Loading...
D-1. Approval of Planning Commission minutes dated June 5, 2018CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JUNE 5, 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, and Michael McGonagill MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Randall STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Richard Hamblin 340 Sinner Circle Tom Braman 8040 Stevens, Bloomington PUBLIC HEARING: 1110 LAKE SUSAN DRIVE: LOT COVER VARIANCE. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification on how the 25 percent hard cover number was determined. Commissioner Madsen asked if staff had explored other options i.e. pervious pavers. Commissioner Weick asked about the 150,000 square foot lot size in the subdivision. The applicant, Mark Erickson discussed his request to build a shed. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 3 percent lot coverage variance subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. 2. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,157 square feet. All voted in favor, except for Commissioner Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 340 SINNEN CIRCLE: LOT COVER VARIANCE. Planning Commission Summary — June 5, 2018 MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. The applicant Richard Hamblin, 340 Sinnen Circle discussed his proposed garage addition. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Madsen moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5 foot front yard setback variance subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions: The applicant roust apply for and receive a building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSMISSION LINE: AUDUBON AND LYMAN CUP. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item Brian Sullivan with Xcel Energy introduced Gene Kotz with Xcel Energy and Tom Braman with Westwood Engineering before explaining how the route for the transmission line was chosen to service the city of Chaska. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a transmission line to be located south of the intersection of Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard as shown in the attached Exhibit A, Planning Case 18-08, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon final approval of the EA and a resolution declaring no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. BEEKEEPING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification on how the reduction in lot size was determined and the process of notifying neighbors. Commissioner Madsen asked if the City will maintain a list of all the houses with a permit. Commissioner Weick asked about the number of colonies allowed. Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 4, 5 and 20 of the City Code regarding beekeeping. All voted in favor except for Commissioner McGonagill who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Planning Commission Summary — June 5, 2018 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 15, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson provided an update on future Planning Commission agenda items. Commissioner Tietz asked for updates on the Comprehensive Plan and the status of the Avienda grading plan. Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NNE 5, 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, and Michael McGonagill MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Randall STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Richard Hamblin 340 Sinner Circle Tom Braman 8040 Stevens, Bloomington PUBLIC HEARING: 1110 LAKE SUSAN DRIVE: LOT COVER VARIANCE, Walters: Alright this is Planning Case 2018-07. As mentioned if appealed this would go before the City Council on June 25te. The applicant Mark A. and Rebecca L. Erickson are requesting a 3 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a 144 square foot storage shed on their property. The property is located at 1110 Lake Susan Drive. This area is zoned planned unit development residential. Has a minimum of 11,200 square foot lot areas which have 80 foot minimum lot width, 30 foot front and rear setbacks, 10 foot side setbacks and the district is limited to 25 percent lot coverage. The current conditions for the property are, it has an 11,263 square foot lot which has a 76 and change foot lot width. Currently it has a non -conforming 26.8 percent lot cover but it does meet all the district setbacks. The applicant is proposing constructing a 12 foot by 12 foot, so 144 square foot storage shed in the rear of the property. This would increase the lot coverage from 3,013 square feet to 3,157 square feet for a 28 percent so because it does have the existing legal non -conforming when we do the variance we give it for both the non -conforming and the addition. The justification is this is one of the smallest lots in the subdivision. Within the subdivision the largest I could find was 150 square feet and then there are about 10 that are around this 11,200 square foot size. The applicant has noted that about 75 percent of the lots within their subdivision would be entitled to this lot cover under ordinance. The lot is a little substandard in that it does not meet the PUD's minimum lot width and the applicant does not feel that the additional 144 square feet of lot cover will significantly impact either the neighborhood stormwater or aesthetics and it will provide needed storage for lawn care items and other things that help them comply with the City's outdoor storage ordinance. Staff looked it over. We believe that the 25 percent lot cover limit is appropriate for Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 the development. However we do concur with the applicant. Most of the properties within this are well over the .26 acres so that 11,200 square feet. The total amount of hard cover they are proposing for the property as well as the use is both reasonable, and again this would be allowed on most of the other properties within the districts. The Water Resources Coordinator has added a memo which I attached to the report. It was her determination that on a development level as long as the total lot cover remains under 25 percent it shouldn't negatively impact the stormwater maintenance in the area and staff does not believe that the proposed shed would alter the character of the neighborhood and so here I did just kind of put in the regional context for the Chanhassen Hills subdivision. The Lake Susan Hills Preserve is here. Lake Susan and the shoreland are up here and there's quite a bit of green space in here and then Bluff Creek is southeast past Lyman Boulevard. If you have any questions I'd be happy to take them at this time. Aller: Does anybody have any questions based on the report? McGonagill: I just have one MacKenzie and it's more background. Could you enlighten me where the 25 percent came from. I mean the science behind it because I'm, being new to the commission and it would help with that, thank you. Walters: Yeah 25 percent was largely determined, well it's these, it's the bookmark we use for applying the stormwater management is my understanding. If you have. Aanenson: Sure, maybe I'll try to answer that one. So in the 80's when all the subdivisions came in they had to be PUD's so the 30 percent was a change. When they came in at that time they were 25 percent so all subdivisions had to come in as PUD's and the lots, widths are a lot different today than they were put in place then so in some of these older neighborhoods they are much more restrictive and that's true kind of around City Hall here too where there's the little bit smaller lots. McGonagill: Was there historical scientific studies that drove the 25 percent? You know as opposed to 22 or 28. I mean just, it was just a number that. Aanenson: Just a standard. McGonagill: Okay, thanks. Madsen: MacKenzie did you know if there's any opportunity in that lot that they could take action to reduce the lot coverage? I don't know if pervious pavers are an option. I don't know. There's a mention of rock and is there plastic underneath? Is there anything that the homeowner could do? Walters: Yeah looking over that property, one of the reasons why staff is recommending approval is because this isn't a case where they've built a ton accessory uses. You know the rear Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 patio is I believe 6 by 8 feet. You know the sidewalk is not excessive. Arguably a little bit could maybe be shaved off the driveway but probably not enough to make up the difference. This isn't a case where the applicant, you know had constructed a 300 square foot patio and is now trying to do something else and is unwilling to move that so that's one of the things we looked at. In theory you know could the sidewalk or patio be replaced with pavers to create a little bit better stormwater infiltration? Potentially. Madsen: Thank you. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Just on page 4 of 7. The last paragraph. I just, is that a typo where it says lot sizes ranging from 150,000 square feet? Walters: It is not. So without going too deep into the weeds on the history of PUD's, at the time this one created in the mid 80's we didn't have a PUD ordinance like we did now. It only dealt with average lot size and what we let developers do was average lot sizes throughout the entire development. hi this case they appear to have front loaded several properties with very, very large lot sizes. Mostly those within the shoreland overlay near Lake Susan and then use that to get a lot of 11,000 to 12,000 smaller lot sizes but their total lot size average over the 174 unit subdivision ended up being like 14,900 and change but a lot of that was from having two or three very large lots. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay. Hearing none we'll have the applicant come forward if they'd like to make a presentation or discuss their project. Welcome sir. If you could state your name and address for the record that'd be great. Mark Erickson: Yeah, Mark Erickson, 1110 Lake Susan Drive, Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome sir. Mark Erickson: Thank you. Not sure what I can add to it. I did look at reducing the current lot coverage now and I was concerned that there is, well this is the way it was built back in '93 so we haven't changed anything of the coverage since then. Was concerned about that patio in the back. There's a cement pad that's right where the walkout comes. That might be a code type thing that you can't walk out onto grass. It might have to be, really the only thing is the driveway and to get down to that 25 percent, the driveway would have to go down to 15 feet 11 inches wide and the one garage door is 16 feet wide so that's kind. Aller: That makes sense. Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Mark Erickson: Yeah there's really nothing else to take away except the driveway and it'd get down to a two car. Aller: Can you talk about the project itself? The shed. The use for the shed. Mark Erickson: Yeah. Putting a shed in to use the third stall more efficiently. Right now I've got wheelbarrows and lawnmowers and like everybody usually would. If I could get that in there, I've got a boat that I have in the driveway in the summertime. I'd like to wheel that into that third stall and then that goes away in the wintertime and then I could have my daughter's car in there in the winter too to keep it from, well just the snow and the frost and things like that. Little safer to take off when she drives away or well just when she leaves in, during the day in the wintertime. Less scraping things like that so just to use that stall actually for a car instead of stuff that people get all the time. That's the main idea. Aller: Okay, any questions of Mr. Erickson? That's it, thank you sir. Mark Erickson: Yep thank you. Aller: And we'll open up the public hearing portion of this item so anyone wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item before us can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I'm going to close the public hearing and open it up for discussion. Or action. Are you clearing your throat? Undestad: No I'm fine with it. Aller: Yeah I hear reasonable use. I see where it's the smallest lot so it's one of those lots that we look for dealing with variances that it's unique in nature. It's certainly unique to this property as compared to the other units and lots. Even as to the PUD and it's already a non- conforming use but it's not excessive and again as far as the way I try to look at these things, I want to make sure that the people get the value out of their property so the resident can use the property the way it was intended and make it's highest and best use and it sounds like that's what it's being used for in this case so. Additional comments. Questions. Motions. Weick: I'll just make a. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: My vote against. I would just say that hardcover's a percent of lot and in this case we're over. I think the relative size of the accessory structure, although it's relatively small I think that's subjective and so I don't, I'll be voting against only because I just, I don't see anything that would indicate that, I mean from what I understand there's 3 stalls in the garage. just, I don't see hardship and I don't think relative lot size to the rest of the neighborhood is a sufficient hardship. That's just respectfully my opinion. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Aller: Any additional comments? Questions. Mr. McGonagill. McGonagill: I guess I'd like to, yeah I don't see an issue with it. I'd like to encourage the homeowner, if it does be approved to consider, and I was looking at the plot line it has like a 8 foot grade drop from front to back if I read the plot right. Encourage the homeowner, you know consider things like rain gardens and things like that just to help infiltration and help the water quality because that's really what this is about and there are things, you know you know the lot better than I do but as I looked at it I said well maybe you could do something like that. Just as a comment or suggestion to you. Aller: Action, comments? I'll invite a motion. Undestad: I'll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: Alright, the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 3 percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? McGonagill: I'll second it. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 3 percent lot coverage variance subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. 2. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,157 square feet. All voted in favor, except for Commissioner Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aller: The motion carries 5 to 1. Moving onto item 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 340 SINNEN CIRCLE: LOT COVER VARIANCE. Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Walters: Alright this is Planning Case 2018-9. It's the applicant Richard Hamblin for a 5 foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a garage expansion. So the property is 340 Sinnen Circle. This is zoned planned unit development residential. Has a 7,500 square foot lot area. This, the Hidden Valley PUD has a 25 foot front yard setback except for properties located on cul-de-sac which are held to a 30 foot front yard setback. There's a 30 foot rear yard setback and 10 foot side yard setbacks. This planned unit development allows up to 30 percent lot coverage and restricts that to 25 percent within the shoreland overlay district. The current conditions on the property are an 8,500 square foot lot. It has a 61.4 foot width at setback. It currently has 27.1 percent lot coverage and meets the 30 foot front yard setback as well as the 30 foot rear and 10 foot side setbacks. The applicant is proposing extending the front of the garage 5 feet forward to create an additional 112 square feet of storage space. The additional storage space would allow for the indoor storage of 3 cars. I believe the plan is to knock out a wall to the shop to let him double park here and the main justification is that you know the 3 car storage will allow them to not store cars in the driveway. Improve curb appeal. They've noted as I mentioned that the Hidden Valley PUD allows 25 foot setbacks for properties not located on cul- de-sacs and that the proposed expansion will still meet the 10 foot side yard setbacks and it would not exceed the 30 percent lot coverage. The way the properties are configured the expansion 5 feet forward would not in any way impact the view of the neighboring properties. Staff looked over it and I did an assessment of the 69 houses in that section. 69 of the houses in that PUD. Approximately half of the properties within the subdivisions have front yard setbacks between 30 and 25 feet. It is pretty consistent that those on the bulb of the cul-de-sac are held to the 30 foot setback. I reviewed the notes from the original planned unit development and it appears to me that the primary concern was having the 30 foot setback in order to maintain the 10 foot side yard setback. The development had been initially proposed with alternating 10 and 5 foot side yard setbacks and that had been amended to require the 10 feet. So staff believes that since the applicant's proposal will maintain the 10 foot side yard setbacks, won't alter the view scape and since about half the properties in the neighborhood are held to the 25 foot setback standard it's in line with the intent of the PUD ordinance and would not negatively impact surrounding properties or the aesthetics of the neighborhood. I'd be happy to take any questions at this time. Aller: Any questions of staff at this time after the presentation? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: MacKenzie there's a table in the back and it indicates that the garage addition is 15 square feet. Is that because the, that part of the driveway, does it ... with the driveway? Walters: Yes. So I believe you're referring to the hard cover change that would be involved in it, yep. So because it's mostly being built over the existing driveway and the sidewalk, the only new lot cover is going to be this little sliver down in here that's clear of the driveway. And again even with that bump up he's going to be under the 30 percent he's allowed under the ordinance. Madsen: Okay so that's why you only use 15 for the garage addition rather than the 112 square feet. Z Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Walters: Yep. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Any additional questions? Hearing none we'll invite the applicant up. If you could state your name and address for the record please. Richard Hamblin: Yes, Richard Hamblin, 340 Sinnen Circle here in Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome Mr. Hamblin. Richard Hamblin: Hi. He had mentioned the intent was to knock out a wall to my workshop area there. There is no wall between the garage and that currently so I measured it and I currently have to, I've got 3 cars so I currently have to leave one in the driveway. If I could add 5 more feet there would be room on the left side to put nose to tail so I'd have two on one side and one of the other so I could get all 3 in there so that would help as far as the way it looks. As far as the clutter of the neighborhood and so forth so I think it would be a good deal. And plus I wouldn't have to scrape windows like we mentioned earlier so that'd be nice too. As far as I know I'm not encroaching in anybody's space. I'm not encroaching in anybody's views or detracting from anybody's property values or the aesthetics of their homes and I've checked with my neighbors and nobody has an issue. They all said yeah, fine. Go for it. Looks fine. And from the street if you were looking right at it, after the addition goes on you wouldn't tell the difference. And one more thing I wanted to point out is, all the documentation says the front yard setback is 30 feet. The driveway from the curb to the front door is 50 feet. Now I guess there's some other thing with lots that I don't understand but the driveway is 50 feet long so if I add 5 feet I'm still 45 feet from the street. So I just wanted to make everybody aware of that. Aller: Great thank you. Do you want to for the record just to go ahead and address that issue? Walters: Just to clarify. That cul-de-sac was platted and there's 20 feet of public right-of-way between the curb and then the start of the applicant's property line so that's where that discrepancy comes from. Aller: Any questions of the applicant at this point? Seeing none thank you. Richard Hamblin: Okay. Aller: I'll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Any individual wishing to speak either for or against this request can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing. Open it up for discussion or action by the commissioners. Commissioner Weick. Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Weick: Yeah I was just going to say for me it really just comes down to it's right into the variance on the setback and on page 4 of 6 in the fust paragraph the analysis, I think it's a pretty nice job by MacKenzie to say the original intent of the increased setbacks for properties on cul- de-sacs was to insure sufficient lot width at building setback and since this is already, this is going to meet post construction, it's going to still meet that lot width requirement to me makes this a valid, a valid request and a valid variance. I'd be approving it. Aller: Great. And I am looking at it that the coverage is not an issue in this matter so that works as well and I think it sounds like it should have been marketed as a two car garage with a bonus room but we might have a 3 car garage now. Tietz: Chairman Aller? Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Just a question and kind of point of clarification for MacKenzie. The diagram that you show shows the driveway going right straight up to the entrance to the garage yet on site and in the image that you have on page 4 it appears that the driveway is wider to accommodate the width of 3 cars in parking. Was that taken into consideration in your evaluation? Walters: Yeah I agree that it seems to be a little wider than it is in the diagram. I requested that the applicant field measure the driveway width and submit those numbers. While I did not go out and personally you know verify. I believe from looking at the aerials and rough calculating it that the numbers he submitted for the lot coverage are correct. And that's something that he'll have to demonstrate and he does still have some flexibility even if it's a little above because we aren't granting a variance for lot coverage. Tietz: Thank you. Aller: Additional questions or comments. I'll invite a motion at this time. Madsen: I'll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5 foot front yard setback variance subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions. Aller: I have a valid motion. Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any further discussion or comment? Madsen moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5 foot front yard setback variance subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions: The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Motion carries. And we'll move onto item number 3 regarding the Audubon and Lyman CUP transmission line. PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSMISSION LINE: AUDUBON AND LYMAN CUP. Aanenson: That's mine. Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This is an application by Xcel Energy. We do require a conditional use permit for certain wattage of electricity in excess so this is a conditional use. Want to go to the next page. So this will also go to the Planning Commission regardless of how you vote on this tonight. So the location is south of the intersection of Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard. You can see the larger area on the left and the portion in Chanhassen is a little over 700 feet. That is that area in red that is covered by the line itself. Can you go to the next slide. So the proposed transmission line consists of constructing approximately yeah, 1.5 mile long, double circuit, 115 voltage, kilovolts, am I saying that right? There you go. Transmission line and suspended over 18 overhead structures. Two of those would be within Chanhassen so because of the voltage that is on there does require a conditional use. Because this is a larger project this does require, as the applicant has done, the environmental assessment document so there was hearings held on that and some Chanhassen residents did attend that so they've been informed of the process. Again we're, we partnered with Chaska on this and let them be the LGU. The government authority because of a majority of that is within Chanhassen. So they are following that. The process for the closing of the, I think there's 10 more days, working days after the project to take additional comments. Am I right on that? Audience: Correct. Aanenson: Yeah about 10 more days so people still have the right to comment on that but this is a conditional use will then catch up to that by the time we get through. So with that we did the conditional use permit findings. Again because of the transmission lines there it's the upgrade, the staff felt it met the findings that are required for the conditional use permit. So we are recommending approval. Again the poles will be not colored. Consistent with what's out there. Sometimes our poles, if you look on Highway 5 they're the blue. These will be the kind of the more rustic look that's out there but with that Sharmeen Al-Jaff who worked on this project was Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 actually at the neighborhood meeting and was able to talk to Chanhassen residents that were there so we are recommending approval of the conditional use permit and then also the Findings of Fact and Decision so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Also with tonight is two representatives of Xcel, Brian Sullivan and Gene Kotz are here to answer any questions that you may have too. Aller: Great, thank you. So again this is one of those great reports and it's also involves cross communication and cooperation with other entities which is always helpful. Our portion here is very small but in looking at it it appears that the report has hit all the required findings. Are there any, it looks like that they're all met. Are there anywhere you would consider them to be close and should be examined? Aanenson: No. Aller: Any other questions of staff? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Kate it appears that this transmission line is in a commercial area. Aanenson: Correct. Madsen: And there's no neighborhoods directly touching it. Aanenson: That's correct. If you can go back to that one map. So we're on the industrial park there so it kind of, it does go by the high school but it's on the other side of the street of the high school. As you know in front of the high school there is a transmission station there. The Chaska transmission station and then it does follow down into Chaska's industrial park but yes, it's, it's either institutional or industrial. Madsen: So if, were there any notices sent out to any neighborhoods? Aanenson: Yeah it was all within 500 feet. Madsen: Just the standard 500 feet that we normally do. Aanenson: Yeah I'll let the applicant from Xcel talk about how big their notice was and that may have been that red map that showed how big. I'll let them answer how far their notices went out. Madsen: Okay thank you. Aller: Great. Based on that question are there any other questions? Hearing none we'll invite the applicant to come forward and make their presentation. Perhaps you can hit that issue right off the bat after you state your names and addresses and representational capacities. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Brian Sullivan: Yeah this is Brian Sullivan with Xcel Energy and I have Gene Kotz here also and Tom Braman is with Westwood Engineering. He's the one that actually pulled the report together and did all the work so maybe we should give him some... Aller: So you hide him in the back and you get to speak. Brian Sullivan: Yeah exactly. You know we just want to claim all the fame and glory I can here. Not really but, so on the notices I believe we sent out to 500 feet within the route there and part of the route, part of the reasoning for the route was we wanted to stay away from residential areas as much as possible and so the route was on the side of Lyman Boulevard that was on, that goes up to the railroad tracks and it's on the south side of the railroad tracks until we hop over into, hop over the railroad tracks at Lyman at the light there and then into the new substation there so we're trying to be mindful of the neighborhood and the community and trying to minimize the impacts to everybody around so that's part of what that route was about there. There were other considerations that we looked at but this seemed to be the least intrusive route on that. The transmission line is requested by the City of Chaska. We're the wholesale provider to the City and so as that we're required to provide them with electricity and we've been working with the City of Chaska. The City of Chanhassen and Chaska have been talking back and forth, back and forth, back and forth and so we feel like we've had some pretty good communications between all the groups and you know with that I guess I'd leave it open to any questions you might have. Aller: I know the answer but this is for the general public who are watching and of course they should also know that these reports are again on our website so that you can review these and follow the item to final action with the City Council but were other sites and routes examined and considered? Brian Sullivan: Yeah we looked at, we looked at 3 or 4 other routes. One was to, well and some of them it's all kind of intuitive. We looked at going down Audubon towards the lake and then following the lake across or trying to sneak through the neighborhood there and that caused some issues with just having, the transmission line against the lake isn't, just didn't seem like a good use of that there. Not only the environmental issues but the view shed issues there for that. We looked at going on the other side of Lyman but, and Gene can talk about the engineering issues but there's a lot of engineering issues to get around the substation and we got to tap into the line way down in the hollow down there. Down in the wetland area there's difficulty getting down there and all that and then plus we're going across school property and we've learned in the past that when we start to cross school properties we start to get a lot of people come in and to voice opposition to that. And the other option was to follow the railroad tracks. I'm losing my sense of direction. I guess that'd be on the north and east and tap in the line there but then again we are flying over either the top of the school property or flying through the back yards of neighbors and those seemed less reasonable also. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Aller: Sounds like you also had some communication with the public and open houses. How did those discussions go? Brian Sullivan: The open houses we had, we've had an open house where we invited everybody in and we had 3 or 4. We didn't have a lot of people, a lot of people showed up. Mr. Degler showed up and some of the other residents in the area showed up and some were there just out of interest to see what was going on and some people were concerned about the location of it but hopefully we answered the questions as best we can so it wasn't, it wasn't pitchforks and torches so. So anyway that's, it went fairly well. Aller: Any additional questions? Mr. McGonagill. McGonagill: So on the, any other spurs or extensions planned off of this line to go to other substations or growth or is this just tying two nodes together and this is it? Gene Kotz: This is a circuit that is called an in and out capture where, Mr. McGonagill? McGonagill: Yes. Gene Kotz: Is that correct? Yeah it's an in and out tap where it goes out. It ends back where it started because it has to be, it's a looped type of configuration to where it just doesn't go out and wait for somebody to connect and go somewhere else. It's only to that point and back so there's no expansion for the future. McGonagill: Will there be any additional wires run to up the load do you think or is it just this? Gene Kotz: No. McGonagill: I mean this is all you'll ever do is a 115 KV and that's it. Gene Kotz: Correct. We could not ever expand that anyway because it would require, if we went higher in voltage it would require a much larger permitting process as well as we'd have to get a larger easement width so all properties would be affected which, that's a no start so we can't do that. McGonagill: Okay. Gene Kotz: But this will stay at 115 KV, McGonagill: And that's it. Just this is the route and this is the route, okay thank you. Aller: Additional comments or questions? Thank you gentlemen. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission—June 5, 2018 Brian Sullivan: Thank you. Aller: At this point in time we'll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Any individual wishing to speak either for or against the item before us can do so at this time. Seeing no one come up we will close the public hearing. Open it up for discussion and/or motion. Another complete report. Undestad: Then I will make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow a transmission line to be located south of the intersection of Audubon and Lyman Boulevard, Planning Case 18-08 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tietz: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion or comment? Undestad moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a transmission line to be located south of the intersection of Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard as shown in the attached Exhibit A, Planning Case 18-08, and subject to the following conditions: Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon final approval of the EA and a resolution declaring no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Motion carnes. Aanenson: Chairman just wanted to, because we don't do these too often I just want to remind everybody, we do have high tension power lines that run along Highway 5 that's serving the city and those have been upgraded over time and also we are serviced by two electrical districts. Xcel's on the north side and on the southern end Minnesota Valley so we have, we did a substation down by Gedney Pickles where we were the LGU on that one. I don't know if anybody remembers that but that was Sharmeen worked on that one too but that also services going from the south so we do some experience and Sharmeen's very knowledgeable and worked with Xcel on this one so I think we got all of our questions answered ahead of time but I appreciate the questions that you asked so make sure those got on the public record so thank you. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Aller: Okay thank you. Okay and again those individuals wishing to follow this item to final action, this is set for June 25' which is a Monday two weeks hence. And we'll move onto old business. BEEKEEPING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT. Walters: Alright so this first came before the Planning Commission during a public hearing on May 15`s. It was tabled and staff was directed to investigate allowing on smaller lots and to investigate the possibility of requiring a permit and including a neighbor notification component to that permit. So this is staffs revisions of the initial proposed ordinance. This is a little bit more on the public hearing. Some of the questions that had been asked by the Planning Commission was impact to bees on pure cities. I did a little detective work. Not as much as I would have liked in terms of answers but Carver and Chaska allow without any regulations so long as they're not a nuisance. Victoria and Waconia are agricultural only for surrounding cities. Edina has an ordinance that's very similar to what you're considering today. Unfortunately their animal control officer was not in when I called so I don't know if they've had any complaints or difficulties with the smaller lot size. I was able to talk to the folks over in Shorewood. They allow up to 4 hives on lots without concern for lot size. The planner there was not aware of any complaints although she did mention they require 75 percent of the neighbors to consent so that would weed out a lot of potential concerns on that front. But she said they hadn't been contacted with any concerns and they allow them on any size lot. So the other two points we mentioned was using the permit as a way to guarantee that neighbors are notified and for the City to verify that potential beekeepers have been trained. To the best of my ability to find out there isn't any industry agreed upon minimum lot size that you need for bees. You know as I mentioned they're allowed in urban environments with much smaller lots than we're contemplating here and I couldn't find significant reports of problems with that. So just to kind of summarize the public comments we heard during the public hearing. The general was support for the ordinance but again it was felt that the half acre was unnecessarily restrictive. Individuals had indicated they were willing to go through a permitting process especially if it was coupled with allowing smaller lot sizes and it was also observed that back yard beekeeping should not be considered or regulated like the agricultural practice because these scales are different. Beyond that this is essentially the same ordinance that was brought before you. The main changes are as mentioned. We moved from the half acre minimum to a third acre and then staff is proposing requiring a one time permit with a $25 fee and we would use that to verify that the applicant had contacted their neighbors. That they had received 16 hours of training. Had the minimum lot size or placing the colonies within the required 25 foot setbacks and were meeting the density requirements that we'd be establishing. This is a recap of what I just said. With that I'll take any questions you may have. Aller: Any questions of MacKenzie at this point? Tietz: Good update. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Walters: Thank you_ McGonagill: As always MacKenzie I've got some. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: I've got, if it's okay I have four. Just go through them if that's okay. One is just on the, you went down from a half acre to a third. Just due to the public comment is that why you went down? Walters: Largely due to that. The reason why we settled on a third acre is because most of the third acre properties can accommodate the 25 foot setback which we do feel is important to guarantee the bees are flying high enough. And the third acre also corresponds roughly to the 15,000 square foot which is the base minimum lot size for our RSF district so we felt that was a pretty equitable cut off point. When you get into our smaller lots, a lot of them would struggle to meet the 25 foot setback and there is still a little bit of discomfort with the idea of putting them in the very small districts. Townhouse, you know, so that's the reason why we dropped to the third. McGonagill: Okay thanks. The next three are really about process and it's really with the neighbors. How we imagine this working and so I'm just going to kind of go through some, a couple, three questions and you can say kind of if this would work. They inform their neighbors but let's say a neighbor doesn't want this, what's the process they go through? Can they go through anything? I mean the way I read this is somebody wants to do this, it says I've informed them but it's not, if the neighbor objects do you follow what I'm asking? Walters: Yep. The way it's written they're required to have a conversation with their neighbor and inform them of what they're intending to do but we are not giving the neighbor veto power over their ability to have bees. If the individual was keeping bees in a way that constituted a nuisance then the City would take action to a complaint and would revoke the permit and we put provisions in there to allow us to do that. However if they inform their neighbor and if they're being a responsible beekeeper and following every aspect of the ordinance, if the bees are not serving as a nuisance the bees would be there. McGonagill: So a follow up with that particular question. You did not choose to go with the 75 percent approval level like you mentioned Edina has. Why was that? Walters: I suppose some of it is philosophical preference. I become somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of somebody else being able to veto another person's property rights. I think another potential issue you have there is if you require neighbor consent what do I do if my neighbor who didn't care for 20 years moves away and a new couple moves in strenuously objects. Do I then revoke the bee permit because they no longer have neighbor approval so. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 McGonagill: In fact that was one of my questions. My last question is how does this work when let's say, let's just jump to that question. How would it work if that did occur? House sells next door. They happen to have a child for example that's allergic and they're strongly opposed to beekeeping. What is the process that new neighbor can, maybe if they move in in the winter and don't even know there's bees there. You know I mean they just, how does that work for that neighbor to be sure they have a voice let's say? Walters: There is not as currently written a provision that would allow them to take action to remove the bees as long as the bees were being kept within the bounds of the ordinance. At a certain point one would hope people would be mindful and sympathetic and respectful and work with each other to minimize those issues. But yeah it's difficult to create an equitable system. McGonagill: If the bees become a nuisance, this is my last question. If the bees become a nuisance what's the process? It's a perceived nuisance. You know someone doesn't like them. Maybe they've gotten stung or someone says I don't want them anymore. What is the process the neighbor can follow to raise the awareness with the City, how does that work? Walters: The same as any other code enforcement. Individuals call, well me daily to be honest with you know my neighbor's doing this. I don't believe it's permitted by the zoning code. We do an inspection. That's part of the permit process is that we're given the power to inspect. We'd observe the conditions with the hive. The reports. We did structure the ordinance in such a way that even compliance with it is not a defacto defense against it being found a nuisance so if we go out there and there are lots of bees all over the neighbor's property and it's reasonable in our opinion that yes this is a nuisance. Yes this is not as it should be, we would then have the authority to revoke the permit. McGonagill: And it'd be by staff. Wouldn't have to come to the Planning Commission or anybody like that. Walters: It would be a staff decision. Under city ordinance any staff determination could be appealed to the City Council so if you know I found Director Aanenson's bees to be a nuisance and she felt I was as staff wrong she could appeal to the City Council and they would review the matter. Aanenson: And I would say that sometimes too you have neighborhood disputes over something other and it becomes, you know now your dog's bothering me so we deal with these all the time so really the nuisance is the best way to do it. We may make the interpretation of a nuisance. It gives an opportunity for someone to appeal it and give you know factual data so we think the nuisance is the best way to go. When you're buying a home you don't know a lot of things about the property and how it's being used next door so we think if they're being respectful and following the standards that are placed that it should be doable. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 McGonagill: So that's how they would handle it if there was a child, an allergic child they would just know that and work through the process? Aanenson: Well they could call and say you know as long as the bees aren't bothering but they could certainly let us know that they want to make sure it's being watched but yeah, the reason we built it that way is, it's a time issue too. We're not going to drive around every year and check them all. You know it's how we handle a lot of things. On complaints. On outdoor storage and the like. It's complaint based. McGonagill: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. That's my questions. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: When someone applies for a permit and they get the permit, will you maintain a list of all the houses with a permit? So let's say a family wants to move in and a member of the family has a severe allergy, you could at least look and say these are the people who have applied for a permit in the past. Walters: Yep we keep records of everything. Madsen: Okay. So they could avoid it you know if they check with you. Walters: Yep. Madsen: Okay thank you. Aller: Additional questions, comments, concerns. Aanenson: Let me just follow up with that question too. I think what we would do too is just kind of track, and we could give you a report back. You know how many we've got. You know just kind of, just monitor it just so you could see. You know in the first years what the response rate is and how many we have. McGonagill: That'd be good. Weick: Is there a colony limit? I'm sorry, I'm missing that. Walters: Yep there is. I buried it in the ordinance. I believe we are proposing 2 colonies for properties under I acre. I believe we do 4 colonies for 1 acre to 2'/2 acres. And then we do 8 colonies for 2 'h to 10 acres and no limit for 10 acres or higher because at that point it could very well be agricultural land. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Aller: Alright. Any additional questions? Comments. We don't need to have a public hearing. We've already had one which was quite extensive. In fact one of the issues that I remember was, one of the presenters during the public hearing the last time who I thought was very knowledgeable on the subject was talking about the fact that you could have a number of bees on the property. It seemed like it would be satisfactory at that point based, and so I think this limitation is certainly reasonable to have as a, almost as a prophylactic protector in making sure that we don't over do it. Weick: I mean I'm in general, I would support even more colonies. I would support smaller lot sizes but I appreciate the hours of work that have been put into this so I'm totally in favor of the way... Aanenson: Well I think what we'd like to do is start and see how it goes. Weick: Right. Aanenson: Then if things are working well in a couple years we could re-examine it and see how it's working so. Weick: Yeah, I think we've gotten to a point where we can at least vote on something. Aller: That being said. Weick: I'd love to. Aller: I'll entertain a motion. Weick: If there's no other comment. I don't want to cut off anybody. Aller: Any additional comments? Hearing none. Weick: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapters 4, 5, and 20 of the Chanhassen city code concerning beekeeping. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 4, 5 and 20 of the City In Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Code regarding beekeeping. All voted in favor except for Commissioner McGonagill who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aller: The motion carries 5 to 1. And then I don't have but will this be forwarded on the 25'? Aanenson: The 25`h yes so everybody's tracking. Aller: So this item would also go before the, at the City Council on Monday, June 25`h at their next June meeting. So those individuals wishing to follow that please take a look at the website and you can see the actual reports and follow along as they discuss the item on that date or come on down and have a visit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 15, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: We'll move onto administrative presentations. City Council action updates. Aanenson: The Planning Commission hasn't had much on for the City Council so there are no updates for that but I do want to kind of go through a schedule. We do have a subdivision variance which means that they're subdividing a piece of property and there's a deficiency so the subdivision variance is a little bit different than our typical variance standards so you'll see that. That's the only thing we have on for the June 19'h. We may put some other discussion ones on there but I'll let you know. July 3`d we typically do not have a meeting because it falls right before the 4th of July so whenever that meeting falls it's typically people are traveling. It's hard to get a quorum so we will not have a meeting then. But July 17`h we are still planning on having the Comprehensive Plan public hearing and Avienda PUD. I'm not sure that will be on that one or later. We're also working for a site plan review for Control Concepts and that's actually in the park where Life Time Fitness is so that's going on. And then there may be another large residential property that we might do a concept review on too so if I see that that application comes in so all of a sudden we've got a few things coming in here the next little bit. We're working on some other smaller subdivisions. Those are almost trickier than some of the larger ones. Little bit more complex when you're doing infill developments so we'll keep you posted of that. You can see some of those up above. We've talked about the Beehive expansion. That would be that third phase so that's an idea but some of these other subdivisions. You may get a chance to see those others and that, that's all I had. Oh maybe just give you an update on what's going on. The Venue should be ready to start maybe next Monday of tearing down that building. The apartment building so if you had gone by Mission Hills, that's under construction. They had a ground breaking out there so that's underway, moving a lot of dirt out there. Someone's working, I think I mentioned on Powers Ridge. That last building out there and the apartments 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 off of Powers Boulevard. Don't know much yet when Panera will start but they should be ready to go. Taking down the old hotel there yep, and so yeah some changes going on. And everybody's asking me what's going to Applebee's. Applebee's closed. Do not know so be a surprise I guess so yeah things are going on. On in town so that's all I had Chairman. Aller: Thank you. Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah I'd like to, Kate I have a couple questions or MacKenzie, just an update. There is some land use changes proposed sometime back. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: That'd be part of the comp plan. What's the status of that? Will we see that again? Aanenson: Yes you will. Yep. So we'll, I'm actually walking one of the properties tomorrow with Jill, the Forester and Park and Rec Director. Tietz: That's down at, which one? Aanenson: Off of Powers Boulevard. Tietz: Yeah. Aanenson: There's another off of 101. We'll probably still have our same recommendation on the 101. Just in case you didn't hear we got money in the bonding bill for, we talked a little bit about that for the bottom of 101 so they're working on getting that upgraded but we have a lot of stuff between, one of the things that you talked about I believe Commissioner Tietz was that we work on the infill before we continue to go down so we believe there's enough development here for the next 5, 7, 10 years. Someone can always ask for a land use amendment in the future but right now we feel that we've got enough in the current municipal service area so, because anything else beyond what we would do obviously we'd provide sewer and water with the construction of 101. The piping but we need another lift station to develop anything further south so we've got quite a bit of capacity left within the current MUSA area. Tietz: Good. Aanenson: But you will see those when we have the meeting on the 17' Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: Yes in more detail. Tietz: But the position of staff remains consistent? 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Aanenson: The same. Tietz: The same. Aanenson: Yep, yep, yep. Tietz: We'll just hold on that because there was that. Aanenson: We'll go through those in detail because I think there was... Tietz: Alright, that was part of the, that will be part of July? Aanenson: I think everything else except for one of the water resources, you'll see a little bit more detail on the four different districts of what their expectations are for our plans to come together so you'll see more detail on that but I think the rest of the housing study, all that has not really changed. We've changed the font and some of the graphics but, and we'll go through that in summary but none of that has changed. I think the loose end was really the land use and then where we were with the water resources on the four different watershed districts combining to make sure we're, and once we get done with that you're going to see a lot of code amendments too for bringing our code in alignment and the tool for that is the zoning ordinance so we'll see some changes on that. Tietz: Okay and then one other question. The grading plan for Avienda, what's the status of that? Aanenson: Oh my gosh. Tietz: Sorry. Aanenson: No, I get asked that by the residents, it's very frustrating. Paul just told me today that their application has been accepted by the watershed district. I just found that out this morning. Thank you for asking that question. So right now we have it scheduled to go to the City Council on June 25' for their grading permit. All things being completed so right now that's when we believe we can have it on so we're the closest we've been on that. And just to remind everybody with that application we will approve the PUD as was preliminary platted. They're going to come back and do a PUD amendment and that's what I have a place holder. They're working through changes on some of the designs. Some of the uses have changed. We showed this to the City Council. There'll be an increase in the number of residential units and they're working with some other people looking at some of the design changes which I think you will find good. Trying to reduce some of those large parking lots. Pushing the buildings closer to, you know so it's more walkable so those will be the PUD changes and you'll see those and we reworked the sign ordinance. We've got that all figured out now so the Planning 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission — June 5, 2018 Commission will also comment on that too so you will see a more formalized, detailed presentation on all the changes but you will have to make a recommendation to the City Council on that. The grading permit will just be on consent with the preliminary plat as you approved it but it's not their intent to go forward but they need to approve the PUD to get the right-of-way approved so they're just approving it in outlots with the right-of-way dedication, if that makes sense. Tietz: And the grading plan then dictates how stormwater's going to be treated. Aanenson: Exactly. Tietz: So we should be comfortable that the stormwater will be satisfied with approval by council. Aanenson: Right and that was some of the wrinkles. Tietz: Yeah. Aanenson: You know as the buildings moved around where can they put temporary ponding and how's that all going to work and that's, there was just a lot of heavy lifting on the engineering there so. Tietz: Cool, thanks Kate. Aanenson: Yeah, you're welcomed. Thanks for asking. Aller: Any other additional great questions for Kate? Alright hearing one I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 22