PC 2017 02 07
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 7, 2017
Acting Chair Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Undestad, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, and
Mark Randall
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Andrew Aller, and John Tietz
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Lisa Mekkelsen 9640 Independence Circle
rd
Ann Nye 1641 West 63 Street
Matt Christensen 10 Pioneer Trail
Bill Schubert 9610 Meadowlark Lane
Tori & Robert Conrad 1680 West Farm Road, Chaska
Scott Anderson 5637 Scenic Drive
Richard Etshokin Elk River
Elizabeth Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail
th
Wes Dunsmore 735 West 96 Street
th
John Saunders 2708 East 49 Street, Minneapolis
th
Teri Byrne 700 West 96 Street
th
Joy Gorra 1680 West 78 Street
nd
Gary Carlson 3891 West 62 Street
Miron/Anne Marcotte 7240 Galpin Boulevard, Excelsior
Judy Walstad 10071 Great Plains Boulevard
PUBLIC HEARING: TWEET DENTAL – SITE PLAN REVIEW TO BUILD A 5,352
SQUARE FOOT DENTAL CLINIC (TWEET DENTAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
7845 CENTURY BOULEVARD.
Generous: Thank you chairman, commissioners. Planning Case 2017-01 is Tweet Pediatric
Dental. It’s a site plan review. Today’s the public hearing. This goes to City Council on
th
February 27. This property is located at 7845 Century Boulevard. This is at Century and
Highway 5. It’s on the southwest corner. The site is zoned planned unit development. This is a
business industrial park. There are some commercial type uses in there as well as office
th
industrial sites. The property is Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6 Addition. This
development actually began in the mid 1990’s and this site has been vacant for, since 2003. The
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
th
site is approximately 2 acres in size. In 2003 the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 6
Addition was approved. At that time the Holiday Inn Express which is located immediately to
the east of this was also approved. The two sites share one access point onto Century Boulevard.
This is in an easement document that is in place for the development and that site has to, there’s
an easement that lays across the property. With the Holiday Inn Express the southern parking
area was installed. However no other improvements were made for that. There is a trail system
that connects Century Boulevard to the Holiday Inn site and this, that will continue with this
development. In 2006 a restaurant was actually approved for construction on this property but it
was never developed and that site plan has since gone away. The building, the proposed building
is approximately 5,700 square feet. It’s a one story. We believe it’s attractive. It sort of fits in
with the building that’s south about a quarter mile away up on the hill which has a gray tone to it.
Gray and black. This building is multiple shades of gray. There is some sand colored EIFS on
it. The primary building material will be that gray block. Entrance again is to the building will
be on the east side which is this location. It has a high roof overhang covering this. It’s a type of
a canopy entrance if you will. Parking is located to the south and east of the building. There is a
small play area proposed in the northeast corner of the site. The proposed layout complies with
all the zoning requirements on this so it meets setback requirements. In the future they anticipate
extending the building to the south from it’s current location. However at this time they’re not
ready to show that so if they, when they do do that they’ll come in for a separate site plan review
because it will be greater than a 10 percent expansion on the building. I should say the upper
levels, these lighter colors are made of EIFS material which is an exterior insulating finishing
system. It’s, you can do some good architectural things with it. It’s a little softer and so we
require that that be higher on the building so people don’t poke into it as much. Again it has
corner elements of stone which is, will provide additional architectural balance to the building
and it also has multiple windows on all sides. As part of the grading plan they will be
incorporating an infiltration basin on the west side of the building. This is based on the new
watershed standards. They have to hold the first 1.1 inch of storm water on the property. Again
the parking will be installed. The site was preliminary graded as part of the Holiday Inn Express
so there is not a lot of new grading going on for this site except for the building location and to
create the final layout for the parking lot and the storm water improvements. The landscaping
plan complies with ordinance. The only thing we came up with is we want them to provide a
little bit more diversity in the tree materials that they have and also to add 3 trees along the south
property line. Otherwise the proposed development complies with both the zoning and
Comprehensive Plan and staff is recommending approval of this subject to the conditions in our
staff report. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Weick: Anyone? With no questions if the applicant would like to either make a presentation or
clarify anything if they’re present.
Tori Conrad: Sure. So my name is Tori Conrad. I’m a pediatric dentist. Owner of Tweet
Pediatric Dentistry. I’ve been at the current location now at Century Boulevard and Highway 5
for the last 5 years. We are kind of outgrown our current space of 1,900 square feet so we want
to accommodate our patients from you know the Eden Prairie area all the way out to Hutchinson
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
so right now our patient population stretches that far out and so we, it’s very much needed in our
community so I look forward to becoming a long term you know part of the community and I do
want to thank everybody for their time and consideration for us being here so thank you for your
time.
Weick: Thank you.
Robert Conrad: I’m Robert Conrad. Dr. Conrad’s husband but the only thing I talked to Bob
about this but the only thing that may change slightly is the consideration for the barrel vaulted
roof. That portion, depending on how budgets come out we’re looking at maybe doing a single
vaulted or a single pitch vaulted. Kind of a chalet looking type thing. Of course anything with
that we would come back to the City and look for acceptance on that as well.
Weick: Great. Any questions of the applicant at this time? Thank you very much. I appreciate
you coming in.
Robert Conrad: Thank you.
Tori Conrad: Thank you.
Weick: Look forward to you growing. That’s good news. At this time we can open up the
public hearing portion. If anyone would like to come forward and state any comments for or
against or otherwise. Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing portion.
Commissioners any discussion? It sounded like things were pretty straight forward.
Randall: I would agree.
Weick: No questions? Growing businesses in Chanhassen are a good thing so.
Madsen: Beautiful building.
Weick: Yeah I think either way with the roof probably I would assume would be amenable to
the City. Hearing nothing I would entertain a motion.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion. I recommend the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council approve the site plan for a 5,700 square foot one story office building subject to
the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Weick: With the motion do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Weick: We have a second.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council approve the site plan for a 5,700 square foot, one-story building, plans
prepared by Schultz Engineering and Site Design and Sjoquist Architects, Inc., dated
01/05/17, subject to the following conditions:
Building:
1.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
2.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
3.Any retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
4.Drainage water collected from (any portion of) the building, or mechanical equipment
may not flow across a public walking surface (sidewalk).
5.Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans
are submitted.
6.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Environmental Resources:
1.The applicant will need to maintain a prairie mix of native plants in order to meet the
landscaping requirements. If a transition to non-native, weedy plants occurs on the site,
the owner will need to restore the prairie.
2.Incorporate one additional reliable tree species as a substitute for some of the red maple.
3.A total of 3 overstory trees will be required to be planted along the south property line
along the existing parking spaces
Engineering:
1.An access agreement with the adjacent property is required for the shared driveway on
the east side of the subject property.
2.A hydrant is required. The location of the fire hydrant must be approved by the Fire
Chief.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
3.The existing 18” reinforced concrete storm sewer in the southwest corner of the property
must be removed or abandoned.
Planning:
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement prior to receiving a building permit.
2.A separate sign permit application, review and approval shall be required prior to site
sign installation.
Water Resources:
1.The applicant shall apply for and receive a General Permit Authorization to Discharge
Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit) prior to the
issuance of a building permit or any earth disturbing activities.
2.The plan submittal must also include a detail of the infiltration basin consistent with the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual prior to issuance of a building permit. This detail must
include any soils corrections, basin protections and planting plans and schedules in
addition to other necessary design elements.
3.After construction, the infiltration basin shall be tested by a third party for permeability to
ensure that it is functioning per the stormwater modeling submitted by the applicant. The
infiltration basin must pass the permeability testing prior to an issuance of a permanent
certificate of occupancy. Or if agreed to by both parties, the city may confirm rates in-
house with their Modified Phillip-Dunn infiltrometer.
4.The applicant shall prepare an operations and maintenance manual specific to the
infiltration feature including anticipated inspection schedule, routine maintenance and
frequency of said maintenance and supply a copy to the city prior to issuance of a
building permit.
5.All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading
activities.
6.The site plan must comply with Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,
RPBCWD, rules for erosion prevention and sediment control and storm water
management.
7.The applicant shall obtain permits from all appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District) and comply with their
conditions of approval.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: CITY CODE AMENDMENTS:
Weick: Kate with your permission.
Aanenson: Sure, I think Chair since we did notify the stables and I think there are quite a few
people here for that item, that under the code amendments I would recommend that we move that
one forward first. Then you can have that public hearing and close it and move on and then I
think the rest of them won’t have quite as much public comment but if that’s alright I would
recommend you modifying that and taking stables in the residential as your first item.
Weick: We will do that. So the first item on the agenda will be, it’s listed as B-2(h) in our
packets but it’s stables in residential single family districts.
H. STABLES IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.
Weick: At this time we open it up for staff presentations.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. This item is part of our cleaning up the code if you
will. Initially we began looking at the stable ordinance in 2014. At that time we were just
looking at providing housing and pasture area minimum requirements and then, but that was
pushed back by City Council. They said they didn’t want to go forward. Last year we had a
stable permit that was issued in a single family residential district. After that approval council
directed staff to re-evaluate the ordinance and determine whether or not it was appropriate use in
the single family residential district. Currently it’s an interim use in there and you can also get
an interim use for a commercial stable in an RFS district. Our agrarian past led to us having
stables in those areas and we used to have much larger lots. Over time we’ve had these more
suburban style subdivisions and so it doesn’t seem to be as an acceptable use in our
neighborhoods and so that was the instigation to bring this back again. We are proposing that
that be eliminated as an interim use in our RSF district. It would still be permitted in our
agricultural districts which are A-2 and RR residential districts. There’s actually 3 parts to this.
One would be the adding of the definition to Chapter 1. Free choice means that the horses are
able to get into their shelter without human intervention. We also added that a mini horse to
define what that is. And then also a definition of what a pasture is. I should step back a second.
I did prior to the hearing put some packets out in front of you. This one item was a letter from
Liz Vogel with her comments on the ordinance and concerns about loss of ability to have horses
there. While I haven’t completed the analysis of this I actually believe that I did one for Mr.
Christensen and he was able to actually have more horses under the proposed ordinance than he
does under the existing ordinance. The limiting factor tends to be the shelter size because we’re
proposing that you have a minimum standard for that of 240 square feet and that was the other
question. One of the property owners, and I believe you got that letter previously in the
attachment had said that the Minnesota Extension Services suggested or recommended 144
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
square feet be the minimum shelter space for 2 horses and then each additional horse was 12
square feet. We were proposing to use Minnesota Extension Services recommendations also but
we were looking at the standards that they have for wintering horses and have that be the ones
and that requires a minimum of 240 square feet for the first horse and then 60 square feet of
additional shelter space for each additional horse. Now we also did make a distinction between
horses and mini horses which are smaller animals. They have less space requirements. They eat
less than a regular horse and so, and alpacas which are similar to lamas but there again they’re
smaller. They’re on the same scale as a mini horse so we’re equating mini horses and alpacas as
the same and then horses and lamas and all those as another, as a horse. Based on the horse
standards. So if that’s all clear. And also for pasture lands there’s pasture that is available for
the horses to actually feed themselves and then there’s also a pasture which is described as a dry
lot which is smaller and requires that the horses be fed by their humans so. So that’s what was
proposed in Chapter 5 is the actual stable permit requirement. Section 5-89 again goes into the
minimum requirements for the shelters. 5-104 goes into minimum requirements for the pasture
land and provides either you can have the grass pasture and determine what your horses
allotment is or you can have a dry pasture. It’s not, you have to have one or the other. You can
work with our stable inspector is actually the one that came up with all this stuff and
unfortunately she had surgery today so she couldn’t be here to discuss it further. It’s pretty self
evident what the ordinance is. And then finally we wanted to put a provision if someone would
like to deviate from their standard there was a way for them to do that based on our stable permit
requirements that they go through training and get accredited program and implement their
standards. And then finally the portion which is actually the public hearing requirements for the
Planning Commission was a change to Chapter 20, Section 20-616 which is our zoning
ordinance which deleted the private stable and commercial stables as interim uses within the RSF
district. There are currently 21 stable permits that have been issued in the community. Three of
those are in single family residential districts. Those 3 uses would be legal non-conforming if
you will. They would be able to continue but they could not expand. The other ones would just
be, would have to comply with ordinance if they were to expand and they don’t currently
comply. So but they would be able to continue with whatever they have in place right now so if
they have 10 horses they would be able to continue that even if it didn’t meet the standards that
are being adopted. With that staff is recommending approval of the ordinance amendment and
I’d be happy to answer any questions you have.
Weick: Any questions?
Madsen: I have a question. It’s just a clarification. So a resident could choose to follow the
minimum pasture. The minimum grassed pasture size or the dry lot size and you could have a
very different number of horses for each one they could choose.
Generous: That’s correct.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Generous: And it would also be up to the stable inspector to work with him and say here’s what
you have and.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Weick: Maybe then, then I misunderstood that. So the minimum pasture acreage for horses is
either A or B? In this the way this is written.
Generous: Well yeah. If you want to have a grass pasture then that’s a standard you follow. If
you don’t, if you don’t have that area then you’d have a dry pasture and you would follow that
standard and we’d have the requirement that you feed your animals year round as opposed to just
over wintering them.
Weick: Right. Okay. I obviously don’t stable horses but that seems like a significant difference
in acreage correct?
Generous: Yes.
Weick: I mean I’m reading that right, right?
Generous: That’s correct. If you want to have a horse you need 2 acres of grass pasture.
Weick: Or 400 square feet.
Generous: Of dry pasture.
Weick: Of dry pasture.
Generous: And you have to feed them.
Weick: That you feed.
Generous: That you would be able to.
Weick: Per horse. Okay. I misunderstood that, thank you. Any other questions from
commissioners? What is the reasoning behind limiting in residential single family at this point?
Is that from surveys or I mean do we believe that that’s a desire of the residents or is it just
outdated?
Generous: All of the above.
Weick: Okay.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Generous: We’ve had people say they don’t want to see that in the single family neighborhoods.
You know when you’re down to 15,000 square feet if the guy next to you has 2 acres and you
don’t want to have a horse across from you. Which would be new stables. Existing stables
would like I said would be able to continue. And we have 3 instances of that.
Weick: Correct. Okay. It looks like you’re mulling something over down there. Are you okay?
Okay. Okay hearing no more discussion, at this point we would open up the public hearing
portion of the hearing. Anyone wishing to speak, have an opinion on this item please come
forward and state your name and address and your thoughts on this code amendment.
Bill Schubert: Good evening everyone. Thanks for letting us come and chat.
Weick: Welcome.
Bill Schubert: I’m Bill Schubert, 9610 Meadowlark Lane. I guess somebody had to be first. I
think for me the best way we’ll just go through, I’d just like to go through some of the requested
changes and make some suggestions for adjustments as we go through. First it’s, this is
something that’s, a comment that’s been, requested that it’s for single family units yet you’ve
now and gone and made changes for the rural residential. All the properties, every stable. I’m
wondering first why are you changing something that’s, was already agreed upon and set? I
don’t know if you want to do this on a one time.
Weick: I think for process if you want to list your questions and then I’ll direct them yep.
Bill Schubert: And if you guys take a note and we’ll go from there.
Weick: That would be great.
Bill Schubert: That would be wonderful. Okay the first one I’ve got up is the minimum of 240
square feet for the first horse as mentioned by Mr. Generous I had actually, it gave some
information of the dry lot and he said it was actually associated with the winter care and actually
winter care rules says as a general rule of thumb for run in or open front shed size is 240 square
feet for 2 horses and an additional 60 square feet for every additional horse. So if you wish to
maintain the same as what is in the University of Minnesota Extension Program then you need to
change your wording along that line. There’s also no statement associated where if somebody
wants to do stable as opposed to just open lot, or an open shelter like a lean to that many people
have. Now on our property we have a 10 by 12 stable that each horse has free access to so by
definition of the new thing we would not adhere to this thing. To this new design. So I believe
there should be wording in there that allows individual stable access for horses rather than one
large area. The statement of pasture, it seems almost kind of strange to put in the design of 2
square acres per horse or the dry lot. One I would like to have better clarification in the wording
so it is understood that it is either or because as you had noted it was not terribly clear.
Additionally by reading the wording you would just claim your entire pasture dry lot and I could
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
say I could handle 12 horses on my property. That is more than what I would want to put on that
property so, and we feed our horses year round anyway but it would be nice, I’m not sure if you
need to change anything but I’m sure the majority of individuals here do a variety of both pasture
feeding and supplemental feeding. We supplemental feed the entire year so. Coming through.
Your adjustment to number 11. Should a variance be requested with these standards, I don’t
think I need to read the whole thing. I find that a very vague statement and actually almost a
circle, you know catch-22 type of design where if you don’t meet the standards of the University
of Minnesota Extension Program then you need to take the University of Minnesota Extension
Program class and meet their standards. So I can’t see how that has this particular comment in
it’s current stage has any effect so I request that you go back and review that and try and adjust
that. I will notice a slight typo for you. In your opening statement of free choice you have a
statement a horse may must be able to voluntarily enter and exit said structure. I’m assuming
you need to remove the must because in the earlier, in the edited version, I want to make sure
I’ve got this.
Generous: Yeah I see it in the ordinance.
Bill Schubert: And the version showing the changes it says a horse may volunteer. Voluntarily
enter. I have a question with the proposed ordinance. There is a number 5 at the end of a
number of these sentences. I’m, it looks to be associated to a footnote yet I found no footnote.
Can somebody explain what that number 5 is please?
Weick: I don’t see it.
Generous: Well it’s in this definition section. It references the Chapters that that definition
applies to.
Weick: Thank you.
Bill Schubert: The conditions require an issuance, number 5 the shelter and stabling facility shall
be so located. Is that the one you’re talking about?
Generous: No. It’s Chapter. All of Chapter 5.
Bill Schubert: All of Chapter 5, okay I’m sorry.
Generous: It’s just telling you where.
Bill Schubert: It’s referencing Chapter 5 thank you.
Generous: Right.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Bill Schubert: Section 3 or it says Section 5-89. The statement or horses must be provided a
minimum of free choice protection of a constructed shelter from direct rays of sun when
temperatures exceed 95 degrees Fahrenheit, from wind and from freezing precipitation for all
horses. You by horses must and then say for all horses. So you get rid of one of the two of these
things but the it’s, I would like some adjustment of the wording there because you talk about
when the temperature exceeds 95 and it sounds like or from wind and from freezing
precipitation. I’m not sure I fully understand at what point we must adhere to that regulation of
the square footage. I would like to next wording of constructed shelters must be a minimum of
240 square feet for the first horse and 60 square feet for each additional horse be adjusted to
accommodate what the University of Minnesota Extension actually does. For the Section 5-
104(a)(1). Minimum pasture acreage for all horses shall be determined as follows. Rather than
saying as follows something more along the lines, must adhere to one of the following so it can
be better identified as I mentioned before. Number 4 is not a change from before but they state
that a stabling facility shall no closer than 100 feet from any structure other than the applicant’s
which is used for residential purposes. Can there be multiple structures on the property?
Generous: It’s from neighboring properties.
Bill Schubert: From neighboring properties. Okay yet it doesn’t say that.
Aanenson: …other than the applicants so if you wanted to clarify that to say.
Generous: Any residential structure other than the applicant’s.
Bill Schubert: It doesn’t, 100 feet from any structure other than the applicant’s which is used,
okay.
Generous: Area homes yes.
Bill Schubert: Okay if we’re okay with that just it read, okay. Then there’s a statement
associated, a couple of shall remove leaching or objectionable odors. Composting is big and we
try to compost as much as possible. Now there are techniques to compost. Is that still viable
even though there’s a statement that says it has to be removed?
Generous: It would still be viable. That’s not a change.
Bill Schubert: I know it’s not a change. I’m just making sure. And I think from there I am set.
Do you have any questions of me please?
Weick: I don’t think so.
Yusuf: Can I just ask one question?
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Weick: Yeah please.
Yusuf: Can I just ask you a clarifying question from your experience. With regards to the
pasture acreage, do horse owners ever do anything inbetween because you recommended going
either grass pasture or dry lot. Are there inbetween options?
Bill Schubert: We all probably do inbetween.
Yusuf: Okay.
Bill Schubert: It’s almost guaranteed that we all do something inbetween. However for the
purpose of the, as I mentioned if I have to adhere to your guide, guidelines I would just state that
I have dry lot and therefore identify my property as having the ability to handle 12 horses but I
only keep 2 on there. And currently we have, well the last horse we lost was 33 years old when
it died and our current old horse we have right now is 36 years old so so far we’re taking pretty
good care of our horses.
Yusuf: Nice, well thank you.
Bill Schubert: Does that, any other questions?
Yusuf: No absolutely, thank you.
Bill Schubert: Thank you for your time.
Yusuf: Thank you for your comments.
Weick: Before we move to the next person I just want to be sure we’ve cleared up all the open
questions that were presented and we did go back through I think and touch on everything except
the original question which we kind of touched on which is why we were reducing the minimum
square footage for the shelters. And it’s written right now as a minimum of 240 square feet for
the first horse and 60 square feet for each additional horse and I think there was a question that
that is not. That may or may not be what’s actually in the Minnesota Equine Code.
Generous: And that’s correct. We just, I just noticed that. It says for the first two you need 240
and then it’s 60 per additional.
Weick: So we would match that?
Generous: Yeah. That was the intent but like I said this was 2 years ago. We were told that we
didn’t actually have…
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Weick: Okay so it would be a minimum of 240 square feet for the first 2 horses and 60 square
feet for each additional horse which would match.
Generous: And provided, you know I would assume that if they had multiple structures for their
stables that meet these minimum requirements we wouldn’t say it would all have to be one big
shelter to meet the 240. But most of them don’t have separate sheltering facilities.
Weick: Okay. Okay thank you. And I’m sorry it takes me a minute to get my head around all
the questions but I do think we, yeah. Oh yeah thank you. Why don’t you ask.
Yusuf: Oh Bob, I think his original question was why does it impact rural homes so if you could
please just clarify the zoning and what’s applicable.
Generous: Yes. The issue came up when a stable permit was being proposed in a single family
residential neighborhood and so they said at the time we were directed to take it out from that use
and so that’s the deletion to Chapter 20. The rest of it was based on we wanted to provide
healthy environments for horses in the community. We didn’t want someone with a 2 acre lot
that had 20,000 square feet of pasture to be able to say hey I have 2 acres so I get 3 horses. But
however under this even with the 20,000 square foot lot you’d call it a dry lot and you would be
able to get more. The real limiting factor is the amount of shelter space that you have. City
ordinance limits the amount of accessory structures to 1,000 square feet unless you come in for a
variance or an existing non-conforming structure so under that 1,000 square feet you are, you
would limit that total number of horses. Again this is a lot of the people that currently are horse
owners, they do know how to take care of their animals and so we just wanted to provide
definitive standards for, if you’re going to come in and do it on some of our agricultural property
these are the minimum requirements for you.
Weick: Thank you.
Yusuf: Thank you Bob.
Madsen: Bob I believe there was an additional question about the reasoning why an owner must
go through some of that training if they were requesting a variance and what was the reasoning
behind that?
Generous: Well the standards are one thing that you have this size structure, shelter for the
animals. However if you’re not going to do that there’s additional training on how you can take
care of your horses and that’s what we’re getting at there that you go there and you have to make
sure, I don’t know I’m not a horse person so I don’t know all the requirements that they have but
supposedly they can teach you to be a better manager for your animals by going through this
program.
Madsen: Thank you.
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Randall: Bob real quick so would they actually give the applicant on a variance a set of
standards that they would propose to us then possibly for a variance then? Saying hey based on
this class that they’ve taken.
Generous: Yeah and that their commitment to provide this standard of care then yes.
Randall: Okay.
Generous: They would be able to go to a lesser standard.
Randall: Alright.
Weick: Okay and anyone else wishing to come forward please do so. And as we learn I promise
we will get a little more structured here, I apologize Kate.
Liz Vogel: Hi thank you for your time. I’m Liz Vogel so I’m on 105 Pioneer Trail and I’m in
Chanhassen just for the record. I think the, on the paper it has us in Chaska but anyways I just
have.
Weick: Well welcome.
Liz Vogel: I just have 3 clarifying questions I think. So on the first page of the background, the
last paragraph it talks about it would allow existing stables to continue as they currently are.
However any expansion of their stable permit. So I have a question or just a clarification on that.
So like right now I have 2 horses but let’s say I want to expand to I don’t know how many I can
have under the requirements, 10 horses. Is that considered an expansion and then I fall under
these new proposed rules or what is an exact, or is that I move my barn and I have to, I just want
clarification on what expansion means. And then the other question I had is it sounds like we’re
grandfathered in but is that the property or the owner? So like is that me and if I sell the property
does my property stay grandfathered in or do I as the owner and then once I leave and sell it it
has to follow the new rules? And then this is just a question under, let me just see here. The
Section 5-89(a)(3). I just noticed that natural came out of. It used to say natural or constructed
shelters and so I was just wondering where natural came out of there. I have constructed shelters
for my horses so I just am curious why that came out during this edit so, and I did take the course
from the University of Minnesota and I did really like it and I learned a lot so, and a lot of it is
how you can help pasture, use it more friendly for your horses to feed from but I really did enjoy
the course so. Anyway so those are my 3 questions that I had.
Weick: Perfect, thank you.
Liz Vogel: Yep.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Generous: Mr. Chairman.
Weick: Yes Bob.
Generous: Expansion would be going, adding additional horses or expanding the building itself.
Or the pasture land.
Liz Vogel: So then if I wanted to, so I’m sorry to clarify. So if I wanted to go to 4.
Weick: Can you come back up, I’m sorry. So we can get it on the record. It has to go into the
microphone.
Liz Vogel: No that’s fine. So then it is accurate then that if I, who am grandfathered in but I
want to expand to more horses then I have to follow the new rules.
Generous: For the additional horses yes. So you’d have to make sure you meet those minimum
standards.
Liz Vogel: Okay and everything that we’re proposing.
Generous: Yeah. Your property you would have to classify it all as a dry lot and then you get,
you would theoretically be allowed even more horses.
Liz Vogel: Be able to do that, okay.
Aanenson: Let me just ask the other question which was whether or not you’d be grandfathered.
So you’re in rural residential zoning district or A-2?
Liz Vogel: No I think I’m actually in, well I don’t know to be honest.
Generous: Here I have you on the list, just a second.
Aanenson: While your zip code is Chaska, everybody in the southern end is Chaska.
Generous: Pioneer Trail.
Aanenson: Yeah but your zip code comes out of Chaska while you’re still a Chanhassen
resident. That’s just like if you’re northern, if you’re northern Chanhassen you’re an Excelsior
zip code so that’s why it comes out that way but we know you’re a Chanhassen resident.
Liz Vogel: Okay.
Generous: I believe it’s A-2 down there.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Aanenson: You’re A-2 so that, so if you sold it to somebody else it still stays A-2. It’s a
permitted use in the district so that doesn’t change.
Liz Vogel: Well it does for me though but what about the others?
Aanenson: That’s what I’m saying if you sell, if your property if you were to sell, some other
person came in. They would go through, as long as it hadn’t been years since they vacated they
would have the same conditions. Otherwise if a change over a year.
Generous: Right if it’s a year that it’s not used then it loses it’s non-conforming status.
Liz Vogel: Okay so basically the property is grandfathered in then as long as it stays up with the
stable permit on an annual basis.
Aanenson: Correct.
Liz Vogel: Okay.
Weick: And Bob the last question was about.
Generous: Oh the natural area.
Weick: Natural.
Generous: This is something that the stable inspector was pushing that we get away from using
these treed areas as considered a shelter area because it’s arguable whether or not that provides
sufficient shelter for the horses or protection from wind, rain, or sun. You know sun’s probably
the easiest for them to be protected under a tree but wind and rain that still goes through.
Weick: That’s fair, thank you.
Generous: And I think I know what happened now. To my ordinance.
Weick: Oh. Anyone else wishing to come forward.
Judy Walstad: Hi I’m just asking clarification.
Weick: Yes.
Judy Walstad: I didn’t hear the entire answer. I’m Judy Walstad at 10071 Great Plains
Boulevard.
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Weick: Welcome.
Judy Walstad: In regards to I know Ms. Vogel just asked about if you sell your property, do I
understand this correctly that the new owners of your property are grandfathered in if they obtain
horses within the first year. Is that correct? Okay. I don’t plan on selling but I just wanted to
see.
Generous: And as Carol clarified to me that she would actually make them make a new
application but the old, whatever was in place would still apply unless they wanted to expand.
Judy Walstad: Okay.
Generous: And then they’d have to make sure that they met the ordinance.
Judy Walstad: Okay, alright. Thank you.
Weick: Thank you for coming.
Matt Christensen: Hey everybody. I’m Matt Christensen from 10 Pioneer Trail and I
appreciate, I had written a letter so I think you’ve all read that and Bob did a great job of
responding to that. Really the key point for me was just going back to that loss of ability. You
know we currently have only 2 horses and don’t have great plans to expand a lot but we’re a
little bit concerned when it said you know one expansion, our facility could easily handle maybe
6 or 7 horses at least. Our pasture could get up there as well. That was the main concern for us
that just because you don’t have them you’re being limited in what you can go out and do with
that so I guess the only point that I just wanted to really reinforce was that difference between the
dry lot versus the grass pasture is pretty important and making sure that that’s very clearly
defined and it sounds like that’s really a property owner decision and I think that’s key just to be
on the public record of that. I’m not concerned about the people who are in the room right now.
I’d be more concerned that 5 or 10 years from now we have a completely different staff and they
go back to the written word and say, it doesn’t say that this is a property owners choice. This
looks like grass pasture to me. Therefore you can only have 2 horses or whatever so I just think
as clear as we can make that everybody will win in the long term. Thank you.
Weick: Thank you. Public hearing remains open if anybody would like to come forward. Yes
please.
rd
Ann Nye: Hi, I’m Ann Nye, 1641 West 63 Street and I’m one of the people that is in this
single family residential and I guess I’m grandfathered in and I have 2 horses. We have 6 acres 4
of which are used for the horses so does this mean if I want to get a third horse someday for my
grandchildren or whatever that I can’t? That I’m locked in to just 2 I guess that’s my main
concern.
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Generous: Is that what your?
Ann Nye: My permit has 2 on it right now but I’ve had 3 before but this year it’s 2 because we
only have 2 so. Should I have asked for a permit for 3 even though I only had 2?
Generous: Yes.
Ann Nye: Ah okay so yes I’m locked into 2 and I can never have another? I can’t have a third?
But I feed hay year round so it technically is.
Generous: However in the RSF district the use would be prohibited for any future things.
Ann Nye: So if I sell.
Generous: They can continue the 2.
Ann Nye: They can, okay.
Generous: As long as they do it within that first year.
Ann Nye: Okay.
Generous: Now yeah you may want to look at amending your permit for a third one right now.
Ann Nye: Before you guys decide?
Generous: Well before it goes to City Council at the end of February.
Ann Nye: Okay. Okay.
Generous: And then they have 2 weeks or whatever. It doesn’t take effect until it’s published.
Ann Nye: Okay. Alright thanks.
Weick: Public hearing remains open if anybody would like to come forward. I think we might
have some clarifying questions.
Bill Schubert: I apologize, Bill Schubert up again.
Weick: Yes sir.
Bill Schubert: I would like to make sure I understand this clarification of expansion. We
currently have 2 horses. I could identify my property as all dry lot and claim 10 horses without
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
any issue. The short coming would be how much space I would have for protection of the
horses. So will you, if I wanted then add a lean to structure to create additional shelter space
what are the issues that I would face for that in the near future? Or should I claim 10 horses right
now even though I only have 2 horses? And if I sell my property and the next owner doesn’t
have horses can they still renew the stable permit and have no horses at the present time but plan
to have horses to maintain the grandfathered in? So there’s a few questions there sorry.
Generous: The grandfathered status only applies if the use is not permitted there anymore and
you can’t meet the ordinance requirements. So let’s say you only had 10,000 square feet of
pasture land and you had a 200 square foot shelter. That would be, but you have 2 horses so that
would not comply with the new ordinance. However you would be able to continue it.
Expanding with a lean to structure, that runs into other parts of the ordinance. Our city code
limits you to 1,000 square feet of accessory structures which a stable or shelter would be. If you
exceed that you would need to get a variance from the city ordinances. Which is whole separate
from your stable permit.
Bill Schubert: But if I have my barn, which includes stable space as well as storage for the hay
and all the other material, am I limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of all my structures
combined?
Generous: Yes. Unless they’re existing then they’re non, they have a non-conforming status.
Any expansion has to comply with ordinance and the only way you could expand is by going
through the variance process.
Bill Schubert: Okay so right now I don’t have enough sheltered space for, to meet the new
criteria but I have, the property is approved for I believe 4 horses. Should I change it? I only
have 2 horses on the property right now. Should I change my permit for 4 horses and be
grandfathered in because that, I have sufficient structure for 4 horses under the old rules, not the
new rules.
Generous: Well that would be up to you. That would be one way to establish that non-
conforming.
Bill Schubert: Okay.
Generous: And that was one of the things I wanted to work with Carol on is creating a matrix of
what everyone has under existing and what the new ordinance would do to them. In Mr.
Christensen’s case it actually would permit, allow him to have more horses than he currently
does. Or he could under the existing ordinance. By defining it as a dry lot he had sufficient area
to have way more horses than he has or even wants.
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman.
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Weick: Yes.
Aanenson: What I would suggest is because we have a lot of questions. I’m not sure we’re
getting answering to the satisfaction of the people that have concerns and we want to make sure
that we’re addressing them so I think it might be helpful for us to, the people that have questions
on how the ordinance is today. How would it affect them in the future. We’re confusing a
couple things. Non-conforming and the RS district. What district you’re in so I think it’d be
helpful for us to maybe table the action on this item and work with the property owners to make
sure everybody understands what they have today. What it would mean moving forward. What
the changes would mean to them. So I think that might be the best thing to do is to try to make
sure we answer all these questions before this moves forward. If that makes sense.
Weick: Yes.
Aanenson: So we’ve got everybody’s names and addresses here so I think what we should do is
try to work with them individually and get a report on each of the 21 property owners and kind
of where they are today and what they are moving forward so they, you understand it and they
understand it better. I don’t want anybody to feel rushed on this.
Weick: Okay and then use that to potentially amend this.
Aanenson: Correct there might be some, clearly I think we found some things that might be,
some word changes. Some better clarity so I think that we would like to do that if it’s alright
with the Planning Commission and the people involved in that, that might be the best thing to do.
Weick: Do you guys feel okay with that? That’s agreeable.
Aanenson: You want to probably close the public hearing unless anybody else wants to make
comments on that.
Gary Carlson: I think it’s proper to appear in the right hat. If you don’t mind, ladies present.
nd
Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62 Street. I have the last 5 acre hobby farm in my area and I’m
totally surrounded by R-1 beautiful homes. Many just built. I also maintain an apartment
building on my property. Five unit apartment building and I’ve had dogs in the past and what
the question to me is, the City of Chanhassen quit licensing dogs. They quit inspecting my
apartments. They used to have an annual inspection for people’s benefit. For the tenants to
make sure that I’m maintaining a proper building. Why are we going in all this detail on horses?
I think we’ve proved that we’re a very capable and caring horse community and I would suggest
you check the other cities around and see what they’re doing and what their ordinances on horses
are and maybe what their experiences are. I would mostly defer to our long time horse inspector
and retired, somewhat retired city employee Carol Dunsmore. I love the lady. She’s been a big
help to us through the years and plus she’s inspected me every year. And I think there may be
need for more clarifications on some of these rules. I definitely think, I would approach the
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
whole problem from the other direction as to why you should lose your permit. Why not inspect,
if your horses are in poor shape have requirements that would take away a permit and another
question. I think Carol uses this information on our permits. I know she wants the color of our
horses. You know the age. The sex because if they get loose and so if you ask us to say well get
a permit for the maximum number of horses. Yeah I can put down 10 horses and somebody, the
sheriff calls the City oh we’re looking, we’ve got 10 horses out. Well they’ll know they’re from
the Carlson’s because Carol’s got all 10 of my horses but if I only have 2 horses she can’t rely on
that city information to get help or to call me and say Carlson are your horses out? I say yep or
I’ll say no, they’re not our’s. I’ve had both cases. I think a logical solution would be to
approach in the original application which we’re all in now, but what could you keep on that
property. Well we can keep 6. Okay let’s put that, a number there but how many do you have
now for this year that you’re requesting on your program. Well I only want to keep 2. Okay
then you know the color and the sex and what we call them a lot of times they don’t respond by
name but it would give the City it’s full information from us without us sneaking around, or you
know trying to avoid the number of horses and yet it would be in our permit to what was
available going forward. The main question I have is now I’m getting a horse permit. Mr. Bob,
would that change what I will be requesting in the future? Am I going to be requesting a
variance permit? A variance? Or I’m still going to be applying.
Generous: It would be, you would be applying for your annual stable permit.
Gary Carlson: Just the annual stable permit so it’s going to be called the same thing.
Generous: Yes.
Gary Carlson: But then the next party that comes along that has some acreage in an R-1,
whatever the situation is, if they ask for a horse permit they won’t be allowed in an R-1?
Generous: Not under the proposed ordinance, no.
Gary Carlson: Well I would definitely check that with all of the other cities and the county
administration. I have through the years, remember I’ve been here since 1967 and have had
animals most all that time on my 5 acres. I have had things before the Planning Commission.
Every member no, no, no, no, no. All the members of the Planning Commission. Came back a
few weeks later no, no, no, no, no. So I had absolutely no support. I hired the, at the time the
city attorney of Chaska. Also in Carver County. That attorney said hum, we can’t do that in our
city. And of course we have a city attorney and he sits probably here somewhere and they’re not
noted for saying yes on anything are they? I mean if they say yes and something goes forward
they have to support the fact that they said yes so it’s mostly no. Anyway between the city
attorney of Chaska and our city attorney my items appeared on the consent agenda of the City
Council and passed without even one word of discussion. So everyone on the Planning and our
staff were somewhat in error so it can happen and that’s why I’ve appreciated all the
improvements in our city and all the work that you folks do and it’s important to get the overall
21
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
picture and make a proper decision and I can tell you I have been very proud to be a member of
the City of Chanhassen through all these years. Thank you.
Weick: Thank you very much. With that we will close the public hearing portion with the
understanding that we will table this item and move in the future to meet with everybody as
appropriate to discuss how this affects you.
Aanenson: So I guess what I would recommend is that you close the public hearing and then
make a motion to table this item directing staff to work with the horse owners and get
clarification on how the ordinance impacts them directly.
Weick: And then we have to take a motion.
Aanenson: Yeah so take that motion and directing the staff to do that then we’ll bring it back
when, it may take a few weeks. May take longer but we’ll bring it back.
Weick: Okay.
Randall: Should I make a motion?
Weick: Would you.
Randall: I’d like to make a motion to table the action and have the City staff meet with property
owners to discuss their concerns on an individual basis.
Weick: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Weick: Before we vote I would say that our notes and comments and the comments of
everybody that’s here is in the public record and will be used as we move forward to revise the
code. So we have a motion and a second.
Randall moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission table the code
amendment regarding stables in Residential Single Family Districts and have the City staff
meet with property owners to discuss their concerns on an individual basis. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Weick: It passes to table this motion unanimously until further notice. Alright I believe the next
one we have is chemical toilets and that goes to you. Let’s give it a minute before you start as
we shuffle our papers and collect our thoughts. If you’re ready, temporary Satellites, portable
toilets.
22
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
CHEMICAL TOILETS AT SPECIAL EVENTS.
Walters: Yep so just so you know how I think it might be a good idea to proceed on these. I’m
going to be very, very brief just because we have a lot of them and I know we discussed them in
earlier issue papers for the most part and I don’t believe anyone’s here to speak on any of them.
That being said if there are any you would like to discuss in more depth just tell me to slow
down, elaborate and I can go into great detail if you’d like.
Weick: Okay.
Walters: So that being said, with regards to the chemical toilets the big issue as we noticed there
was a bit of a disconnect. We had a provision in the city code that said any special event
wanting to use a chemical toilet had to get explicit approval from the City Council. Obviously
this provision was never really enforced. If someone was having a grand opening or a company
picnic and needed a chemical toilet we didn’t make them go to the City Council to get
permission so the real goal here is just making this sync up with how we actually treat these and
using common sense. Our proposed solution is just to roll chemical toilets right into the special
events code. It’s something we can look at at a staff level. Say yep, this makes sense. You’re
good to go and then we did put provisions for removing them from construction sites within 24
hours of completion of construction and then removing them from special events would be part
of the permit process as well. If you have any questions I’ll take them at this time.
Weick: My only question was does, when you’ve rewritten 20-917 does it also then need to
reference the special events?
Walters: My recollection is, and I can pull up the exact text, is that.
Weick: Because I didn’t, I looked in.
Walters: The special events say you have to say where they are and it, the section 20-917 I
believe still has the clause saying they are permitted for special events and all we did was delete
the city code clause but I will quick glance and double check that.
Weick: Well I guess I should, my only question is, it says you need to remove it within 24 hours
of completion of construction and I just didn’t know if you wanted to add outdoor sale or special
event.
Aanenson: Or special event yeah, that’d probably be a good idea.
Walters: That is included within the special events code as part of the permit is everything must
be cleaned up on the last day of the permit.
Weick: Including the toilets.
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Walters: Yep.
Weick: Got it.
Walters: Good question though.
Weick: I just didn’t want you know toilets hanging out.
Walters: No neither do we. Neither do we.
Weick: Okay. Any other questions on that item for staff?
Randall: I have one question.
Weick: Yes.
Randall: On a, to get a special events permit is there a fee associated with that?
Walters: Currently the fee would be $50 but you would not require a special events permit for
things like graduations and things like that.
Randall: Alright I didn’t know if they had a, if there was an extra fee involved.
Aanenson: No. People did that for the Ryder Cup and stuff too so that yeah.
Walters: Yep.
Randall: Alright thank you.
Weick: For sake of process should I open public hearings and close them each time or wait til
the end?
Aanenson: Well we were thinking about putting them all together if that’s okay and then make
one motion.
Weick: Perfect.
Walters: I’m comfortable with that yeah, I think we’re good.
Aanenson: So if we could just open a public hearing at the end.
Weick: Yes.
24
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Walters: Okay in that case we’ll move onto cul-de-sac length.
LIMITS ON MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH.
Walters: So this one essentially the City currently has a limit for 800 feet as the maximum
length of a cul-de-sac for a subdivision. The only way to go through that then would be if you
felt there were extenuating circumstances the applicant in a subdivision could request a variance.
What we noticed was that sometimes it would come up in the middle of the process that they
would realize they need this and then the variance clock would start and it would delay the
process so the goal here would be to establish a couple definitive criteria that could be used at the
City Manager’s discretion to allow for longer cul-de-sacs. The criteria would be ones where
there were significant ecological resources or topography challenges that necessitated a longer
length and the other one is if there’s a chance for future connectivity and secondary access.
Essentially allowing for longer temporary cul-de-sacs when we know it’s going to be good
planning to connect to another property later on.
Aanenson: This kind of came out of the Fox Woods subdivision and so I think everybody was
uncomfortable. How long would it be temporary so in this circumstance we wanted to put in that
we felt comfortable giving that because we know that road will be extended in the future, and we
wanted to just build it into the code so everybody felt comfortable making that decision.
Walters: The other little tweak we’re doing is the City Attorney brought it to my attention that
the language in the ordinance, you’re looking at in there is not as clear as it could be for how we
measure the cul-de-sac length. You may have noticed something like the intersection of the
center line to the center line to the center point and so we cleaned that up and I whipped up a
handy diagram to help clarify how length should be measured so that will be substituted into the
final version and will hopefully clarify that. If you have any questions I’d be happy to address
them.
Yusuf: I have one. So when you talk about a temporary extended cul-de-sac is there a time limit
there as to how long, how long this can stay open in that format?
Aanenson: That’s a good question. That we don’t always know but what we look at is, on those
circumstances that we know the other street has to tie into that. We can’t always determine what
those time lines would be. Up to individual property owners when they want to change, develop
but we have to make certain that that would be the connection point we wouldn’t extend it.
Walters: And I believe in those cases usually we would have an easement for the future thing.
Aanenson: Yep.
25
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Walters: Coming off so that is something that you know even if 5, 10 years down the road the
market then made it viable, that would already be in place and anyone looking at it would know
yep, this was designed to be temporary. This needs to connect. That’s what this is here for.
Yusuf: Yep I remember the last time we talked about this wasn’t part of the concern also like
accessibility for safety reasons and the fire code and things like that? That’s why I’m asking.
Aanenson: Yep.
Yusuf: So like even if we say yes we did put a stub there but 5 or 7 or 10 years down the line if
that stub never did get connected then what happens?
Aanenson: Correct. That’s why I think we have to be very careful where we know those are
going to go. For example this has been a problem on Bluff Creek Drive where we said it’s going
to be extended in the future and it’s taken a lot longer than we thought. And in this circumstance
too on Fox Woods we don’t know when the adjoining property is going to develop but this will
be the touch down point. So we try to make those provisions for turn around down there.
There’s a temporary turn around and the like down there so we do feel like there’s adequate and
emergency vehicle access in both those circumstances.
Yusuf: Okay.
Fauske: Mr. Chair if I may also expand on that. The reason, one of the rationale behind the
original limitation to the cul-de-sac length was to limit the number of homes that would only
have one access point in perpetuity so in this instance where we’re looking at a future extension
of a road that even though there can be a time period of where staff isn’t necessarily privy to the
exact timeline of that, that ultimately there would be a street connection and the reason we
wanted to look at limiting the number of homes that only have one access point is if there’s an
instance during a storm that there’s a downed tree. A watermain break or other utility that
requires digging up the street, that you limit the number of people who are inconvenienced and
affected by that so that was one of the determining, one of the reasons why we started looking at
limiting cul-de-sac lengths and why staff is supporting the temporary cul-de-sac to be an
exception to that rule.
Weick: Thank you.
Randall: One question. Is there a minimum or a maximum cul-de-sac size? I mean could they,
with that I was just wondering.
Fauske: Just as a clarification Commissioner Randall is that the diameter of the cul-de-sac or is
that what you’re asking?
Randall: Yeah. The circle part.
26
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Fauske: And excellent question. Our standard is 90 foot diameter.
Randall: Okay.
Fauske: Whether it’s temporary or permanent.
Randall: Okay.
Fauske: And the reason we include that in the permanent, or pardon me in the temporary is to
accommodate the fire emergency vehicles. The buses that would be going down that road so that
they can make a turn.
Weick: So these changes then just say that it’s 800 feet maximum. If we want to go beyond that
the City can make that determination. It doesn’t have to be a variance.
Walters: Yes and only if these 2 criteria are met.
Weick: Right.
Walters: So they can’t say we want it longer because economically we would get X higher
return for getting more lots. No. It’s you have to either have compelling topography or natural
resources or be willing to say this is a temporary cul-de-sac that we know is going to be
connected.
Weick: And that’s determined by the City Manager.
Walters: Yes.
Weick: Okay.
Yusuf: So I just want to go back to that again. To me it still isn’t totally clear when we just say
a situation where we know that a secondary access will be there. It just doesn’t seem clear
enough.
Aanenson: I’ll go back to what Assistant City Engineer Alyson Fauske just said. We had a lot
of people that wanted just to have long cul-de-sacs because they thought that was more desirable
but that’s not the City’s goal. They’re harder to maintain and so, but we do have circumstances
where we know they’re going to be temporary. Or if it’s a situation topographically as you get to
the southern end of the City where there’s severe grade changes that maybe that would be the
only way to be served. We have some of those in place right now in those larger lot
subdivisions. But that’s not the desire going forward. But as the City, not all pieces come
together at the same time so our main goal here is if it’s a temporary situation.
27
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Yusuf: I just would like a bound around that temporary.
Aanenson: Agreed.
Yusuf: That’s what I’m pushing for.
Aanenson: Yeah understood.
Fauske: Chairman Weick if I may. The two instances that come to mind that Kate’s mentioned
are actually, are areas that are part of, the first one was part of an AUAR. A guiding document
on alternative urban areawide review. That’s the Bluff Creek Boulevard project. And then the
second one, Fox Wood is part of a master plan that I believe it was SRF had conducted so we
have some guiding documents for the development of that area that clearly show the extension of
the street. I can’t think off the top of my head of another example where there’s, well the Fox
Wood development was part of SRF’s overall planning for that area. I can’t think of another
development where a temporary cul-de-sac length would have exceeded that where we don’t
have that overall plan for the area so perhaps when, if this ordinance change is approved from a
staff level when bringing something like this forward to the Planning Commission where there’s
a temporary cul-de-sac, and typically there is a reference to the overall guiding document for that
area that shows any future street connections. That would thus extend and eliminate that
temporary turn around. Does that provide a level of comfort for you?
Yusuf: No I think it does for today but since we’re talking about a code amendment I think like
a gentleman earlier mentioned we want to think about 10 years from now, 20 years from now
when someone else is reading the code. Like if would it be totally self explanatory to them and
that’s why I’m just asking is it, does it make sense to put some kind of limit there?
Aanenson: Well I think it ties back to the transportation plan too. So if you look at where we
have our minor arterials, you know that you want to be tying back into those so that’s really the
goal of all these that your shorter streets tie back into a minor collector so that’s kind of how the
network works. So on this circumstance on Fox Wood that’s a connector that goes from Powers
all the way up to 101 so that has to be the thread and so that’s the goal and I don’t know when
we say temporary because it’s part of a network to be extended in the future. We can look at if
there’s some more specific language to put in there.
Randall: Do you just want to put maybe examples in like after future example of master plan?
Aanenson: Yeah, yeah or the transportation plan that it feeds into another. We can look at that
to see if there’s some language for clarity on that.
Yusuf: Thank you for considering this.
28
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Aanenson: Yeah.
Weick: The only problem is if you force a time limit on it.
Aanenson: Well I don’t think we’d put a time limit on it. We’d just say that it’s temporary
because it’s going to tie into, and going back to the goal is not to have a lot of long cul-de-sacs
just because it was cheaper not to do it a different way but this is because it’s going to be
extended in the future.
Weick: Yeah, right.
Aanenson: And I think what, yeah.
Walters: I think we can definitely do some wordsmithing on that, yeah.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Yusuf: Thank you.
Walters: Alright are there any further questions on? Alright moving right along.
HARDCOVER ON FLAG LOTS.
Walters: The next topic is impervious surface or hard cover on flag and neck lots. So this is one
of those where the city code doesn’t actually tell me what to do. We don’t actually specify how
we’re supposed to calculate hard cover for lots of this type. Currently we’ve essentially treated
them like we treat lots or by a private street which is to say the area of the lot that is within the
neck area is not counted as part of the lot area, nor does anything within it count for impervious
surface and then we start these calculations where the lot begins. Just to make that a little clearer
I have a diagram here. So if you look up at flag lot 1, this is kind of your idealized neck or flag
lot. What we essentially do to calculate hard cover is we just cut it off right here and have this
part of the lot be 25 percent lot coverage. So I mentioned private streets. In the case of the
private streets our ordinance explicitly says the area serviced by the private street and it’s
easement do not count towards lot area or hard cover. So in order to try to be fair we’ve treated
flag lots like that but the ordinance doesn’t actually tell us to do that. So what we’re looking for
is some clarification and just making it so it’s completely clear how this should be done so
homeowners can know what to expect. When we ran some of the numbers and began looking
around we realized, oh here’s a few examples of different properties just so you can see. This is
where the yard would start due to reaching the minimum lot frontage and then this area is all
stuff we don’t include. One of our concerns and why we really want to make some limits and
decisions on this is some of these lots widen like this so in a lot like this you can get a decent
amount of hard cover but it can’t get astronomically high. You could have a 20 foot driveway
and a 30 foot neck and be 66 percent hard cover which is a lot higher than the 25 percent we
29
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
normally allow but when you get into ones like this your absolutely maximum would be a 50
foot neck with a, I’m sorry a 60 foot neck with a 50 foot driveway which is like 83 percent hard
cover. So what we wanted to do was establish a threshold for what would be allowed by
ordinance in the neck area so that we could, during the subdivision process make sure that the
developer was accounting for that and including that in their storm water management system
and then also in the subdivision’s overall hard cover calculations. Does that make sense so far?
Okay. So we first looked around and tried to see if we could find some pattern. You know a
common number that we were finding throughout properties. This is a table of about 20 or so
different lots I looked at. I rough calculated their hard cover percentage within the neck portion
from aerials and as you can see they’re all over the place. The lowest is 13 percent. Some of
them are up around 48 percent. There doesn’t appear to be any clear patterns so what we
decided would make the most sense would be to do a 33 percent limit within the neck. That
would line up well with both our minimum driveway standards. So a 30 foot neck which is the
minimum required by our definition of a neck for neck lots in new subdivisions would be
allowed a 10 foot driveway which is the minimum required by our ordinance so that lines up for
33 percent coverage. It also lines up with what we require for private streets with I believe it’s a
30 foot easement and then 20 feet of pavement so but that’d be a minimum of 2 lots so then that
would work out to 33 percent as well. That being said if a developer wanted longer, wider
driveways they could simply widen the neck and keep that 33 percent ratio. What it does is it
lets both the developer, planning and engineering account for all of that hardscape and make sure
it’s being included in the development’s hard cover tables so we don’t go over our goals for the
development. Our goal was to try to put this impervious surface, for lack of a better word back
on the developer instead of making it rest on either the City’s shoulders or the homeowners. So
at this point if you have, I know I went through that quick. If you have any questions please let
me know and I’ll try to clarify.
Weick: You would have a hard cover calculation for the neck and then a hard cover calculation
for the property?
Walters: Exactly yep and the homeowner wouldn’t have to worry about the neck. That would
be just factored into the subdivision so they’d be just like everyone else and every other lot. You
have 25 percent to work with on your property. Or 35 whatever the zoning allowed.
Aanenson: So how this came about is we’ve been processing some subdivisions that have more
neck lots and so how do you calculate the storm water capacity. Is it the homeowner’s job when
they come in or do we calculate it? Make an assumption like we would with the street. Treat it
like, as MacKenzie said treating it like a private street so it’s calculated in the hard cover. So we
do it up front so it’s not onto the homeowners to try to wrestle with that or come in and ask for a
variance.
Weick: Perfect.
30
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Madsen: So would all existing neck lots then would be subject to this dimension for driveways
so they could not expand beyond that 33 percent?
Aanenson: Correct.
Madsen: For all existing.
Aanenson: Unless they’re under.
Walters: Yeah there are some that are under who would be able to. If they were over they’d be
grandfathered in. We did make sure to put a couple clauses in there to protect folks.
Madsen: Okay.
Walters: Yeah sorry, I was just skimming for where it is. For instance one of the things we’ve
done is for the definition of neck lot we put in a clause saying that anything before March 26,
1990, even if it didn’t have the 30 foot minimum is going to still be considered you know subject
to these criteria so we wouldn’t be counting that against them.
Madsen: Okay. Okay thank you.
Walters: Yep.
Randall: One question for you. Easements affected by this at all?
Walters: So typically with the neck lots you would only have the drainage and utility easement
on the sides and with the, even if you’re at the 10 you’re going to be clear of that easement.
Randall: Okay.
Walters: I don’t believe they’re allowed to build driveways within easements typically.
Fauske: Typically.
Walters: The side yard easement, sorry.
Fauske: A side yard easement there have been instances where a driveway’s encroached into a
drainage and utility easement. In this instance I believe our driveway setback requirement is 5
feet so and a typical side yard easement is 5 feet so we don’t anticipate this to cause issues.
Randall: Okay. Is there any property access easements that might be affected?
31
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Walters: Those would be treated as private streets when they’re accessed by a common drive so
the ordinance already has a system to deal with those.
Randall: Perfect.
Walters: We’re trying to make it so the single lots are essentially treated the same as the ones
with the shared drive.
Randall: Okay.
Weick: Good.
MULTIPLE BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
Walters: Alright another one that’s going to require a little more talking on my part. Multiple
buildings as a conditional use. So one of the things our city allows is we allow for industrial and
commercial properties to have a conditional use permit to have multiple principal buildings. So
multiple primary uses. You could have a warehouse and a fitness center in 2 different buildings
on a commercial property. An example of this is Lunds across the street. You have you know
the grocery store and the attached stores in there and then you have the I believe it’s the FedEx
building off that is, it’s on one parcel but they’re 2 separate business entities so that’s allowed
through a conditional use permit. When we looked at the potential implications of this system
we were concerned that it could create unforeseen problems down the road. We don’t require
business licenses which means businesses that have, properties that have 2 distinct principal
businesses can change uses and change intensities very greatly and the City can issue the permit
based on a proposed use. Say I’m going to have 2 different warehouses and then one turns into a
health club which suddenly generates a lot more traffic and a lot more impact on the City’s
infrastructure. Now with the CUP’s one of the big things is you don’t go through the normal
subdivision process which can mean that there are different impact fees that instead of just being
spelled out have to be negotiated and this can be a very time consuming process and it can also
be very difficult again to anticipate how this building’s going to be used 5, 10, 15, 20 years down
the road because conditional use permits stay with the property. They’re not for a specific you
know business. So we began looking through all the different developments in the city and what
we discovered was we couldn’t come up with any between the entire planning staff that could
not have went forward without this mechanism in the code. To give you an example of what I
mean by that I have, we have a fictitious development here. This is of course kind of our city
area but for this we’re going to pretend it’s a mall or some sort of commercial development.
There’s 5 different buildings. There’s a couple ways this development can go forward as
planned. One is probably our most traditional. We can just do a subdivision. Have 5 different
lots. One lot for each building. Different owners or the same owner and that’s pretty straight
forward. You’d have some cross access agreements for the parking, et cetera but that’s kind of
your typical way of breaking it apart. Your other option is you can do a planned unit
development. One lot, 5 different buildings. Or you can do a conditional use permit for one lot
32
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
and 5 different buildings. As you’ll notice there’s not any difference between what happens
between these two. The more we talked about ways to try to modify the conditional use permit
to protect the City from unforeseen consequences going forward we realized that it was a
redundant mechanism and it didn’t do anything that couldn’t be done either through a planned
unit development or a traditional subdivision and so what we decided made the most sense was
to just remove this provision from the ordinance. I’d be happy to take any questions at this time.
Weick: Anyone?
RECLASSIFICATION OF STREETS.
Walters: This one is a very, very quick one. So this is just housekeeping. Basically the list in
our code that identifies arterial and collector streets is out of date and we’d like to update it. The
big updates are, we’re going to be adding Yosemite and Stoughton to the list and then we’re just,
the rest is honestly fixing errors. We noticed County Road 15 was labeled as 17. To standardize
we wanted to change street to, the abbreviation for street to the full text to street for all just so
they were consistent. Clarifying Highway 7 and 212 as principal. And then as we were going
through stuff we also noticed that Section 20-201, we had not listed community commercial in
our list of zoning districts so we thought that should be corrected as well. I’d be happy to take
any questions.
Yusuf: My only question is about the word principle again. Sorry, what do you mean by
principle in this one?
Walters: In this case it’s short for, so we have it categorized as, if I remember correctly arterial
and then collector. These roads are under arterial. Now there is a designation under MnDOT
which is principle arterial so we just put principle to clarify that these are the highest level of
arterials.
Yusuf: So is this the correct principle that’s intended here? That’s my question here.
Walters: Oh dear, did I spell it wrong again?
Yusuf: That’s what, you did the one right before was correct. This one I think is wrong. I think
you want principal again just like you had in the one we just discussed was correct. Sorry.
Walters: No that’s good.
Yusuf: You want a-l.
Walters: Clearly I need a copy editor.
Yusuf: You have us.
33
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Walters: Thank you.
Yusuf: Thank you.
NEW REGULATIONS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS.
Walters: Okay this is, if you remember right oh I think it was a couple months ago we first went
around on the City’s desire to revise our special events ordinance and try to make it a little more
broad and a little more adaptive to what we’re beginning to see in the community. Basically the
issue is we’re seeing a lot of organizations interested in hosting runs and walks in our community
and we’re also seeing larger events. On one hand this is wonderful because obviously we want
people to come to Chanhassen. We love it that they’re enjoying our city and using our
amenities. On the other hand it can create some pressures on municipal services, infrastructures.
Aanenson: Staff.
Walters: Staff time is also a finite resource and so what we would like to do is amend the code
to create a couple different categories of events. And then also to establish some revised criteria
for approval and denial of events. The goal is more on allowing us to place conditions on events
to help insure that we don’t have multiple large events going on at the same time in the city
causing major issues. And also to try to make sure that certain amenities like our trail system
aren’t being you know systematically over burdened to the extent where our residents can’t
really enjoy them because there’s always something going on. We believe this trend towards
more events happening, especially of the race kind if going to be continuing. A lot of this is
because Minneapolis has recently enacted some limits on the number of races they allow in their
parks per month and that’s led to a big push for these type of events out into the suburbs so we’re
trying to stay a little bit ahead of the curve but we are beginning to see that uptick. If memory
serves we had 14 different races or walks last year in our parks. So what we would like to do,
our proposed revisions, we’d like to do 3 categories of events. The first two are the temporary
outdoor events and sales. That’s basically what we have now. We’re not proposing making any
major changes there. The other one is seasonal sales so that’s your produce stand, Christmas tree
lots, again we’re very happy with how those go. We don’t see any need for major revisions
there. The third one is special events and these would be larger events which leave the property
or such a size that we believe it’s likely they’re going to impact surrounding land use and these
we’d like to subject to a little additional level of scrutiny. Get a little more information and then
also you know make sure that for instance in the event of races we have additional
documentation spelling out what the race route is. How they’re going to keep their runners safe.
How they’re going to deal with traffic impacts and we’re hoping that this will actually help us
process stuff a lot smoother. We also do want more explicit authority to put conditions so if
someone’s proposing a race of 5,000 people and we don’t believe our trail system can handle it,
we’d like the ability to talk with them and get it down to a level that we know we can manage
and that we know our system can handle. We’d also like to be able, as practiced do ask them to
34
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
provide us with liability insurance but we don’t actually have it in the city code that it’s required
so that’s just kind of a preventative measure in case someone does push back. Being able to say
well you do have to have liability insurance and that’s to protect the City. Ability to require an
escrow. Speaking with the Parks and Rec Superintendent there have been a few instances of the
parks being a little worse for the wear after an event and we’d like to be able to have a cash
escrow so that if damages are done, especially if it’s an out of town organization, they can’t just
kind of disappear and we have a way to repair our systems. Beyond that we wanted to make it
very explicit what activities weren’t going to be covered by the permits so we wanted to spell out
that you know if you’re a residential user in a residential district doing residential things, that’s
not our business. The City’s not trying to regulate these type of activities. The same with you
know indoor assembly events so school events, church events, things like that. Those aren’t
what we’re talking about you know requiring permits for. The other thing is a couple of the big
th
community events like the 4 of July and Homecoming, you know they have a long standing
presence and so they would be exempted from the provisions of this code. And there may be
others that people who have been in this community longer feel are appropriate to add to that list.
I added the two that I was aware of. And then there’s also the events governed by the large
gathering permits. The large gathering permit is a park permit and again if an event’s occurring
entirely on the park, that’s the park and recs department. They have a system for handling that
and we wanted to make sure that it was you know clear that we weren’t usurping that or that
there wasn’t redundant permits required so anything governed by those would still be governed
by those. Not by this. That being said I do have a brief rundown of the different permits I can
go through if you’d like. Or if you’d like I can just kind of skip through that. It’s up to you.
Yusuf: I think we can read them ourselves. Thank you.
Walters: Okay. Yep no problem. So that’s the nuts and bolts of what we’d like to do
structurally with special events ordinance and I’d be more than happy to answer any questions
you have on that.
Weick: On page 14, under Section 8. Permit conditions. Item j. It says any other conditions
which the City deems necessary. Is that, can we say that? That seems like a pretty big catch all.
Walters: It is and it’s a very standard clause in a lot of different city ordinances. The City
Attorney did review this and did not express any concern with any of the provisions within this
code. I can definitely double check with him though and make sure.
Weick: No if he’s checked that’s fine.
Aanenson: It’s just weird things like someone does a color run and you can’t get the color off
the concrete so you might just ask for, you know it’s just some special. Depending on the event.
Weick: Extra yeah. It’s within reason.
35
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Aanenson: Yeah.
Weick: Okay, thank you. Yes.
Madsen: Wondering if under the community events, the Feb Fest at Lake Ann would that be
under there or is that more under the park rule?
Walters: Yeah I didn’t put that in because it would meet our definition of being entirely
confined to the park I believe so that being said we can definitely add it just to cover it.
th
Aanenson: Yeah we don’t do our own for the 4 of July down here with the street dance and all
that. That’s all covered because we’re a part of the, it’s City organized so we’ve already
provided for the security. All that sort of thing so this is part of it. If we need, if we have to
contract with the sheriff’s office for whoever’s doing the activity. If they need safe crosswalks
so it kind of catches all that but when it’s our own activity we’re providing that already so we
don’t permit ourselves under this.
Madsen: Okay.
Aanenson: So if it’s City organized or partnered then it wouldn’t apply.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Randall: I’ve got a couple questions. Noise permits. Are these included in special event
permits?
Walters: So we have a clause there that says all other permits that are required and we have the
loud speaker permit for any sound amplification system. That permit would not be changed and
it would still be required for any special event using any sort of sound amplification.
Randall: Okay. And that would also include private residents also?
Aanenson: It just follows the noise ordinance doesn’t it? I think.
Walters: Well the, if you’re talking about quiet hours and sound limits for private houses.
Aanenson: We’re talking about if you had, if you had a graduation party?
Randall: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yes it just, we don’t require a speaker ordinance for those anymore. That we just
advise people that you might want to talk to your neighbors. Otherwise there’s a curfew time for
noise. Yep. We’ve had good success just talking to people about that.
36
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Randall: Okay.
Weick: That wasn’t a couple.
Randall: Well the other one too, I read through it and it was the parking issue so you know
neighborhood parties and stuff. I know we’ve dealt with that on Minnewashta before so.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Randall: But I saw it was in there.
Aanenson: We’ve had pretty good success of residents calling us and asking. We always ask
them to tell your neighbors what you’re doing. Give them a phone number they can call if
there’s a problem so they can move a car.
Randall: Unfortunately I know who they call.
Aanenson: Yeah some neighbors don’t, aren’t as good neighbors as others, yeah so.
Randall: It’s usually the people that didn’t get invited to the party right so.
Weick: Other questions on this one? Okay.
UPDATE SECIONS REFERENCING TEMPORARY EVENTS.
Walters: And then I believe our last one is another really quick one. Basically in 2010, the last
time the special events code was amended it was moved from Section 20-312 to Section 20-964.
However not every section of our zoning code which mentioned 20-312 was changed to 20-964
so we just went through and would like to switch the numbers to correctly reference. The other
thing when we were combing through is we noticed that the community commercial and
industrial and office park districts did not have special events listed as permitted accessory uses.
In both these districts it would be an appropriate and desirable use. We’d want businesses to be
able to have customer appreciation days. Employee picnics. Grand openings so we just thought
to keep everything even and transparent, that that should be added to those sections as well. And
that’s all there is to that one.
Weick: You must have a question on this one.
Walters: Well no I can be over ruled very easily.
Aanenson: So Chairman I would recommend that you open the public hearing for all the items
that we, or MacKenzie presented.
37
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Weick: At this time we will open the public hearing for code amendments a, b, c, d, e, f, and g.
Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing. And open up for further
commissioner discussion and/or questions. We’ve been pretty active.
Yusuf: Or comments.
Weick: Or comments. Yeah.
Yusuf: Just a comment. MacKenzie I think you did a great job putting all this together. It
clearly looks like you’ve done, probably spent I don’t know how many hours just like pouring
over these so great job and great presentation.
Walters: Thank you very much.
Weick: Any other clarifying questions, issues, comments?
Randall: Do we talk about tabling the cul-de-sac one?
Aanenson: I think what I heard is we’re just going to put a little bit more clarity around what
temporary means and try to find that before it goes to City Council, if that’s alright.
Randall: Okay.
Aanenson: We understood that it’s your comment and.
Randall: Okay.
Weick: Hearing no more comments we can entertain a motion.
Aanenson: We have different chapters in here so we might want to say.
Walters: I think we need Chapter 18 and 20.
Weick: Oh so they’re individual motions?
Aanenson: I think if you just say Chapters 18 and 20 I think we’re in good shape.
Walters: I would agree. And then yeah you would just, I think I know which one it is.
Aanenson: There.
38
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Walters: There we go. If you just omit the concerning flag lots I believe you would be good to
use this motion as a template.
Weick: Yeah if you do make a motion please note that it is only a through g.
Yusuf: You want me to do it?
Aanenson: Sure.
Yusuf: Okay. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt
the attached ordinances amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. These are
items (a) through (g) on the planning agenda.
Weick: Thank you.
Yusuf: Should I make a comment about ordinance? Okay.
Walters: Thank you.
Weick: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Weick: We have a motion and a second.
Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council adopts the attached ordinances amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code, listed as items 2(a) through (g) on the planning agenda. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Weick: Code amendments a, b, c, d, e, f, and g pass unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 3, 2017 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
rd
Aanenson: So City Council at their last meeting on January 23 did approve the Youngstedt
sign variance so I’m not sure if you’ve issued a permit on that yet.
39
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Walters: I have signed off on the permit. I believe they are waiting for Mr. Youngstedt’s
signature on the permit but it’s pretty much done.
Aanenson: There you go. I did include just a couple of articles for your interest. Kind of
what’s, I see those kind of thinking about lifestyle centers. Some of the things happening
downtown. Wanted you to be aware of that. I also wanted to point out for you upcoming
meetings. What’s going on. I did put on here what we believe are the Avienda dates. Those are
th
subject to change but right now there will be on March 7 the AUAR. There will be a public,
th
excuse me. There will be an open house and I believe that is going to be February 28. That
th
Monday the 27 they’ll be discussing at City Council just in the work session. There’ll be an
open house and we’ll put that on our website and the like. I’m just waiting to make sure we
finalize. We’re having a couple more pre-meetings on that but you will be hosting the public
hearing on the AUAR. Again a lot of the concerns were regarding traffic and that’s going to be a
big part of the public hearing and I think that’s important that they do that before they come in
st
for a site plan. Having said that on your meeting on the 21, your next meeting in 2 weeks we do
have 10 people applying for the Planning Commission not including the 2 incumbents so the 2
incumbents do not, are included in the interviews so I’m counting on the rest of you to go
through the interviews so that might be, we’ll bring some substance and water for you folks to
work through those so we do have a recreational beachlot CUP coming forward and there’ll be a
variance and then also we’ll have our annual report. So I did mention what’s on for the March
thstth
7 and March 21. We do anticipate then April a project. Then April 4 will be our work
session. That’s usually when we have our new planning commissioner so we block that off as a
work session. We are going to discuss the Comprehensive Plan and I plugged those on your
upcoming agendas too then what we’ll be talking about in the different sections of the
Comprehensive Plan because ultimately you will be hosting public hearings on the
Comprehensive Plan also. We have also provided some opportunities for public comment.
th
We’ll be having a booth at the 4 of July festival and some other places too to get comments on
the Comprehensive Plan. So we do have some big projects coming in. I tried to put place
holders in there. You can see at the top some projects that will be coming forward so we
anticipate a busy spring. Again I just ask that if you know you’re going to be traveling or out of
town to make sure we have a quorum because I know John will be gone one more meeting and I
believe Andrew’s back after this meeting so just to make sure we have a quorum heads up. With
that commissioners I think that’s all I have. So we’ll give you the applicants and their resumes
so you, and a scoring sheet so you can go through those at your next meeting. And the City
Council will also be interviewing those too.
Weick: Do they interview everybody as well or do they interview a sub-set of?
Aanenson: No they’ll interview everybody.
Weick: Everybody gets to be interviewed twice.
Aanenson: Yeah.
40
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2017
Weick: Good.
Aanenson: It’s been a long time they’ve had this many so.
Weick: Awesome. I have a question on the Lake Lucy Ridge recreation. The CUP. Would that
not happen in the future? A conditional use permit. Did we just say we’re amending that out?
Aanenson: That’s just for buildings.
Weick: Just for buildings.
Aanenson: So there’s still conditional uses for specific uses within a district. Each district has
permitted uses, conditional uses and sometimes interim uses. As we just said the horses were
interim uses in some districts so with the conditional use sometimes it might be you want to
attach conditions to mitigate the impacts. For example if a conditional use, commercial in the
district you might say you can have a drive thru fast food but we don’t want it open all night so
you attach conditions to mitigate the impact.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: So in this circumstance a beachlot is a conditional use so sometimes it’s about
whether or not they have portable toilet outside. Those sort of things so we’ll go through that
with you so.
Weick: Okay. That’s all correct.
Aanenson: That’s it.
Weick: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Yusuf moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
41