PC Minutes 6.5.18Chanhassen 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:
1. 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.
CUP transmission line.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TRANSMISSION LINE: AUDUBON AND LYMAN CUP.
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
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
0 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 transm
the staff felt it met the findings that are required for the conditional use permit. So we are
Sometimes our poles, if yo
-Jaff who worked on this project was
9
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
with tonight is two representatives of Xcel, Brian Sullivan and Gene Kotz are here to answer any
questions that you may have too.
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
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.
school. As you know in front of the high school there is a transmission station there. The
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.
went out.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
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
together and did all the work so maybe we sho
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
he 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
minimize the impa
There were other considerations that we looked at but this seemed to be the least intrusive route
on that. lesale provider
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 li
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
following the lake across or trying to sneak through the neighborhood there and that caused some
issues with just having
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
way down in the hollow down there. Down in the wetland a
that when we start to cross school properties we start to get a lot of people come in and to voice
opposition to that. An
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?
ed everybody
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
so.
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.
wait for somebody to connect and go somewhe
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.
Gene Kotz: Correct. We could not ever expand that anyway because it would require, if we
get a larger easement width so all propertie
McGonagill: Okay.
Gene Kotz: But this will stay at 115 KV.
Aller: Additional comments or questions? Thank you gentlemen.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission June 5, 2018
Brian Sullivan: Thank you.
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:
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.
Aller: Motion carries.
Aanenson: Chairman just wanted to, because we
and those have been upgraded over time and also we are serviced by two electrical districts.
side and on the southern end Minnesota Valley so we have, we did a
anybody remembers that but that was Sharmeen worked on that one too but that also services
going from
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
th
action, this is set for June 25
business.
BEEKEEPING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT.
Walters: Alright so this first came before the Planning Commission during a public hearing on
th
May 15. 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.
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
Edina has
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
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
re contemplating here and I
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
may have.
Aller: Any questions of MacKenzie at this point?
Tietz: Good update.
14