E-1. Approval of Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 2018IE -1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 15, 2018
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John
Tietz, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters,
Planner; and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Michael Jacquez 1210 Lake Lucy Road
Bob Swanson 18435 Highway 55, Plymouth
PUBLIC HEARINGS: CODE AMENDMENTS:
Walters: So I'll be giving the presentation on these. I'm going to try to keep it reasonably short.
I would encourage all the commissioners to ask any and all questions and we can go into as
much depth as needed. We're going to deal with each item individually if that's okay because I
believe we do have some members here to talk on the various items so we'll do individual public
hearings. With further adieu beekeeping. So staff has received a lot of calls from residents
asking the City to re-examine it's policy on beekeeping. Currently the city ordinance classifies
bees as farm animals which means they're restricted to lots of over 10 acres. Zoned for
agricultural use and that they have to have a minimum of 100 foot separation between any
beehives and nearby houses. The City found some excellent resources that the U of M had put
out and then I did a survey of 89 different cities in the metropolitan region so we looked at that.
Did some supplementary research and we felt that it would be potentially appropriate to allow
honey bees on parcels of a half acre or larger and to place limits on hive density and then create
general performance standards that would minimize the risk of the bees becoming a nuisance to
surrounding properties. And the City's goal was to balance the desire of homeowners to have
bees with any potential negative impacts those could have on neighboring properties. Again we
felt one of the keys was having a minimum lot size established and 25 minimum setbacks which
would help the honey bees fly higher so they go over person height and have less chance of
running into people or causing problems as they travel. So the table here is a breakdown we did
of the 89 municipalities. One thing I'd like to call your attention to is that there's a pretty even
split between cities that are very hands off and allow bees either with a permit or no permit in
almost every lot without too many restrictions. And communities that flat out forbid or do what
Chanhassen does and limits them to agricultural properties. As I mentioned Chanhassen falls
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
here on the spectrum with 10 acre minimum lots and the 100 acre, ah 100 foot setback between
houses. So one of the things we thought was very important was the 25 foot setback to cause the
bees to gain elevation without requiring installation of fly away barriers. And then one of the
reasons why we settled on the half acre lot size was because that can accommodate that 25 foot
setback fairly comfortably. The other benefit to that is just allowing yes or no answers in terms
of can someone have bees or not without having them to do all this math to determine whether or
not they can meet different setback thresholds. Relative easy enforcement if we get complaints
and one of the goals was to allow this without needing to require permits and regular inspections
to make sure properties were in compliance. So that's a rough outline of the ordinance and I'd
be happy to entertain any questions you have.
Aller: Well yes if an applicant wants to come forward but since the City's the applicant here so
we would go ahead. So Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: MacKenzie thank you. By the way the staff did a really good report on this. I
appreciate all the detail you all put in. It really helped me a lot. I guess some of the questions
that I had in your proposal. I noticed you didn't require fly away barriers even though it had the
setback. What was the logic behind that?
Walters: Yeah so honey bees, my understanding from my research is they always take the path
of least resistance to get between destinations. What I read was once you hit around 20 feet they
naturally fly high to go over tree canopies and that means the fly away barrier isn't necessary.
It's usually only recommended when they don't have minimum setbacks of 20 or 25 feet and in
that case then the 6 foot fly away barriers causes the bees immediately exiting the hive to fly up
and to that canopy height. So with the 25 foot setback fly away barriers would basically be
redundant was my understanding.
McGonagill: Okay. May I continue Chairman?
Aller: Yes.
McGonagill: Okay. On the, I noticed in the application again that you didn't, it was a general
practice. It was not that you, for example the training. The 16 hours of training. That you didn't
have to show that you actually had taken it. It was just like this is recommended. This is what
you have to do. So tell me the logic behind that. That an applicant would not have to show for
sure I've done this, I've done this, I've done this.
Walters: So we did that as a general performance standard. Again one of the big goals was to
avoid having to have people pull permits for these. The only way for us to effectively verify
training would be if we had a permit and application process for having bees. We wanted to do it
more of a by rights thing where if you meet these standards you can do it. The way it's
structured is if let's say we had a complaint about you know someone's bees. Then I'd go out
and perform a code inspection and that's where I could say have you been trained and if the
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
answer is no, that's something they could do to help abate the nuisance and get educated and
they'd be in violation of the ordinance and we could use that as an enforcement action to compel
them to move the bees or remove the bees but they wouldn't have to preemptively register with
the city.
McGonagill: Okay thank you. Another question. One of the questions I had about lots that
let's say transact at a crossing pattern like on a corner where there's 4 lots that come together in a
corner. If they all did a 25 foot setback you would have maybe 8 colonies setting there. If
everybody put bees in there and that kind of, have you all thought about that? What the impact
would be.
Walters: Yep that's one of the reasons why they have the general density guidelines you know
of 2 per lot. One of the thoughts with there is it prevents you from ending up with a super high
population of bees because each lot's only entitled to have those two. Yeah ultimately I don't
have enough ecological background to talk about whether or not you know 8 hives in that area
would be too much or not enough. Those were the guidelines that I found from the Minnesota
Hobby Beekeepers Association and we used those as a credible organization standards.
McGonagill: Okay. I have two more. On the, and I really don't know the rules on this. It's
more of an academic question. In a, let's say you're in a subdivision with a homeowner
association. We grant this approval. Does the homeowner association rules still prevail? So
they still are, they circumvent everything?
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: Okay, that's what I thought and then finally is the liability issue. It still falls on the
homeowner with liability of anaphylactic shock or if the bees become a nuisance, they're the
ones that bear that burden in whatever insurance proceeds or whatever they needed, is that
correct?
Walters: Yep, that's my understanding.
McGonagill: So the City does not take on any liability here? Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman.
Aller: Any additional questions?
Tietz: I have a quick one.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: MacKenzie, real quick. But the sale of product which is limited to honey or if someone
gets into a home industry, could they sell hives and other materials for beekeepers?
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Walters: So as we structured it they would have to meet the requirements of the City's home
occupation standards so that would mean they couldn't use a garage. They couldn't have any
outdoor storage of materials for sale. We did put an exemption saying that you know the
colonies themselves wouldn't count against that because otherwise you couldn't have them at all
but it'd be governed the same as any other home or office occupation so if they could do it with
no outward evidence that it was there, not using any accessory structures, in absolute theory
perhaps. Most likely not without violating the general home occupation standards.
Tietz: Okay. And just a clarification. I noticed on your chart that clearly, or nearly 25 percent
of the communities don't allow beekeeping. Are those all suburban communities and do you
have any information on why they have elected or the issue just hasn't come up with like it has
here in Chan?
Walters: I could not speak to the breakdown from suburban to urban. Unfortunately I don't
remember that well. My recollection from looking at the ordinances were, some of them had
deliberately passed measures outlawing. A large number of them were similar to Chanhassen
where it was prohibited because they were farm animals and no parcels in their community met
that definition.
Tietz: Thanks.
Aller: Mr. Understand did you have any questions? Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Will the City keep a database so that if a perspective homeowner wanted to move into
the community and someone in their family might have a sever allergy that they wouldn't, they
could avoid purchasing a home right next to someone who keeps bees?
Walters: Unfortunately because we're not requiring permits we wouldn't have that information.
Madsen: Okay.
Walters: I think the only way for us to get that consistently would be to require people to fill out
an application in some sort of a permit as part of the process.
Madsen: Okay. And my other question was, on the half acre lots are there any other cities near
us that currently allow that and is there any historical information how that has gone for them?
Walters: Unfortunately I just kind of did a metadata breakdown so I don't know you know
which of those two cities were the half acre ones or where they are in relation to us. I have not
heard of major problems with cities that instituted these on half acres or smaller and I'm afraid
that's the best I could answer that.
El
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Madsen: Okay. And is there any, going back to the first question. Is there any remedy if
somebody does buy a home next to someone who keeps bees? Is there anyway that they could
work that out with the bee people who have the bees? Be forced to give it up or does that
homeowner have to just take other action.
Walters: If they violated any of the general performance standards or the bees were able to be
deemed a nuisance through other means, the City could take action. As it's structured if the
property owner you know met all the setbacks. Met all the requirements of the performance
standards I do not believe the City would be able to take any action.
Aanenson: No it'd be the same thing as any other nuisance that how we would address it. You
try to mediate that but no. These are all the things that you know we want your input on as
you're making a decision because it's a change. Again we're trying to respond to requests and
trying to not make it so onerous on staff to try to go out there and inspect all these where we're
not trained in that so we try to find that middle ground of what would be the appropriate lot size
because we got questioned about that. That was still too big. We think that's a perfect place to
start so, and we looked at the number of lots that fell within that category. What percent we
think would do it. So but those are all things for your consideration certainly as, we're just
responding to what were requests. A number of requests and so looking for your input.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: Yep.
Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Alright hearing none I'll open the public hearing
portion of this item and if anyone wishes to come forward, now is the time for you to come to the
podium. State your name and address. Representational capacity if any and let us know what
you think.
Jennifer Zbinden: My name is Jennifer Zbinden. I live at 6460 Bretton Way in Chanhassen and
I'm here to respond to the proposed beekeeping amendment. I'm an interested beekeeper. I've
taken 16 hours of classes at the University which is an excellent requirement in my opinion
because you really don't know what you're getting into until you take that class and it's a lot
more than I thought even. Still my interest remains, I've read a lot of books and also agree that
the documents prepared were done really, really well. There was a lot of accurate information.
The table I appreciate and it's even something they show at the class. So I think all this was
good. I agree with the setback. Your data on bee behavior is correct. They'll go up given any
barrier and they will take a straight line to their food sources so that's great. I think the
requirements to have water, to limit their urge to go find it in your neighbor's pool or bird bath
was excellent. Keeping it in a good condition. That's a case for anything in anyone's home in
my opinion and then of course the University of Minnesota teaches beginning beekeepers to use
certain kinds of bees that are gentle and to differentiate between honey bees and all the other
yellow flying insects that we're concerned about that cause discomfort so they do a really good
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
job of creating reality out of beekeeping. That you're not really beekeeping. You're a honey
person and really you're not solving for bee challenges. That's a food source problem and a bee
health issue and so anyone who's taking it on should be interested in having honey and bees in
their yard and observing all the things you put in the proposed ordinance. My only concern is
the lot size that's been discussed a little bit. Our lot happens to be just under half an acre and
while I full subscribe to the setbacks I think it limits it to only 39 percent of the lots in
Chanhassen with that measurement and I think observing the setbacks is the larger piece of
information or piece of you know guidance to maintain a healthy distance with your neighbors
and other things in your neighborhood and even on that chart you know there's two that have a
half acre and 20 that have none and I think that the setback is the overriding consideration.
Some of our neighbors across the street have big lots over half an acre but they're narrower so
they would actually be closer to the neighboring home you know given the lot size so to me
that's something for the group to consider. Otherwise I think it's great. Another piece of the
ordinance is the two hives. I think also one is okay. There's no magic in two if you want to be a
beekeeper and you're a beginner you're going to start with one anyway and anyone above that is
probably beyond the scope of this ordinance anyhow in my estimation and so that's something
else to consider to limit the number of bees is not having two available hives but one. With that
thank you.
Aller: Before you leave though since you've gone to your courses, is there anything that they
discussed that we should know we should be aware of? If I was your neighbor what kind of
conversation would you know with me about...
Jennifer Zbinden: Yep, actually they start the class out with that because people have a natural
fear of yellow flying insects so, and they recommend going to your neighbors and discussing that
you're intending to do it. Getting their feedback. Finding out if there's a child or an adult with a
severe real honey bee allergy. And also just letting them know you're going to have them and
maybe educate your neighbors about it. You know about the bee flying behavior. That was
something I didn't know before the class. And also just to share and be open and also if there's a
problem to solve it with your neighbors like you would any other problem. Barking dog or
otherwise. And then the concerns I thought were accurately described in the ordinance of
swarming and then passing through other people's yards and those are real but if you are a
trained beekeeper you're made incredibly aware. Everyone's afraid of having a swarm so if it
happens you can collect the bees. You can kind of go with a brush and brush them off a tree into
a 5 gallon pail so there are immediate remedies but that's what I know.
Aller: Thank you. Thank you sharing.
Jennifer Zbinden: Thank you.
Aller: Any additional questions? We have an additional question for you. You're going to be
our closet expert. We're not going to let you go.
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Randall: Jennifer can I ask you one more question you sit down?
Jennifer Zbinden: Sure, I'm sorry.
Randall: Do you have to do anything with your homeowners insurance? Do you have to get a
special rider for having it be a hive?
Jennifer Zbinden: Not that I'm aware of.
Randall: Okay.
Jennifer Zbinden: Yep. They didn't bring that up at the class and they brought up all kinds of
concerns. You know they're really trying to get people through that class to avoid jumping into
something and leaving some vacant and swarming hives on their land.
Randall: Do you think having to get a permit through the City would be better than this
approach?
Jennifer Zbinden: I don't know about better. I would be willing to go through that process
because of my interest level.
Randall: Okay.
Jennifer Zbinden: Better or worst I'm neutral.
Randall: Okay.
Jennifer Zbinden: Yeah.
McGonagill: Can I ask a question of Jennifer?
Aller: Yes.
McGonagill: Jennifer thank you. What happens if a lot of yards, we don't have fences. You
know kids are playing football or running through there. They run into a hive or a football hits
it, what happens?
Jennifer Zbinden: Yeah I mean that would be a safety issue like running in yards with other
things like a dog that's not safe too I would say and I think that's part of talking to the neighbors
that you have bees in there, including them sharing with their children. That you wouldn't want
to run into the hive.
Aller: Now you're off the hook.
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Jennifer Zbinden: Okay.
Aller: Thank you very much. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward and be put on
the hot seat? Come on up. State your name and address. Your representational capacity and let
us know what your thoughts are.
Mike Jacquez: My name is Mike Jacquez. I'm with the Minnesota Hobby Beekeepers
Association. I've been a beekeeper for 11 years. We pick up swarms and stuff. I picked one up
behind the Goddard School over there a couple years ago. Lake Susan Drive. Waconia. St.
Michaels. Savage. We're looking for survivor stock is what we're looking for and as far as
beekeeping goes the State requires you need a certificate from the University of Minnesota. That
is one of the requirements. As far as setbacks go, bees usually fly, they kind of twirl around and
they take off and they go straight up. Joel Wasserman has a half acre. He's 94 years old. A
couple years ago he made the WCCO News when his hives were underwater and that was over
on Colorado Avenue in St. Louis Park. He runs up to a dozen hives in his back yard. He's down
to one now. He's 94.
Aller: So having read the potential ordinance what are your thoughts on that? It sounds like you
would suggest that we follow through and keep record of having a certificate of some sort.
Mike Jacquez: Yeah the certificate is the main thing because then it shows that you have some
qualifications and knowledge of what you're doing but it's not all there you know and having
more than one hive is better than having one. The queen is the main factor when you raise a bee,
if the queen dies it takes 41 days for them to start to cycle back up. The average hive contains
50,000 to 60,000 bees. Okay.
Aller: That's a lot of bees.
Mike Jacquez: Yeah, a lot of bees. Most of them you know they just fly and as far as you're
worried about the lawns and stuff now, everybody's got them sprayed so you don't see any
dandelions anymore so when you were a kid you used to run by and step on a honey bee it used
to sting you. That bee weighs 2.4 grams so as far as that goes you have bees in your back yard.
Minnesota Hygienics were raised in the city of Chanhassen. You have a bee research facility in
the city of Chanhassen. As far as I know most of the ordinances are you know, he's going
through the book and he's going through a textbook type class.
Aller: Do you feel as though, and I certainly understand the benefit of being certified. Do you
feel as though all the beekeepers out there are following those regulations? They're getting
certified and is there a need for some kind of enforcement check on them to make sure that
they're certified?
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Mike Jacquez: Well the University of Minnesota has upgrading courses. We have a beekeeping
every second Tuesday of the month and it used to be at Broadland Hall and now it's moved
down further. And then beekeeping classes are at the research facility at the Arboretum here in
Chanhassen.
Aller: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions? Commissioner Tietz. Commissioner Weick.
Weick: That's okay. That's a compliment, thank you. Can you comment on the number of
colonies per acre and specifically if you go below a half an acre is there, can you just speak to
that?
Mike Jacquez: Okay. Well as far as agricultural goes we're talking about agricultural bees.
Agricultural bees are usually delivered on flatbed trucks. There's usually about 220 colonies on
a flatbed track. They're put on 4 by 4 pallets. They have a boom or forklift style device that
picks them up and moves them. Those are moved out all the way down to the state of Texas for
the winter pollination of various crops and then they end up in the almond groves. There is a
commercial beekeeper out in Winsted, Minnesota. He's right next to the high school down there
and he does have bee equipment in his back yard. So the agricultural rating for what you're
talking about would be agricultural would be anywhere from let's say 200 hives to 25,000 hives.
Colonies. So I sent a questionnaire off to the USDA about that trying to get it not so it's rated as
a farm animal but it's a hobby beekeeper where you're basically keeping colonies in your back
yard.
Aller: Any additional questions? Thank you sir. Appreciate your time. Any additional
individuals wishing to come forward on this particular item? Seeing no one come forward I'll
close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner discussion.
Weick: I'd like us to consider adding a, potentially adding a threshold below a half an acre. I
don't know if that's feasible or not but from what I've heard tonight I don't get the sense that,
you know if you had .35 to .49 and you could have one colony. I don't think I've heard anything
that would make that any more dangerous than two colonies on a half acre. Personally. And it
sounds like there's situations within the city where hobbyist would benefit from slightly more
lenient acreage requirements.
Tietz: Steve were they, if that were not the case would we have to deal with variances then for
someone like this family?
Weick: Well it doesn't sound like we have, is a variance something you'd.
Tietz: Well but would you, if you wanted to have it and you didn't have a half acre then there
has to be a procedure to allow someone to come in or present a case for having and you know we
don't want to make this onerous that you keep coming back for variances on keeping bees so I'm
kind of supporting your presentation but also if we didn't do that, if we didn't lower the standard
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
or lot size then I think we're going to be faced with folks who want. It's not an inexpensive
hobby to get into so it's not something you just decide to do and I'll try it for the summer and
have some fun. We have some very good friends and they've had colony collapse about the last
5 years so every year it's rebuilding their whole, you know their whole hive system so you know
it's fun but it's not inexpensive so I think we should be looking at folks who are getting into this,
it's a hobby but it's also, it's an investment and you know whether, that's kind of aside from the
lot size but I agree with you Steve. I think we should be a little bit more flexible.
Aller: Any other general thoughts?
McGonagill: I guess I love pollinators. I've changed the way I take care of my yard. Planting
stuff for monarchs and I've done all that and changed what I put on the yard because of that.
And I have a lot of gardening and I love bees because that's how I get my squash and my
tomatoes so let's be honest I really like them. However being said that they're a transient animal
and whether beneficial they're not harmless and Chanhassen particular with the way our lots are
laid out, the fact that lots aren't, some lots. Not all are defined by fences. A lot of them are just
wide open. I know in my subdivision they are but I'm concerned about it. I just don't, you
know I have a standard that two things. As we develop stuff is do no harm and be a good
neighbor and what these folks here tonight talked about that fact, being good neighbors. I agree
with that and doing no harm so I have a hard time actually putting them in residential areas. I
would have to say my thoughts are to keep the code as it is because of that because I do believe
they are an agricultural animal, to use that term and the proximity to particularly this city who
has a lot of children that run around and dogs and everybody going through in back yards, I just
can see, I see issues coming with that and I wish there was options like, you know some areas
have community gardens. I wish there was a community beekeeping area where people could
practice the hobby. You know provide something. I was thinking today could we, some wetland
area. Someplace like that where we could allow the community the opportunity to practice their
craft. However in an area away from the residential areas. I wouldn't want them in my, I have
looked at putting in my own back yard and I've had to decide would not because of the exposure
to my neighbors and the small kids I can see running through my back yard so I would have to
say that's my thoughts on it Chairman.
Aller: Okay, thank you.
Weick: Can I follow up?
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: So when you say keep the code as it is you would be suggesting that we not adopt this at
all?
McGonagill: That's correct.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Weick: Okay. I just want to be clear on that. And I would only offer respectfully another side
to that. That I really appreciate your concerns as well but as your neighbor, and I would hope
your bees find food in my yard because.
McGonagill: Mine too.
Weick: I think it'd be great. So yeah I think responsibly done I think it's a nice addition you
know ecologically to our community.
Aller: I guess I'd like to strike a balance here because I can understand the concern about not
only are bees potentially transient but my kids were certainly transient when they were young so
my concern would be them going and finding the bees but that being said I'm wondering
whether or not as a neighbor, whether or not there's notice and to require maybe it is a situation
where we should suggest a permitting process be gone through so that we can maintain records
on where to locate and make sure that there's proper education and the neighbors are aware by
going through that permit process they can supply, you know one of the things could be a
checklist to my neighbor's been notified. Boom. And we can check the setback because the
setback seems to be, you know we have so many different lot sizes. When we're talking acreage
it's not the same as the setback itself as has been pointed out so I agree with that but I'm
wondering in order to strike that balance there and allow people to do this, not being inexpensive
I think the burden of having a permit in this kind of situation where it's few and far between but
it's part of that process is something that's justified. And then I don't know what kind of burden
I guess my next request would be what kind of information do we need from the City or who do
you feel as though code enforcement for that permitting process would cost.
Aanenson: Well I think there might be code enforcement whether we had a permit or not
because we would, how we manage things in the city right now is complaint basis. Someone, a
neighbor would complain whether it's illegally parked car or a dog at large so we can set up a
permit. We talked about that internally whether we wanted to do that and I guess we just have to
see how many we would get and manage that but we do think internally we could manage that
part right now. But I would say too I think some of the things I heard you saying as part of that
permit, which we've kind of thought a little bit about, we'd also maybe that might be somewhere
where you might want to say as part of the permit you notify your neighbors. That's what I hear
one of the things that's important to you too and we would check the setbacks and all that and
then wrap within that we'd, if that's the way you were leaning and what I thought you were kind
of going towards too is working towards that certification or at least take some classes.
Aller: Right and it sounds to me from the experts that have been to classes themselves or had
great deal of experience with bees, other then myself who step on them by accident, and that
certification would go a long way in alleviating the health and safety concerns that have been
addressed.
Aanenson: So I think we would check, just to differentiate between classes and certification so.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Strong: May I add something?
Aller: So we're going to, oh yes.
Strong: Just interestingly since ... it happens to be relevant. I very much like you with a concern
but very pro -pollinator. My son was 3. He started a preschool supported by the school district.
That preschool is actually keeps the bees on that property and they also have a garden and they
have an outdoor play area so my son for the last 2 years has played within just a few feet of
several hives and they do very, a lot of hive interaction and we are talking many, many preschool
aged children from ages 3 to 5. And in the history of this preschool they've not had attacks or
problems with children getting harmed and we are talking many small wild children running
through these areas just closer than I am to MacKenzie and I only bring that up because I was
very much like you. I was cautious and nervous when I first heard that but it has been a different
experience. Honey bee behavior is different than other insects. My background isn't
entomology but I don't have specific experience with honey bees but I do know that. I just
wanted to share that because it seemed relevant.
Aller: It is. I appreciate it.
McGonagill: It's very relevant and I appreciate that. I guess full disclosure my background is,
and some of the work I did we ran across in south Texas the bad bees and some of our workers
got in trouble with them so I am ... thank you.
Aller: Well we don't allow bad bees in Chanhassen.
McGonagill: There you go.
Aller: Any additional thoughts? Concerns. Any recommendations? Yes Commissioner
Madsen.
Madsen: I just want to clarify that if we do move forward with a recommendation that it would
follow the table so the lot size if it were a half acre could have 4 colonies. Is that correct?
Walters: So the table in the body of the report was a sample table. What the City had been
proposing was a half acre to one acre would be allowed 2 colonies. One acre to 2 '/z acres 4
colonies. 2 %2 to 10 acres, 8 colonies and 10 plus we wouldn't limit.
Madsen: Okay so that's listed later.
Walters: Yep. That's, sorry that's buried in the actual text of the code amendment. I think I
may have typed it out but now that I think about the way I presented it I can definitely see why
you picked up on that table instead of the text.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aller: It's page 8.
Madsen: Okay, thank you. So it would be a fewer number of hives for those lot sizes than that
table?
Walters: Yep.
Madsen: Or colonies, excuse me.
Aller: And then when we have unlimited is there any, well they would still have to comply with
commercial use limitations should that be a factor.
Walters: Yes.
Weick: I would only say that if we're leaning towards permitting and requiring certification I
still would, I don't know why a half acre is special. I don't see why that's significant compared
to how, from what I understand bees act. And they could still act that way in their flight in
smaller lots. I don't know why we would stop at a half acre. I would like to see us pick a
number, some number less than a half acre to potentially have less than 2 colonies. That'd be my
only, I think especially if we're going to have people taking classes and being certified and
submitting for a permit to meet all of those things.
Aller: Do we have a magic number on that?
Walters: Honestly there isn't a magic number. The closest thing I could find to like a hard
number was that 20-25 foot setback area. I went on kind of the higher side. Staff picked the
higher number because we wanted to insure a good amount of buffer space between neighboring
properties to minimize the chances for a nuisance but ultimately that's purely a policy and
judgment call and if the commission feels smaller acreage is appropriate more than open to it.
Tietz: Maybe Mike. Is it Mike?
Mike Jacquez: Yes.
Tietz: Could you come back and comment on that please.
Aller: And for the record we're re -opening the public hearing.
Tietz: Sony.
Mike Jacquez: And when did you ban bees in the city of Chanhassen? What year?
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Walters: I don't believe there was ever a deliberate decision to ban them. I believe they were
just defined as a farm animal and treated that way. They are allowed at that.
Mike Jacquez: Okay.
Aller: So I guess our question is in your experience and in your knowledge is there an acreage
that you would think would be too small to have bees?
Mike Jacquez: No. No I don't think there is. I think mainly what we've done was just put a
fence around the colonies and put up a sign that says you know, keep out bees or whatever.
That's about it. They usually fly on their own routine. They don't usually go after people for
any set reason. Not unless you're aggravating them. Like Mike said down there in Texas those
were Africanized bees.
Aller: Just out of curiosity, when we talk, because I'm a neophyte in this area. Would there be
an opportunity for an individual to consolidate a bee hive or structure with their property? Is
there a setback that should be between the bees and the residence?
Mike Jacquez: Not that I'm aware of Some people them in their house. If they have a window
with the glass window.
Aller: The spare bedroom becomes the bee.
Mike Jacquez: They have a regular type of glass window you can observe them but you could
probably put down at the library if you wanted to. As far as that goes.
Weick: I'm all for it.
Aller: We can have an aquarium on one side.
Mike Jacquez: hi Britain they keep them along the side of the houses and they just put boards
out in front of them you know.
Aller: Interesting.
Mike Jacquez: Alright so bees were never banned?
Aller: No. Not that I'm aware of.
Walters: No if you have 10 acres or more you can have bees in Chanhassen right now under the
ordinance.
Mike Jacquez: Okay and how long was that ordinance enforced?
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Walters: I'm afraid I'm not certain when it was passed or when it was structured as it is.
Aller: A number of years.
Mike Jacquez: You have no idea?
Aanenson: Yes Chairman, if the question is have we permitted bees. Yes we've always
permitted bees if that's the question.
Aller: Yeah I don't think they were ever banned under the ordinance so.
Aanenson: All we're trying to do with this is to allow.
Aller: Smaller size.
Aanenson: Smaller size to allow more people that want to do it on non-agricultural properties,
the opportunity to do beekeeping.
Mike Jacquez: One thing else is they fly in a 5 mile radius. So that's what you need to know. If
they're flying they're going to fly in 5 miles.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Randall: Is the public hearing still open?
Aller: Yeah, still open. You want to call somebody...
Randall: The only question I had really is, can they have one colony or do you have to have two
or could you go like under a half acre and say as long as they meet the setbacks could they have
one colony at their house? Does that make sense?
McGonagill: Can one colony survive, is that what your question is?
Randall: Yeah.
Aller: Yeah I think the reason to have two was in case one queen die you still have an operating
colony and you don't have to restart so it's like dual gas tanks.
Randall: I got you.
Aller: That's my understanding.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Randall: Because I thought Jennifer brought up that we could have, you could have one. Is that
correct? Could you have one colony.
Jennifer Zbinden: Having doing one the risk is you have none then yeah.
Randall: Gotch ya.
Aller: Okay so I'm going to again close the public hearing and we'll go back to our discussion
and to Commissioner Weick's comments. That's one of the things that I was bringing up as kind
of a for my mind I would feel better about permitting if we're going to go under the .5 and we're
going to experiment with this closer and now that we've done more investigation and I've found
that I can turn my spare bedroom into one, I'm more comfortable with less than .5 acres but I do
understand the setbacks should be at that 25 and then that other point that was just raised is the 5
mile radius so if that plays into anyone's.
Weick: And someone could apply for a variance right? Is that correct? If you have .4 acres and
you wanted colonies could you petition to do it anyway or, how do we procedurally handle that?
Aller: I would think that it would have to come before us as a variance because it's a use that's
not allowed by.
Weick: I'm just trying to.
Aller: A use that's not allowed and if there was a beekeeper out there that we're unaware of
today and it goes into effect then it would be considered a non -conforming use.
Aanenson: Yeah the variance would have to be from the standard. Not from the use.
Aller: Oh I'm sorry, yeah.
Aanenson: Yeah, yeah.
Weick: What do you mean by that?
Aanenson: Well first of it has to be permitted. Just like someone in the city can't say I want to
put a horse on my twin home lot because horses aren't permitted in that district.
Weick: Oh yeah, I see.
Aanenson: So if you could have bees but you don't have enough acreage so I'm just trying to
figure out. I'm not really.
Weick: So you could petition that. So if we pass this and said it's a half acre and above.
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aanenson: I'm not sure on that.
Weick: Okay. I'm just trying to get out of changing the number.
Aanenson: Yeah. So there's two ways to handle that. We could research if you want to vote for
it or you could table this and we can come back and provide some additional information.
Maybe restructure some of the ordinance things.
Aller: I'd go ahead and restructure it if we're not in a hurry. When could we get it back on?
Aanenson: We could probably turn it around at the, just continue it for the next meeting. I think
we can turn it around.
Walters: Just so I'm understanding right. The Planning Commission is interested in structuring
with a permit. Potentially allowing at smaller lot sizes than one half acre and potentially having
notification and certification requirement added to the, as part of the permit.
Aller: Does that adequately summarize things for everybody?
Walters: Yeah I can, I believe I can get that done by the next meeting if that's the direction we
receive.
Tietz: Notification or consultation with the neighbors?
Walters: Notification yep.
Aanenson: That'd be part of the permit. The other thing we can do is go through our GIS
system and show the differential between half acre lots, third acre lots and then we could show
you what that number would be. How many, how many additional properties that would be.
Weick: Yeah I don't know enough to.
Aanenson: And whether or not you can get a variance without that so it gives you the two
choices of how to handle that process.
Tietz: So does Vanessa's daycare have to close because it's probably on about a tenth of an
acre?
Strong: It's not in this city.
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Tietz: Well I mean that's the point. I mean we've got a daycare center that has a very limited
parcel of land in a, maybe it's associated with a church or associated with a neighborhood yet
they have a hive with preschool children so it seems like we're spending a lot of time on...
Aller: Well that's why I say ... much more comfortable with it.
Tietz: Pardon?
Aller: I'm much more comfortable with it but I'm really not comfortable with not having the
ability for a neighbor or a person to come in and say I know where these hives are and that way
we've got that information accessible to a home buyer or a home seller saying this is a disclosure
and if it means something.
Tietz: Well even as Mike said if there's fencing around the hive, if you have a hive sitting in the
middle of your garden that's one thing. If you have that area modestly fenced, it's delineating a
zone that's, you're at risk. If you are concerned but I don't, it doesn't sound like there's much
concern.
Madsen: So are we considering the half acre and greater or are we considering the less than half
acre?
Aanenson: We're bringing both options to you so you're not forced to pick either one right now.
We're getting you more information so you can kind of pick.
Madsen: Okay.
Aanenson: Pick and choose and we're also structuring how we think the permit would look and
you can add to or take from that too.
Madsen: Okay.
Undestad: So there is a potential that the more limiting factor would be the 25 foot setback
rather than the lot size.
Aanenson: That's what we're hearing, yes.
Madsen: But the permit would be required and notification to neighbors.
Aanenson: We'll bring you back a sample of how that would look.
Madsen: Okay.
m
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aanenson: Yep so you can add to or take from that also so I that gives us, everybody more
confidence as we move forward in this.
Madsen: Okay.
Aller: Alright would somebody like to make.
McGonagill: At the very least I think we would have to have some process for the neighbors.
Permitting in there that runs through that. For example if you have a child, somebody next door.
If that moves into that direction then I think at the very minimum you've got to have that.
Aanenson: Yeah, we'll put that in there.
McGonagill: Not just best efforts but actually certification.
Aanenson: Yeah or just, yeah.
Aller: So would someone like to make a motion to table to the next meeting?
Madsen: I make a motion to table this until the next meeting.
Randall: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission table the beekeeping code
amendment to the next Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Aanenson: Chairman if I may too anybody that's tracking this item, that staff report will be out
so they can get a copy of the staff report before the meeting so if they have questions or that's
available.
Aller: Concerned individuals. Stay tuned and for those of you at home that are watching it is
available, as are all our reports on the City's website so please follow all of our matters. And
with that we'll move onto code amendment number two.
PERVIOUS PAVERS.
Walters: Yep so just a little bit of background. We first discussed impervious surfaces and
pervious pavers last year. Staff was asked to look into ways to provide residents with some
flexibility when they live at properties that are built at or above their maximum lot coverage.
Finding ways besides the variance process so we could take advantage of new technologies to
W
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
allow them to make improvements on their properties. Staff had initially been asked to table the
proposal on this. Do some more research and to move forward with a definitions only
amendment redefining how we treated impervious surface. Defining what pervious pavement
was and so that came and was passed I believe December, I want to say 19th but December of
last year we amended the City's definitions and streamlined our terminology with regards to the
terms impervious pavers. I'm sorry impervious surfaces, pervious pavement and lot coverage.
And so this is us coming back with additional research on ways that pervious pavement might be
allowable within our ordinance and we'll take it from there. So again the main thing staff looked
at is what is the issue we're trying to address with this and the issue is homeowners who have
bought properties that are at their lot coverage limit and are unable to do you know small basic
improvements like installing a patio or a shed because of that lot coverage and traditionally they
have to go through the variance process. We were looking at new technologies like pervious
pavements and asking if there's a way we can utilize these to provide some flexibility. Now lot
coverage is impacts storm water. It also impacts land use intensity and it impacts neighborhood
aesthetics so staff's goal is we investigated how these technologies could be used was to balance
these 3 and find a way to provide some relief for residents without causing significant issues on
either the stormwater or land use intensity fronts or disrupting neighborhood aesthetics. Staff s
proposed solution would be for property zoned residential single family located outside of the
shoreland management districts to be allowed an additional 5 percent lot coverage that took the
form of pervious pavements. Staff would propose having these systems required to meet specific
design standards which would be established by our engineering department and reviewed by the
engineering department. Making sure they were installed by certified installers and recording
maintenance agreements against a property to insure these technologies and systems were
properly maintained. We felt this struck the best balance of allowing residential flexibility while
avoiding potential negative impacts. So this is a graphic we put together and this shows what
parts of the city would potentially be able to benefit if this ordinance was passed. The areas in
yellow, not in the gray are the areas that are zoned residential single family that are outside of the
shoreland overlay. That's about I believe about 45 percent of the city. Sorry just checking my
numbers. Yep 45 percent of the residential single family lots are located outside of the shoreland
so those are the properties that could benefit from that 5 percent extra. And we did some
different tables in the report that broke down why we felt this was appropriate and where we felt
it could do, you know was the most likely to have the highest impact in the city and we felt the
residential single family district were the ones that tended to have the, they tend to be the older
properties that due to just generations of homeowners have been built up at or above their lot
coverage. Sometimes due to changing ordinance. They tend to have the tightest yard constraints
because of their minimum lot size and these were the ones that we felt were the best candidate
for getting some relief under this ordinance. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have or
go into more depth on any portion of this.
Aller: Having read the report any questions at this time of staff?
McGonagill: Yeah one.
W
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: MacKenzie again good report. Thank you for that. One of the questions I had, I
wanted to be sure understood how this would work. On page 3 of the document you provided to
us, as I read through this what you described to me was to use pervious pavers, what I call
lifestyle improvements. A patio. A shed. Etcetera. But on page 3, the bottom paragraph you
brought up a concern that utilized this to put in pervious paver driveways if builders could
possibly do that and that then would again limit what future homeowners could do. And I guess
if that were the case would that not increase what I'm using the term density. The size of the
house could be bigger. That the density of the lot, the house density, size could actually be
larger by the use of a pervious paver driveway. Did I read that correct?
Walters: Yeah absolutely. That's one of the concerns staff had and has been brought up with
this is you know if I buy a new lot and I'm told you have 25 percent lot coverage impervious. c
percent pervious. I can replace something that's traditionally impervious like my driveway and
add that square footage onto my house and build my house up to 29.9 percent lot coverage and
you're in the same position we are at now only with 5 percent higher lot coverage.
McGonagill: Okay, so there is, density would go up in a sense.
Aanenson: Well we would call it massing or hard cover, yeah.
McGonagill: Okay, okay. With, another question on that. Is the, on the maintenance agreement
how does that get passed along homeowner to homeowner? After purchase to purchase to
purchase, how would that happen?
Walters: It would be recorded with the County and I'll defer to the Water Resources Coordinator
who has a lot more experience with these things for any additional comments on that.
Strong: Thank you. So we get this question a lot. People are looking to purchase a home or
they have just purchased a home and I would say a vast majority of purchasers get most of the
documents that have been recorded against their property but I always recommend they do a title
search because that will pull this document as well as anything else so that's the best way to go
about doing it and I would again say most people actually do that. And then again just in point
of clarification, somebody could in fact do their entire driveway as a pervious paver driveway
which I would applaud. They just can't have a house bigger than 25 percent impervious so again
but we're not limiting them to.
McGonagill: But according to code they could.
Strong: We're not limiting them to only a 25 percent. We're not limiting them to only 5 percent
pervious. We're just saying that you get an extra 5 percent you can't make that impervious so.
21
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
McGonagill: Well no that's not the way I read it. Maybe I'm wrong. I read it it could go to 29.9
percent impervious. Or whatever. I mean the house could be bigger. I mean this is.
Walters: Yeah in theory by substituting impervious surface for pervious surface you could have
more impervious. More total lot coverage than you'd currently be allowed under the code.
McGonagill: Okay.
Strong: Yeah MacKenzie does a very good job of explaining this. Asa stormwater professional
myself I look at it through a very different lens and it's very simplified and MacKenzie does a
very good job of layering all these different relevant factors but we have the same recordable
maintenance agreements already for residential rain gardens and such that we put in. It would be
a similar agreement so, and we do already allow pervious pavers for commercial industrial so
they are within the city for those uses. This is specifically now to allow homeowners to use them
as well.
Tietz: MacKenzie?
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: I know you stated in the document, and rightly so that you know I think our developers in
our community have done a reasonable job of maxing every site which really puts the
homeowner in a situation of having to come and ask for a variance for almost anything they do,
which is kind of unfortunate because you don't understand that when you buy a home that it's
already maxed out but when you have the ICPI standards established or apparently you're citing
them as a standard for the design, I'm assuming that that's an industry, concrete industry
standard kind of applied nationwide. It doesn't really address or deal with our soil properties
have been significantly modified. Contractors pay no attention to putting soils back in any kind
of condition. They're so severely compacted. Does this national standard address or try to
address or do we need to even consider addressing our soil conditions and the conditions after
construction?
Walters: So again I believe Water Resources Coordinator Strong is the best person to discuss
this but the engineering department.
Tietz: Okay Vanessa.
Strong: It's a great question. No we've gone back and forth over this so one of the other things
that I looked into was specifically that, our soils because we are unique here. We have a lot of C
and D soils. We have a lot of compacted soils so how do we make this scientifically proven
technology work here so in addition to the ICPI standards we said we have also city specs and
details which we will have designed as well as they need to follow and one of them is soil
ripping to make sure that decompaction occurs. Another one is the treatment of the first .55
22
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
inches of runoff for the treatment area to insure that all water quality is addressed. Quantity and
quality so I literally did the same thing you did so really glad that you asked the question.
Tietz: So there's no way of pre -testing a design to know if it's even effective when it's installed.
Strong: If they follow the standards.
Tietz: It should be.
Strong: I see very few that don't.
Tietz: You know it's not again I talked about bees before on being costly. This is an extremely
expensive installation. It's not like running out to Patio Town and buying some concrete pavers
and putting them down over sand. I mean the detail that's required is, Mark knows. It's
extremely expensive to install so I guess you'd better do it right the first time because it's not
something you want to go back and redo when you're trying to maintain it 5 years later.
Strong: That was another reason why we lean towards pavers to start with rather than a
pavement, an asphalt or a concrete because pavers you can at least remove sections and readdress
sections that failed. At least for our pilot test rollout here.
Aller: And we're looking at replacing that topsoil in our new standards as well right?
Strong: Right. And decompaction as well.
Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Hearing none we'll go to the public hearing on this
particular item and open it up for an individual in the audience who wishes to speak either for or
against the item before us which is a motion on pervious pavers. Come on up. State your name
and address for the record sir.
Bob Swanson: Bob Swanson, Plymouth. I'm a paving stone contractor and I've been very
interested in the technology as it has developed and I spent 3 % years of my free time on the
minimum impact design standards that was brought to us via the legislation asked us to bring all
the different entities together to get on the same page and get a science based technology put
together and put it into a form that it is measurable and in a form that we can move forward as
far as stormwater management goes and so it started to take a little different look than what
you're doing here in the city right now as far as we're measuring everything by hard cover or
impervious surfaces. The technology out there is designed to take a look at stormwater
management which is a little bit different than what we're approaching here tonight. Impervious
and pervious surfaces are everywhere. We talked about the heavy C and D soils here and we're
not getting impermeable action out of those type of soils. We're getting heavy runoff. No
different than when it was in a native condition so we come along with some technology that's a
little bit different. People have a lot of questions about it and I understand those questions but
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
when it deals with stormwater management and I hear that we're going to maybe get 5 percent
additional credit on any given residential property I'm blown away. These systems work. They
slow the water down. They clean the water. I have all the statistics on what type of nutrients
they remove from the water if we're not getting infiltration. We have found a system that's
beaten Mother Nature at her own game and we're not seeming to get to the point of where we're
encouraging our constituents. We're more worried about what our, what are they getting away
with. They can build a bigger house. They can build a bigger driveway and I'm looking at it and
saying stormwater management. To limit hard cover surfaces in my opinion is not stormwater
management. It's a form of measurement and measurement only so if we got a condition that
we're not getting infiltration today and we've got 100 percent runoff what are we going to do to
mitigate it? And if we aren't using the science based measurable tools that are available to us
I'm disappointed. I've given a lot of time to this. I'm compassionate about it. I'm a sportsman.
I live here in the state of Minnesota my whole life. I'm interested in water quality. I'm not
interested in worrying about how big the house got. We can make this building go away with
good stormwater management and yet we're sitting here worried about percentages and that's
my message today. I came in here over the last several years. Talked to the fellow that's over at
the watershed district right now and he was very in favor of this. He says we're going to get it
done here in Chanhassen. Then Paul I think took his position for a while. I come over and talk
to Paul and Paul says I'm onboard. I love the technology. I'm tired though of the guys coming
from Southview Landscape Company with their little pamphlets saying we're going to put
permeable pavers in so what have we done as an industry. We have gone out and we started
certification courses so that we get certified people. Our industry is ready to step to the plate and
pay for permits if you're worried about expenditures. We want these products to succeed and we
want clean water. We are willing to step to the plate and pay for that. I want to be inspected. I
want them to be put in right. I want to get paid for them and I want the outcome at the end of the
day to be positive. Five percent isn't get it done fellas. This, and ladies, excuse me. These
systems work. We're coming out with cleaner water today than we ever have and you guys need
to help lead us down that path. I had a whole thing all prepared here and I'm not certain exactly
where the City stands on permeable pavers. When I got to the end of the ordinance today I had
some questions thinking that maybe I don't have to speak tonight and it says under the building
regulations. Chanhassen city code. Minnesota ordains and at the bottom it says however, when
built to the standards espoused in this section they do not constitute impervious surface. So that
led me to believe that the council or the commission here believes in the system. That's positive.
Where I get the disconnect then is where does the 5 percent arbitrarily come into this? I don't
think the 5 percent is any different than the 25 percent. The 25 percent to me means absolutely
nothing. Did we go out? Is it bedrock? Is it pure sand? What type of soils do we have? What
were the native conditions of this particular piece of property? We talk about 25 percent. I think
the DNR came up with that percent in a cigar smoke filled room one afternoon and said that's it.
We've agreed on it. Is a half acre, an acre, two acres appropriate for the bees? We're kind of
guessing so the 25 percent to me never has meant anything. It doesn't say anything about, it
doesn't tell me about stormwater management. It's telling me about a measurement of runoff.
Potential runoff but when I can put technology in place today to mitigate that, and nobody seems
to want to recognize it, we're so worried about here comes the McMansion and what are they
24
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
going to get away with now that we've given them a credit and I disagree with that. As leaders
we have an opportunity structurally and non -structurally to start, to educate people in really
where are we going. Water will make oil look silly someday and if we don't start addressing it
now and utilizing the tools in place then shame on us. We worry about this wormhole that we're
going down here in the city. It sounds like there's a lot of anxiety about this next generation.
The next homeowner is being locked into something that was already put there and now I want
to make an improvement and I've got to go for a variance and oh my god, now before you know
it we'll arbitrarily throw another 5 percent at it to keep the people happy. Stormwater credits
will mitigate that out you will take that anxiety out of the table. You'll have a proven way to do
it. Minimum impact design standard is a wonderful tool. The constituents. Everybody was at
the table. We were there. We got the best science in front of us today. It is available. I
encourage you to look at it. I encourage you to relook at this 5 percent as being arbitrary. I think
you've got to take a bigger step. I think there's a lot more work to do here.
Aller: Thank you.
Bob Swanson: Any questions?
Aller: Any questions?
Bob Swanson: I apologize. I can answer a lot of questions. I've got stuff here to talk about. I
know what your concerns are. Are they going to clog? The bioactivity in it and the research we
have and my personal visits to these different sites, the bioactivity in there eats the organic
matter that ends up in the joints. The most we've ever found is half inch to an inch of organic
matter. The remaining of that profile or the filter as I will call it is gone. It's clean as a whistle.
You would be amazed at the rates that we're still getting with what we thought were clogged and
what percentage of any given project is clogged. Are we saying these don't work. 100 percent
of it is clogged and we will never have any infiltration. The data is out thereto deny that. It's
proven. It's science based. Any other of your concerns I'd be more than happy to address. I'm
sorry I missed the work day. I understand there was a work day on this and I apologize I wasn't
informed. I would have been more than happy to be there to answer questions on this. Several
of your constituents have talked to me about this in the past. Are very encouraged that the City
is going to maybe start to look at it a little bit differently and so my quest tonight was just to give
some awareness. I wouldn't mind keeping you guys individually abreast of the technology and
some of my thoughts and opinions on this because this is an opportunity. And so I'm
encouraging you to be a leader. Go out there and get the job done.
Aller: Thank you. Any other individuals wishing to come forward at this time to speak either
for or against or give us a comment regarding the item before us which is pervious pavers?
Seeing no one come forward we'll close the public hearing. Open it up for discussion.
Weick: I will be bold and kick us off.
25
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aller: Good for you.
Weick: First of all thank you to the staff for continuously working and reworking this
amendment. I'm going to make some comments. I think at the end you may think I'm in
agreement with you. It may not sound like it at the beginning though. I remain adamantly
opposed to this amendment, which is increasing, basically increasing the hard cover percentages.
I believe very strongly in the use of pervious, permeable, porous pavers. I would like to see us
take a leading edge action to say as a homeowner if you use these you get something and that get
is not extra hard cover percentages. That get is a credit on your stormwater bill. That get is
something so if we can encourage residents, existing residents to exchange impervious surfaces
for pervious surfaces, regardless of whether they're increasing or decreasing their hard cover
percentages I'd like to see us encourage our residents to take that step to help our environment.
To help our water runoff as opposed to continuously increasing hard cover percentages. That's a
dangerous step. I'm adamantly opposed to it. I absolutely believe that in no way, shape or form
should somebody knowingly or otherwise who purchased a house that was built to the maximum
of the code to be able to get around that and I feel very strongly about that. I do also feel very
strongly that the use of pervious systems is awesome and if we can find a way to encourage
everybody to implement those types of system because there is some type of financial,
potentially advantage to do that. If that's what it takes I'd like us to look at that. I do not want
us to dangle extra hard cover surface so that's where I stand. I would implore my fellow
commissioners and certainly the City Council if they read these Minutes to consider those
opinions.
Aller: Thank you. Any further comments at this time or questions of staff? I agree with you
that we all, and this is why we've been doing it and I'm proud to say that the City of Chanhassen
is one of the communities that stepped out and made it commercially available and have actually
done it themselves and used pervious pavements nonetheless. This type of treatment in any form
or fashion and I have felt terrible when we have had to turn down variances because the science
wasn't there based on our soils. I remember asking the question. Well what happens if you've
got a pervious paver and the water goes down and it hits a clay surface, where's the water going?
It's still running off so what are we going to do about that and I do agree in the holistic view of
looking at where we are. I'm not sure we get to the same conclusion if we were to, the benefit
here being that a person that would otherwise not have 5 percent, I don't see everybody just
building bigger houses for the percentage. I just don't see that as being the end result because
you still have a yard to plan and one of the great things about being here is being outdoors so I
see more of the pervious paver use and creating what we've considered and seen on commercials
and in the magazines as being the outside rooms where you put wicker furniture outside and you
needed something to put it on so you weren't sinking into the grass or the lawn. So I would
almost, it still gives an added percentage but my view would be that the additional value would
be with a modification if you're replacing a driveway or you're looking at what normally would
be a variance of that situation to allow for it. I don't know how we get to that point but I like to
give that additional plus bonus to those individuals who would not otherwise be able to put in a
sport court or some other thing that could be done with a pervious surface and allow them to do
26
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
that where otherwise would not have been allowed. And I don't know whether it needs to be, I
do think it needs to be tied to a certain percentage. I still think pervious or not our surface area
coverage that's non -natural has to be limited in some form or fashion to maintain a system that
works on the stormwater runoff. So I'm halfway there.
Undestad: I've got a question on that too though. The 5 percent, I guess the comments we heard
here you know providing 5 percent coverage, or 5 percent more permeable, pervious pavements,
there's probably a lot of yards in Chanhassen that we'd be better off telling them to do your
whole backyard in pervious pavement and we'd be better off with our stormwater. So if we kept
the original hard surface coverages that the buildings just have all the time, anything anybody
would do in their yard as far as pervious pavements and their permeable pavers, all that stuff. I
mean the 5 percent, you know would it really matter? Leave the, don't give them more hard
surface coverage but if they want to do all the pavers they want out there, as long as it's helping
stormwater in the end result isn't that the case? I mean the more the merrier.
Strong: Well.
Undestad: No?
Aller: And I think that's where I have my trouble is where do you stop it because of the
potential. I don't have the science or the anecdotal information to say yeah, we've tried it here
and it works.
Undestad: Well that's what I'm asking the question is 5 percent, does that really matter if
somebody comes in and if they're going to do a 15 percent or they want to put a sport court in
and it's all.
Strong: I think it's, as MacKenzie started out with this is the critical factor. From the specific
stormwater, water quality rate perspective it's pretty simple to push these through. It's very
simple. It's very easy but you have other areas that we have to take into consideration that
MacKenzie was talking about. This isn't just a stormwater issue. You also have to layer in
things like green space. Tree canopy. Vegetated cover. I'm sorry MacKenzie the other areas.
Zoning and this is where it becomes a multi -layer which is why we come around to this amount.
I mean I'm certainly, credits are a great idea as well. I'm happy to look into those. Why don't
you keep in mind Chanhassen has a very lean stormwater utility fee which means the residents
are only paying $45 a year so I'm happy to give them a credit. I don't know if that's an
incentive. That $45 is an incentive to much but I'm happy to explore that as well. And of course
they could do more than 5 percent total of their lot, it's just the balance and MacKenzie you can
maybe speak as to what those other layers are.
Aller: Well and I guess that 5 percent would be a limiting factor because they're only going to
receive so much credit in hard cover. They can only build their house that much bigger with
impervious surface.
27
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Strong: Again as MacKenzie, I was very, I learned a lot when MacKenzie starting discussing all
the different layers.
Walters: No, there is not much to say. Again it's that balancing act. It's trying to protect the
neighborhood aesthetic. The intensity of land use within the city and realizing that stormwater is
one lens to look at this at but it's not the only lens by any means and as a city we use lot cover
now is the term, previously hard cover, to create the feel and aesthetics of our neighborhood and
one of the real conceptual questions we have is would we want someone to be able to cover their
yard up to their lot setback. Is that what we'd want someone to theoretically drive by and see?
And this ordinance's approach was to try to maintain the aesthetic to identify the district that had
the most restricted maximum lot coverage that we felt had the most legacy properties that could
have those you know extra room outdoors that we're talking about. Where can we provide the
most relief? And also pick one that was a relative small subsection of the community so we can
see how are these actually used. Does it just lead entirely to larger houses or are these just being
used for that backyard patio for that extra little bit of space and then from there we can talk about
expanding it if it's appropriate or not.
McGonagill: MacKenzie a question I have. I think again if you're talking about aesthetics and
it's a great point, again the homeowner association rules would prevail. So for example my
concern about a driveway. Having somebody do that, some homeowner associations will only
permit you know asphalt driveways and you'd have to go before the homeowners association. I
know in my particular neighborhood to get a variance in order to put something else in so is that,
I mean I think that's what the case would be. Is that correct?
Walters: Yeah most of these are RSF but if they had a homeowners association, those standards
rules that association.
McGonagill: And Commissioner your question on the, your opposition to is was that you look at
the permeable paver as another surface that would increase the area. You don't want to increase
the area? I'm just trying to be sure I understand your point.
Weick: Yeah. It's more from a green space perspective than anything. I don't think, I think
people come here for that and I view protecting that is very important and I just don't, it's hard
cover to me.
McGonagill: Yeah it's hard cover.
Weick: It is hardcover.
McGonagill: Yeah it's permeable but still hard cover to you.
Weick: Yeah.
NM
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
McGonagill: Okay got it. Now I understand, thank you very much.
Weick: And it manages so that's why I'm, it's an odd position to be in because I'm very pro the
technology. You know I wish every new house that's built, you know we could mandate
driveways that are pervious pavers. I think that would be awesome. Those are the kinds of steps
I'd like to see us take. I don't, I just, I think it's clear I'm opposed to allowing people to increase
their hard cover area as the enticement to do the right thing. I think we're giving them the wrong
thing to get them to do the right thing. Why don't we think about positive reinforcement to get
people to do the right thing. In my opinion.
McGonagill: Thank you.
Weick: I just couldn't be, you know we won't have to worry about bees because everyone's
yards will be concrete. I mean heck, people were worried when people were using, went to
Astroturf in their yards. My god we're going to be Chanhassen, the concrete city. You know
right? You're going to look at it from above and it's going to be all patios so I don't think that's
what we want. And I'm exaggerating to make a point for the record but that's how I feel. If I
could just.
Aller: Absolutely.
Weick: Read, I mean on page 9. These numbers. If I'm reading this correctly it should give
people pause. If the City allows residential single family properties outside of the shoreland
management district to add 5 percent lot coverage in the form of pervious pavement, which is
what this proposes, it would allow up to 2.3 million square feet of new lot coverage which is
hard cover coverage equivalent to 600 new houses. Does anyone else like pause at that?
Undestad: Let's go back... 5 percent of that, that number he just talked about, if all that went to
the pervious to helping stormwater out, is that a plus, minus or?
Strong: So again we're not just specifically talking about stormwater. Technically, scientifically
from stormwater treatment alone it works but we can't look at it from stormwater treatment
alone and that's how we arrived at 5 percent. We have to layer in things like the importance of
vegetated cover. The importance of green space. The importance of neighborhood aesthetics.
Undestad: But that's what I'm asking is the 5 percent a number that made sense for some
reason?
Strong: It seemed, well yes. There are other triggers. We have watershed district rules that
require us to do additional permitting and regulations at certain lot coverages and certain types of
stormwater treatment so we have to stay under those types of thresholds so, and as a pilot rollout
29
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
I think 5 percent additional lot coverage at this moment is a cautious rollout, yeah. I think it's
fair and reasonable.
Undestad: Okay.
Strong: That doesn't mean that they can't of their lot coverage that doesn't mean that they can't
do a total impervious, a total pervious paver driveway. I hope more people do. They take the
opportunity. You know it's not preventing people from doing those things. It's just, we're
working on trying to balance and making sure that we balance.
Tietz: Just thinking back to some of our requests over the last few years where somebody's
come in kind of pleading a hardship for a variance. I don't recall where we've actually asked
people to give up something to get something. You know give up part of your 3 car driveway
and put in pervious pavers to get another hard surface and I'm not suggesting that that's an
approach to use but maybe there's, you know I'm really in favor of more where Steve's going. I
think if there's an incentive to encourage our citizens to look upon these technologies to improve
the community and improve their neighborhood we should do it somehow. And I'm not sure
what the incentive technique is but it seems like we have invariably we have found ways to add
some hard surfaces rather than create permeable surfaces over the last several years and this is an
opportunity for us to take another look at it. You know this is great research that the staff has
done and Vanessa I know you have a lot of experience with these products but it just seems like,
I'm finding that I'm falling into the side of this is still more hard surface. This is more coverage
on a lot and I'm sorry that the developer took advantage of 99.9 percent of the property but now
we're dealing with variances because that's happened. Maybe you have to tear out your whole
driveway and create a permeable surface to allow you to get a couple extra feet, whatever that
percentage is to do some other hard surface around your pool or your deck space but it's a real
challenging question but Steve I fully support your position.
Randall: Does it make more sense to do a, instead of doing one section on permeable pavers,
that's one piece of the pie that you're talking about correct? Does it make more sense to do a
whole plan with all those pieces of the pie and include that in the section? I know it's a lot more
work and it's a lot more in depth but.
Aanenson: Let me expand on that a little bit. I think MacKenzie went into it a little bit. This
was direction from the council that was looking to give some relief for people not to go through
the variance. I think the last few variances we've had people have given some pervious pavers
as mitigation.
Tietz: Well we had that one over.
Aanenson: Minnewashta I think, yep. Yep.
Tietz: I'm thinking a couple years ago.
30
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aller: And we also have had people remove hard cover to replace it with hard cover in a
different location.
Aanenson: Yeah I think that's definitely something MacKenzie works on but, so this is coming
from the council that wanted to see some, some other track to go down as opposed to a pure
variance. I mean certainly that's always a tool that you can use for mitigation when applying for
a variance. But just if they could work that out internally without having to go through that
process. Certainly anybody can still go through the variance process but that was really the
original intent coming from the council to get you to vet kind of the process. We've shared this
kind of where this ordinance is going with them and they just wanted you now through the public
hearing process to kind of vet that and give them your feedback as whether they're on the right
track. If the right track is that it should be holistic, that's one approach.
Randall: Well I just remember how we changed the topsoil requirement to 6 inches was it? In
new construction. What if it's an old site and they did that, they added, brought it up to 6 inches
and then also did some, I mean so you add all these little pieces and it's going to change it quite a
bit and maybe permeable's not the whole solution on the thing. That's why I just bring that up.
Aller: Well we're looking at it but it's the other piece is out there anyway.
Randall: I know. I know.
Aller: It's just whether it's before us we still wouldn't be voting to change it. It's already been
done.
Randall: I know.
Aller: I guess one other question would be, if there was an ordinance which was just limited to
pre-existing construction so it would only deal with variances which would allow for individuals
that want, would normally come in for a variance. The opportunity not to if their plan allowed
for so much hard cover or so much pervious and they would be allowed that additional 5 percent
and not have to come in. Does that meet the intent behind it without?
Aanenson: Kind of sort of but I would say MacKenzie meets with a lot of people that just want
to do an addition. They try to find a way to do it so this is a way to do that you know. Shift
things around so it's kind of one of the tools that would help someone be able to accomplish that
without, they may not always need a variance or they could be pretty close.
Madsen: One aspect that I like about this is that for houses that were built before the rules were I
place, they're on non -conforming lots and you know if you only have a single family garage, a
single stall garage, you know there are just things that aren't very usable in today's age so this
31
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
would give them some relief on those non -conforming existing homes that were built before all
those rules were put in place.
McGonagill: Chairman you were talking about the pre-existing construction...
Aller: Well and I don't know whether, whether that works for the city but what it does do is it
gives relief to all those individuals with a pre-existing one car garage. They want to now make it
two so long as they're going to be, you know some are close but they need that extra 5 percent.
Maybe they need a little more than that and that's where the flexibility would come in but they
wouldn't have to come in for a variance and we certainly would be looking at it here, people that
have come in historically were looking for a way to allow people to use their property in
reasonable manner so we're looking at cutting that fine line and trying to make it so it isn't
arbitrary. And then does that meet what we're looking to do now or are we looking to expand all
our construction which is the way it's written now. It becomes an ordinance and that's what any
construction would be.
McGonagill: So tracking with what you said, that would on pre-existing homes would take out
the issue of a builder being able to take advantage of this to increase Commission, what Steve
was talking about the whole total hard pan of or hard surface of a new construction lot.
Aller: Right, if the ordinance only applied to that.
McGonagill: Only applied to pre-existing.
Aller: Pre-existing. But I'm not sure that that's what the council is asking for the direction on.
McGonagill: I like what you said Chairman in that regard but the issue that I had of a builder
taking advantage of that. I also like the aspect of what Vanessa was talking about of doing that,
if somebody being able to replace an existing driveway, existing construction and put in
permeable. Hard pan's not increased but you've increased water quality so.
Aller: What we'd be doing is creating basically a two tier system. That could be problematic.
What are your guys thoughts? Does that encourage people to do the right thing without?
Weick: I just don't think we're overwhelmed with variances from pre-existing conditions. I can
count on less, I don't need a full hand since I've been on the commission that we've had
variances for pre-existing conditions on hard lot coverage.
Aller: Well I...
Aanenson: Can I just qualify that a little bit because we work hard to solve those situations or
advise people here's a track you know of a situation similar to that you know so some people
choose not to go for the reasons that they may do some research on what other similar situations
32
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
may have been so I don't want you to think just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that
we haven't been approached. Yeah. Or people think it's too onerous. I think the biggest
challenge there is the time commitment. Public hearing.
Aller: Right.
Weick: For who?
Aanenson: For the applicant. You know to get all the survey work. A time commitment.
Aller: And sometimes by the time it gets done they have to wait a whole other season before
they can get out and do any construction.
Aanenson: Or it gets appealed and it goes to City Council so there's a time commitment in there.
Wouldn't you say that's some of the biggest, the cost.
Walters: I think time commitment and then the uncertainty. You know are you going to spend
$550 bucks for a variance for your say 100 square foot patio when you might not get it because
you're not sure you can demonstrate a practical difficulty. You know as she mentioned I'd say
probably 5 or 10 people talk to me about potentially increasing their lot coverage for every one
that actually goes through the process.
Aanenson: If they wanted to put a pervious paver patio then they could do that without, and
those are the people we're trying to capture and those are the ones you don't see so if that makes
any sense. Just trying to clarify where those people fall within that spectrum.
Aller: Well and for those people at home or those people present, I don't think we should lose
sight of the fact that again that the City's taking the bull by the horn and has really worked hard
to allow people to maximize the use of their property and at the lowest possible cost to get to
where they want to go and so we've shifted our review process on a number of different things
so that we could cut the cost and expense and time to the owner of the property or the developer
in coming forward and doing what they need to do to get the use out of the property so I applaud
that.
Undestad: So what are you saying is the issue if we limit it to existing property?
Aller: Well if we limit it to existing property it still would allow, it would allow people to come
in that would have normally come in looking for a variance and it would give staff the ability to
say yeah we can do this and you don't need a variance because here's our percentages and you
can come up to this but they would.
Undestad: I thought you were saying if we did it for existing and you'd...
33
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aller: But if you don't do it for new we still are in the same boat with new construction and how
are we going to deal with the new construction or are we going to have a separate zoning. New
property ordinance where they're going to come in and they're going to want to have the same or
more opportunity because it's new construction.
Undestad: There must be a way to tie this back into the existing. I mean that was the intent for
this.
Aller: That's why I was saying.
Undestad: New development. You know is anything prior to a certain point in time.
Aller: And that would allow for a homeowner that comes in and purchases a property to be able
to modify it and use it in a reasonable fashion for the way they want to move forward with the
property and we get the benefit of using proper pavers and they get the benefit of having the
extra square footage. Which is really what comes in and we have that review of anyway.
Undestad: So I think that's, isn't that the intent is for all the existing homeowners out there that
we've been dealing with that.
Aanenson: Yeah again we went down the narrower lane of the RSF. Trying to see how this
thing launches. See the management, the control. How many permits. We have to also roll out
a process which we don't have in place yet so that's going to take a little time for that so we kind
of went with that, the RSF and as you saw the percentage, that's 40 some percent.
Aller: 45.
Aanenson: 45, yeah.
Walters: 45 percent of the RSF zone would be entitled because we're not proposing for it to be
allowed within the shoreland management area.
Aanenson: Which is a higher threshold there so. But that was our intent.
Strong: I would say from my perspective I will struggle because we've addressed this issue
many times, when a developer comes to me and they can use it for commercial and they can use
it for industrial and the single family homeowner can use it for some developments but then their
one infill development they can't use it and I'm going to have a very hard time explaining why
that developer isn't allowed to use it when you know it can be used for commercial. It can be
used for industrial.
Aanenson: So you're recommending a different policy than what we're recommending or?
34
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Strong: No, no. Just that the reason why we didn't limit it to existing.
Aller: To existing or pre-existing.
Strong: Because we did. We've kicked this around, I'm glad you guys are kicking around the
same things we kicked around. But that is in the end when the phone rings and we answer the
phone, how do we explain to them how we justify that decision so.
Weick: They should use them because it's the right thing to do.
Strong: I tend to believe with that.
Weick: And the code says 25 percent and that's what it is. And if they want to do the right thing
they should make all of the patios and the driveways and all that kind of stuff should absolutely
be installed that way and I don't think we have to give them extra hard cover to do that. I just, I,
and I get it and I'm sorry that there's lots of work behind it but.
Randall: I tend to agree with him. 25 percent is 25 percent. I know when I built my house I
struggled with this also but we came up with a solution and that kept it under 25 percent so. I
know it's tough but I mean I want to have these available for people but at the same time I just
think it's going to be too tough and case by case basis we've had a few come in. We've dealt
with it and they've worked around it so.
Aller: Sounds from this side?
Tietz: So MacKenzie if I have a 30,000 square foot lot instead of a minimum lot, how much
more surface can I add?
Walters: You would be able to add 5 percent more surface in the form of, assuming you're
zoned residential, so that'd be 1,500 square feet.
Tietz: 1,500 square feet.
Walters: Yep.
Tietz: That's significant.
Walters: Yes it is.
Tietz: That's hard surface. Not everything is a minimum lot size in this community so when
you talk about 750 square feet it's not 750 square feet. I bet you the average is probably closer
to 900 square feet. On an average over across the community. Okay what's percent, this is an
esoteric. What percentage of our community is minimum lot size?
35
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Walters: The point is very well taken.
Tietz: I think it's hard to go back and say pre-existing conditions are different than existing
conditions. I mean why would we give someone the benefit because their house was built in
1972 versus someone that has built in 2012? I don't see there's any difference. If you're going
to give it to one we should give it to the other.
Undestad: I think the thought was giving it to all the pre-existing. Not for the variances that
come in. Not new development coming in you're not going to bring in a new development and
then say I get that extra 5 percent on my new development.
Tietz: But then it's the, you know.
Undestad: Well I get it, yeah.
Tietz: It's not fair. I mean.
Undestad: It's not easy.
Tietz: If it's an ordinance and I can get 5 percent but you can't.
Aanenson: Right.
Tietz: Because you just built your house but I've got an old house so I can get it.
Undestad: Yep.
Aanenson: How it's written is how, how we've written it is how you're interpreting it. It's the
equity issue, yeah.
Aller: And to Commissioner Weick's point if we apply that, the new people that don't need it
because they're putting in all the new construction and new surfaces that are covered by other
water resource kind of laws and regulations and then somebody else that wants to replace an
existing driveway is just going to put in another impervious pavement. We haven't improved
our situation at all because they've chosen to do the expedient and cost effective as opposed to
what we would consider the right way. For water management. Struggle.
Randall: So are you saying we would give them a 5 percent credit if they're at, if they're at like
35 percent right now correct? Could they be at 40 percent?
Walters: No they could not. The way the ordinance is structured they could not.
36
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Randall: But on an older house that was built in 1925?
Walters: Their lot coverage would be a maximum of 30 percent. The 35 percent would be a
legal non -conforming status. If they wanted to go above that they would still require a variance.
That is something we talked about and we felt that would lead to a lot of potentially very bad
situations.
Randall: Okay.
Aanenson: But we thought of it.
Aller: So we go in and we move this forward. The City approves it. We find out that 5 percent
is far greater than we really wanted. We change the ordinance to reduce it and everything
becomes non -conforming?
Walters: Were we to pass the ordinance and then repeal it, yeah. Anything would then become a
legal non -conforming.
Aller: Not a good picture either.
Madsen: Could we limit just to allow 5 percent additional lot coverage not to exceed X?
Walters: Yes you could put a provision that you know not to exceed 1,000 square feet of
impervious surface is something we could, I could put it in there.
Strong: I think you mean pervious.
Walters: I believe I probably did mean pervious.
Strong: I see pervious, impervious, hard surface is all very different things as well as green
space.
Madsen: Yeah.
Strong: Vegetated cover is also another, they're all very different surfaces to me so.
Aller: Alright, well can't ponder all night. I suppose we need to do something with this one way
or another so if individuals wish to make a motion we can go from there and it can be anything
from accepting, modifying, tabling, whatever you want to do with it.
Tietz: Mr. Chairman.
Aller: Yes Commissioner Tietz.
37
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Tietz: Would there be a way to look at it that there's a trade off of a one for one? That if you're
going to, maybe staff already looked at this but if there's an up to a maximum square footage.
That if you had, maybe use the minimum standard of 15,000 square feet and we say it's a
maximum of 750 square feet and if you want to expand by 750 square feet. Not only do you
have to make that pervious but you have to add another 750 square feet of pervious.
McGonagill: Like a mitigation.
Tietz: Well it's kind of a mitigation but it's an incentive to get 750 square feet but in effect
you're doing 1,500 square feet of pervious. It's a two for one instead of a one for one.
Aller: It's like a wetland mitigation.
Tietz: Well in effect it would be Andrew where you're getting, it's kind of like a, well it's a two
for one really. What I'm proposing is that you get up to 750 square feet but you're going to
replace 750 someplace on your property with pervious pavers so now you in effect have 1,500
square feet of pervious material.
Madsen: And that would encourage them to do the right thing in more areas at least.
Tietz: Well right. You're not just getting this new postage stamp. You're actually doing a
replacement.
Aller: There's a difference there. It's not encouraging.
Madsen: It's forcing, yep.
Aller: It's forcing them and a person that only needs 750 I suppose could say they wanted 350 to
do the two for one. But how about the person that doesn't care to or can't afford to do that kind
of modification?
Tietz: Well then it doesn't work for them. I mean this is, you know it's a little bit of a carrot.
mean if you want more square footage you've got to help the community with the stormwater
and the runoff.
Aller: Thoughts.
Randall: I like that idea.
Weick: What if you don't have 750 square feet to change over? So you want to do 750 square
feet but you only have 500 square feet.
M
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Tietz: Well it's a 25 by 30 driveway. I think most people have a 25 by 30 driveway even if they
have a single car garage. Maybe the 750 is not the right number either but I'm trying to find an
upper limit for what we're doing instead of having the guy, the folks that have the 30,000 square
foot lot get 1,500 square feet. Just a thought.
Weick: It's interesting.
Tietz: I don't know, what is the cost of these systems on a per square foot basis? They're not,
they're significant. If they're done right.
Aller: Sure we'll reopen it real quick.
Bob Swanson: Can I answer?
Tietz: Sure.
Bob Swanson: With removal of existing they're right around $17 a square foot completed. That
provides 8 inches of 2 inch clear aggregate, 3 inches of 3/ clear aggregate and that clear
aggregate is set in bed and the granular fill inbetween.
Tietz: And the surface.
Aller: The paver.
Bob Swanson: Correct.
Tietz: The paver.
Undestad: So it's not piped or drain tiled to anything? It just rock piled on rock piled on sand?
Bob Swanson: If we need ex -filtration because of the heavy clay soils or we need to daylight it,
that material is then daylighted accordingly. We hit the kind of between the B and the C soils
will maybe elevate that understanding that we will get some infiltration and then otherwise in the
heavy D soils we've got pretty much that ex -filtration pipe on the bottom of the profile that we
are required to have that water move through that system I believe within 24 hours. But that
produce that is leaving there is void of all the contaminants that we want to protect our lakes and
our waterways.
Undestad: Is that still falling at $17 a square foot with the piping in there?
Bob Swanson: Correct. Depending on how far we'd have to take the piping.
39
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Tietz: And typical suburban asphalt driveway of 3 inches of asphalt and 5-6 inches of base is
what half of that?
Bob Swanson: Oh yeah I would think.
Tietz: Or a third of it?
Bob Swanson: Yeah a third of it maybe. $5 to $6 bucks.
Tietz: So it's tripling your typical suburban driveway cost. Using a driveway but hard surface.
Tripling a typical hard surface cost.
Bob Swanson: Correct.
Tietz: Thank you.
Aller: Okay for the last time I'm closing the public hearing. Alright. So now I'm going to
invite any last comments or certainly entertain a motion of some sort to move this forward. And
one of the alternatives would be to move it forward as is with recommendations that the City
Council look at some of the alternatives that have been discussed in their discussion as our
recommendation.
Madsen: So if a resident wanted to get that relief but could not afford it then they would still
have to come in and request a variance, is that correct? If they wanted to move forward.
Aller: Then the question becomes can they afford to go through that process of a variance and
it's just an additional expense and time.
Aanenson: They always have a right to go for a variance. That's correct.
Madsen: Yeah they would still have that right to go with the variance if they could not say
replace their driveway at triple the cost of what an asphalt driveway would be.
Weick: So I'm not ignoring you. I just want to be, I just don't think as one of the options being
do nothing. That's what I'm, my silence means. I don't want to put anything forward just to be,
so I don't think there's a motion that goes with that.
Aller: So your's would be to deny it.
Weick: Yes. Well.
Aller: You would move that we deny.
HE
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Weick: Would I need to do that?
Aanenson: Yes, that's...
Aller: And that would be doing nothing. Otherwise we literally are doing nothing which is
probably a disservice.
Randall: Like the two for one plan, would that just be continued or if we move this forward and
it go to the City Council and would they see all those arguments or is that something that we
could refine it before it gets up to City Council?
Aller: Well we can always refine. We can always do the same thing we did with the last one
and ask for more information or have it rewritten but I think.
Weick: In fairness to the City we've done that.
Aller: We've visited this several times to get to where we are today.
Weick: Yeah. I feel like we should make a decision.
Aller: So I don't want to say either we recommend against it by making a motion that it not be
passed or we recommend that it move forward in some form or fashion so that they can look at it
and amend it as they see fit.
Randall: I would vote to move it forward as long as our concerns are validated towards the City
Council so they're aware of the dilemmas that we had here.
Madsen: Is that moving forward as it is recommended now with no changes?
Aller: In other words the work, if we move it forward it's the recommendation that it move
forward to them as written but requesting that they review the concerns and address them before
they make a final decision.
Madsen: Is that what your?
Aller: And ultimately you're giving it to the council from the recommending body. They can
choose to not look at those concerns if they, but it's obviously not something they normally
would do. You know they're going to, as somebody said they don't know if they read the
Minutes. I know they read the Minutes because I've received comments on them but.
Undestad: So is that an official motion?
41
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aanenson: I was going to say there is a motion on the floor but I would say the staff always
writes the Planning Commission what discussion was and we usually always bullet points.
Aller: They get the verbatim and they.
Aanenson: Right the issues that you were trying to address so we'll accomplish that.
Undestad: So we have an official motion on the floor?
Aller: Well that's what I'm.
Weick: There hasn't been a motion.
Aller: There is no motion yet. That's why I'm asking for a motion that would do that if that's
what they want to do.
Undestad: I'll make a motion then that.
Aller: Commissioner Undestad makes that motion. Do I have a second?
Weick: Makes what, could you just clarify the motion please.
Undestad: The motion.
Aller: So he's making a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 7 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code
concerning pervious pavement including any other information and to consider the concerns as
stated by the commissioners prior to it's enactment.
Madsen: I will second.
Aller: So having a motion by Commissioner Undestad, seconded by Commissioner Madsen, any
further discussion?
Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 7 and 20
of the Chanhassen City Code concerning pervious pavement and ask that the City Council
consider the concerns stated by planning commissioners. All voted in favor except
Commissioners Weick, Tietz, and Randall who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of
4to3.
Aller: How many opposed?
42
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aanenson: Three.
Aller: So three. So the motion carries 4 to 3.
Aanenson: Chairman just a, we can say that this item is going to the City Council, anybody
that's following it, do you know the date?
Walters: I believe it will be going forward on June I Ith
Aller: So those individuals wishing to follow this item, which is obviously one of concern to not
only the commission but to the citizens and your City Council, it will be before them on June
11 `h so please feel free to follow this item for final action on that date. Moving forward to item
3.
BREWERY ORDINANCE.
Walters: Yep so officially I am calling this craft alcohol production because it does deal with
breweries as well as micro distilleries. However for shorthand throughout this and in a lot of
times in reports I will refer to the as breweries just for convenience but just to be inclusive to all
different types of craft alcohol that could be covered. This one is coming before you because the
City's been contacted by numerous entities that are interested in potentially opening either a
brewery or micro distillery. We get a lot of inquiries and currently the response is the City does
not allow for breweries, taprooms or cocktail rooms under our city code. So one of the things
that we, right now as the city code is structured craft alcohol production in any form can only
take place in industrial office park districts. Oh that's a typo, I'm sorry about that. And we don't
have any provision for allowing for taprooms, cocktail rooms, and this creates a bit of a
perceived barrier and additional uncertainty to businesses looking at the community so what staff
is proposing is to allow small craft alcohol producers and their associated retail components in
the industrial office park district as well as the highway business, the central business district and
the old general business district which is no longer present but exists as the underlying district
for some PUD's. And then we would propose requiring conditional use permits for breweries
producing over 3,500 barrels a year but smaller operations, staffs research leads us to believe
they have very similar impacts to restaurants, bakeries, and other things we allow in our
commercial districts and we couldn't really see much of a compelling reason for subjecting them
to additional level of scrutiny. So this table right here shows the staff s proposed ordinance.
Where it would allow these as permitted uses. At what thresholds. Where conditional use
permits would be required. At the threshold conditional use permits would be required, we
would hold them to the standards that exist for food processing plants which is what we would
currently classify a brewery under if it were to locate in the industrial office park district. Staff is
also proposing creating 4 new licenses as part of our liquor licenses to allow for these. That'd be
an on sale brew or taproom license which would allow a brewery to have a taproom. And on
sale cocktail room license which would allow a micro distillery to serve cocktails on premise. A
small brew or off sale license which would allow either a brew pub or a taproom to do growler
43
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
fills on site so some off sale of liquor and micro distillery off sale which allows up to one 375
milliliter bottle per customer per day to be sold directly from the distillery. So that was a bit of a
lightning run through on it. I would be happy to go into as much depth as you'd like.
Aller: So I would be interested in knowing, has there or would you believe there would be an
interest expressed in existing restaurants, producers, sales, individuals, liquor stores, that would
want to convert or add this type of service and what impact would that have on licensing and so
forth?
Walters: Yeah. I honestly can't speak to that. Potentially there may be some businesses in town
that would be interested in adding a brewery to their operations. Right now if this were to pass
you know at the City Council and they were in a district zoned for another permitted use, all they
would need to do is apply for and receive the appropriate licensure so like if MacKenzie's
Restaurant, we'll say I opened one, wanted to convert to a brew pub I would have to get licensed
as a brew pub with the State and then I would just go to the City under my current intoxicating
liquor license and say oh by the way I'm selling my own beer. I'd like to do growler off sales.
Can I get a small brewery off sale license and I'd be good to go. Did that answer your question?
Aller: It does. Thank you.
Walters: Okay.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I was looking at the different business districts and most of them would allow
restaurants. I did not see that a restaurant option would be possible in the industrial office park
district. Is that correct?
Walters: Yeah. So we looked at a little bit of what the underlying district allowed and because
our underlying commercial and business districts have restaurants as a permitted use there didn't
seem to be a strong rationale for why a cocktail room or taproom wouldn't be able to have a food
service component associated with it. Whereas in our industrial districts you know they have
more of an industrial feel they're less commercially oriented and restaurants are not a permitted
use and so we felt it was consistent to keep that more production with the more limited retail
component which we capped at 20 percent as per current ordinance so it was mostly to maintain
the existing feel of the districts while still allowing this use in some capacity.
Aanenson: I just want to add to that. Obviously MacKenzie knows a lot more about this but we
have met with a number of people that are interested over the last probably 2 years and going to
the industrial park is exciting for a lot of people. They think that's a great place to, you know
they get the clear space that they need. Some of the concerns that we had is some of the people
were interested in food trucks and part of what we saw is to support the existing businesses that
are here so that was our approach and we said there's a lot of ways to do that. A lot of
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
businesses use an iPad approach. You can type up and order existing businesses to service, bring
food out. That sort of thing so there's other breweries that do that right now. That sort of thing.
Some do the food truck but again our goal was, and we're really working to hopefully filling that
kind of in the core area in the downtown to service, or rely on some of the existing. Some of
them may have food with them. Some are interested in doing that and some are interested maybe
using another approach to support the existing restaurants that are in town, if that makes sense.
Madsen: So they could partner with existing restaurants that weren't necessarily located in that
office park for catering services.
Aanenson: Right exactly. That's how we would see it and everybody that we've talked to has
been supportive of, they would like to do that too so maybe one night they have one type of food.
Another night another type of food and they would deliver that and service that so that's kind of
the approach we were taking on that.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Additional comments.
McGonagill: I have the same point as the commissioner about food because I guess from a
couple reasons. It was in the report that some areas prohibited having restaurants and then others
that you had to have it and I guess I'm more thinking you have to have food. Now the reason I
say that is just the way Chanhassen's developed is you have a brewery. Let's say you want to
get something to eat. Well you've got to get in your car. You can't really walk somewhere and
that's my problem right there is the fact that, what little reading I've done about this
independently is that the intake of your peak alcohol level, if you don't have food in your system
is higher and it happens quicker whereas opposed if you have food in there. I'm just talking
about the participants in a taproom and they're drinking. They're having a good time. They're
going to get hungry and you know well let's go get in the car and go so and so. Well that's not
what I really want to see. I want them to kind of stay there to localize that and to localize just
from a public safety standpoint and so to me it's almost like I want to have food there. I want to
see that happen just so that it's contained. You know for a period of time that people work
through it and they're not in their car. It would be different if they had you know the ability to
walk around and do that but we don't right now and so the establishment of a brew or a brewery
with that food component I think can be a starter place with a long term plan that we talked about
at the last Planning Commission. Could it be a district? Could it be something like this so I
would, that was my thoughts. I want to have some way to leverage that food does happen more
than somebody bringing it in. I mean I'm pretty well hooking it to have something there on the
site in my mind. It's more of a comment than a question. I did have one, just to be sure I
understand again. How does it work for example on a brew pub if they want to have an event? I
happened to be at one of the brew pubs here locally looking at, and they have a Cinco de Mayo
Day. They brought in food trucks. They had outside music. I think about music pollution.
Light pollution. Noise. How does that work if a brew pub wants to do that because they'll want
45
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
to do that. They'll want to have an event to bring in customers. Don't blame them. How does
that work?
Walters: So the City has a temporary and special events ordinance which we use to evaluate any
businesses' request to do a block party or any sort of outdoor event and that's where we look at
things like noise. Surrounding uses. You know whether or not streets need to be closed. What
impact that could have on the community so the brew pub would have to navigate our normal
process. In terms of the liquor licensing aspect I will try not to get too deep in the weeds but
after a large amount of detective work we discovered that the State Statues allow us to give them
a temporary liquor license for off sale similar to, I'm sorry. For on sale at a site, not their own,
up to once a month. Up to 12 occasions per calendar year. The same as we can currently extend
to a registered political party, charity or similar organization so we would be amending our
temporary liquor license to allow a small craft brewery to take advantage of that to host
community events but again the frequency under State law would be limited to once a month.
No more than 12 days per calendar year and our temporary event ordinance would also regulate
that and be used as staff to mitigate the impact and make sure that it was an appropriate use and
appropriate level for the district.
McGonagill: Okay.
Aanenson: And to be clear everybody that we've talked to, we've had that conversation with
because certainly we want a fun atmosphere. That's part of the exciting part about having some
of these uses in town but we've talked to them about what the rules are and that and that we do
have this permit already in place and other groups have used it but we'd manage it that way
because we would certainly expect that they would do some of that activity which would be fun.
McGonagill: Kate as you've talked to interested parties, would they be opposed to having a
requirement of having food?
Aanenson: I would say most people want to have food. The question is do they want to have
food trucks or do they want to support the existing businesses because if they're in the downtown
area and there is interest in the downtown area. There's quick convenience too. Some people
want to do their own food and some people would take advantage of the existing businesses.
Walters: Just to jump in. I believe some entities are hesitant to also enter the restaurant
business. You know they're.
McGonagill: Sure...
Walters: This is what I do. I am very good at this. I'm not a restaurateur. I might not be
interested in also doing that venture and one of the things that's really appealing about the craft
alcohol production is how it can synergize with existing businesses so I mean everyone we've
ever talked to has said, as Director Aanenson mentioned, they want to make sure food's there
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
because if people leave their establishment to go get food they might not come back. You know
they'd much rather have them stay there. Continue to patronize. Have food brought in so.
McGonagill: So it is conceivable that you could, as part of the licensure process say this is part
of, you've got to show evidence that this is going to be there even through apps. Through some
application. Through something that food is going to be available.
Aanenson: We didn't write it in that way ... but we did not make that a requirement.
McGonagill: But could you is what I'm saying?
Aanenson: If that's something you, the Planning Commission wants to recommend as a part of
this then you could add it too.
McGonagill: Okay thank you.
Aller: Additional comments? Questions at this time. Hearing none I'll open the public hearing
portion of this item. Any individual wishing to come forward and speak for or against or
comment on the item before us, which is craft alcohol production can do so at this time. Seeing
no one come forward I will close the public hearing on the matter and open it up for discussion.
Did you have fun doing your research?
Walters: This was actually a lot of fun for me. I really like.
Aanenson: Can you tell?
Walters: No, not even for the content. I really enjoy going through State Statues and I got to do
a lot of detective work and problem solving and it's the type of stuff I do find rewarding
professionally so yes.
Aller: And I'm sure you found out which brew pubs had different food items from the city.
McGonagill: Some research yeah.
Walters: We had to evaluate the percentage retail component and the best way to do that was
site visits.
Aller: Very good. Well I have been to many open houses here in Chanhassen and I've gone in
and I have always have heard someone in the background, either behind me or in my ear talking
about the potential for having a tap brewery here in Chanhassen and why don't we have one and
it will still be a difficult way forward for the individuals because they'll have to pick the right
property and of course we're looking at downtown's pretty well full up at this point in time and
so you have to kind of relocate so even through we try to do the best we can with a visioning
47
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
process there's a lot of moving parts in that and some are the owners of the property and some
are the people being ready to open or not so we hope for the prefect storm to arrive but in order
to do that we have to be prepared and have the table set for them to come forward so I think this
was a really good thing for us to do at this time. And I think the work that went into it was good.
I think the protection is there with the licenses, both State and we've got enough, enough towns
around us and cities around us that have them that we've seen that they can be done well and
they can be productive and they can energize portions of the city so I would look forward to that
happening here in Chanhassen. Additional comments?
McGonagill: No I concur with what you say. I think this is a great add to the city. I think it can
be a plus. I guess in order to encourage the utilization of other additional local businesses,
particularly the food businesses I would, they don't have to have a restaurant on site but that they
are providing that open to the patrons. Not only to provide the incentive to use local businesses
but also I come back into just the food consumption as an offset to the alcohol intake from a
public safety standpoint so that would be my position.
Aller: So I'll entertain any motion that the commission would like to make.
Randall: I'd like to make a motion.
Aller: Commissioner Randall.
Randall: Move a motion that the Chan Planning Commission recommends that City Council
adopt attached ordinance amendment to Chapters 1, 4, 10, 20 of the City Code.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Weick: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Randall moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1, 4, 10 and 20 of
the City Code regarding craft alcohol production. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
ADULT DAYCARE OI DISTRICT.
Walters: So I'd like to let the commissioners know that I did put a letter of intent on your, as
part of a packet for you that we received from an entity that is interested in operating an adult
daycare as part of a church within our office institutional district. They asked that I distribute it
to you and make you familiar with their interest so you have it and I encourage you to look it
over. It's also available I believe online as a resource for people.
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aller: Great. So for the record it has been received and passed around to the commissioners for
their ingestion that it will be made part of the record and forwarded onto the City Council for
action after this hearing.
Walters: So this one is, as the commission remembers in December we altered the City Code to
expressly permit adult daycares and several churches have expressed an interest in opening adult
daycares as apart of their operations within our office institutional district. This is a district
where we do not permit adult daycares currently. Staff believes that it's an incredibly synergistic
use. The two entities have opposite peak times. It allows for a very effective utilization of
space. Many cities allow their churches to host adult daycares and we are not aware of any
complaints, problems so staff believes it would be appropriate to amend the office institutional
district to list adult daycares as part of a church as a permitted use. And that's about what I have
on this. I'd be happy to take questions.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: So if they did go to a church and the church did not have some of the assistance with
automatic door openings, those sorts of things that elderly might need, would they be required to
do that or not unless they were going to do a remodeling?
Walters: So my under, the way we structured it is they would have to meet the performance
standards which includes State licensure so whatever standards the State has imposed for
received a licensure to have an adult daycare the church would need to meet. I'm afraid I'm.
McGonagill: Licensure requirement.
Walters: Yes there is and they would be required to have that licensure.
Madsen: So they might possibly have to upgrade to meet that requirement.
Aanenson: Yes they would and typically if they need to do building permit then we would, the
building inspections would also follow up in that, which they do with daycares.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Aller: Further questions, comments? Open up the public hearing on this portion. Seeing no one
come forward I'll close the public hearing and I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning adult daycare.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Weick: Second.
Tietz: Second.
Aller: And third.
Weick: I was first for the record.
Randall: He was.
Weick: I was the first second for the record.
Aller: ...any additional comments?
Madsen moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code concerning adult daycare. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
RETAIL PICKUP SIGNAGE.
Walters: So this is in response to the trend that many retailers are beginning to offer customers
an option to buy online and then drive to the store parking lot. Have the goods loaded into their
car and move on. Our city ordinance currently allows for directional signage to be placed on
sites without a permit. Up to 4 directional signs up to 5 feet high. Maximum 4 square feet of
display area. Unfortunately due to the nature of these pick up sites and the fact that they have to
project above parked cars, some of our larger models now are up to I read 6'h feet tall so in
order to bounce above that the current directional signage just, it doesn't really meet the needs of
these businesses so we've looked around and we decided to propose potentially amending the
sign code to allow for directional signage which we call pick-up/drive up signs that met the
needs of these businesses so we'd be proposing a maximum height of 13 feet. Maintain the 4
square feet of display area. Be restricted to big box retailers and grocery stores and I believe the
report goes through the rationale for that with how the parking lots are configured and the car
traffic and why we believe those businesses are best suited for that. So what we're proposing is
allowing this new type of signage to be installed without a permit and having general
performance standards similar to how we treat existing directional signage. I'd be happy to take
any questions. And restaurants are not included in this because they are not, either the big box
retailer or grocery. Usually when they have pick up areas they have either parking spaces
designated in which case the existing 5 foot directional signage is adequate or they have drive
in's in which case they get the menu board signs which are 45 square feet, 8 feet tall and we felt
it'd be redundant to then also let them have on site pick up signage.
50
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aller: Thank you. Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Yes my concern would be the height. You know I go out to some of the big boxes and
the Home Depots, the Menards, the Fleet Farms, everybody has special parking for rental trucks.
They have special parking for this. They have special parking for that. They have you know 10
minute parking if you want to run in and pick up an order that's been arrived at Home Depot. I
guess I don't see the need for up to 13 feet. I think we're just going to create visual clutter in
these parking lots even if it's restricted to numbers. How do you define the number of flags you
get to put up? Is it based on you know like, well we have I guess we have standards for handicap
parking. You know so many stalls per 1,000 square feet and so forth but I don't know, this is
going to be, it's going to have to be close to a door because you're not going to have staff
running halfway across the parking lot to deliver a bag of peanuts or something to someone
that's driving up to pick them up so my big issue is the height and it just seems like we could
create a lot of visual clutter in the parking lots with that. Once you do it you're going to know
where you're going to go. Sorry. Why was it 13 feet? I mean we don't have anything in
parking lots that's 13 feet tall.
Walters: Well I mean lamp posts are obviously.
Tietz: Well.
Walters: Lighting is significantly higher.
Tietz: But that's a necessity.
Walters: So we did look a little bit at industry trends and the two businesses that have either put
these up or requested to put these up in Chanhassen have been between 12 '/2 and 13 feet. So that
is part of the rationale for that number is that seems to be the height people are building these at
and again the reason for that is you know they are set back in the parking lot. What we're seeing
it doesn't look like they have a huge presence from the road. Was the 4 square feet. We don't
believe they could be cooped for advertising very easily and when you do get you know 4 cars
parking around them you do need to peak up above that sometimes 6 foot ceiling so that's kind
of where we're going with the 5 feet on top of that. That was the rationale.
Weick: Can I ask a different question?
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Do we subtract pick up spaces from parking spaces? Because I can't park there if I'm
not picking up. So it's not a parking space.
Aanenson: But you wouldn't be there if you weren't picking up so, I mean you'd be parking.
Someone would be there.
51
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Weick: Yeah but I guess for argument sake if the code or whatever says I need to have 20
parking spaces and I take 5 of them and dedicate them to pick up, I only have 15 parking spaces.
Aller: Plus you have handicap.
Aanenson: But I guess I'd weigh that, there's people coming in and out faster so they're not
taking up a space as long because more people are getting their stuff and moving on as opposed
to parking and going in.
Aller: Right.
Weick: But I'm not there 10 minutes.
Aller: Most 10 minute parking spots are just normal parking spots with a visual 6 foot.
Weick: Yeah just as long as you're not concerned about reducing.
Aanenson: No because we don't have a plethora of those, of the pick up areas and they move
through pretty quickly.
Weick: I mean in other cities, and I will exaggerate to make a point again likely but I have
driven through parking lots not in Chanhassen where there have been you know your 10 minute
quick park. Then there's moms and of course there's the.
Aanenson: We have senior parking here too.
Weick: The required handicap and there's senior. And I swear to you there is less than 25
percent of that parking lot for everyday people like me that want to just park and walk into the
store.
Aller: Well you're getting older every day so.
Weick: 5 years. 5 years and I can do it but until that point, I guess that's the only thing. I seems
like, I worry about the proliferation of specialty parking spaces that you end up looking at a store
and going there's nowhere to park.
Aanenson: I think the bigger issue is meeting today's challenges for retail marketing.
Weick: And I love that.
52
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aanenson: And I will say this, Target's made a great investment in our downtown. Redid that
whole store. It's beautiful and they, people love that pick up, whether you're a senior or a young
person or just some busy person they love it.
Weick: Well that's huge right? So I don't have an issue there.
Aller: My question is, because there's no info graphic here so that I could say this is what I'm
looking at and so I'm concerned that we as a city have put in a lot of time and effort into the
articulation and.
Tietz: Andrew our ceiling is about 12 '/z or 13 feet.
Aller: No I'm just thinking.
Tietz: Well that's how high that sign's going to be.
Aller: Well I understand that...
Tietz: That's why I have a problem.
Walters: If the council will bear with me I can do a Google street view and show you a 13 foot
one.
Tietz: There you go.
Weick: While you're doing that I will, I'll chime in and just say, imagine if that Starbuck's
dental office, what used to be Piata, imagine if each one of those stores added 3, 2 specialty
parking spaces. You literally could not go to those locations.
Aanenson: Let's be clear on those type of restaurants because Applebee's has it. They put it.
Weick: But it's not big box or grocery.
Aanenson: It's not big box or grocery. It's different. So even Byerlys has, you know you drive
underneath to get your groceries there.
Weick: Yes.
Aanenson: So it's those stores. It's going to be Cub who wants one. Target has one.
Weick: No you're right. I retract that.
Aanenson: It's the smaller.
53
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aller: I guess one of my question is should it be a stand alone sign that takes away from their
articulation of the building or perhaps it should be a sign that's on the building saying here's my
spots.
Aanenson: Well that's what they do. In fact we can go back to Target they, you have to be in
the parking lot just outside the door. Those are the designated ones and Cub's going to do the
same thing. They're going to run them out to you.
Weick: And those lots are plenty big.
Aanenson: Yes.
Weick: I mean there's not a concern of parking there so I stand completely.
Aller: You're still getting older.
Weick: I'm in error and I apologize.
Aller: It's big and we spend a lot of time trying to make them presentable so they look good. So
we have a window view and then to have that.
Weick: Oh the sign yeah.
Walters: So due to the zooming in is a little fuzzy but this is looking at what a pick up sign in a
parking spot.
Randall: So is that one 2 feet wide?
Walters: Yep. So the base on that one is 2 feet wide.
Randall: And so that's conforming too with the number of letters and stuff?
Walters: Yep. Yeah I had a, we did some measurements and it conforms to the standards.
Weick: And it's got to be, it's got to be right because it's, you have to be able to read the words.
Yeah I get it.
Aanenson: Right the words are lower ... so it's pretty discreet.
Aller: Very helpful.
54
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Aanenson: And again it's the big box. We're not putting them at restaurants. Yeah because
restaurants do do it but they're on a sign post.
Aller: But it's the post.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Madsen: And limiting it to one per business?
Walters: Yes we are.
Madsen: I thought I saw that? Okay.
Aller: Wait, what?
Walters: It'd be one per business so they wouldn't be able to put 6 of these in their parking lot.
They get one pick up area a sign.
Aanenson: But typically when we put.
Aller: And put 4 stalls... Put you in the right area.
Madsen: Oh it could cover 4 stalls.
Aller: Well it could cover the whole row and they just, but we're going to give them one sign so
that they can find the row with that sign. That's where the people are going to be.
Madsen: Okay.
Weick: I maybe getting tired. As you all noted I'm getting older.
Aller: Well then you can certainly make a motion and move this along.
Weick: I will make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the city code concerning
signs.
Aller: Having a motion, do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
55
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City
Code concerning signs. All voted in favor, except Tietz who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall approved the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 20, 2018 as presented, and the
summary Minutes of the Planning Commission work session meeting dated April 3, 2018 as
presented.
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: So I passed out or included in your packet an article that was written by a planning
commissioner from Chaska just talking about you know the same things we hear here. Why
didn't get a certain restaurant and the like so I thought that may have been of interest. The other
articles I put in, in front of you were, they were sent over from our consultant that we're working
on the downtown vision plan. If you'd take a minute to take those home and read them. They're
kind of interesting. Kind of talking about suburban and downtown. Some of the things that
we're working on. A couple other things before we go through upcoming agendas. Want to talk
about what's going on in town since we haven't met for a little while. So as you notice Mission
Hills is under construction. They're having ground breaking next Monday so I think they're
going to try to get a footing in next week so that's going gang busters. Venue and Aldi's will
start June I'`. They have come in and met with the building department. All their plans are
ready to be issued so they're just doing some housekeeping and they anticipate finishing August
of 2019 so that's the Venue/Aldi project right downtown here. Another big permit that came in
is for the Life Time. Their second corporate office. They had two mirror buildings there so the
second one they put the footings and foundation in and so now they'll complete the rest of that
building so that permit is in now so you'll be seeing that building go up so kind of warm up that
corner there. Also we talked about Target who did a fantastic remodel job and that's now
completed so those of us that don't have to work around storage and trucks out there. And then
Cub is also in for a remodel on their store too so we do anticipate Panera getting, that permit's
ready to be issued. The last thing was a limited use permit for a trail along Highway 5. That was
on the council meeting last Monday but that should be ready to go also so hopefully we'll see
that construction going. There are some other things in the works but we'll share that with you
as we can, maybe your next meeting. So we do have a meeting on June 19`" and yes you do have
two variances on that meeting. So no matter what we do with that roll, it's going to take a little
while to roll out the hard cover so, yeah and we'll also have the transmission line, conditional
use for a couple hundred feet of transmission line. We also have a subdivision with a variance.
It's not for hard cover. It's just for lot width up on Red Cedar. Closer to Minnewashta Parkway
and as of now we're still planning on having a public hearings for the Comprehensive Plan on
the 17a'. We did review that all with the City Council last night where we were with all the
56
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 15, 2018
changes and that's what you saw on your April Yd meeting. Your work session so we're up to
date on that and then actually the good news is that Vanessa's gotten 3 comments back. What
we were worried about is catching up on the watershed district rules so we did get comments
back from 3 of the watershed districts so we just have to incorporate those things into the plan so
I think a lot of those hearings we'll probably spend more time on the stormwater than we will on
the planning. There's just 2 issues that are still ongoing. Those are people that want changes so
we'll talk a little bit more about that. And then last but not least Avienda wanted to get their
grading permit at the City Council, at their next meeting. The City Engineer and the applicant
spent a couple hours with the watershed district today going through all those changes so that,
we're shooting probably for a June date on that. Getting to the watershed district in July so that
grading won't happen til then. We do get a lot of calls on that where the staff says they are
working on it as are we working on that but that's what I have. And we usually do not meet on
July 3'd. People are usually out here having fun so that's where we hope you all are too so we
didn't have a meeting on that date but anything that changes we'll always put in the packet so
that's all I had.
Aller: Awesome. And I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Undestad moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
57
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
MAY 15, 2018
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John
Tietz, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters,
Planner; and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Michael Jaquez 1210 Lake Lucy Road
Bob Swanson 18435 Highway 55, Plymouth
PUBLIC HEARINGS: CODE AMENDMENTS:
BEEKEEPING. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner
McGonagill asked for staff s logic on not requiring fly away barriers, training and setback
requirements, the impact of homeowners association rules, and liability issues. Commissioner
Tietz asked if someone who is a beekeeper can sell hives and other materials for beekeepers.
Commissioner Madsen asked if the City would keep a database of beekeepers in the city.
Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Zbinden, 6460 Bretton Way discussed that
she is an interested beekeeper and has taken the 16 hours of training from the University of
Minnesota. She stated her supports the setback requirements but believes the half acre lot size is
too big, and thinks that having one hive would be okay instead of requiring two hives. Mike
Jacquez with the Minnesota Hobby Beekeepers Association discussed that the State of
Minnesota requires that beekeepers obtain a Certificate from the University of Minnesota and the
habitat needed for beekeeping. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. After comments and
discussion by commission members the following motion was made.
Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission table the beekeeping code
amendment to the next Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PERVIOUS PAVERS. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification on increasing the impervious surface
percentage by 5 percent if pervious pavers are used. Commissioner Tietz asked if the ICPI
standards that staff cited in the report take into account soil types in Chanhassen. Chairman
Aller opened the public hearing. Bob Swanson of Plymouth, being a paving stone contractor,
Planning Commission Summary — May 15, 2018
discussed the technology and design standards associated with pervious paver systems that
address stormwater management. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. After comments
and discussion by commission members the following motion was made.
Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 7 and 20
of the Chanhassen City Code concerning pervious pavement and ask that the City Council
consider the concerns stated by planning commissioners. All voted in favor except
Commissioners Weick, Tietz, and Randall who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of
4to3.
BREWERY ORDINANCE. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Aller asked about the impact on licensing if existing restaurants, producers, sales,
individuals, liquor stores would want to convert or add this type of service. Commissioners
Madsen and McGonagill asked about requiring food service. Chairman Aller opened the public
hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After comments and discussion by
commission members the following motion was made.
Randall moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1, 4, 10 and 20 of
the City Code regarding craft alcohol production. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
ADULT DAYCARE OI DISTRICT. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this
item. Commissioner Madsen asked about accessibility requirements. Chairman Aller opened
the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Madsen moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code concerning adult daycare. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
RETAIL PICKUP SIGNAGE. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner Tietz expressed concern with the recommended height of the proposed signage.
After comments and discussion by commission members the following motion was made.
Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City
Code concerning signs. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Tietz who opposed and
the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall approved the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 20, 2018 as presented, and the
2
Planning Commission Summary — May 15, 2018
summary Minutes of the Planning Commission work session meeting dated April 3, 2018 as
presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson presented an update on actions
taken by the City Council at their February 26, 2018, March 26, 2018 and April 23, 2018
meetings before discussing the future Planning Commission agenda items schedule.
Undestad moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim