give the people who are interested in signs an option. An option that says do you want your LED to be a prominent display or do you want it to be supporting the display. Papke: But what we have to, I agree with that whole strategy but let’s draw the analogy to income taxes. This is like if you make $50,000 a year you’re in a 20% bracket. If I make $51,000, now I’m in a 30% bracket. Whoa, wait a minute here you know. It creates all kinds of distortions in the marketplace when you have those kinds of discontinuities. Aanenson: So your recommendation would be to keep it all in the same percentage? So right now. Papke: No. No, I think this was driven. I think this was, you’re right. I think this was driven by you initially Dan? Keefe: Yeah I mean. Yeah. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Papke: I think that’s good but find some way that we don’t end up with these weird bumps where you know, make it like a piece wise linear graph. You’re familiar with piece wise linear curve here rather than this weird step function. Aanenson: Well maybe we would recommend on this one tabling it and that we could bring it back to you. Papke: Am I coming on too strong here? I mean. Thomas: No I think, looking at just like what’s around town with the percentage and then looking at what would be available, I do think you’re completely going in the right direction so. Laufenburger: Look at the Arboretum one just for a moment. That’s the Arboretum Shopping Center I’m looking at the one that’s Century Wine and Spirits. This is on Century Boulevard isn’t it? Yeah. Thomas: Yeah. Laufenburger: So by example that’s a 48 foot square foot display area. According to this with this, if we were to apply this ordinance, they would be allowed 35% of that so 35% of 48 is roughly 18 square feet. So they could have as much as 18 square feet. In fact it’s 12 square feet. Thomas: Right and it probably would have been readable yeah. From the road. Papke: Thoughts from staff. I mean. Aanenson: No, I understand what you’re saying and we can take another swing at that. Papke: But I think we’re headed in the right direction with having, you know allowing a bigger percentage on smaller ones. I think we just need to work out what the guidelines are so that we don’t end up with these weird. Aanenson: Right, so there’s a rationale basis for that. But I think going to what Commissioner Laufenburger said, I think that was that, is it integral to change every day or is it the main thing this is where I’m located. Because it’d be difficult…retailer…with the price of gas and a commercial business who may just have a happy message or something like that so I think we can take another look at that. I think it’s helpful to look at the real life applications that are out there and how they, and maybe it might be something you just go out and look at. Thomas: I think that’d be helpful I mean I don’t know, because I just happen to drive by the Arboretum property… Aanenson: …going on the bike tour we can look at that too. Give us some feedback. Papke: Before we table it let’s make sure we go through the rest of the issues here so we don’t, we all have a chance. So were you done? 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Laufenburger: I was done, yep. Yep. Thomas: No. Keefe: I have nothing. Papke: So I guess we’re cool on that. This is the first time I’ve had to table an issue as Chair here. Do we have to vote on that? Aanenson: Yes you have to recommend tabling it. Papke: Okay. Someone want to recommend tabling this? Thomas: I recommend, okay go ahead. No, go ahead. Keefe: I recommend to table. Papke: Someone want to second it? Thomas: Second. Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission table the ordinance amendment to Chapter 20 regarding signage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Papke: Are we done with the ordinance changes? Aanenson: That’s correct. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Commissioner Laufenburger noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 19, 2009 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Papke: The City Council action update here which I read and I really liked. Keefe: Yeah. Laufenburger: I was pleased to see that. It makes it, and not only does it make it understandable but it comes in a timeframe that I can remember what we talked about you know. Thomas: Yeah I really, I thought it was great. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission - June 16, 2009 Aanenson: …suggestion at the work session with the council so we’re following through and I think it’s helpful. Laufenburger: Make sure that the City Council knows the commission appreciates that. Papke: Yeah. Aanenson: Will do. And just if we’re done with that item. Just ongoing items really quick. We do not have a meeting next, in 2 weeks. And I didn’t have anything scheduled on the one after that but there will be an item. I’m expecting the item to come in so we will have a meeting on st the 21 of July. Papke: Okay. With that we are adjourned. Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 23