The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2019, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.CALL TO ORDER B.OLD BUSINESS C.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow Boarding Kennels in Industrial Office Park Districts 2.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Bring Tree Diversity Standards in Line with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan 3.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow for the Designation of Alternate Front Yards D.NEW BUSINESS E.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 19, 2019 2.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated March 5, 2019 3.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated April 2, 2019 F.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS G.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.City Council Action Update H.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT J.OPEN DISCUSSION NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONTUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2019, 7:00 PMCITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.CALL TO ORDERB.OLD BUSINESSC.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow Boarding Kennels in Industrial OfficePark Districts2.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Bring Tree Diversity Standards in Line withthe 2040 Comprehensive Plan3.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow for the Designation of Alternate FrontYardsD.NEW BUSINESSE.APPROVAL OF MINUTES1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 19, 20192.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated March 5, 20193.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated April 2, 2019F.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONSG.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS1.City Council Action UpdateH.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSIONI.ADJOURNMENTJ.OPEN DISCUSSIONNOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does notappear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulledfrom consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Subject Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow Boarding Kennels in Industrial Office Park Districts Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate Planner File No: PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapters 1, 5, and 20 of the City Code concerning boarding kennels.” BACKGROUND Staff has been contacted by multiple entities interested in finding a location for a pet daycare within Chanhassen; however, very few zoning districts within the city permit these businesses, and all of these are designed to be phased out. RECOMMENDATION Numerous businesses have inquired about the possibility of opening a pet daycare within the city; however, there is a scarcity of sites available that can accommodate the use. Additionally, the zoning districts that allow pet daycares either permit them as interim uses, which require that a date or event of termination be established, or will be rezoned to other uses that do not permit pet daycares once sewer and water service becomes available. Staff has examined how other cities regulate these uses and evaluated the impact of the city’s existing pet daycares, and believes that these types of facilities could be accommodated within the city’s industrial office park district. When these facilities do not have outdoor areas, the performance standards and review processes associated with a permitted use will allow the city to address potential noise and odor nuisances; however, when these facilities have outdoor areas, the review process and ability to impose conditions associated with a conditional use permit (CUP) will allow the city to address the heightened potential for these facilities to create noise and odor nuisances. See the attached staff report for a full analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, April 16, 2019SubjectAmendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow Boarding Kennels in Industrial Office ParkDistrictsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment toChapters 1, 5, and 20 of the City Code concerning boarding kennels.”BACKGROUNDStaff has been contacted by multiple entities interested in finding a location for a pet daycare within Chanhassen;however, very few zoning districts within the city permit these businesses, and all of these are designed to be phasedout.RECOMMENDATIONNumerous businesses have inquired about the possibility of opening a pet daycare within the city; however, there is ascarcity of sites available that can accommodate the use. Additionally, the zoning districts that allow pet daycares eitherpermit them as interim uses, which require that a date or event of termination be established, or will be rezoned to otheruses that do not permit pet daycares once sewer and water service becomes available. Staff has examined how other cities regulate these uses and evaluated the impact of the city’s existing pet daycares, andbelieves that these types of facilities could be accommodated within the city’s industrial office park district. When thesefacilities do not have outdoor areas, the performance standards and review processes associated with a permitted usewill allow the city to address potential noise and odor nuisances; however, when these facilities have outdoor areas, thereview process and ability to impose conditions associated with a conditional use permit (CUP) will allow the city toaddress the heightened potential for these facilities to create noise and odor nuisances.See the attached staff report for a full analysis. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Chanhassen Commercial Kennel Standards Kennel License Standards Other Cities' Standards OITY O[ OIIAI'IHASSII'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner April 16,2019 Boarding Kennels in Industrial Office Park (IOP) PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapters 1, 5, and20 of the City Code concerning boarding kennels." ISSUE Staff has been contacted by multiple entities interested in finding a location for a pet daycare within Chanhassen; however, very few zoningdistricts within the city permit these businesses, and all ofthese are designed to be phased out. SUMMARY Numerous businesses have inquired about the possibility of opening a pet daycare within the city; however, there is a scarcity of sites that can accommodate the use available. Additionally, the zoning districts that allow pet daycares either permit them as interim uses, which require that a date or event of termination be established, or will be rezoned to other uses that do not permit pet daycares once sewer and water service becomes available. The city does have one pet daycare, permitted as a "pet kennel", operating within an office/industrial planned unit development. Staff has examined how other cities regulate these uses and evaluated the impact of the city's existing pet daycares, and believes that these types of facilities could be accommodated within the city's industrial office park district. When these facilities do not have outdoor areas, the performance standards and review processes associated with a permitted use will allow the city to address potential noise and odor nuisances; however, when these facilities have outdoor areas, the review process and ability to impose conditions associated with a conditional use permit (CUP) will allow the city to address the heightened potential for these facilities to create noise and odor nuisances. PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chan hassen.mn.us . FX 952.227. I I I 0 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: 77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX l4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 553I7 Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP April 16,2019 Page2 RELEVANT CITY CODE Sec. 1-2 - Defines what constitutes a commercial kennel' Sec. 5-16 to Sec. 5-107 - Establishes standards for keeping animals, especially those that govern kennels and stables. Commercial kennels and stables must meet these standards to receive a CUP. Sec. 13-1 to Sec. 13-54 - Establishes what constitutes a nuisance and how the nuisance ordinance shall be enforced. Sec. 20-23 | to 20-237 - Establishes the process and general standards for issuing conditional use permits. Sec. 20-320 to 20-323 - Establishes the process and general standards for issuing interim use permits. sec. 20-255 - Establishes standards for issuing an interim use permit for a commercial kennel, stable, or riding academy in the RR or A-2 district' Sec.20-2g7 - Establishes standards for issuing a conditional use permit for a commercial kennel or stable in the BF district. Sec. 20-576 - Lists commercial kennels, stables, and riding academies as interim uses in the A-2 district. Sec. 20-596 - Lists commercial kennels and stables as interim uses in the RR district. Sec.20-773 - Lists commercial kennels and stables as conditional uses in the BF district' ANALYSIS Issue 1: Overview of Existing Ordinances Facilities that offer pet boarding services fall under the city's definition of a commercial kennel' Commercial kennels are classified as conditional uses within the city's Fringe Business (BF) district and as interim uses within the city's Agricultural Estate (A-2) and Rural Residential (RR) districts. In order to receive a conditional use permit (CUP) or an interim use permit (IUP), an application needs to meet both the city's g".r.ruf"orditions for these permits as well as use specific requirements. These p".-it. iquire a public hearing before the Planning Commission where the applicant must demonstrate thaitheir use meets the city's requirements, and during which the .ity "un impose reasonable conditions that it deems necessary to mitigate the potential negative Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP April 16,2019 Page 3 impacts of the use on nearby uses. The requirements for commercial kennels differ significantly depending on if they are located in the BF or A-2IRR districts. The fulllist of requirements is provided"as an attachment; however, both sets of requirements are designed to ensure that noise, waste, and traffic generated by the kennel are properly managed and accounted for. Staff conducts annual inspections of businesses with conditional and interim use permits to ensure that they are complying with their permit's conditions. Conditional Use permits and IUPs are tied to the parcel and use and not to the particular business. This means that were a business operating under a CUP or IUP to close, a new commercial kennel could take over the existing CUP or IUP without a new public hearing, although they would be subject to all conditions associated with the CUP or IUP. If a commlrcial tennel operating under a CUP or IUP closed and the site was not used as commercial kennel for six months, the CUP or IUP would expire and any subsequent commercial kennel would require a new CUP or IUP' It should be noted that interim use permits are required by city ordinance to have a provision stating the date or event that will terminate the interim use, and that the city's comprehensive plan iils for the BF district to be rezoned once sewer and water are extended to the southern portion of the city. Rezoning the BF district to a zoning classification that conforms to the comprehensive plan will make any commercial kennel within that area a non-conforming use, wfrictr will prevlnt any future expansion or intensification of the business. Essentially, once municipal services are extended io the southern portion of the city, there will be no viable locations within Chanhassen where a new commercial kennel could be opened. The City also requires that commercial kennels apply for and receive an annual kennel license. The kennel license is issued administratively by city staff and the fulI list of standards is provided as an attachment. Similar to the CUP and IUP standards, the kennel license requires that nuisances not be created, but it also verifies the applicant has not been convicted of any animal related offense and that up-to-date contact information is available in the event of an onsite issue. Significantly, the kennel license provides a better enforcement mechanism than a CUp or IUp as it can be ievoked administratively for non-compliance and must be renewed annually. The exception to the CUp and IUp requirements is the Arboretum Business Park Planned Unit Development (pUD) that was amended as part of Planning Case 2008-11 to list "Pet Kennel" as a permiited use for Lot2,Block 1. Since this action required the amendment of a PUD, there was a public hearing where issues such as noise and waste generation were discussed by the Planning Commission. lt was determined that the site's location and proposed waste and noise control measures combined with the city's ability to enforce its nuisance ordinance would be sufficient to mitigate the use's potential impacts. Were this business to close, a new pet kennel could o""rrplflot 2, Blocki as a permiited use without going through a public hearing, though they *orrld still need to apply for and receive a kennel license' Issue 2: Overview of Existing and Historic Pet Boarding Facilities Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP Apt'rl 16,2019 Page 4 Staff is aware of two pet boarding facilities within the City of Chanhassen. One of these has recently closed, but pieviously operated as a commercial kennel with a CUP in the BF district. The other is a pet kennel located in a PUD as a permitted use and is still in active operation. The commercial kennel is located on a 13-acre site and was granted a CUP in 1996- This CUP was transferred to Lot I , Block 1 as part of a 2003 subdivision of the property. The kennel is located approximately 500 feet from the nearest residential use and is in a lightly developed area of the city that does not have access to municipal sewer and water. The city imposed allthe requiremlnts of the commercial kennel CUP and kennel license on the site, as well as additional reporting requirements to ensure proper waste removal. The applicant was also required to reieive u f""dtot permit from the county for the animal waste generated by the kennel' No noise proofing of the structure or solid fencing of the exercise runs was required. Historically, the city received a high volume of complaints associated with this kennel in 1999. Records indicate that most of the complaints were received on Mondays and resulted from high volumes of barking that occurred oveithe weekend. Complaints were received from residential properties over 1,000 feet from the kennel. The pet kennel is located on 3-acre parcel that is shares with a veterinary clinic. It is a permitted use within the pUD. The pUD is primarily focused on creating a light industrial and office park, although some complementary serice and commercial uses are permitted in specified locations. The paicel is sunounded by other industrial, office, and commercial uses, although the buildings on adjacent parcels are over 150 feet away from the outdoor runs, and it is over 2,000 feet from the nearest residential use. Since it is a permitted use, no conditions beyond those associated with kennel licenses apply to the propertyiho*"r"., during Planning Case 2008-11 (the case that discussed the proposed PUD amendment;, n r-"rom qr.riiorrr were asked about the potential to create noise or odor nuisances. fhe applicantitated that waste was picked up immediately, sealed in bags, and removed from the site daily. The applicant noted that the building was sound insulated, the runs were screened with double sided cidar fences, a noise suppression system would be installed, dogs are always supervised when outdoors, the maximum number of dogs permitted outside at a tinie was limiied, urd "o*pary policy was to remove barking dogs from the outdoor exercise areas. These noise and *u.t" mitigation plans were not formalized as part of the site plan approval. The city,s community service officers have not received any noise complaints from neighboring businesses. ,q.necdota1ly, a staff member used to work nearby and mentioned that you could hear the dogs when outside, but not inside. Planning staff did receive a call from a realtor attempting to lease out a nearby building who was concerned that dogs barking may affect their ability to rent their property, tut this was a general concern and not a report of a specific nuisance violation. To the city's knowledge, this use has never created a noise or odor nuisance. Issue 3: Potential Impacts on Nearby Uses Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP Apnl 16,2019 Page 5 The two most frequent concerns associated with kennels are their potential to generate excessive amounts of noise and offensive odors. Sec. 13-51O of the City Code establishes the following thresholds for determining if animal noise constitutes a nuisance: (1) The noise from one or more animals occurs at a time between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and can be heard from a location outside the building or property where the animal or animals are being kept, and the animal or animals have made such noises intermittently for more than three minutes with one minute or less lapse of time without such noise during the three-minute Period; or (2) The noise from one or more animals can be heard 500 feet from the location of the building or property where the animal or animals are being kept, and the animal or animals have made such noises intermittently for more than three minutes with one minute or less lapse of time without such noise during the three-minute period; or (3) The noise from one or more animals can be heard from a location outside the building or property where the animal or animals are being kept, and the animal or animals have -ud" such noises intermittently for a period of at least five minutes with one minute or less lapse of time without such noise during the five-minute period. Since the standards for determining if animals are creating a noise nuisance depend on both the frequency and duration of the noise, kennels can very easily cross this threshold due to the large numbers-of animals present. After all, a large number of dogs, each barking a little bit, can result in continuous barking. Additionally, it can be can be difficult to anticipate what properties may be negatively impacted by the noise produced by a kennel since the distance sound travels is affected by topography and even changes in the weather. Within the context of residential neighborhoods, excessive noise can interfeie with sleep and the general enjoyment of one's property. For office or industrial uses near a kennel, excessive noise can interfere with worker productivity. In both cases, the presence of a continuous source of noise can severely impact the affected land use. Odor is the other nuisance concern that can arise from the presence of a kennel. Dense concentrations of animals produce concentrations of animal waste, and, if that waste is not disposed of in a timely manner, it can cause unpleasant odors as well as unsanitary and unsightly "orrditior.. Typically, odor is considered to constitute a nuisance when it is discernible across property lines.-goth residential and office/industrial property owners object to the presence strong odors. An additional impact associated with animal waste is the potential for environmental impacts when waste is not promptly cleaned up and has the opportunity to leach. This can result in contaminated groundwater' Issue 4: Performance Standards Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP April 16,2019 Page 6 Due to the potential for kennels to negatively impact surrounding properties, the city requires that they be licensed and has established additional requirements that they must meet in order to receive a conditional use permit. Kennel license standards are primarily concerned with ensuring the welfare of the animals in the kennel, although they do establish setbacks and prohibit the creation of nuisances. The CUP standards are primarily concerned with ensuring that traffic, noise, and waste associated with the use are properly managed' From a land use perspective, the relevant conditions associated with commercial kennel licenses are as follows: o Sturdy fence that will keep dogs confined' o Waste accumulations shall be located at least 200 feet from any well, properly disposed of, and removed frequently enough to prevent objectionable odors and leaching. o Dogs and cats shall be kept indoors from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and employees must be present on the premise whenever they are out of doors' o A kennel shall be at least 200 feet from neighboring residential structures. o Minimum of 1-acre lot. o Must ensure that dogs do not create a noise nuisance, and act proactively when receive a noise comPlaint. o Outdoor areas must be screened and buffered' The above standards apply to every commercial kennel in the city regardless of the zoning district. Currently therels one active commercial kennel license within the city. Commercial kennels operating under an IUP within the A-2 or RR district are also required to be located on a collector street and locate the kennel structure at least 200 feet from wetland areas' The relatively low number of additional conditions placed upon these facilities stems from the fact that A2 andRR areas tend to be located in a rural context and the collector road requirement prevents most of these parcels from being able to meet the IUP's requirements' For those that can, IUps have built in sunset clauses that ensure the use will terminate once development occurs andhigher intensity uses emerge that may be disturbed by_the presence of a commercial kennel' No commercial kennel is currently operating under an IUP. commercial kennels operating under a cUP within the BF district have the following conditions in addition to the ones associated with the commercial kennel license: o No more than one principal structure and two accessory structures are permitted, and the accessory structures may not cover more than 40 percent of the yard they occupy' o Site must be located on a collector street' o Accessory structure must be setback 200 feet from wetlands, 50 feet from public or private road right-of way, and 200 feet from single-family residences or 50 feet from side or rear lot lines, whichever is greater' o Minimum lot size of one acre. o Enclosed or fenced so as to prevent the running at large of animals' Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP Api,l 16,2019 PageT o Light sources must be shielded. o No outside speaker system, unless approved by the City Council. Some of these standards, such as the minimum lot size and 200-foot setback from residential structures, are redundant to conditions associated with the commercial kennel license' Others, such as the limits on accessory structures, are designed to ensure the lower intensity of use intended for the BF district. The collector street requirement ensures that the site can accommodate the associated traffic, and the expanded setbacks, lighting restrictions, and prohibitions on outside speakers minimize the tennel's impact on sulrounding land uses' The city still has a valid cUp for a commercial kennel tied to a parcel in the BF district, although no business is currently operating under it. The conditions associated with the BF cUP are well suited to the context of that zoningdistrict, but may not be appropriate for the IOP district, where lots are typically smaller and more intenseiy developed. Additionally, uses within the IoP district tend to be located closer together and are more diverse. These circumstances may require greater scrutiny of noise and waste mitigation strategies. Staff believes that any kennel within the IOP district should meet the following conditions to address these concerns: o The applicant must provide the city with a noise mitigation and waste disposal plan that demonstrates that the use will not create a nuisance' o Outdoor recreation areas must be screened from view using a variety of fencing and landscaping. Fence must be constructed to prevent the escape of animals' o outdoor recreation areas must meet the district's setbacks. o Outdoor recreation areas must be located at least 500 feet from any residential property lines. This setback may be reduced to a minimum 200 feet, if the applicant can demonstrate sufficient noise attenuation and buffering to justify a reduced setback' o All structures shall be at least 200 feet from any residential property lines. o Animals in the outdoor recreation areas must be supervised by an employee at all times. o An employee shall remain on site at all times animals are on the premises, including overnight. The above standards would require closer supervision of the animals by facility staff, increased ,c..ening and buffering, and require formalized waste and noise mitigation strategies to minimize the impact olth. kennel on surrounding uses. In addition to the above standards, any kennel within the IOp would also need to meet the standards required by the city's kennel license. Issue 5: Permitted versus Conditional Use When the city deems a use appropriate for a zoning district, but has concerns about its potential impacts on adjacent propertils, there are two mechanisms that can be used to address those impacts. The city "ur, .hoor. to make it a permitted use subject to general performance standards or it can make it a conditional use. Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP Apil 16,2019 Page 8 The city typically uses the former approach when the use has consistent impacts and perfo.mance standards are very clear-cut. An example would be adult daycares, which are permltted uses in the IOp so long as they have appropriate licensure and have loading and drop- offu."u, that do not interfere with traffic and pedestrian movements. Since both of these conditions are straightforward and the potential impacts of adult daycares are fairly uniform, the city does not feel that the public hearing and findings of facts associated with a CUP are .r"""r.u.y to determine if a specific site can accommodate a proposed adult day care. Using general performance standards allows staff to administratively evaluate and approve these ,r"r. thir means that new businesses proposing to occupy an existing building do not need to go through the time and effort, up to 60 days, associated with applying for and receiving a conditional use permit. It also means that when a business proposes to construct a new building the site plan approval process does not need to include a superfluous CUP. Not requiring a CUP also reduces the amount of staff overhead, since staff is required to conduct annual inspections of the premises operating under a CUP to ensure continued compliance with the permit's conditions. The final advantage to not requiring a CUP is that CUP's can be misleading. The use of the word ..conditional,, and the existenie of a public hearing can lead opponents of a project into believing that if they oppose the proposed use, the city will not allow it. However, if a business meets all of the requirl*"rtr for a bUF, the city is required to grant the permit. The discrepancy between their perception of the city's authority and the limits placed on the city's discretion can lead to feelings of frustration and disappointment. The city classifies uses as a conditional use when it determines that the use has a high probability of negatively affecting surrounding properties unless specific conditions are met and where the speciftcs ofihe,rr" "in significantly infl.r"r." its capacity to generate nuisances. For example, the city classifies food-processing plants as a conditional use within the IOP district. Food- pro""r.ing plants have ihe capacily to create significant odors, the offensiveness and potency of *t i"6 O.p*a on the food stock being produced and the size of the plant. Since different uses within this category can have dramatically different impacts, the city requires the proposed use to demonstrate to ihe satisfaction of the City Council that it meets the requirements of the zoning code and to provide an opportunity for the city to impose conditions upon the use to mitigate concerns. The public hearing also provides a chance for neighbors to make the city aware of relevant facts lhat could affect the suitability of the site for the proposed use or require additional conditions to address neighborhood concerns. Finally, the CUP's revocation and inspection clauses give the city a clear mechanism of enforcement that it can utilize if the business is not following the requirements placed on its permit. The single largest factor in determining a kennel's potential to impact surrounding parcels is the p..r"r"i o, ubr.n." of an outdoor area. In cases where the kennel is entirely confined within a structure, staff believes that general performance standards ensuring the existence of an adequate noise and waste mitigation plan would be sufficient to address potential concems. Staff is proposing that kennels without outdoor areas be listed as permitted uses within the IOP. Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP Apt',l 16,2019 Page 9 When a kennel has outdoor areas, the potential to impact surrounding uses increases significantly and the size, business model, and surrounding uses can all affect the suitability of a given IOP site for a kennel with outdoor areas. Staff is proposing that kennels with outdoor exercise areas be listed as conditional uses. Requiring a conditional use permit for kennels with outdoor areas will allow for an open evaluation of proposed odor and waste mitigation plans, and will make it easier for the city to require mitigation measures appropriate to the site's context. Finally, it would also giveihe city an additi,onal tool to address any nuisance complaints that arise from the use. Issue 6: Terminologt There is not a standard term for businesses that provide pet boarding services, and different businesses provide different alrays of services. Within Chanhassen, these businesses are currently permitted as commercial kennels or pet kennels; however, in researching other cities, the terms domestic animal daycare facility, commercial kennels (daycare), kennels, animal handling, dog care facilities, and pet daycare and boarding facilities are all used to describe these types of1urin"r.... The Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SICM) lists these types of facilities as ..boarding kennels". Since the SICM is the manual that staff uses to determine if proposed business fall under the various use categories listed within the city's zoning districts, ,tuff b"li"res it would be appropriate to adopt the manual's terminology' Currently, the city defines the term commercial kennel as a place where dogs, cats, or other domesticated animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, or grooming. The term pet kennel is not currently defined within the City Code and, at present, only ixists inihe list of permitted uses for the Arboretum Business Park PUD' If the term boarding kennel is adopted for use within the general zoning code, it should be defined. To avoid confusion, the definition of boarding kennel should also encompass pet kennels. Staff proposes that boarding kennel be defined as "Kennel, boarding, also called pet kennel, means any place where a pefson accepts house pets from the general public and where such animals are kept. Grooming, training, and other pet related services may also occur at the site.,, This definition would encompass the activities typically associated with pet boarding facilities, but preclude breeding or-sales, which would instead fall under the commercial kennel definition. Staff is proposing that the city continue using the term commercial kennel within the 42, RR, and BF di.t.i"tr, and adopts ih. tr.* boarding kennel for the IOP district. Maintaining a dichotomy between the two uses will allow the city to have different standards for kennels located in a rural context compared to those located within more urban developments. A similar split already exists within commercial kennels, with those located in the commercially oriented rir dirt i"t teing held to different standards than those located within the residentially oriented A2 andRR districts. The city could also amend the existing commercial kennel standards for commercial kennels within business, office, institutional and industrial districts to contain alternate standards for commercial kennels within IoP districts; however, this would not allow Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP April 16,2019 Page 10 for the city to adopt a separate definition for kennels within the IOP district, and would leave pet kennel as a use unique to a single PUD. ALTERNATIVES l) Continue to limit commercial kennels to the BF, A2, and RR districts, and evaluate other requests on a case-by-case basis. 2) List Boarding Kennel with outdoor recreation areas as a conditional use in the IOP district. 3) List Boarding Kennel with outdoor recreation areas as a permitted use in the IOP district. 4) List Boarding tcennel without outdoor recreation areas as a conditional use in the IOP district. 5) List Boarding Kennel without outdoor recreation areas as a permitted use in the IOP district. 6) List Boarding Kennel without outdoor recreation areas as a permitted use in the IOP district and Blarding Kennel with outdoor recreation areas as a conditional use in the IOP. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 6. The proposed amendment would read as follows: Sec. 1-2. - Rules of construction and definitions Boarding Kennel See Kennel, Boarding. Kennel, Boardingralso called pet kennel' means any place where a person accepts house pets from the general public and where such animals are kept. Grooming training, and other pet related services may also occur on the site' Sec. 5-18. - Kennel license. (a) License required. No person shall maintain a private, boarding, or commercial kennel in the city withoul a license. No license shall be required for a private kennel consisting of cats, if the kennel is located on a tract or parcel of land being used for agriculture as that term is defined in the zoningordinance, and ifthe cats are kept for rodent control purposes incident to the agricultural use of the tract or parcel of land' (b) Licensi; application Application for a kennel license shall be made on forms provided by the city manager. The application shall contain: (l) A description of the property to be used; iZl The namis and addresses of the owner, lessee, if any, and the operator or manager; i:i The names, residences and addresses of two persons, residents of Carver or Hennepin Counties, who are familiar with the applicant's, the manager's or operator's character; Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP April 16,2019 Page 1 1 (4) Whether the applicant, manager or operator has ever been convicted of a crime or offense otherihan a traffic offense and, if so, information as to the time, place, and nature of such crime or offense; (5) The names, phone numbers and addresses of those persons who will be from time to time designut"d u. a contact person as required by subsection 5-18.2(b); and (6) Such other information as may be required by the city manager. If the application is made on behalf of a corporation or a partnership, it shall be accompanied by appropriate business records showing the names and addresses of all individuals having an interest in the business and, in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses of the officers and shareholders. Applicants shall furnish to the city with their application, documents establishing the applicant's interest in the premises on which the buiiness willbe located. Documentation shall be in the form of a lease, a deed, a contract for deed or any other document which establishes the applicant's interest. Applications shall be signed and sworn to. If the application is by a natural person, it shall be signed and sworn to by such person; if by a partneiship, by one of the partners; and if by an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer thereof' (c) Licensefees ind license year. The application and license fee shall be as established in chapter 4 of this Code. The application, investigation, and license fees shall be paid when the application is filed. A separate license shall be obtained for each place of business. The licensee shall display the license in a prominent place in the licensed business at all times. Licenses shall expire on the December 31 following the issuance of the license. Applications to renew an existing license must be submitted by December 1. (d) Granting or denial-of licenses. License applications shall be reviewed by such departments as the "ity -unug.. .hull direct. The review shall include an inspection of the premises covered by the alpfication to determine whether the premises conform to all requirements of this Code. Licenses shall be granted or denied by the city manager subject to the provisions of this chapter. The city manager shall approve the license if the provisions of the Code are met or deny the license if they are not met. (e) Revocation, suspension and ienewal of license. The license may be revoked, suspended or not renewed by the city manager upon a showing that the licensee, its owner, manager, employee or agent has engaged in: (l) Fraud, diception o, *ir."pr.sentation in connection with the securing or retaining of the license. (Z) Any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal to issue a license under this chapter. (3) Any conduct constituting a violation of any of the rules and regulations provided for under this chaPter. (4) Any conduct constituting a violation of any provision of a conditional use permit or other zoning restriction. (5) Any conduct constituting a nuisance' (0 Appeal. ih" li""nr"e may appial a denial, suspension, revocation or noffenewal to the City Council. The licensee must file with the city clerk a notice of appeal within ten days of a revocation, suspension or noffenewal. The Council shall consider the appeal at a regularly or specially scheduled council meeting on or after 15 days from service of the notice of appeal Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP April 16,2019 Page 12 upon the city clerk by the licensee. Hearing on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee shall have it" .ight to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence in behalf of licensure. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Council maY order: itl The revocation, suspension or nonrenewal of the license. iZl The revocation, suspension or noffenewal by the city manager be lifted and the license be returned to the licensee. (3) Additional terms, conditions and stipulations to be imposed on the licensee to mitigate problems. Sec. 5-18.2. - Rules and regulations. (a) All licensed kennels must operate according to the following rules and regulations. (l) The licensee shall permit and allow the inspection of the premises during business hours by all appropriate city employees' (Z) Land upon *hich dogs are to be sheltered must be surrounded by a sturdy fence which will keeP dogs confined. (3) Housing anJshelter must be provided which will keep animals comfortable and protected from the elements, and housing or shelter shall be so located as not to create (4) (s) (6) (7) a nuisance. Accumulations of feces shall be located at least 200 feet from any well' All accumulations of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. All iogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight (from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). The following regulations apply to the site's animal quarters: a. Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and ventilation. b. Animals kept outside must have continual access so animals can get in and out to shelter and protect them from sun, rain, and snow' c. If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so as not to become entangled with chains of other dogs' d. Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to turn around fully, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable condition' e. The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. (g) Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors and disease hazards. (9) Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. (b) In addition to the requirements of subsection 5-18.2(a), boarding and commercial kennels shall also operate according to the following rules and regulations: (l) The licensed facility must at all times have a designated contact person available. The designated contact person must be available to correct and mitigate violations of this chapter and the Code whenever they occur. The licensee shall notify the sheriffs office Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP Apil 16,2019 Page 13 in writing of the designated contact person along with contact information. The licensee shall notify the sheriffs office in writing of any change in the contact person. (2) Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least 200 feet from any neighboring residential structure used for human habitation' (3) No commercial kennel permit shall be issued for a lot of less than one acre. i+i All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel employee(s) is not present at the subject property. (5) facility employees shall insure that dogs are not allowed to create noise in violation of the City bode. When a citizencomplaint is received, facility employees must make affirmative steps to reduce animal noise including but not limited to bringing dogs to indoor areas. (6) Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such screening and buffering *uy be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography' Sec. 20-306.5. - Boarding Kennel with outdoor recreation area The following appties to boarding kennels: 1) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, article II. 2i The applicant must provide the city with a noise mitigation and waste disposal plan that demonstrates that the use will not create a nuisance. 3) butdoor recreation areas must be screened from view using a combination of fencing and landscaping. The fence must be constructed in such a manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. 4) butdoor recreation areas must meet the zoning district's setbacks. 5i Outdoor recreation areas shall be at least five hundred (500) feet from any residential property line. This setback may be reduced to a minimum two hundred (Z-OO) ieet, if the applicant can demonstrate sufficient noise attenuation and buffering to justify a reduced setback' 6) All structurei shalt be at least two hundred (200) feet from any residential proPertY line. 7) Animals in the outdoor recreation areas must be supervised by an employee at all times.g) An employee shall remain on site at all times animals are on the premises including overnight. 9) Compliance with all state and county regulations shall be required. rbl Shalibe open for inspection by the city authorities at any time. Sec. 20-812. - Permitted uses' The following uses are permitted in an "IOP" district: 1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter' 2) Automotive rePair shoPs. 3i Boarding kennel without outdoor recreation area, subject to the requirements of section 20-970. 4) Conference/convention centers. Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP April 16,2019 Page 14 5) Health services. 6) Indoor health and recreation clubs. 7) Light industrial. 8) Offices. 9) Off-premises Parking lots. 10) Print shops. l1) Recording studios. 12) Utility services. l3) Vocational school. 14) Warehouses. 15) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section20-966. Sec. 20-814. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "IOP" district: 1) Boarding kennel with outdoor recreation area. 2) Contracting Yards. 3) Daycare centers as part of a multi-tenant building. 4) Daycare centers as a separate facility. 5) Food processing. 6) Gun range, indoor. 7) Home imProvement trades. 8) Hotels and motels. 9) Lumber yards. 10) Motor freight terminals. I l) Outdoor health and recreation clubs. 12) Screened outdoor storage. l3) Research laboratories. 14) Reserved. l5) commercial towers as regulated by article xxx of this chapter. 16) Electrical distribution and underground electric distribution substations. Sec. 20-970. - Boarding kennel without outdoor recreation area. The following apply to boarding kennels without outdoor recreation areas: 1) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, article II. 2) The applicant must provide the city with a noise mitigation and waste disposal plan that demonstrates that the use will not create a nuisance. 3) All structures shall be at least two hundred (200) feet from any residential property line. 4) An employee shall remain on site at all times animals are on the premises including overnight. 5) Compliance with all state and county regulations shall be required. 6) Shall be open for inspection by the city authorities at any time. Planning Commission Boarding Kennels in IOP Apil 16,2019 Page 15 Sec. 20-1124. - Required number of on-site parking spaces. aa. Boarding Kennel - One parking space per employee plus one parking space per 10 animals of design capacitY. ATTACHMENTS 1. Chanhassen Commercial Kennel Standards 2. Kennel License Standards 3. Other Cities' Treatment of Boarding Kennels Chanhassen Commercial Kennel Standards Conditional Use in: BF General CUP Standards: Sec. 20-232. - General issuance standards. The planning commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: (1) Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. (2) Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. (3) Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. (4) Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. (5) Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. (6) Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (7) Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare due to excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents or trash. (8) Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. (9) Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. (10) Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. (11) Will not depreciate surrounding property values. (12) Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Specific CUP Standards: Sec. 20-287. - Commercial kennels and stables. The following applies to commercial kennels and stables: (1) No more than one principal structure and two accessory structures shall be permitted in the rear or side yards. The accessory structures may not cover more than 40 percent of the side or rear yard area. Wetlands shall be excluded from yard calculations. (2) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, articles II and III. (3) The site must be located on a collector street. (4) The accessory structure must be a minimum of 200 feet from a wetland area, 50 feet from a public or private road right-of-way, and 200 feet from an adjacent single-family residence or a minimum of 50 feet from a side or rear lot line, whichever is greater. (5) No person shall maintain or operate any commercial kennel or stable without a permit issued by the city as regulated by the City Code. (6) A minimum lot size of one acre is required to be licensed for operation of a commercial kennel or stable. (7) Every commercial kennel or stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. (8) Both commercial kennels and stables shall be open for inspection by the city authorities at any time. (9) Reserved. (10) Light sources shall be shielded. (11) No outside speaker systems shall be allowed without approval from the city council. (12) Compliance with all state and county regulations shall be required. Interim Use in: A-2, RR General IUP Standard Sec. 20-322. - General issuance standards. The planning commission shall recommend an interim use permit and the council shall issue interim permits only if it finds, based on the proposed location, that: (1) The use meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in section 20-232 of the City Code. (2) The use conforms to the zoning regulations. (3) The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. (4) The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. (5) The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. (6) The user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permission of the use. Specific IUP Standards Sec. 20-255. - Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies. (RR, A-2) The following applies to commercial kennels, stables and riding academies: (1) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, article III. (2) The site must be located on a collector street. (3) The structure must be a minimum of 200 feet from wetland area. Sec. 5-18. - Kennel license. (a) License required. No person shall maintain a private or commercial kennel in the city without a license. No license shall be required for a private kennel consisting of cats, if the kennel is located on a tract or parcel of land being used for agriculture as that term is defined in the zoning ordinance, and if the cats are kept for rodent control purposes incident to the agricultural use of the tract or parcel of land. (b) License; application. Application for a kennel license shall be made on forms provided by the city manager. The application shall contain: (1) A description of the property to be used; (2) The names and addresses of the owner, lessee, if any, and the operator or manager; (3) The names, residences and addresses of two persons, residents of Carver or Hennepin Counties, who are familiar with the applicant's, the manager's or operator's character; (4) Whether the applicant, manager or operator has ever been convicted of a crime or offense other than a traffic offense and, if so, information as to the time, place, and nature of such crime or offense; and (5) The names, phone numbers and addresses of those persons who will be from time to time designated as a contact person as required by subsection 5-18.2(b). (6) Such other information as may be required by the city manager. If the application is made on behalf of a corporation or a partnership, it shall be accompanied by appropriate business records showing the names and addresses of all individuals having an interest in the business and, in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses of the officers and shareholders. Applicants shall furnish to the city with their application, documents establishing the applicant's interest in the premises on which the business will be located. Documentation shall be in the form of a lease, a deed, a contract for deed or any other document which establishes the applicant's interest. Applications shall be signed and sworn to. If the application is by a natural person, it shall be signed and sworn to by such person; if by a partnership, by one of the partners; and if by an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer thereof. (c) License fees and license year. The application and license fee shall be as established in chapter 4 of this Code. The application, investigation, and license fees shall be paid when the application is filed. A separate license shall be obtained for each place of business. The licensee shall display the license in a prominent place in the licensed business at all times. Licenses shall expire on the December 31 following the issuance of the license. Applications to renew an existing license must be submitted by December 1. (d) Granting or denial of licenses. License applications shall be reviewed by such departments as the city manager shall direct. The review shall include an inspection of the premises covered by the application to determine whether the premises conform to all requirements of this Code. Licenses shall be granted or denied by the city manager subject to the provisions of this chapter. The city manager shall approve the license if the provisions of the Code are met or deny the license if they are not met. (e) Revocation, suspension and renewal of license. The license may be revoked, suspended or not renewed by the city manager upon a showing that the licensee, its owner, manager, employee or agent has engaged in: (1) Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing or retaining the license. (2) Any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal to issue a license under this chapter. (3) Any conduct constituting a violation of any of the rules and regulations provided for under this chapter. (4) Any conduct constituting a violation of any provision of a conditional use permit or other zoning restriction. (5) Any conduct constituting a nuisance. (f) Appeal. The licensee may appeal a denial, suspension, revocation or nonrenewal to the city council. The licensee must file with the city clerk a notice of appeal within ten days of a revocation, suspension or nonrenewal. The council shall consider the appeal at a regularly or specially scheduled council meeting on or after 15 days from service of the notice of appeal upon the city clerk by the licensee. Hearing on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence in behalf of licensure. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the council may order: (1) The revocation, suspension or nonrenewal of the license. (2) The revocation, suspension or nonrenewal by the city manager be lifted and the license be returned to the licensee. (3) Additional terms, conditions and stipulations to be imposed on the licensee to mitigate problems. Sec. 5-18.1. - Conditions of license. (a) No license shall be issued if the applicants have been convicted of any offense involving cruelty to animals, the operation of kennels, or animal related nuisances. (b) No licenses shall be issued to applicants who have, within one year prior to the date of application, been denied licensure or who have, within such period, had a same or similar license revoked. (c) No licenses shall be issued to applicants who have failed to provide all of the information requested in the application, to pay the full license fee, or to cooperate with the city in review of the application. (d) Licenses shall not be issued if the facilities or property fails to meet any provision in a conditional use permit or other zoning restriction. Sec. 5-18.2. - Rules and regulations. (a) All licensed kennels must operate according to the following rules and regulations. (1) The licensee shall permit and allow the inspection of the premises during business hours by all appropriate city employees. (2) Land upon which dogs are to be sheltered must be surrounded by a sturdy fence which will keep dogs confined. (3) Housing and shelter must be provided which will keep animals comfortable and protected from the elements, and housing or shelter shall be so located as not to create a nuisance. (4) Accumulations of feces shall be located at least 200 feet from any well. (5) All accumulations of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. (6) All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight (from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). (7) The following regulations apply to the site's animal quarters: a. Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and ventilation. b. Animals kept outside must have continual access so animals can get in and out to shelter and protect them from sun, rain, and snow. c. If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so as not to become entangled with chains of other dogs. d. Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to turn around fully, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable condition. e. The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. (8) Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors and disease hazards. (9) Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. (b) In addition to the requirements of subsection 5-18.2(a), commercial kennels shall also operate according to the following rules and regulations: (1) The licensed facility must at all times have a designated contact person available. The designated contact person must be available to correct and mitigate violations of this chapter and the Code whenever they occur. The licensee shall notify the sheriff's office in writing of the designated contact person along with contact information. The licensee shall notify the sheriff's office in writing of any change in the contact person. (2) Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least 200 feet from any neighboring residential structure used for human habitation. (3) No commercial kennel permit shall be issued for a lot of less than one acre. (4) All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel employee(s) is not present at the subject property. (5) Facility employees shall ensure that dogs are not allowed to create noise in violation of the City Code. When a citizen complaint is received, facility employees must make affirmative steps to reduce animal noise including but not limited to bringing dogs to indoor areas. (6) Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such screening and buffering may be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography. General Notes: 1) Staff did its best to identify pet daycare facilities, but there is no standard nomenclature so it is possible some communities permit them in additional districts under a different name. 2) Many communities permitted kennels or boarding facilities as an accessory use to animal hospitals or veterinary clinics. These were not included, unless the language indicated they could be used to board animals not being treated, as they were deemed to provide a different service than dedicated pet daycares Chanhassen: Conditional Use in: BF (Commercial Kennel) Interim Use in: A-2, RR (Commercial Kennel) Standards: (Universal CUP/IUP standards not listed) Sec. 20-287. - Commercial kennels and stables. (BF) The following applies to commercial kennels and stables: (1) No more than one principal structure and two accessory structures shall be permitted in the rear or side yards. The accessory structures may not cover more than 40 percent of the side or rear yard area. Wetlands shall be excluded from yard calculations. (2) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, articles II and III. (3) The site must be located on a collector street. (4) The accessory structure must be a minimum of 200 feet from a wetland area, 50 feet from a public or private road right-of-way, and 200 feet from an adjacent single-family residence or a minimum of 50 feet from a side or rear lot line, whichever is greater. (5) No person shall maintain or operate any commercial kennel or stable without a permit issued by the city as regulated by the City Code. (6) A minimum lot size of one acre is required to be licensed for operation of a commercial kennel or stable. (7) Every commercial kennel or stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. (8) Both commercial kennels and stables shall be open for inspection by the city authorities at any time. (9) Reserved. (10) Light sources shall be shielded. (11) No outside speaker systems shall be allowed without approval from the city council. (12) Compliance with all state and county regulations shall be required. Sec. 20-255. - Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies. (RR, A-2) The following applies to commercial kennels, stables and riding academies: (1) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, article III. (2) The site must be located on a collector street. (3) The structure must be a minimum of 200 feet from wetland area. Hopkins: Permitted Use in: I-1, I-2 (Commercial Kennel) Conditional Use in: B-3 (Domestic animal day care) Standards: II) Domestic animal day care facility provided: 1. The hours of operation shall be limited daily from 6a.m. to 9p.m.; 2. The animals maybe groomed, trained, exercised and socialized, but not kept or boarded overnight, bred, sold or let for hire; 3. There must be sight-obscuring fencing for all on-site, outdoor recreation areas. The fence shall provide full containment for the animals. The fence structure shall be deep enough and secured to the ground to prevent escape and high enough to prevent the animals from jumping or climbing over; 4. The facility must control odor, dust, noise, waste, drainage and security so as not to constitute a nuisance, safety hazard or health problem to adjoining property or uses. The operator must provide a plan of operation demonstrating these provisions can be met; 5. The outdoor recreation area shall not abut a residential zoning district. Minnetonka: Interim Use in: R-1, R-3, R-4 Standards: c) Commercial kennel for dogs, cats, or both: 1) must have a minimum lot size of two acres; 2) must be located next to a collector or arterial street, as identified in the comprehensive plan, or otherwise located so that access to the site will not conduct significant traffic on local residential streets; 3) must screen exterior storage, including refuse, from view from adjacent properties or public streets; 4) must not include the use of a crematory; 5) must screen parking areas for patrons from adjacent properties; 6) must maintain a minimum setback of 100 feet between the kennel and all property lines; 7) must keep all dogs and cats within an enclosed building at all times, except for supervised walks; 8) must not cause annoyance or disturbance to another person by frequent howling, yelping, barking, or other kinds of noise. This paragraph only applies when the noise has continued for a 5-minute period. This requirement applies to the cumulative barking from the kennel, including one or several dogs; 9) must provide at least one parking space per employee and one parking space for each ten kennel cages; 10) must maintain a valid city kennel license and must comply with all applicable city and state building, health and maintenance standards; 11) is subject to site and building plan review pursuant to section 300.27 of this ordinance; and 12) is subject to a reasonable limitation on the total number of animals or the size of the facilities. This will be determined by the city based on the size of the property, the uses of adjoining properties, the existence of buffering and other appropriate factors. Chaska Conditional Use Permit*: R-Rural (Commercial Kennels) *Called “special use permit Standards: No unique standards. Cottage Grove Conditional Use Permit: AG-1, AG-2, R-1, B-2, B-3, P-B, R-2A, R-2B, R-2C, R-2D, R-2E, R- 2F (Commercial Kennels) Standards: No unique standards Elk River Conditional Use Permit: R-1a, I-3, FAST-C, FAST-D, FAST-E (Commercial Kennels) Interim Use Permit: CRT, FAST-B (Commercial Kennels) Standards: No unique standards Inver Grove Heights Conditional Use Permit: A (Commercial Kennels), B-3 (Commercial Kennels, Daycare) Standards: A. Limited to a maximum of twenty (20) dogs on site at any one time. B. No outdoor runs or kennels allowed. C. The requirement and location of any outside fenced area, if any, shall be determined by the council. D. Dogs shall be on a leash and handled by an employee at all times when outside the building during the animal's stay. E. An employee shall remain on site at all times animals are on the premises including overnight. F. Dogs shall be kept inside at all times except when exercised by an employee. G. Designated bathroom area shall be cleaned daily. Lino Lakes Conditional Use Permit: R, LI, GI, R-BR (Commercial Kennels) Standards: 1. The applicable provisions of Chapter 503 are determined to be satisfied. 2. Cages, enclosures and housing facilities shall be at least five hundred (500) feet from any residential property line. 3. An enclosed indoor or exterior exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the periodic exercising of animals boarded at the kennel. Exterior exercise areas shall be enclosed by an eight (8) foot high solid fence. 4. All animals shall be housed indoors for overnight boarding. Prior Lake Conditional Use Permit: A (Kennels), C-2 (Animal Handling), C-3 (Animal Handling) Permitted with Conditions: I-1 (Animal Handling) Standards: Kennels- 1) No animals shall be kept outside the building or be otherwise located so as to cause offensive odors discernible at the property line of a lot on which the animals are kept. 2) The building in which animals are kept shall be at least 100 feet from the nearest property line. Animal Handling (C-2)- 1) Animal runs and exercise areas shall be located at least 200 feet from any dwelling and 100 feet from any buildings used by the public. 2) No animals shall be kept outside of the building or located in a manner or location which causes offensive odors discernible at the property line of the lot on which the activity is conducted. 3) All principal use activities, including animal boarding, shall be conducted within a totally enclosed building. 4) All outdoor animal runs or exercise areas shall be fenced and secured at all times so that no animal contained therein may escape such enclosure. 5) All buildings in which animals are kept or boarded shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property line in a “R” Use District. Animal Handling (C-3)- 1) All animals shall be boarded within the principal structure. Animal Handling (I-1) 1) No pens shall be kept outside the building. 2) No building or outdoor activity shall be permitted within 100 feet of any property line of a property used or zoned for residential uses, or designated in the Comprehensive Plan for residential uses. Rosemount Permitted Uses: LI (Veterinary services including kennels) Conditional Uses Permit: AG, RR (Kennel) Standards: Kennel (AG)- 1) The site shall not be less than twenty (20) acres in size. 2) All structures shall be located a minimum of seventy-five feet (75’) from all residential property lines. 3) Subject to the regulations regarding the care and keeping of animals within the City contained in title 7, chapter 4 of this Code. Kennel (RR)- 1) The site shall not be less than twenty (20) acres in size. 2) All structures shall be located a minimum of seventy-five feet (75’) from all residential property lines. 3) No outdoor keeping of animals of dog runs shall be permitted. 4) Subject to the regulations regarding the care and keeping of animals within the City contained in title 7, chapter 4 of this Code. Veterinary services including kennels (LI)- 1) The requirement of title 7, chapter 4, “Animal Control,” of this Code 2) The site shall not be less than (20) acres in size. 3) All structures shall be located a minimum of seventy-five feet (75’) from any abutting residential use or district. Savage Conditional Use Permit: C-2, B-P, I-1, I-2 Standards: Dog Care Facilities. 1) Must be located in a freestanding building and must be located a minimum of five hundred feet from any residential property line. 2) Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property line in the rear or side yards and shall be enclosed by eight (8)-foot high solid fence designed to retain dogs. The fence shall provide a complete visual screen from surrounding properties. 3) An employee shall remain on site at all times dogs are on the premises including overnight. 4) Dogs shall be kept inside at all times except when exercised and shall be accompanied by an employee at all times when outside the building during the dog’s stay. 5) Outdoor exercise areas must be cleaned at least once a day to prevent the accumulation of dog waste and the spread of disease. 6) All state health department and Minnesota pollution control agency requirements for such facilities are met. 7) Limited to a maximum of (20) dogs on site at any one time, provided that under the conditional use permit requirements for this use, the maximum number of dogs may be increased over twenty (20) if the applicant demonstrates such larger number still meets the requirements for a conditional use permit under 152.031(e) and (f) Shakopee Conditional Use Permit: AG (Kennel), B-1 (Pet day care and boarding facilities), B-1C (Pet day care and boarding facilities) Standards: Kennel. 1) Shall submit a plan for the disposal of all waste. 2) Shall have all animals attended and leashed during exercise runs. 3) Shall landscape all structures and parking facilities. Pet day care and boarding facilities. 1) Shall not be located on property adjacent to properties that are either existing residential uses or which are zoned for residential use, and shall be at least 300 feet from residentially used or zoned properties. 2) All animals shall be housed or boarded indoors, and the facility shall not have outdoor boarding or confinement areas. 3) All wastes shall be property stored in either the principal building or in an attached enclosure that is constructed of materials consistent with those of the principal structure, including a top. 4) If outdoor exercise facilities are provided, they shall not be on public property (whether easement, park, right-of-way, or otherwise). Stillwater Conditional Use Permit*: All Commercial Districts (Kennel) *Called special use permit. Standards: (PC must include conditions to address) 1) The premise and its pens, runways, and all sanitary conditions. 2) Adequate light and ventilation must be provided to the animals. 3) Fecal materials must be disposed of in an approved sanitary manner. 4) The premises must be kept vermin free. 5) No public or private nuisances may be created. 6) No offensive odors may arise. 7) The premises must be open for inspection by city authorities upon reasonable notice. Edina Permitted Use: PCD-2 Conditional Use Permit: MDD-3, MDD-4, MDD-5 (Kennels) Standards: 1) License required. 2) Outdoor runs prohibited. 3) A commercial kennel shall be kept in a clean, sanitary and well-ventilated condition at all times, and shall be open to inspection by the sanitarian, the animal control officer or police officer of the city at all reasonable times. Eden Prairie Permitted Use: I (Commercial Kennel) Standards: 1) License required. 2) Notify owner of each parcel within 200’. 3) Must comply with state standards. 4) Adequate safeguards must ensure nuisances are not required. My questions: 1) Do we want to allow outdoor runs/boarding or not? If so what are reasonable setbacks. (500’ is highest in surveyed cities… I’d say 500’ from res and 100’ from other? Dunno?) 2) If outdoor runs allowed, do we require screening? (Yes, combo fence and landscaping… 8’) 3) Do we require sound proofing for all, or just if located within a certain distance of other uses? (I’d say in IOP probably should be sound proofed) a. Condition requiring “noise mitigation plan/system” 4) Do we shoehorn into existing commercial stable and kennel CUP or create a new “Pet Daycare” category? (I think easier to create its own standards for IOP) 5) Do we allow overnight boarding? (I’d say if staffed, sure) 6) Do we require leashed and supervised for outdoor exercise (if allowed). (I’d say yes) 7) We need to make sure we don’t create conflict between Chapter 5’s kennel license requirements and the CUP standards. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Subject Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Bring Tree Diversity Standards in Line with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2. Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate Planner File No: PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 18 of the City Code concerning tree standards.” BACKGROUND The city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan lists using the 302010 rule as a policy for meeting its goal of maintaining a healthy and diverse urban forest; however, the existing landscaping and tree preservation ordinance does not contain this full standard. RECOMMENDATION Currently, the city’s subdivision ordinance requires that no more than ten percent of trees come from any one species, and that no more than 20 percent come from any one genus. Staff proposes to amend the City Code to include the “no more than 30 percent from family” provision in order to bring the subdivision ordinance in line with the Comprehensive Plan. See the attached staff report for a full analysis. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report OITIOT OHAI'IHASSTI'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for loday and Planning for lomorrow Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner April 16,2019 Revised Tree Standards MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 18 of the City Code, concerning tree standards." ISSUE The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan lists using the 30-20-10 rule as a policy for meeting its goal of maintaining a healthy and diverse urban forest; however, the existing landscaping and tree preservation ordinance does not contain this full standard. SUMMARY Goal six of the city's 2040 Comprehensive Plan's Natural Resources Section is to "maintain a healthy and diverse urban forest". One of the four polices enumerated to support this goal is "Continue to maintain a diversity of species in all public tree planting projects. At a minimum, use the 30-20-10 rule to select trees for projects." The 30-20-10 rule is the principle that no more than 30 percent of trees should come from any one family, no more than20 percent of trees should come from any one genus, and no more than l0 percent of trees should come from any one species. This minimum level of diversity helps to limit the amount of damage that a single disease, pest, or event can do to the city's urban forest. Currently, the city's subdivision ordinance requires that no more than ten percent of trees come from any one species, and that no more than20 percent come from any one genus. Staff proposes to amend the City Code to include the "no more than 30 percent from family''provision in order to bring the subdivision ordinance in line with the comprehensive plan. RELEVANT CITY CODE Sec. 18-61 - This section outlines the subdivision ordinance's landscaping and tree preservation requirements, including the existing provision that no more than 10 percent of trees may be from any one species and no more than 20 percent of trees may be from any one genus. PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227. I I I 0 77OO IIARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55517 Planning Commission Revised Tree Standards April 16,2019 Page2 BACKGROUND The City is in the process of adopting the2040 Comprehensive Plan which contains a new policy related io the city's goal of maintaining a healthy and diverse urban forest. As part of the comprehensive ptanolng process, the city is required to update its code of ordinances to align with the policies of the comprehensive plan. ANALYSIS Issue 1: Compliance with Comprehensive Plan The Metropolitan Council requires that cities adopt official controls as described in the adopted comprehensive plan. In the event that official controls conflict with the comprehensive plan, they -rr.i b" amended within nine months following the adoption of the plan. Since the city lists the 30-20-10 rule as policy under its Natural Resources goals and states that existing ordinances will be reviewed and updaied to ensure compatibility with the2040 Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 10.1 under the disiussion of official controls, the city would need to adopt language limiting trees to no more than 30 percent of one family to its existing landscaping and tree preservation requirement in order to aiign the existing ordinance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Issue 2: Tree Diversiryt The importance of a diverse urban forest has been highlighted by the devastating effects of Dutch "l- dir"a." and emerald ash borer. In both cases, a single disease and insect killed millions of trees in cities, the effects worsened due to a lack of tree diversity. Diversity is key to a healthy urban forest. To put it simply, different trees are susceptible to different pests, differeni kinds of weather and different kinds of damage so by consciously choosing a variety of trees, an urban forest becomes less vulnerable to outbreaks, climate change and severe weather. When there is a loss in a city's tree cover, it represents not just the loss of money entailed in removing and replacing the stricken trees, but also the loss of shade, water management, aesthetics, and air quality improvements associated with the community's canopy cover. Having a high density of a single type of tree makes it easier for pests and diseases to spread and harder to manage an tutbreak. tt ul* means that a single pest or disease can have devastating effects on neighborhoods with an overabundance of a single species. When a developer or a city relies too heavily on a single species, genus or family, it creates a vulnerability within that neighborhooa. Signin"unt t.".loss in any neighborhood is heavily felt, emotionally, socially anJfinancially by the neighborhood and city. Having a diversity of tree types provides resiliency and cost savings to everyone in the community' There will always be threats to the health and sustainability of our city's canopy, but one of the best ways to protect the city's urban forest is to ensure a measured diversity of trees. A wider variety of t."L, decreases the susceptibility of our urban forest, reduces the speed at which an Planning Commission Revised Tree Standards Apil 16,2019 Page 3 outbreak can spread, and increases the feasibility of effectively and efficiently responding to serious events, whether they be biological or weather-related. ALTERNATIVES 1) No action. 2) Amend the City Code to adopt the 30-20-10 rule' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends altem ative 2 which would bring the landscaping and tree preservation requirements of the city's subdivision ordinance in line with the tree diversity policy stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan' The proposed amendment would read as follows: Sec. 18-61 . - Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. e. The following criteria shall be followed in establishing minimum canopy coverage: l. When planting trees, one tree shall be deemed to provide 1,089 square feet of required canopy coverage; 2. Trees must be from the approved list of desirable species (preference given for trees designated as native); 3. No more than ten percent of the trees may be from any one tree species, -aR&no more than 20 percent of the trees may be from any one genus, and no more than 30 percent of trees from any one family; 4. Overstory trees shall be at least 2t/z-inch caliper and understory trees shall be a minimum of l%-inch caliPer; 5. Conifer trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height; 6. plant materials used for the reforestation shall be of a similar species as vegetation found on-site; 7. Trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on site; g. Trees shall be from certified nursery stock as defined and controlled by M.S. $$ 18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act; and g. Not less than75 percent of the total trees required shall be overstory species. g:\plan\city code9O19\2019-02 various\tree standards\'tree standards-pc'docx PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Subject Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow for the Designation of Alternate Front Yards Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.3. Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate Planner File No: PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning the designation of front yards.” BACKGROUND The City Code’s definition of front yard can be counterintuitive and does not always correspond to the development pattern of older subdivisions. RECOMMENDATION The City Code states that the front lot line is the lot line nearest the public rightofway that provides access to a parcel. This means that for residential developments served by a private street, the front yard is not determined by a home’s driveway or garage orientation to the private street, but rather by the private street’s access to a public street. This can lead to situations where a home’s front yard faces an adjacent home’s side or rear elevation rather than the private street that provides access to the home. Staff proposes addressing this issue by adding a provision formalizing the City Council’s ability to designate alternate front lot lines for new subdivisions, and granting the Community Development Director the ability to designate alternate front lot lines for older subdivisions based on the neighborhood context. See the attached staff report for a full analysis. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report OITYO[ OIIAI'IHASSIN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner April 16,2019 Designated Front Yard MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code, concerning the designation of front yards." ISSUE The City Code's definition of front yard can be counterintuitive and does not always correspond to the development pattern of older subdivisions. SUMMARY The City Code states that the front lot line is the lot line nearest the public right'of-way that provides access to a parcel. This means that for residential developments served by a private street, the front yard is not determined by a home's driveway or garage orientation to the private street, but rather by the private street's access to a public street. This can lead to situations where a home's front yard faces an adjacent home's side or rear elevation rather than the private street that provides access to the home. In addition to being confusing for the homeowner, the City Code requires larger setbacks for front than side yards and restricts the placanent of certain accessory structure based on yard classification. Residents whose home's front yard does not conform to the house's orientation can find themselves unable to install storage sheds, decks, and other features in their preferred location, and neighbors can become upset when these features are installed in what they believed was supposed to be an open yard. Staff proposes addressing this issue by adding a provision formalizing the City Council's ability to designate altemate front lot lines for new subdivisions, and granting the Community Development Director the ability to designate alternate front lot lines for older subdivisions based on the neighborhood context. PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chan hassen.mn.us . FX 952.227. I I I 0 77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX ]4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317 4\t H Planning Commission Designated Front Yard Apil T6,2019 Page2 RELEVANT CITY CODE Sec. 1-2. - Lot line, Front is defined as the lot line separating a lot from a road right-of-way. Sec. 1-2. - Lot, flag/neck states that lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private streets shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. Sec. 1-2. - Yard, Front is defined as a yard extending the full width of the lot between any building and the front lot line. Sec. 20-615(7)* - States that for neck lots and lots served by private streets the front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel and the rear yard shall be the lot line located opposite from the front lot line. *Note: This language was adopted in 1990 with the passage of ordinance number 127. ANALYSIS The City Code defines the front lot line as the lot line separating a lot from a road right-of-way without specifuing if the referred to road right-of-way is public or private; however, section 20-615(7) clarifies that within the single family residential district (RSF) the front lot line for neck lots and lots served by private streets is the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. This intent of this provision is to create a consistent house orientation within developments and prevent disagreements over the location of the front lot line, but designated front lot lines do not always conform to the lot's actual layout. The examples provided demonstrate the counterintuitive lot orientations that this provision can create. When designated lot lines do not match the spatial orientation of property's primary strucfured, it can negatively impact the property owner's ability to improve their home or force improvements to be located in locations that are problematic for neighboring properties. For example, the City Code prohibits the placement of most accessory structures within the front yard and illo*s for relatively large accessory structures, up to 400 square feet, to be placed within 10 feet of rear and side lot lines. Planning Commission Designated Front Yard April 16,2019 Page 3 In situations where the front lot line does not match the orientation of a home, this can lead to the installation of these features in areas where neighbors expected greenspace. It can also lead to homeowners being unable to install storage sheds, patios, or decks in areas of the property that intuitively should be able to accommodate these structures. In some areas, especially those that predate the provision's 1990 adoption, homes have been constructed that do not meet the required yard setbacks once this provision is applied. Whenever these homes apply for building or zoning permits, staff must treat them as non- conforming uses, which often means limiting the allowed improvements to the building's existing footprint. Homeowners wishing to add improvements into what theyhad always believed was their side yard but is actually the front yard, arethen required to go through the time, expense, and uncertainty of the variance process. Staff proposes adding language to the City Code allowing for an administrative determination of an alternate front lotline ior neck lots and properties served by private streets based on the neighborhood's development pattern and orientation of surrounding structures. Staff also p.o!or.r adding language e*plicitly allowing the City Council to establish altemative front lot lines for these properties in future subdivision. ALTERNATIVES l) Do nothing. The variance process can address instances where the required front yard creates a practical difficultY. Z) Amend the City Code to allow for the designation of alternate front lot lines. Planning Commission Designated Front Yard April 16,2019 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative two. The proposed amendment would read as follows: Sec. 20-615. - Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (7) The setbacks for lots served by private streets and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, 30 feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right- of-way that provides access to the parcel, unless otherwise designated in accordance with section 20-922. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a 100-foot minimum width' b. For rear yards, 30 feet. c. For side Yards, ten feet. (8) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three stories/35 feet. b. For accessory structures, 20 feet. Sec.20-922. - Designation of alternate front lot lines for single-famity dwellings For single-family dwellings, the front yard shall be the line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel unless: 1) The City Council designates an alternate front lot line as part of the subdivision, orr 2) For subdivisions created prior to [insert date of adoptionl, the Community Development Director may designate an alternate front lot line consistent with the subdivision's development paffern and the orientation of other structures within the neighborhood. G:\PLAN\City Code90l9p019{2 Various\.Front Yards\Front Yard [-ocation'docx PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 19, 2019 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: E.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from their February 19, 2019 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated February 19, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated February 19, 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2019 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, and Michael McGonagill MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz and Mark Randall STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; and Erick Henricksen, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: John Kunitz 6441 Bretton Way Jerry Cone 6320 Minnewashta Woods Drive Tony Fricano 980 Lake Lucy Road Lynn Pelto 6581 Foxtail Court Annette Stock-Lind 8104 Dakota Lane Rodney Colson 6440 Pipewood Colleen Johnson 5015 St. Albans Bay Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED LOT FRONTAGE AT 3800 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked about the status of the gravel driveway. The applicant Rod Colson with Colson Custom Homes, 6440 Pipewood Curve discussed storm water drainage on the property. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Weick moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two-lot subdivision and approves a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans dated December 5, 2018, subject to the conditions of approval, adopts the findings of fact and recommendation: Building: Planning Commission Summary – February 19, 2019 2 1. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures. 2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. Engineering: 1. Lot 1 shall have a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along its front lot line (northernmost lot line) prior to recording of final plat. 2. An accurate soils report indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope, and groundwater elevations shall be provided upon the submittal of grading permits. 3. The contact information for the responsible person(s) for erosion and sediment control best management practices shall be updated on the plans prior to issuance of grading permits. 4. Review and approval of the use of silt fence and bio rolls for perimeter control shall be conducted by the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. 5. Add city detail 5302B – Erosion Control for Individual Lots, to the detail sheet. 6. If the 1974 sanitary and water services stubbed off Red Cedar Point Road that will service Lot 2 are inadequate for use, they shall be abandoned in accordance with city standards and re-installed. 7. The developer of Lot 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit application. Environmental Resources: 1. Any trees removed in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be required to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree inventory, but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum for the inventory. They will be preserved on Lot 1. 2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. Fire Department: 1. The home on Lot 1, Block 1 must be addressed off of Hickory Road. Parks: Planning Commission Summary – February 19, 2019 3 1. Park dedication fees shall be paid for one lot at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. Planning: 1. An escrow of 110 percent (110%) of the estimated removal cost for the concrete pad on the interior lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 must be received, and the concrete pad removed within four months of the approval of the final plat. Water Resources: 1. All permits and approvals must be received from other regulatory agencies prior to issuing permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee for 1.06 acres at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERMITTING CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller asked about different types of chicken coops, enforcement, and notification of neighbors. Commissioner Weick asked about the overall use for chickens in other cities, and if there has been found to be an increase in predators around chicken coops. Commissioner McGonagill asked about homeowner association regulations. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapters 4, 5 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning chickens with the following modifications. The lot size requirement will start at one acre with 8 chickens being the maximum. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE REVISITING THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SECTION’S FORMATTING. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification of this item. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Summary – February 19, 2019 4 Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning community commercial district formatting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FACILITIES IN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning continuing care retirement facilities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO UPDATE SIGN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS REFERNCE (BUILDING CODE). MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. McGonagill moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning sign design and construction standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CLARIFYING TRASH STORAGE ENCLOSURE EXEMPTION. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning trash enclosures. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 15, 2019 as presented. Planning Commission Summary – February 19, 2019 5 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Kate Aanenson provided an update on the Galpin property matter which is scheduled to come back before the Planning Commission at their March 5th meeting for public comment and redevelopment of the Applebee’s site. YEAR END REVIEW/2019 WORK PROJECTS ANNUAL REPORT. Kate Aanenson reviewed planning numbers for 2018 and what staff is projecting to see in 2019. Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2019 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, and Michael McGonagill MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz and Mark Randall STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; and Erick Henricksen, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: John Kunitz 6441 Bretton Way Jerry Cone 6320 Minnewashta Woods Drive Tony Fricano 980 Lake Lucy Road Lynn Pelto 6581 Foxtail Court Annette Stock-Lind 8104 Dakota Lane Rodney Colson 6440 Pipewood Colleen Johnson 5015 St. Albans Bay Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED LOT FRONTAGE AT 3800 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD. Taping of the meeting started at this point in the staff report. Walters: …sewer access currently so from the north up here and the proposed Lot 2 on the south had utilities stubbed in in 1974 off of Red Cedar Point to the south. Sorry I’m having a little trouble changing slides for whatever reason. With regards to right-of-way streets and easements, no right-of-way dedication is being requested. The plan is for Lot 1 to be accessed via the existing driveway easement up through the vacated Kirkham Road onto Hickory. Lot 2 will have driveway access to Red Cedar Point and the applicant is going to dedicate a 5 foot side yard drainage and utility easements and then 10 foot easements along the front yard and they will be dedicating, asking for the designation of the northern lot line here as the front lot for Lot 1, Block 1. This is really slow. Sorry, bear with me a minute. Regarding the proposed variance request they are, they gave us a couple options to show the feasibility of doing the subdivision without a variance. That’s shown as Concept A or Concept B. They’re proposing again having zero feet actually on a strip public street because the front lot line would be where there is not a street. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 2 The reason for this is the Kirkham Road is not improved. In order to do it without requiring a variance they could install a private street which would involve several thousand feet of impervious surface within the area. They could also dedicate land to the city right-of-way and conduct, construct a public street. They could also use a flag lot configuration which would involve having a 30 foot neck that would service this rear parcel off of Red Cedar Point. All of these would result in an increase in impervious surface within the subdivision and given that the lots exceed the minimum dimensions required and lot area required staff’s preference would be to minimize the amount of impervious surface installed within the shoreland district. Staff has been contacted by several individuals in the neighborhood. Comments have fallen into two categories. One was concern that the subdivision not exceed two lots. Staff’s reassured folks that what’s being proposed is a two lot subdivision and there is no contemplation or potential for more than two lots to come from this. There has also been concern expressed over the subdivision’s potential impact on the area’s stormwater. Mainly staff’s been informed that Hickory is a low point and there’s concern that increased impervious would cause more runoff to be diverted into that area. Staff clarified that under the subdivision ordinance two lot properties are not required to install their own stormwater infrastructure or improvements and that the development would need to meet city and watershed requirements when they pull a building permit. So looking over the proposed subdivision it could go forward without a variance through the use of either a private street or a public street or through a flag lot which would require a variance from the subdivision ordinance but it would likely meet all of those criteria. All of the above mechanisms would require additional impervious surface. Staff as I mentioned believes it’s important to minimize the amount of impervious surface within the shoreland district. Both of the proposed lots are significantly larger than the residential single family district’s minimum lot width, depth and lot area requirements. Lot 1 will have access provided to a public road from the existing driveway easement which is a continuation of the current situation in the neighborhood and the subdivision meets all the requirements of the city code so for all of these reasons staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with the variance. I’d be happy to address any questions you have at this time. Aller: Any questions of staff at this point? Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: One question I had is mostly my own education on Lot 2 I notice they have a rock driveway going in. Walters: That is conceptual for the construction so they, you know they can put the rock entrance so that they can get the construction vehicles there when building. So they showed that in the grading plan I believe on the plat. McGonagill: Right, I was just wondering were they doing that to avoid an impervious surface or are they thinking about they’ll pave it down the road? Walters: It would be paved after construction. That would only be for like some of the grading activities as part of the construction. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 3 McGonagill: Okay, thank you sir. Walters: Yep. Aller: Additional questions. Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward and make a presentation that would be great. If you could state your name and address for the record sir. Rod Colson: Sure Rod Colson with Colson Custom Homes, 6440 Pipewood Curve. Aller: Welcome. Rod Colson: Thank you. Aller: Tell us about your project. Rod Colson: Well it’s a pretty straight forward two lot subdivision. There’s nothing special about it. Aller: There had been some concerns stated about the amount of water runoff and whether or not there’s a storm drainage problem based on the fact that this property would be built or subdivided. Can you address those issues a little bit? Rod Colson: Well I don’t think that it’s going to be creating more of a problem or making any problems that are there worst than already the, Hickory Road is the low point anyway so a lot of the water comes across and then it comes up from the lake when we have high water. Aller: Will the property when you build the property it’s going to have it’s own drainage area or no drainage area? Is it going to have, what’s it going to use to wick water away from your construction? Rod Colson: We’ll be well under the hard cover so it will, the soil’s pervious will absorb the water. There’ll be some runoff but that’s normal. There’s already runoff coming through from the lot to the west up high so. Aller: Additional questions? Okay thank you. Rod Colson: Thank you. Aller: We’ll open the public hearing portion of this item so this is again an opportunity for an individual that’s present to come up and speak either for or against the item. Make a comment. The public hearing is now open. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. And Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 4 entertain comments, concerns, questions, additional questions of staff or a motion. Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Yeah it looks like a, as presented would be better than the flag lot or some of the other alternatives in trying to reduce the impervious surface and that would be with the recommendation that staff is proposing. Aller: I see a lot of sense. Commissioner Weick. McGonagill: And this will include the new address right? Walters: That is one of the conditions of approval. Weick: I was going to propose a motion. Aller: Please do. Weick: I don’t want to rush anybody but the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two lot subdivision and approve a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition as shown in the plans dated December 5, 2018 subject to the conditions of approval and adopting the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? McGonagill: Second. Aller: Having a valid motion and a second, any further comments or concerns? I just want to say that I think under our guides we are looking for what will be least impactful and a reasonable use of the property and when we look at the situation here we have an opportunity to create a situation where there’s better stormwater management and reduction of the impervious surface so I think it’s a good plan as well. Any additional comments? Weick moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two-lot subdivision and approves a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans dated December 5, 2018, subject to the conditions of approval, adopts the findings of fact and recommendation: Building: 1. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 5 2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. Engineering: 1. Lot 1 shall have a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along its front lot line (northernmost lot line) prior to recording of final plat. 2. An accurate soils report indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope, and groundwater elevations shall be provided upon the submittal of grading permits. 3. The contact information for the responsible person(s) for erosion and sediment control best management practices shall be updated on the plans prior to issuance of grading permits. 4. Review and approval of the use of silt fence and bio rolls for perimeter control shall be conducted by the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. 5. Add city detail 5302B – Erosion Control for Individual Lots, to the detail sheet. 6. If the 1974 sanitary and water services stubbed off Red Cedar Point Road that will service Lot 2 are inadequate for use, they shall be abandoned in accordance with city standards and re-installed. 7. The developer of Lot 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit application. Environmental Resources: 1. Any trees removed in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be required to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree inventory, but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum for the inventory. They will be preserved on Lot 1. 2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. Fire Department: 1. The home on Lot 1, Block 1 must be addressed off of Hickory Road. Parks: Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 6 1. Park dedication fees shall be paid for one lot at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. Planning: 1. An escrow of 110 percent (110%) of the estimated removal cost for the concrete pad on the interior lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 must be received, and the concrete pad removed within four months of the approval of the final plat. Water Resources: 1. All permits and approvals must be received from other regulatory agencies prior to issuing permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee for 1.06 acres at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERMITTING CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Aller: Moving onto the amendments to the Chanhassen City Codes which have been put forward. Do you want to hit these one on one or would you like to take them as a group? Aanenson: Yeah… Aller: Okay so we’ll hit item 2 which is an amendment to Chanhassen City Code requesting a permitting of chickens in residential districts. Walters: Alright, so the first code before you is, and I do apologize. This is not working, there we go. Is again the question of allowing chickens. I’ll maybe give it a minute until folks can. Alright the question is re-examining the City’s policy on back yard chickens. Currently the City considers chickens to be farm animals. This is kind of reminiscent of if you’ll remember the bee discussion we had last year. They’re restricted to parcels, agricultural or 10 acres or larger. We’ve had a lot of people contact us express interest in having chickens on their properties. Staff looked at, I think we surveyed 62 different cities, 44 of which now allow back yard chickens. Looked at some literature and staff’s belief is that they can likely be accommodated in residential districts so long as there are numbers of chickens. Limits on the number of chickens and then also some performance standards. So some stuff that we looked at, and I apologize, I put a lot of charts on this one slide but the different type of regulations that cities had. So I mentioned we looked at 62 cities. 44 of these permitted chickens to be kept in the back yard. Of those the most common limit was a limit on the number of birds. 40 of the 44 did that. About Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 7 half required that additional setbacks beyond the base zoning codes be applied to like the chicken coop or the chicken run. About half required licenses. The majority prohibited roosters. We saw that was pretty common. We looked at the maximum number of chickens. Four was the kind of the favorite number but there were a lot of different sliding scales and different systems used. What staff is proposing for the city of Chanhassen would be allowing them on any parcel. Parcels less than one acre, limiting them to 4 chickens. From the 1 to 2.5 acre range allowing up to 8 chickens. From 2.5 to 10, up to 16 chickens. If you have over 10 acres you can have a chicken farm so we didn’t really see a reason to limit it at that point. Beyond that we’d like to go with a 25 foot setback from any adjacent residence not owned by the owner just to kind of minimize a chance for noise or odor impact. Standard 10 foot lot lines. Requiring that coops and runs be enclosed. That’s mostly to prevent predators from eating the chickens and rodent proof food storage. Weekly waste removal again to deal with potential odor issues. Prohibiting roosters and crowing hens to prevent noise issues and no discernable odor at lot line were the performance standards and then probably requiring a permit similar to what was done with bees. $25 lifetime permit as long as there’s no violation no need to reapply every year. With that I’d be happy to take any questions. I know I through that quick and I can go into a lot more depth if you’d like. Aller: Did we look at the, I know we use articulation in our buildings. Did we look at the type of coops? Are there differences in an open coop versus a closed coop for purposes of noise, odor and view? Walters: Yeah we’d need, we’d require a fully enclosed coops because it allows better protection from the chickens from both predators and the elements but one of the things that folks would have to take into account as they designed them would be proper ventilation to prevent odor issues or you know disease for the chickens and also to make sure it’s comfortable. But we didn’t go into like super detail you know designing their coops for them. We did put a minimum of 4 square feet per chicken just to ensure the animals had room to be chickens in. That seemed to be a pretty common provision from some of the other cities we looked at. Aller: And a coop would be considered an accessory structure. Walters: Yes it would. Aller: So for purposes of the code enforcement and that would limit an individual’s use of their property is they decide to put in a coop for instance. That would be their accessory structure. They couldn’t have another one on the other side of the property. Without acreage. Walters: Yeah I mean they would still be, it would contribute to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limit so if somebody already had 1,000 square foot garage they’d have to potentially choose between how to use it but that’s similar to the choices they have to make for a lot of other features. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 8 Aller: And we’re talking about specifically keeping chickens outdoors versus indoors? Walters: We did put a prohibition against having them indoors. The rationale behind that is there is some evidence that there’s a lot of, there can be increased risk of transmission of illnesses from chicken to people when chickens and people live in very close confines. So just as a safety disease control we didn’t necessarily think they’d be good household pets. That being said you know if someone wanted to convert a portion of their garage or something to a chicken coop, especially if it’s like a detached garage I don’t personally see an issue with that and we didn’t address that in the code. Aller: And then we’re not looking at butchering or anything else on a property correct? Walters: So the language that staff is proposing would say no outdoor butchering. What we, our approach was within the city of Chanhassen during a certain time of the year you can see deer hanging from trees. There’s no prohibition about butchering a deer or any game animal that you may hunt. We felt the intent of like butchery bans was to avoid potentially offending the neighbors if in your garage you want to eat one of your chickens, we felt that was a choice chicken owners could make. Aller: Alright. Walters: Again any of these provisions could be obviously amended if the commission has different feelings on it. Aller: Did we look at enforcement? Walters: Enforcement would be similar to how we’re planning on enforcing bees and other potential nuisances. If we receive a complaint we’ll go out there. If we find that the chickens are being kept in violation of the permit it’d be grounds for revoking the permit which would prevent them from being issued a new chicken permit but yeah it’s similar to any other part of the code. You know we would not be doing annual or surprise inspections. It would all be complaint response based. Aller: And we were also looking at notification of neighbors with bees. Is that the same with chickens? Walters: Yes it is. We actually adopted the exact same language on that again just to make sure everyone knows that there’s going to be a change and has some forewarning. Aller: Any additional questions? Commissioner Weick. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 9 Weick: Did you, when you looked at the 62 other cities was there any information on the people that have chickens, what they’re doing with them? Do they have them for eggs? Do they have them for pets? Do they have them because they’re cute? Walters: It honestly seems to be primarily eggs with a touch of good companion animals and cute. A lot of people think it’s fun to watch them run around. They do also serve some ecological benefits. Their waste produces a really good compost so you know gardeners like that They also eat a lot of garden pests so some people strategically place their coops and runs next to their garden so they eat insects before they even get to the gardens so a lot of kind of your green ecologically friendly motivations but I think egg production tends to be like the over riding factor. Weick: And then a second question is it just, has there been any evidence of increased predator activity around chicken coops? Walters: A lot of stuff eats chickens and if the chicken coops are not well designed and not properly enclosed your, everything from your neighbor’s dog to an eagle is going to get a meal and that’s one of the reasons why we adopted the provision that both the coops and the runs needed to be fully enclosed and well constructed and the hope there is if you don’t have vulnerable chickens out where predators can get them hopefully they will not be attracting predators. Weick: That’s all I have. Aller: Great. Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: Question on the structures. I’m assuming the way this would work that, okay we would have a code that would approve it but they would still have to get their homeowner’s association to approve it. Like for example you know patios have to be approved you know or you’re painting a house sometimes has to be approved by a homeowner’s association so they would have to submit, I’m assuming they’d have to submit their plan to their local homeowner’s association board for approval. Walters: If their homeowner’s association had policies those policies would govern. From the city’s perspective you know just with the examples you mentioned I do not ever, if someone applies for a patio and they meet the city code I issue a patio permit. McGonagill: Right. Walters: If their homeowner’s association does not allow that that’s for the homeowner’s association to address and enforce. McGonagill: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 10 Walters: And you know most folks obviously are very good about doing their research and one of the things that the notification is hopefully it would make sure the homeowner’s association knew chickens were in the plans. McGonagill: Thank you. Thanks MacKenzie. Aller: Additional questions or comments? Hearing none I will open up the public hearing portion of this item. So any individual wishing to come up and speak either for or against the item can do so. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. Open it for discussion, comment or action. Weick: I’m concerned about attracting predators. I don’t know that, although we haven’t heard from residents or anything I, it’s just a, I mean we have issues now I think with you know putting bait in people’s back yards potentially. That’s my concern. I mean I don’t have anything against chickens certainly and I think people will do it responsibly but that’d be my concern. Aller: Additional comments, questions. Madsen: I share that concern. I do like the fact that neighbors need to be notified. I do like the fact that there’s a permit and so if there is an issue there’s a real you know process where people can talk about it. Maybe find a solution so if there were predators, I mean I don’t know what that solution would be except to remove the chickens if it was really bad but at least, and I like the requirement that it be all enclosed to keep the chickens as safe as possible so. Aller: Well I’m not, I’m kind of on the chicken fence. I mean I’m just, I don’t want to stop somebody from using their property reasonably. We do allow bees. We do allow for other pets but I agree with Commissioner Weick that we have to trust our citizens to act responsibly. I do think that as in the bees when we were looking to do a permit process that that’s absolutely necessary. That there’s notification to the neighbors. That there’s a permit taken out so the neighbors have someone to turn to rather than creating a confrontation. You know as much as we love to have neighbors be able to talk to themselves that doesn’t necessarily always happen and so this would give an opportunity for people to turn to their neighbors. I guess I have an additional question of staff. Is there any indication that this has been going on without being permitted? Walters: I did receive a complaint about chickens in June of 2018 I believe was the date I listed. An individual was staying with their mother. Had brought their chickens. Had a kind of sub- standard fencing. Chickens got out you know. As always we find out about stuff when someone comes to us. You know if we did a proactive patrol it probably wouldn’t surprise me if we found a few other properties with chickens but no I don’t think there’s like a huge number in the city. If that is… Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 11 Aller: Well I mean it cuts both ways. It’s also telling that if we would suspect that it’s out there and neighbors aren’t complaining then it’s kind of leads to the opinion that the neighbors don’t have a problem with it so that may be an unwritten will. Walters: In the one complaint we received the verbatim comment was I didn’t care until they got in my garden which is understandable. Aller: Based on those questions any additional comments? Questions. Concerns. Weick: I’ll probably oppose it, unless we considered maybe increasing the lot size so that it, because as I understand it there is no lot requirement so I would say if you mandated it on some lot size smaller than agricultural but you know with bigger than I don’t know. Aller: So could you put up the slide again with the different, there we go. If that will help your thought process at all. Weick: Yeah because I’m just leaning if lot sizes are bigger there’s just more space. There’s more opportunity to you know create a coop or something that’s, you know you’re not going to have neighbors necessarily on top of you at that point. You know jut thinking about the nuisance factor. Potentially smell and other stuff so if it was, I guess I’m most concerned about the you know chickens on less than an acre. I’m not sure. You know I’m just trying picturing my neighborhood right and if my neighbors had chickens I don’t know if it’d really like that. I don’t know. McGonagill: I’m looking at your page 3 following up on your comment. It says that there’s 7 cities that had minimum lot sizes. Do you remember what those were MacKenzie? Walters: Not off hand. Most of them that had the minimum lot sizes did it by zoning district and I didn’t necessarily cross check you know what those thresholds were. McGonagill: Okay. Walters: That’s definitely something we could get back to you on if you wished. Aller: My understanding is Rosemount allows for hens and no roosters and you have to get written permission from all your neighbors if that helps or perhaps taking the less than one acre and excising it and going 4 and 8 instead of 8 and 16 so something that’s workable. I mean it’s not that I’m pushing it at all but if you’ve got an idea that you want to put forward that’s fine. Weick: Yeah and you know this can certainly pass without me so you know I don’t want to, I would just throw if several, I’m just trying to be open about it. If several of us are on the fence I would propose starting at one acre and then stepping it up from there. But if the consensus was Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 12 that you know to vote in favor of it I have no, you know that’s perfectly fine as well. I just wanted to express my concern there that’s all. Aller: Your point’s well taken. I mean people are discussing things for a reason because we have. Weick: Right, right. Aller: We don’t want to disrupt our neighbors and our neighborhood and at the same time we want to make sure that our neighbors have an opportunity to have appropriate pets and to use their property accordingly so. Any comments or? Undestad: I’ve got one more on the setbacks. So we’re doing 25 feet on the sides for each residential. 10 feet from the lot line. Walters: Yep. So the coop or run would not be able to be located within 25 feet of any of the neighbor’s housing but could be 10 feet from any lot line and that was to try to guarantee that like on very close lots or lots where there wasn’t a lot of space you know you couldn’t put a coop right outside your neighbor’s window. Undestad: So I guess but you know looking at that too I guess I kind of agree with Commissioner Weick. Aller: Go in the back yard. Undestad: Yeah if you’re just 10 feet, if you’re in those smaller lots on there and you have you know if you don’t like chickens and you’ve got them 10 feet away from your back yard and you’ve got only a 30 foot deep back yard, oh there’s your chickens so. Maybe I guess that less than an acre might be a little tight for many. Aller: So I’m hearing acreage as being the sticking point so to speak and what about any of the other conditions are concerning of anyone? Undestad: Well I just would like on an acre or more you’ve got room to do this stuff with the coops and the runs and all that so. Aller: So if that’s the case would someone like to propose a motion regarding that or do you feel as though it’s not worth it at this time and you want to send it back. Weick: I’ll propose it that way. I would say I’d still keep it at 8. Starting at 8. Undestad: On one acre. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 13 Weick: I think you put good research into that. That seems to be a good number. I mean I don’t think we have to reduce the number of chickens people can have but I mean I can certainly give it a shot. I’ll propose a motion. Aanenson: Just so you can read the motion… Weick: Okay the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapters 4, 5 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning chickens with the following modifications. The lot size requirement will start at one acre with 8 chickens being the maximum and scale up from there. So we would be removing less than one acre as a possibility. Walters: Understood. Aller: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a valid second any further discussion? Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapters 4, 5 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning chickens with the following modifications. The lot size requirement will start at one acre with 8 chickens being the maximum. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: Moving onto item 3. Item 2 having carried. Will that also be on February 25th? Walters: No it will not. That would be March 11th. Aller: So March 11th. Aanenson: Can I just go back to that one because we didn’t have a quorum last time we agreed to fast track the previous application because that was on last, 2 weeks ago. Aller: So if all those that are watching at home and present would like to follow that item for final action that will be on March 11th before the City Council. Moving onto item 3. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE REVISITING THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SECTION’S FORMATTING. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 14 Walters: Yep so for reasons unknown to staff the community commercial district is not formatted within the city code with the same break out of subsections as the other zoning districts. It just makes it a little challenging to read and find stuff in that. It also would hinder any future amendment to that section because instead of being able to call out a specific subsection for amendment you could have to wholesale amend the entire zoning district so staff you know we’re just going through and we identified some ways we could improve the readability and usability of our code. This has been one that I wanted to change for a while and I would, staff’s recommending that we just make it match to format of the others. And just so you know this is the location of the, oh no. It lost. I apologize. My graphic seems to have lost the little circle I drew around the commercial district which is unfortunate. But it is this section I believe. Aanenson: I don’t know if you recall we added this to the downtown when we did the Comprehensive Plan. We don’t have anything that’s in there but we proposed it for redevelopment to kind of continue the, to allow for some larger footprint commercial buildings in the downtown core. I think the only one that came under this one was the Walmart one which was denied. It needed variances which were not approved and so we want to make sure those standards in that zoning district are codified similar to the other ones so, again it would take a redevelopment project for somebody to go in there. There isn’t any vacant lots in there right now but we’ve had other interests over the years to do redevelopment. Nothing at this current time Aller: Alright questions of staff. Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: A question, you know this is mostly again mechanics. You all spend a lot of time and work doing exactly what you said, the commercial district. You did a lot of mission work. What should be down here. Realize this is code but how does that get rolled into this? I mean you talk about what’s permitted but you all did a lot of work on the intent of what you wanted downtown to look like and where it wanted to go so how does that drive what people are allowed to do? You understand my, where I’m going with the question. It’s almost like the Comprehensive Plan itself. Aanenson: Yeah. McGonagill: How does that plan get included in the direction you would give to someone? Aanenson: So the Comprehensive Plan describes land uses. When it says commercial. Then you go to the zoning ordinance. Within the zoning ordinance there’s a subset of types of commercial like you have the central business district. You have highway business. You have as MacKenzie talked about the regional commercial zoning district. This is what we added a number of years ago. The central, or community commercial. McGonagill: Right. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 15 Aanenson: Which allowed for larger footprint of buildings. So if you look at like Target or a grocery store, we didn’t have an opportunity for some additional, adjacent to the core of downtown so it would kind of extend that so it has permitted uses within that district. McGonagill: But you all did write a document. I know around that kind of stuff if I recall what you wanted in the commercial district. Aanenson: Absolutely. In this community commercial district. McGonagill: Right. So can the code point to that and said you know reference this, use this, you know it’s like. Aanenson: Yes it’s currently in the code right now. Walters: Yeah if you, sorry if I may jump in. If you check the staff report we actually pulled the code for community commercial and you’ll notice the first section is intent and I think that gets to what you’re getting at. Where we looked at the Comprehensive Plan and then within the zoning code we said this is what this zone is designed to do. To clarify the channel… McGonagill: Let’s see it’s 20-741. Walters: The changes here are purely cosmetic and for readability. They don’t change any of the intent or. McGonagill: So that’s how you’re rolling in the direction you want to take it. Aanenson: Correct. Yep. So again the intent of this wasn’t to you know to do a lot of smaller type businesses but to provide the opportunity for some larger accessory offices or something like that. Yes. McGonagill: So based on the code, this is, I know I’m off base here if you’re talking just formatting. Aanenson: Correct. McGonagill: I’m trying to educate myself a little bit. If someone came in with a smaller footprint, as a real small deal you could deny it because it doesn’t meet this? Aanenson: Well once this is the total building on any single level could be no more than 65,000 square feet and then you could have one at 15,000 square feet. At a time there was a lot of fast foods that wanted to come in and that wasn’t what we wanted to see in this district so we tried to Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 16 say there had to be a minimum of tenant space of 15,000 or up to 65,000 which would prevent a larger warehouse type thing. McGonagill: Alright got it. Okay that answers my question, thank you. Aller: Additional questions? Alright. I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Having heard the request and the comments so far anybody will come forward and speak either for or against the item and make a comment? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. I think the discussion that was just had shows the need for the clarification and the fact that the ease of readability and the assistance that it will give an individual looking at the code and pointing those things out is beneficial so thank you for requesting the modification. With that any other comments so I’ll entertain a motion. Undestad: I’ll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning community commercial district formatting. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Thank you Commissioner Madsen. Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning community commercial district formatting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: Motion carries. Again that will be heard on March 11th. So anyone wishing to follow that item before the City Council for final action will be March 11th. Moving onto item 4. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FACILITIES IN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Walters: So one of the things staff does is we periodically review the code for internal consistency and one of the things we noticed in our last round of reviews was that the continuing care retirement facility performance standards set a maximum bed limit of 6 beds per acre and specifically mentioned that they were allowed in high density districts so the R-12 and R-16 districts. Districts guided for up to 16 units an acre. However when we cross checked those districts it’s not listed as a permitted use within any of the high density districts so I did a little research. Looked at the initial proposal. How it ended up being passed and it looks like what happened was when the original code went through it was paired with the Beehive development Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 17 that was in a medium residential district and essentially in one of the revisions the R-12 and R-16 was omitted and it was passed just narrowly targeted to that one development instead of with the bigger all over arching intent of the initial draft. So staff is proposing to bring it in line with the listed performance standards and add continuing care retirement facilities as permitted uses in high density residential districts in line with the original intent of the drafted ordinance before it was you know combined with a specific project, if that makes sense. Aller: Questions of staff? I think it’s pretty straight forward the way you presented it. You’re to be commended on the report. Any individual, I’m going to open up the public hearing portion of this item. Any individual again wishing to speak either for or against this item or make a comment can come forward and do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing portion of this item and open it up for discussion or action. Undestad: I’ll propose a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning continuing care retirement facilities. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Having a motion and a second any further comment or discussion? Okay I, I’m glad to see this before us. I think that our city has taken strides in the last couple of years to make sure that we’ve been taking care of our elderly and making sure that our housing program fulfills the mission of Chanhassen becoming a life long community so an individual can literally have their starter home here and then move into a facility like this and be present in Chanhassen for the remaining days so I think it’s incumbent upon municipalities like the City of Chanhassen to step up and make sure that these things are taken care of in code and I think that we’re doing so, so I would at this point in time request a vote. Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning continuing care retirement facilities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: Motion carries and again that will be on March 11th so any individual wishing to follow the item for final action it will be heard on March 11th before the City Council. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 18 Aanenson: Chair I’d just like to add a couple things. I think sometimes we’re moving through this, just for clarification for everybody so we added this definition. If you remember we had that kind of that remnant piece along Highway 41 that we were trying to find a use for so we thought that would be a good use so we added this as a new definition as MacKenzie talked about. The Beehive because they’re living in a group home. They don’t really have individual kitchens and everything so there’s a new definition added so we’ve got this one and then shortly after that we had the one that came down off of Lyman Boulevard. The Olive, so that’s our second one so this is a little bit different where we, there was new introducing to the city and as a need and so what we’re seeing now is to codify that with some of the other senior housing that we looked at that there may be some other uses coming down the road and so it’s just codifying all that but up until Beehive came in we didn’t accommodate that type of use. Aller: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO UPDATE SIGN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS REFERNCE (BUILDING CODE). Walters: This is another example of checking for internal consistency. We were contacted with a request to provide the 1997 Uniform Sign Code and we do not have a copy of it and so we spoke with the building inspectors and the people who actually inspect commercial signage and they recommended that we adopt Appendix H of the International Building Code. It’s a much more common document. Much more easily attainable. It’s one that we feel sign contractors and our inspectors are both more familiar with and so staff is proposing that the section of the code that requires all commercial signage to meet the 1997 Uniform Sign Code standards be replaced with requiring them to meet Appendix H of the International Building Code which also has construction design standards and is on file with the City. Aller: Great. Any questions of staff? McGonagill: One question. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: We adopt Appendix H, do you know of any violations of Appendix H that already are out there that we would have to deal with? Walters: Not to my knowledge. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Aller: Any additional questions? Commissioner Madsen. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 19 Madsen: So is Appendix H similar to what you remember that the 1997 edition was? Walters: I must confess I have never read the 1997 edition of the Uniform Sign Code. Could not comment on that. We did look, we did read Appendix H. I did go over it with Eric Tessman who is the City Building Official. It from our perspective seemed to be comprehensive. Seemed to discuss wind load. You know proper securing. All the things we’d want to protect the safety and welfare of our citizens. It is somewhat difficult for me to imagine that there were meaningful standards that were different between the International Building Code and construction standards in another sign code manual but again I have not personally read it. Aanenson: Just to be clear all building permits for signs go through the building department so they are inspected and reviewed for compliance. This just documents that, what we’re using for that compliance. Aller: Which is going to just a follow up question if I might and that is in your discussions were there any concerns that this subdivision would leave out something that they would want to have in? Walters: No. This is what the inspectors asked me to propose. Aller: Okay. Additional questions, comments? Hearing none open the public hearing portion of the item. Again having heard the request any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item or just give a comment can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing portion of the item. Open it up for discussion, comment or action. Have you done one yet today? McGonagill: I’m getting ready to. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: I was getting ready to read it. May I? Aller: Absolutely. Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: Thank you. I’d like to propose a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning sign design and construction standards. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? No race this time. Madsen: Second. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 20 Aller: Commissioner Madsen, thank you. Having a motion and a second, any additional comments, questions or concerns? McGonagill moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning sign design and construction standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: That motion carries and again that item will be forwarded to City Council on March 11th. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CLARIFYING TRASH STORAGE ENCLOSURE EXEMPTION. Walters: So this is another housekeeping internal consistency and making sure the code reads like we want it to. I was reviewing the trash enclosure section of the code and I noticed that the way it was structured we have a section that requires all trash containers to be stored within basically a self contained building and then we have an exemption from that that says single family properties don’t have to do this. So the goal was this, the enclosure provision was designed to regulate industrial and commercial properties. We wanted to make sure it didn’t also regulate single family properties so they exempted them from it. However the first sentence of that section also is a section that prohibits the exterior incineration of trash so by exempting single family residences from the enclosure provision it also exempted them from the provision preventing them from exterior incineration of trash. Now I don’t believe anyone but myself and now yourselves noticed this so no one has yet made the case that they’re allowed to burn in an enclosed trash container in their yard but we thought it would be wise to separate this out and fix the problem before it occurred. So staff is proposing to break that into 3 subsections. One subsection prohibiting the exterior incineration of trash. The other exempting single family residences from the enclosure provision. Does that make sense? Aller: Yeah. Walters: Yeah, okay. Aller: Questions? McGonagill: Another educational question. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: What is the code on burning leaves? I wanted to ask that because I really don’t know. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 21 Walters: I would, I wish the Fire Marshal was here. I’d defer to that but I believe you are not supposed to burn yard waste. Nope. McGonagill: Okay. Aanenson: You can get a burning permit but it’s highly regulated so you’re not supposed to burn. Aller: I was going to say when in doubt call the fire department and ask to speak with them and see what you need to do to get a permit. McGonagill: Thank you very much. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Now if you happen to be in an association that requires that it be inside a garage or have some sort of covering in front of it, would that pre-empt this? Walters: Yes. So as always association rules can be more stringent than the City but not less stringent. So the City also just for full discussion we have another provision in our general code that says trash containers must be kept out of public view except on day of pick up. And so obviously if your association also had an additional provision defining what out of public view meant like in garage, behind wall, whatever it may be that would not be affected by this change. All this would do is guarantee no one can ever make the argument it’s okay I lit my trash container on fire because of X. Madsen: Okay thank you. Walters: Yeah. Aller: Additional questions, comments? Hearing none I’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. Again it’s the last opportunity of the evening. Any individual wishing to come forward speak for or against the item. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the item. We’ll bring it up for discussion, comment or action. Anyone? Madsen: No. Undestad: Then I’ll make the motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 22 Undestad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning trash enclosures. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? McGonagill: Second. Weick: Second. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill got it. Weick: You got it. McGonagill: I sure did. Aller: Thank you. Having a valid motion and a second, any further discussion or comment? Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning trash enclosures. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: Motion passes. That concludes our public hearings for today’s meeting and we’ll open up request for approval of the Minutes. McGonagill: A lot of good work MacKenzie by the way on going through all this stuff. Walters: Thank you. I have a whole other 40. McGonagill: Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 15, 2019 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. So on January 28th the City Council took under advisement during the work session the Galpin site. They also discussed it again on February 11th and you will be seeing it on your March 5th meeting. It’s not a public hearing because you held a public hearing on it. There were specific directions given to you and I’ll be working with the City Attorney’s office on that formatting how that meeting is Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 23 going to go. Wanted to see you know what the reception is for the redesign and the other is reception or thoughts about preservation of the open space so I’ll be structuring that. McGonagill: So you said we will get instructions on how that will go. Aanenson: Absolutely, yep. We’re working on the staff report now, yep. McGonagill: So it will come in… Aanenson: What you’re doing is, it’s remanded back to give some additional information back to the City Council. McGonagill: Okay. Aanenson: Not formalizing correct. McGonagill: So very, very specific. Aanenson: Correct because to have the public hearing would be different notification and then in addition to that would be all the engineering plans that you approved so those would just be revised as it moves forward to City Council. The City Council will be making a recommendation also at their March 11th meeting so it’s going to be a quick turn around from that with all their engineering so there’ll be specific instructions regarding that and it is being noticed, a flyer attached in the Villager and there’s information out on the City’s website too for anybody that wants to come comment on the project. So that was one of the issues to make sure we had additional. Weick: But they can’t comment though right? Aanenson: Pardon me? Weick: There was no public hearing I thought. Aanenson: Well it’s public comment. Aller: It’s not technically a public hearing. Aanenson: What they want is input but it’s not a public hearing. The legal form when you do notice to everybody within 500 feet. Aller: So there won’t be Findings in there and there don’t have to be notices. Weick: So you will open it for public comment? Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 24 Aanenson: That’s the whole purpose correct. McGonagill: So will we or will we not be voting on it? I just want to be sure. Aanenson: Well that’s what I’m trying to formalize yet. How that works. McGonagill: Okay. Aller: We left them with a 3-3 the last time. McGonagill: Yeah. Aanenson: Yep so or summarizing what the majority of the comments were and that sort of thing so that’s what we’re working on yeah so. McGonagill: Okay. Aller: So they want. Aanenson: More to come. Aller: They want more. They said go back to work. Aanenson: So right now at the, that’s the only item on for that meeting. We were going to try to put some additional code amendments. As you know with the Comprehensive Plan there’s some other code amendments that will be coming too. Mostly regarding stormwater management. A big chunk of them but so right now we’ll just put that item on because I don’t know how many people are going to be here and that want to be heard on that so we’re just kind of leaving that open just for that item as long as we had nothing external. It would just be internal things that we’d be bringing forward to have more flexibility. So with that also at that, the 11th meeting you know there’s discussion of the Applebee’s site so there was a desire for redevelopment on the site. The council encouraged the developer to find a different type of business for that site so they’re ongoing with that one too. Again there’s been a lot of work trying to find restaurants and they’ve struggled to try to find a restaurant to go in there and it is permitted for some other type of commercial uses would be permitted in there too so we’ll see what happens with that. So that’s all I had for council updates. YEAR END REVIEW/2019 WORK PROJECTS ANNUAL REPORT. Aller: Great. So then we would move onto our year end review. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 25 Aanenson: Yes. So for everybody’s edification, not just the Planning Commission but we at the end of every year do an annual report and this is also the City Council. This is in the By-laws of, and the duties and powers of the Planning Commission to get an annual report. So this is this year’s annual report and the first thing we’ll talk about is a population projection. As of April 1st will be 26,355 so we are continuing to grow. Having problems with our power point here. I’m just going to kind of go through the, maybe MacKenzie can just kind of scroll along. Go through kind of what the 2018 year in review and kind of what we see anticipating or what we anticipate for 2019. So for 2018 the conditional use permits, 3 of those. Four planned unit developments, PUD’s. One rezoning. Three site plan reviews. Again site plan review is either an office, commercial or industrial. Four subdivisions so those can be a one lot subdivision, two lot and then 9 variances so that added up to 20 cases. And also in 2018 we had a record number of 373 dwelling units which is typically about double what we usually do and again those were driven by two, the senior housing project down it’s now called Riley Crossings Senior Housing which formerly was called the Mission Hills down at 101 and Lyman. If you’ve driven by and seen that. And also the Venue downtown. So we see about a 2 percent increase in the housing stock. Again we’re predominantly and will always be predominantly single family residential as our largest portion of the housing stock. We also permitted, the average is 132 single family and 69 attached so attached can be a townhouse or a tri-plex or the like. So again there’s a slight deficiency of approved lots available for development with lot inventory of 103 platted lots. We keep that report in there too. That’s one of the things Bob’s done a great job of tracking all that so we track all the permits that come through so we’re always looking at our land inventory. That affects prices and fluctuation and when developers want to increase their stock so the one that we went through pretty quickly because there was some pent up demand for that price point was the townhouses down at 101 and Lyman, just north of the Kwik Trip there. Those went through pretty quickly and then scattered 61 single family lots. So you can see there the projects that went through. The Arbors 2nd Addition and then Red Cedar Point, just a two lot subdivision. The Arbors a 3 lot so those were some of the smaller ones. The ones on 101 and Lyman, kind of the cottage type homes those are still working their way through the permitting. Again market based. So what we do anticipate in 2019, some of the big projects coming through is Avienda. They were going to go to the Planning Commission, go to that one slide right here. So that’s the lot information right there. That’s hard for you to read but we keep that internally and we keep track of how many vacant lots are per subdivision. We get that request from developers when they’re out doing some of their market studies so we know on the top half of that is actually the single family and the bottom half is the multi-family so it kind of, when a subdivision comes in not always get final platted as you know. They bring in so many lots. Put the infrastructure in and then they’ll do phases on those so that helps us kind of keep track of that. That also happened on the townhouse projects so this is typical in multi-family too. Typically it’s not on an apartment. They pull a permit and that’s what kind of skews your numbers so an apartment like senior, the senior hill, the senior housing and the Venue downtown, those permits for you know 130 approximately in each of those units get pulled all at once. Typically that doesn’t happen in other types of multi-family or single family so those are the things that we keep track of on an annual basis and helps us understand what’s happening in the marketplace. What’s moving. So going back to what we see happening next year, you approved as did the City Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 26 Council the Avienda project and that project, the lifestyle center has made some changes to it. They got their grading permit at the end of last year. They came in for final plat and now they’re going to make some changes to that. They are working in getting their grading permit tied to the preliminary plat. That’s not uncommon that we do that. They would still provide security for that project. They still have to dedicate the 23 acres of the wooded knoll. They had that all staked and there’s some other requirements that were tied to the wetland permit. Wetland banking. Also some additional money for acquisition on Lyman Boulevard so those things will happen before they get the grading permit. I’m working on that with Project Engineer Erick Henricksen on that and they’re hoping to start grading on that sometime in April. Meanwhile they’re going to make some changes to the project itself. Some of the internal things. You know there’s a hotel. Some senior housing also in that project. Some smaller lot housing in there. Some office and as I mentioned retail so some of those are going to move around a little bit so, because they’re amending that PUD that does require a public hearing back before the Planning Commission so you’ll see that. But before it comes back to you it will start at the top at the City Council. They’ll present to the City Council what they’re thinking about those plans before you see that but we do anticipate that sometime this spring again. Kind of all the same time they’ll be coming forward with the grading permit so that will probably be a pretty large discussion on that meeting too kind of going through all the idiosyncrasies so when we do a big PUD like that, that also has design standards so we put together the architectural package which I think they might be making some tweaks. As you recall that had a unique attributes to their sign package so that’s a pretty large development so we’ll be going through all that again with you so have an opportunity for input on that. Aller: So this will be a reverse concept process. It’s going to go by City Council first for comment and then come back to us. Aanenson: Correct yep, yep. Yep, yep so they’ll get a chance to see it. I think they were anticipating that they might be on this coming up council meeting but I think they wanted to refine a few things before they come back before the council. I know we’ve got a lot of requests from neighbors that think that that project went away. It’s not. I think some of the changes are really for the better. Making not only architecturally but some of the uses and the location of some of those uses so anticipating bringing that forward to you. Again looking at our growth rate, about a 2 percent growth rate. We talked about the city code with the changes with the Comprehensive Plan. We did get some feedback on the Comprehensive Plan. It seems like every city got some minor tweaks that we’ve had a little angst over. We have a nuance wording that we’re working through right now on getting those changes. Some of it also involves some watershed district comments so we’ve got our consulting engineers working on that so we’re anticipating that going back up to the Met Council for a final review and then once we get that in place then the clock’s ticking for us to do some more code amendments so you’ll be seeing that. Although the watershed or the wetland actually goes first because we have a shorter window when those changes need to be made. So I think we’ll spend some time with you on that. Education. We talked about that before we spent a lot of time last year on that. The four different watersheds. How we make our rules align so our residents aren’t bumped around Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019 27 between all the different rules and we’re taking back the permitting on that so there will be a little bit more education on that moving forward so we’ll spend some time on that. Comprehensive Plan we talked about that. What else am I looking up there? Joint commission tours. So we’ll plan that again. And then also we have our typically our meeting in April is a work meeting because we have our new commissioners that would be involved in that so we’re looking through, kind of thinking of some ideas that we might want to spend some time doing a deep dive on some educational things and if you have suggestions we’d love to hear about that too. So and then also for our tour but those are really the big things we’ve got going. I don’t know what I missed on the slides there that Bob had put together but again it’s in a formalized report. We’ll make sure this gets out online. It tells you kind of where we are in the permits. We also have good numbers in here. What’s our valuation. Our housing valuations compared to other cities and that sort of thing. What our building permit valuation is and that’s total number of inspections. We have a lot more detail on there too so that will be out on the website too so again we just want to share that with you. Be happy to answer any questions that you might have about it. Aller: Any questions or comments at this point? Other than you know thank you again for providing us with a really deep dive report on the status of planning in Chanhassen. Keeping up with it is a bear just on a bi-weekly basis for us but you keep track of everything so we appreciate it and the fact that it will be put on the website. It gives the public an opportunity to deep dive on their own and take a look at ask questions and be prepared to come in and give their ideas on where they want Chanhassen to head in their planning. So thank you. And is that it for our agenda? Any correspondence? None. Okay so I’ll entertain a request for adjournment immediately following the meeting or after a short break I believe there’ll be a work session for interviewing commission applicants so we look forward to doing that. Aanenson: Yep. Aller: And what that 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 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated March 5, 2019 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: E.2. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from their regular meeting on March 5, 2019. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated March 5, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated March 5, 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MARCH 5, 2019 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Erick Henricksen, Project Engineer; Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Andrew Brotzler, Interim Public Works Director PUBLIC MEETING TO REVIEW CHANGES TO THE GALPIN PROPERTY SUBDIVISION. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report update on this item. Joe Jablonski reviewed the previous meetings and revisions made to the plan. Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification on changes to the grading plan and how traffic concerns will be addressed. Commissioner Weick asked about a phasing plan for buildout of the project. Commissioner Madsen asked for clarification of the tree preservation areas. Chairman Aller opened up the meeting for public comment. Alan Nikolai, 6570 Galpin Boulevard, stating he has lived in Chanhassen since 1962, discussed preserving the wildlife corridor between Lake Ann and Lake Minnewashta and strongly recommended that the City Council approve the PUD. Marnie Wells, CEO of Camp Fire Minnesota discussed the natural environment associated with Camp Tanadoona which is 103 acres and 2,000 feet of shoreline on Lake Minnewashta. She discussed that it is her belief that all kids deserve access to nature and voiced her support for the density transfer plan. Craig Mertz, speaking as a resident of Chanhassen for 40 plus years, explained he was speaking on behalf of and in support of Lennar’s plan for the density transfer. Jennie Skancke, area hydrologist for the Minnesota DNR, spoke in support of the density transfer plan and the preservation of land surrounding Lake Ann. Brenda Darkow, 2198 Red Fox Circle, acknowledged that development of this property is going to happen and that she does support the density transfer plan. Josh Kimber, 2060 Majestic Way, having had good discussions with Joe Jablonski with Lennar, feels good about the drainage plan onto his property but still believes this is a poor use of the land. There must be other options and suggested the City put together a bonding proposal to purchase the park land. He discussed traffic and speed concerns on Galpin Boulevard and the need for safety improvements. Tijuana Burton, Minneapolis, being a fan, supporter and volunteer at Paisley Park discussed her belief of what Prince would want to see happen with this property which would be no development. Matthew Myers, 7421 Windmill Drive suggested the City buy this property, put in a stage and have music concerts to honor Planning Commission Summary – March 5, 2019 2 Prince. Steve Scharfenberg, 1470 Lake Susan Hills Drive, speaking as Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission, spoke in favor of the revisions to the proposed Galpin property and density transfer. John Garry, 1460 Knob Hill Lane, being the owner of one of the biggest ecological restoration companies in the Midwest and having worked with developers and cities in the past described his full support for getting 50 acres of parkland for free. Todd Simning, 2145 Wynsong Lane, speaking from the perspective of being a developer of the Wynsong development and other developments in the area, he discussed not needing to take all 50 acres of land. He described how he developed Wynsong Lane and took a 10 acre parcel and subdivided it into 4 lots believing something similar can be done with this parcel of land. It doesn’t just have to be a straight density transfer, there can be a balance. John Yanta, 365 Pleasant View Road, having seen his taxes increase every year would recommend the City not buy this piece of property. Scott Dewing, 6735 Mulberry Circle stated he was very much in favor of this new plan. Cheree Theisen, 2072 Majestic Way, having lived in the Royal Oaks development for 25 years voiced concern over the loss of trees, how far it will be for her to access the trail around Lake Ann, and that it’s not fair what the surrounding residents are losing. Barb Klick, Utica Lane stated she was a huge supporter of the density transfer as a way to save nature. Laurie Susla, 7008 Dakota Avenue expressed concern with the density transfer of the 54 homes from the east to the west property and her concern with the increase in hard cover affecting stormwater runoff. Shane Waskey, 1925 Topaz explained that he has hiked this property for years and does not believe all the parkland property is buildable and would not support a park all around Lake Ann. Greg Stewart, 1893 Topaz Drive explained that this area will suffer from noise pollution, air pollution, traffic and noise during the 2 to 4 year build out as well as devaluing property values. He also asked that provisions be put in place to ensure that there truly is a conservation of trees and additional buffer line built into the north. Jeri Sorensen, 8121 Maplewood Terrace stated that her family loves and uses Lake Ann Park all the time and suggested a compromise could be the City buying smaller neighborhood parks. Greg Andrews, 6895 Ruby Lane, acknowledging that this property is going to be developed because the heirs of Prince want their money and asked what happens if the City tells Lennar they can’t develop. Joe Myss, 2419 Hunter Drive explained that he is pro development but anti development of this project in it’s current state. He also discussed the issue of safety from increased traffic. Kurt Oddsen, 7325 Moccasin Trail cited the Red Oak development on County Road 19 that Lennar developed and his belief that they murdered the land. He also had a concern with increased cut through traffic from this development through Longacres. Mark who lives on Hill Street, which is about 4 miles away from this project, explained that for 6 months the residents of Chanhassen have been asking for a third option. Dan O’Connor, 7124 Northwood Court expressed concern with increased traffic from this development cutting through Longacres to Highway 41 and doesn’t understand the rush to pick one plan over another. Peter Polingo, 1981 Topaz Drive representing Ashling Meadows expressed safety concerns with increased traffic through their neighborhood. Jessica Landon, Fox Hill Drive stated her main concern is the impact on schools and traffic. Alan Nickolai asked not to waste taxpayer’s dollars with the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and doing things twice like the installation of turn lanes. Judy Bolstad, 1101 Lake Lucy Road expressed concern with pollution to Lake Lucy and asked about plans to address increased traffic. Jean Burke, 225 West 77th Street stated she was not in favor of adding onto Lake Ann Park. Art Planning Commission Summary – March 5, 2019 3 Roberts from the Vasserman Ridge development suggested a third alternative could be enlarging the lots in the middle from 65 to 80 foot wide lots. Sharon McCotter, 7000 Utica Lane stated in looking at the bigger picture and what’s good for Chanhassen as a whole she would favor the density transfer. Paul Theis, 6520 White Dove Circle stated support for the density transfer. Chairman Aller closed the public comment portion of the meeting. After comments from commission members the following motion was made. Commissioner McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 5, 2019 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Erick Henricksen, Project Engineer; Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Andrew Brotzler, Interim Public Works Director PUBLIC MEETING TO REVIEW CHANGES TO THE GALPIN PROPERTY SUBDIVISION. Aller: Today’s meeting is a public meeting to review changes to the Galpin property subdivision. The proposed Galpin subdivision has been before us on two prior occasions at which formal notice public hearings were conducted. The first time it was before the Planning Commission public hearing was on the concept PUD and that was in July on July 17, 2019. The benefits of that type of hearing were that the Planning Commission continues to gather public comments without requiring any formal Findings of Fact. The developer’s not required to prepare costly or detailed plans for consideration and the City is not necessarily obligated to grant approval at that point in time. There’s no legal binding obligation on either party without the Findings of Fact so it makes it easier for the parties to continue to talk and discuss and to take your comments and turn it into action. The developer receives input without direction or with our direction and then it goes before the City Council to do the same. The second time it was before the Planning Commission there was a public hearing on a preliminary plat. That was on January 15, 2019. We were discussing whether the proposed plat met the standards outlined for a PUD. At a recent meeting the item has been remanded to the Planning Commission for public comment to review the most recent changes to the proposed Galpin subdivision. The Planning Commission may or may not ask questions and may or may not comment on the project after public comments have been received. The Planning Commission will not be making any formal decision tonight or taking a vote or making a formal recommendation to the City Council. This hearing is not about us the Planning Commission making a decision. It’s about you as the residents of the city of Chanhassen providing your thoughts, opinions and feedback to the council for it’s consideration and their decision on March 11th. The City of Chanhassen values communications to it’s residents and in an effort to provide exceptional service we have a website available for your use. All the documents, all the minutes, all the proceedings that we’ve had in this matter before the City Council or the Planning Commission are found on that website. It’s a one stop location and the address is ci.chanhassen.mn.us. We will be proceeding tonight as Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 2 follows. The staff will open with a presentation of the project item. The applicant will address the status of the proposed project. And then the public comment will be taken. That’s an opportunity for the public to come forward and speak either for or against the item before us. At that time we ask that you please state your name, your address and representational capacity if any. If there are a number of individuals present who are here to speak on the same topic it’s always great if you can elect one person to speak on your behalf. It saves some time and it gives some clarity to the discussion. We ask that you limit your comments to no more than 5 minutes. Additional time might be granted but is unlikely due to the large number of individuals before us. When the public comment is open there are individuals at the senior center now that can hear us and watch us on the televisions. You are certainly welcomed to come around and voice your opinion so please feel free to come by when that happens. If you have written comments please provide them to us and they will be prepared and put in the package to the City Council and again those prepared items and statements will be available on the website between now and the meeting before the City Council on the 11th. Our commission by-laws indicate that we conduct business until 10:30 p.m. If we continue to 10:30 p.m. we may have to cut off our hearing so again that’s the importance of keeping our comments to a point and between 3 and 5 minutes. Finally for those of you who are maybe out of town and not familiar with the City of Chanhassen and it’s residents we have a nice attitude here. We have a nice attitude here. We have meaningful conversations and dialogue at these Planning Commission meetings and we request that all individuals act with respect and courtesy while another individual is speaking. There will be no major applause. We want to make sure that we hear what is being said and if there’s interference or something, somebody wants to disrupt we’ll have to take action at that point in time. With that we’ll begin this public hearing for comment with the staff presentation. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Just because we have a large group I think it’d be important that we introduce the staff that’s here. I’m Kate Aanenson. I’m the Community Development Director. Hoffman: Hello I’m Todd Hoffman. I’m the Director of Parks and Recreation. Henricksen: I’m Erick Henricksen, the Project Engineer. Brotzler: Andy Brotzler, Interim Public Works Director. Aanenson: So we’re also available if there’s technical questions that the Planning Commission has. Again the Planning Commission’s goal tonight is to be an opportunity for public comments and those comments will be gathered and forwarded up to the City Council for their meeting on Monday. As you mentioned Chairman there is a packet available of the staff report. We put in that report, and I’m not going to go through all those meeting dates because we are going to have just a brief presentation from the developer of what you saw at your meeting in January and how that’s evolved. There’s been a number of work sessions at the City Council and they wanted the Planning Commission and the public to have an opportunity to comment on those changes. So I’ll let the developer go through a number of those meetings but again there will be a staff report Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 3 that should go out, hopefully tomorrow for the Monday meeting and that will include everything except for the Minutes for tonight. I’m not sure we can turn that around that quickly but there has been a number of emails. Those will be part of the record. They are, have been stitched to this packet so if you went online right now you could download the comments that have already been submitted to the city as a part of this record and we’ll continue to add to that record too so again the goal tonight is to listen to the comments from the residents and forward that information onto the Planning Commission. As you stated Chairman you’re welcome, the commission’s welcomed to ask questions. You’re not going to make a formal motion but if you want to add additional comments that’s up to you and I think if we’re going to try to end by 10:30 and you want time for comments you may want to end at a little bit beforehand so I’ll leave that up to you Chairman. But with that what I would be suggesting is that you give the developer a chance to kind of go through the changes since you’ve seen it last and then go ahead and open it up for public comment. And again as you stated we’re not having a sign up. We’re going to let as many people to go through as we can and then just state their name for the record so with that I’ll turn it over to the developer. Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I want to start, well first Joe Jablonski representing U.S. Home Corporation or Lennar as the applicant developer. I want to start by giving a brief introduction of kind of where we’ve gone and some of the things that we’ve gone through. I’m going to run through kind of where we started with the concept plan that was mentioned and then how that’s evolved or changed and some of the things that we’ve addressed. Some of the things that we’ve listened to and I want to make sure some of the questions that still seem to be hanging out there that I’m trying to address now and without getting. McGonagill: Just a second. Joe Jablonski: Yes sir. McGonagill: That stuff’s not up on our screens. Can you get it up there please? Okay thank you. Joe Jablonski: You want me to keep going? Weick: Yeah. Joe Jablonski: So we started off and you mentioned that we started with a concept plan, even prior to the introduction of the concept plan going back as far as the first part of June in 2018 we invited Planning Commission members, staff, park commission and City Council members out to the site to kind of introduce what we’ve thought was the vision that we wanted to proceed with and had a chance to kind of walk around. Take a look at the site and from there we started building immediately the following week. We went right into a council work shop where we got a little bit more feedback and jumped right into the Planning Commission concept plan review Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 4 that was on July 17th, that was mentioned. Planning Commission recommended some changes. We went through and I’ll talk about those. Leading up to that in November we also held a invitation neighborhood meeting that I think went out to the same people that received the public notices were invited to that meeting. It was well attended. We had an opportunity to meet some of the neighbors one on one and we also have held one on one meetings. We’ve been in constant communication with a number of residents by email and phone and have done several, as I mentioned, one on one meetings as well. So that kind of leads us up meeting wise where we are tonight. I wanted to start back at our original concept plan. The original concept plan had 198 homes on it. This is the version that had the density transfer and what you can see is in the middle of that plan there was a large pond. I know you can’t see it up on your, is there a pointer here? Oh yeah cool. I don’t know if you can see it up there. Okay. But there is a pond centrally located in the middle and some of the things that, out of the concept plan that we really took to heart was that the density transfer was preferred. We went through both the Planning Commission, Park and City Council and I think the general acknowledgement was we’d like to see the park preserved and we’d like to see you go forward with some form of density transfer. That was the direction that we felt we were given so that’s the route that we took. One of the other items that was very important, especially to the north neighborhood was that we did something with the connection to Lucy Ridge. As you can see on this plan the street coming in off of Galpin went all the way up into the Lucy Ridge neighborhood. That was something that Lucy Ridge and Ashling Meadows were both fairly vocal about concerns over. Other things we were asked to take advantage of some of the exiting topography on the site. It is a rolling site from the street at Galpin down to the wetlands. There’s quite a bit of grade change. We were asked to preserve trees and then we were also asked to preserve similar lot types against the surrounding perimeters. On the bottom of this plan we had 55 foot wide villa style lots directly adjacent to the neighborhood on the south. Majestic Oaks. So that was in your concept plan. Then as we were proceeding into the preliminary plat, which goes through additional steps of engineering, starts to work out hydrology and starts to gather a little bit more information to get into where we are today so that led into a submission packet that had 191 homes so we at that point we’ve already reduced that number by 7. We eliminated that connection to Lucy Ridge and were able to do so by preserving quite a bit of landscape buffer around the perimeter of that northern cul-de-sac. We also worked to, on the south we addressed the similar neighborhood type by introducing 75 foot wide lots all the way on the south end there to match similar house or similar product type on the south end. We went through and started addressing drainage concerns were brought up during the preliminary plat. I’ll talk about that a little bit. And then you also one of the other things to address some of the topography questions or challenges is that central pond that we had that was kind of in the middle of the hillside. We moved it adjacent to the wetland which was after the engineering was done on it seemed to be a more appropriate place for that to allow the opportunity to take advantage of some of that rolling topography out there. Which really brings us to and some of these questions or these items were things that we pulled out of the preliminary plat stage. Some of the things that we felt we were asked by the Planning Commission or through the workshop sessions with the council. To bring us to the plan that you have before you now which is why I wanted to come up and talk about kind of where we went from that pre-plat submission to where we are today. So now we’re at a plan that Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 5 has 181 homes. We reduced it by another 10. 17 from the original plan. And since then we’ve gone through and we’ve changed all the homes on the south side buffering the Majestic Oaks way have been changed to 90 foot wide lots. That was a change from 75 before so now they match the R-1 zoning standards or are very similar in lot size. By doing that we also reconfigured the, that central area that had, and I do have some more information on this leading up to but we expanded the size of the other lots that were 55 feet wide in that south central area to 65 feet. As part of our current plan we also relocated the Galpin pond. A couple things that we’re doing out here is we’re having to take stormwater ponding for the future expansion of Galpin Road. The locations of that are the preferred locations were provided to us by the County originally and we took those into consideration but actually moved one of the pond locations from what’s know today as where the guard house is a little bit to the south and in doing that there’s a couple different things that we were able to do. One of it was move the pond but it allowed us to save more trees and we also went through and enhanced some of the buffering around the perimeters. I can go, I’ll go into that in a little more detail and address some of the drainage concerns a little bit more closely so they go into those changes in more detail here. Up on the north end now the plan obviously we’ve cut off the connection. We’re starting to show the trail connections that were important to the park commission. We’ve included buffering right at the north property line that is adjacent to the Lucy Ridge neighborhood. We’ve also been contacted by the Ashling Meadows neighborhood and had requested that we consider some additional buffering along the edge of Topaz Road which is something that we would certainly look at. Either with preserving some existing trees along that property line or replanting and buffering that’s not shown on here but it’s something that we would consider. On the south end you can start to see the changes that have been made. We are doing more tree preservation down on that southeast corner. Along the south and the central coming right off of Galpin we were able to save about a 20 foot wide, 20 to 25 foot wide buffer of existing trees along that property line. Now the lot sizes match. They’re 90 foot wide lots on the south. Going into the next ones here. So as we talked about meeting into the topography it’s difficult to explain how that’s going to look from a two dimensional plan in a 3D world so what I attempted to do, and it’s kind of hard to read on this sheet obviously but at the north entrance, if I go back one. At that northern entrance just south, not the far north but the one that lines up with Longacres Drive. The elevation of the road coming in off of there is a 121.7 and down at the south end, or not south but the eastern side of that it goes down to a 987.5 and that’s the road grade following the existing topography. So I point that out because I think it’s important to understand that we’re not flattening the site. From the road connection off Galpin and Hunter down to where those first double cul-de-sacs are there’s about a 34 foot grade change and that’s in the road and that’s kind of pushing the max of what the City design guidelines will allow for those road changes. They’re in the some portions are about 5 to 6 percent. The City does allow up to 7 but it’s really not preferred to go that steep and it makes it difficult from a grading perspective from house to house but I think it is important to show that we are attempting to match the existing topography from Galpin down to the wetlands and then on the south entrance there, from the south to the southern cul-de-sac there’s about a 19 foot grade change and it’s not quite as steep there because Galpin actually comes down in elevation quite a bit there from the other intersections so we’re maintaining a level above the wetlands that’s required but what we’re doing is trying to match Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 6 the locked location or elevation that we’re stuck with off of Galpin down to the wetlands and rolling that street through there at the maximum grades that are allowed for street construction throughout so I know it’s difficult to see that and how that looks but I wanted to make sure that I explain that a little bit because we have gotten quite a few questions. You know are you just going to flatten it and it really isn’t going to be just flat. It is going to have and maintain some of that natural topography throughout. So the changes down in the south end by moving the pond we eliminated, while we both changed from 65 to, or from 55 to 65 wide lots and we changed, we eliminated this little bump out cul-de-sac and put the pond down in that location. What that allows for is a little bit less intrusive view from Longacres. Rather than looking at a small cul- de-sac of houses and roof tops, they’ll be looking across at some ponding and some of the revegetation that we’re going to do. By removing or changing that pond location we were also able to, where the existing guard house is preserve another area of trees. There’s a number of large standing oaks in that area. 14 to 20 inch that are in pretty good shape that we were able to maintain and that pond really wasn’t taking much of our water. It was taking a lot of the stormwater from Galpin so moving it we had to get some leeway from the County but I think they understand the importance of putting that in a location and it still is in a low point for them so it allows the opportunity to preserve some more trees and potentially the guard house as a neighborhood identification marker at the trail head. So if I go forward here, another one of the things that may be a little bit confused in this is the perception that we’re going to be flooding the neighbors. One of the things in our design guidelines and the City’s rules and the watershed is you can’t change the volume of water leaving the site. In fact you have to reduce it. So what we’ve actually done here and what this highlights is the house in the corner here, I highlighted it or I can’t tell. Can you see that up there or not? Yeah it disappears in the screen. So right by where you had the cursor there, that 1002 elevation that you see is one of the existing homes there and the houses that we’re proposing immediately adjacent to it are actually 10 feet below so, and we’ve put in a series of catch basins and a series of storm sewer running through that rear line there so our homes will actually be sitting 10 feet below. Oh yeah. So the elevation of this home in Majestic Oaks is 1002. Our home here is actually at a 992 so it sits 10 feet below the adjacent property and this property actually takes water from the neighbors so what we are doing here is allowing an out for some of the design and some of the, there is no storm, rear yard storm sewer in the existing neighborhood. By putting the number of catch basins and enhancing the storm sewer system that isn’t there today, it allows us the opportunity to collect some of the water from the neighbors. I also talked to one of the neighbors that we would allow or with the City’s permission there may be an opportunity to allow rear yard sump pumps to connect into that storm sewer as well. We could put leads. We’ve done that in other communities in Chanhassen where we put sump pump leads up to the property line to allow the opportunity to connect their sump pumps into that storm sewer. It’s something that we’ll have to review with staff if the neighbors are interested in but it certainly could help that situation. We do have a retaining wall along here and the purpose of that retaining wall, because our lots are sitting down it actually it holding up the hillside and there’s vegetation and trees that we’re preserving on top of it and then in the areas that we aren’t able to preserve trees through here our landscape plan proposes putting them back in on top of the wall so I think there was some misunderstanding that the wall was actually going to be above the existing properties but it’s actually below Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 7 because our houses will sit below. So I wanted to make sure that that was spelled out and understood a little bit better. That’s been something that has been a concern that we wanted to make sure was understood and addressed. Continuing through one of the other things we were asked to do was continue working on the creativity of the plan and what this shows is locations that we’re starting to show some enhancing of landscape. Monumentation at the south entrance, both entrance sides. The north and the south of that road will get an entrance monument with landscaping. At the guard house we are proposing somewhat in and in some respects to the existing or the former owner, some landscaping that would be enhanced by purple flowers of aster, chives and petunias. We thought that that may be a subtle way to show some recognition of the previous owner without going too far over the top and they are kind of a wild species that don’t require a ton of maintenance so it should be something that would be appropriate and take fairly well in a location like that. Down into, I know you can’t see but detail 5 is right in this area. As I click into the next screen we’re also doing some upgrading of landscaping there. Again trying to do more of a wildflower type of situation that’s highlighted by some of the purple colors. Purples and yellows. So lastly I want to make sure that I talk briefly about this because this has been something that from the start has also been kind of part of this conversation is do we want to see a density transfer or do we want to go straight zoning and I’m sure that the Planning Commission understands that with following straight zoning guidelines there are rules in place. There are rights in place that allow property owners and people to develop their property provided they’re following those guidelines. For this area the minimums are 90 foot wide lots with 15,000 square foot requirements. There are some shoreland overlay district rules that apply as well but this plan is a pretty good visual of how that looks. If you follow exactly to the T what those zoning guidelines are and this plan you can see some things that are happening here. The road goes back through because that could happen if the plan is followed to the T. There are the opportunity for lots that meet those 90 foot requirements and 15,000 square foot minimums to go in that location. There is obviously the park area, this plan shows the minimum park required per the ordinance and development of more homes in the area that’s shown on our PUD plan as preserved for park. The overall lot count on this plan is 195 versus 181 on our plan. I think that there is maybe some misunderstanding that this plan creates less traffic. It creates less, you know less pressure on schools. Whatever the case is but in fact there is more houses on it so it’s important to understand that it’s more than a straight trade off of park. There is the opportunity that there’s going to be more pressure on the infrastructure and the roads with a plan like this. There’s obviously more tree removal as well. This whole park as everybody knows is wooded and that’s why we’ve elected to try to preserve it. So the other question that has come up that I want to make sure I address is that area in the park. Can you actually develop that? We’ve taken a little bit more time. We’ve gotten some opinions from wetland consultants about that and we feel that it can. In fact this is a plan, it looks a little different but this is a community that we are building in Victoria. It’s Laketown. Lake Wasserman is actually up on the north part. This is a large wetland complex that goes through here. We actually built a road very similar fashion right through the middle of it. Is it challenging? Is there permits? Yes there is but we were able to not only accomplish this but in this project, this is Minnehaha Creek Watershed. We actually got an innovation award for the work that we did here so can it be done? I do think it can and our wetland consultants think it Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 8 can and I think it’s important to, that people understand that if the decision is made that the PUD plan is not supported that something like this can certainly occur. Whether it ends up being Lennar. It ends up being somebody else but it is possible I believe and I think it’s important for people to know and understand that. That basically concludes the last slide that I have and I know this table is hard to read but what I want to point out here is compatibility with the existing neighborhoods. Our plan by definition is, has a 1.3 density units per acre and by definition I mean net acres which is gross acres or the total land mass minus wetlands. Minus county right- of-way. That’s where that 1.3 units per acre comes from. The area around it averages 1.33 so by definition we fall right in line with that but just for the sake of the math, if you take out the park, which is roughly 50 acres and the 89 acres of upland we come in at 2.03 units per acre and that’s 181 homes at 89 acres. So I think the misconception that it doesn’t fit in with the existing neighborhoods is maybe a little misleading. The neighborhood to the south is actually 2.5. Lucy Ridge is 1.89. Ashling Meadows is 1.28. Parts of Longacres, Longacres is a little bit different. It’s 1.19 but the way that that is, those lots are counted was also different. They were platted into wetlands and platted into ponds and lot sizes are a little misleading on that one. So I wanted to make sure also that that was pointed out because there’s been some maybe misleading or misunderstandings that we’re coming in with a plan that doesn’t match the neighborhoods and it’s significantly more dense but the numbers here really don’t indicate that. So I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. I’d be, certainly will stick around and be happy to answer any at the end or however you feel I’ll be close by. Aller: Great thank you. Joe Jablonski: Thanks. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill, you have questions? McGonagill: Just a couple Mr. Jablonski. A question when you look at this, on your concept plan 7 which is different, a little bit different than what we saw on January 15th. How did the grading plan, how much percentage wise did the grading plan change as far as you know you talked I think if I recall a couple hundred thousand yards of dirt was going to be moved around and now you’ve reduced lot size. You’ve done that. How much has the grading plan come down? Joe Jablonski: The grading plan didn’t change too much. The location of the ponds changed and some of the, we did a little bit more work in that back yard area but the volume of dirt moving doesn’t necessarily change and with that the other plan that follows the zoning, I think it’s important to understand that that requires or ends up with a very similar type of grading situation and probably even more because of the grading that occurs into the park area. So does that? McGonagill: Yeah that answers that question. One more. Quite a few of the citizens have talked about traffic concerns and the interconnections between, and I’ll have to use Longacres and Hunter because I don’t remember the name of the streets across but the streets exiting the Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 9 Galpin development will be single line roads? Are they going to be divided? And then on, you’d have to ask probably Kate, this is probably directed to you. The Galpin project will there will be turn lanes? What’s going to be on Galpin to allow egress from those two neighborhoods now that will be abutting each other with traffic. Aanenson: I’m going to turn that over to the engineering department. Someone that can answer that question regarding the plans that they’ve got on Galpin. McGonagill: Okay. So why don’t we start with you as far as in and out’s. Were those single roads? You know you had a chart of where the monuments were. Joe Jablonski: I have the best plan here. Well here’s one for the south. It is single lane each direction. We weren’t splitting the entrances. We were electing to put monuments on the sides so it would be one lane in, one lane out. McGonagill: So it wasn’t like a monument in the middle of a cul-de-sac? Joe Jablonski: No. McGonagill: Where you’d go around it. It was. Joe Jablonski: No. That’s not the way that we were proposing it. We were proposing it on the outside edges. McGonagill: Okay. Joe Jablonski: And that’s the same in all three connecting points. McGonagill: Okay. And so I guess I’ll turn it to, okay. What about on the Galpin itself? Aanenson: Erick? Or Andrew. Brotzler: Mr. Chair, commissioners we were just going through the Galpin Boulevard design study that was completed in 2018 and the proposed project that’s currently planned for 2022, to reconstruct Galpin Boulevard does include the addition of dedicated turn lanes. McGonagill: It does include? Brotzler: Yes. McGonagill: Okay. At both. Brotzler: That is a part of the proposed plan. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 10 McGonagill: At both roads? Brotzler: Yes. McGonagill: Turn lanes going just one turn lane or will there be two? I mean I’m getting into the details I know. Brotzler: It’d be a right turn lanes and then a left turn lanes in the opposing direction. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Aller: And just to add, tack onto that as a result of the PUD plan that you’re proposing there will be enough easement granted for those turn lanes to be created? Joe Jablonski: Correct. Aller: Okay. Joe Jablonski: Yes. Aller: Any additional questions from commissioners at this time? Commissioner Weick. Weick: One question. I know we don’t have a plan yet but have you given any thought to the phasing of the buildout and what that might look like? Joe Jablonski: We have. Let’s see if I can, well this is probably the best way to look at it. The sewer comes through here, the Interceptor Line down, that runs kind of like this. So we would be electing to start our first phase in this area so that we have immediate connection or the easiest connection to the sewer. Grading would probably occur up to somewhere in here that first development season. And then we’d continue to the north and then the further north can really, both of these can kind of work independently. That really will depend on market and depend on the timing of interest for those neighborhoods but as far as the grading and the infrastructure works it can kind of be broken into thirds with us planning to start on the south third. Work our way to the north knowing that those, that those two areas on the far north could kind of happen simultaneously or at any time. Does that answer? Weick: Yep thank you. That’s all Chairman. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: In this most recent proposal you mentioned that there was additional tree preservation. Could you just clarify exactly what areas that is and some sort of quantity of tree preservation? Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 11 Joe Jablonski: On the south end we were able to preserve down at the far southeast corner a little bit more and then about a 20 foot, 20 to 25 foot wide existing tree buffer here. And then these circle trees, kind of the more blob style is what we’re preserving where my cursor is and then these circle ones are trees that we’re planning to replant. So that would be the south end. In the center area, which I don’t know I have a real good. Well let’s go up to the north. The north from the start between the time of our concept plan and the preliminary plat is where we probably spent the most time concentrating on what we can and can’t preserve up in the north section so all of this vegetation you see here would be preserved. We are preserving this area. One thing that we did change based on staff recommendations or that we support is putting these trees that would be within private lots into conservation easements. We’d be happy to work with staff to, on language for that to occur. There was some concern from neighbors about you know it’s great you’re saving the trees but how do we know they’re going to stay in the long run so I think conservation easements in those situations is a good opportunity for that. And then in the central area the biggest change or the place that we were saving the most was near the guard house. This is at Galpin, just south of the water station. So there were a number of existing oak trees there that are in pretty good shape that we were able to preserve and save by moving that pond. The exact quantity here it’s easy to determine but the other places, I don’t have a number for you sorry. Madsen: Okay thank you. Aller: Any additional questions at this point in time? Okay, thank you sir. So now is the time we’re going to open up the public hearing for comment by the public. Again that’s an opportunity for those present to come forward, speak either for or against the item. Those individuals in the other rooms if you want to feel free to come by and come around to the front and get in line when you feel like speaking please feel free to do so. You’re certainly welcome. To all those present I usually try to welcome you when you get here. Instead of saying that a hundred times tonight I just welcome everybody so we can move it along and I can hear the individuals. Again just a short reminder. 3 to 5 minutes. Please state your name, your address for the record. This is all going to go to the City Council to read and review and to digest and it will also give us a good record of who’s present before us tonight so with that welcome sir. Alan Nikolai: My name is Alan Nikolai, 6570 Galpin Boulevard which is about three-quarter mile north of this property. I go back a ways. I’ve been here in Chanhassen for 60 years. My family used to be about a couple one percent of the population back in early 60’s. For some of those people in those units north and south of this property, I used to hunt that. So you want to talk about not in my backyard. I get it. Bottom line is I’m looking a little bit on the wildlife aspect of it. That was one of the things when this first came up. What are we going to do to preserve natural areas for wildlife? That’s one of the intrinsic values of when people are seeing deer, owls, fox, whatever. When the little kids are seeing the fawn first time in June. Look at the little fawn. How do you put a dollar value on that? You can’t. We’re going have is basically a refuge here. It’s been that way for a while already. We’ve got another big refuge out Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 12 to the west. Lake Minnewashta Park. And there’s a wildlife corridor, if you ever talk to the DNR. How do you connect the two? That little creek on the north side that’s the connection. That’s the corridor that goes through there. With the PUD there’s more buffer space for wildlife to transverse east to west. They go way up that creek, I watch it all the time. I’ve been driving that road for 45 years. I understand what goes on with the wildlife. Frankly the PUD, all the work that’s been done with all the Lennar and all the city officials, well done. Very well done. We have a much bigger natural area for wildlife that people will enjoy for years to come. Frankly this, that area in the, those that have it. This red area, that’s the feather in the hat for the city of Chanhassen for the next couple generations. When they look back, what did we do well? Is to preserve that naturally. Now mowed. Natural. Let he dog gone turkeys and deer and fox, whatever have some room. So I strongly recommend that the City Council and, approve the proposed PUD. It’s dramatically increased. I have a background in construction. Civil engineering. Soils engineering. Architecture. I know what it takes to come together to do this. That’s a monumental step forward compared to the first proposal. Fully in support of this, the new version that you’ve come up with. Representative from Lennar thank you for working with the city but this is what we’re supposed to do. All come together. What’s going to be best so I know I heard through the grapevine you wanted to hear from some people that weren’t right next to it. Well I’m three-quarter miles away and this is the PUD is really a remarkable thing that can happen for the city. Thank you. Marnie Wells: Good evening. My name is Marnie Wells and I’m actually a Minneapolis resident. However I am the CEO of Camp Fire Minnesota. We own and operate Tanadoona which is just not even 4 ½ miles from here so thank you for including me tonight. Thank you Chairman and commissioners and staff. And I bet many of you have been to Tanadoona so again we’re jut down the road and I’ve been leading the organization for nearly 14 years. Tanadoona is 103 acres with 2,000 feet of shoreline on Lake Minnewashta. We are home of birds, bugs, critters. Lots of critters. Five unique eco regions including wetlands, prairie and a big woods. And we’ve been serving our kids of this community since 1924. And we believe that nature is the catalyst for change and we believe children have a right and we believe all kids deserve access to nature and that’s why I’m here tonight. Many of you may know this but I’ll just remind you. Kids spend 90 percent of their time indoors. Kids spend 50 hours a week in front of a screen. That is a full time job in front of a screen. That’s about 7 ½ hours a day. And we all know, we all know this and the research shows that when kids are unplugged and in nature it makes them happier, healthier, and better in school. So it seems really clear that being exposed to more nature, and that’s not just the Boundary Waters, or even Tanadoona for that matter, any nature and even perhaps this park in your back yard will have an enormous benefit on their lives and their future success and that is why I support the density transfer plan. This area has the potential to be 100 acre park for the community. That’s another Tanadoona in your back yard. And you know the property’s going to be developed. There’s no bones about it. And you all have an opportunity to create a legacy that will outlive all of us and benefit young people for many, many generations. I believe supporting the density transfer plan is the smartest and most thoughtful way to develop this gem. This absolute gem of an area. Now is my dreams were to come true we would do nothing other than leave it alone and let the turkeys do what they’re Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 13 doing out there but we know it will be developed so the reality, knowing it will be developed, supporting the density transfer plan is my stance. Of course I encourage you all to think carefully and clearly. You all have. I am very impressed with the work that’s been done. The positive impact that nature has on us, especially our children is immeasurable. And we are very well positioned to create and ensure a legacy that will benefit generations to come. And as someone who’s been working with children in a nature network and community I encourage you to support this plan, the density transfer plan. Thanks so much. Aller: Thank you. Craig Mertz: My name’s Craig Mertz. I’m a resident of town here. I’ve lived here for 40 plus years. I’m speaking on behalf and in support of Lennar’s plan for the density transfer. I came here because I wanted to explain a little bit of institutional memory here of historical context to what is happening here. This is the 50th anniversary, the half century anniversary of the establishment of Lake Ann Park. 1969 the then mayor Al Klingelhutz and his wife Mary Jane Klingelhutz and some other community leaders in town here came up with the idea of buying the Welter Farm that became Lake Ann Park. People here probably don’t know that there was opposition in 1969 to taking that big step of buying the parkland. The objections were didn’t need a park or this park was too big or the City shouldn’t be in the business of buying raw land for park purposes or the City shouldn’t buy any more land unless it has money in the bank already to do the internal developments in the park. If the City village council back in that year had gone along with the naysayers we wouldn’t have Lake Ann Park here. Now I know there’s going to be some limited objections to what’s going on. The effect on the surrounding community but just as the village council did in 1969 we need to be looking forward to what’s going to happen 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now where this park, this doubling of the size of the park is going to be another, we’re doubling the size of the jewel of the city park system and I would ask that the City and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lennar plan and we do a density transfer and accept the gift of the additional parkland so thank you. Jennie Skancke: Hi, my name is Jennie Skancke. I’m the area hydrologist for this area from the Minnesota DNR. My role as the area hydrologist is to review and approve preliminary plats when they come from cities. I cover 3 different counties so I review a lot of plats for developments across Dakota, Scott and Carver County. I did see this plan in a very preliminary idea at the very beginning and sent Kate my support for this density transfer idea. I want to essentially just echo what that first man said. I honestly cannot overstate the importance of setting aside this land, not only for the community of Chanhassen but creating resiliency to deal with the amount of flooding that we might have in the future due to climate change. I want to especially commend the staff here for coming up and working with Lennar on this kind of a design. This is truly a unique and commendable design. I rarely see anything this wonderful that sets aside this much space. I think Lennar is really to be commended for not only working with the City but for hearing the concerns of the neighbors for preserving these spaces that they’re willing to set aside an easement. You know they can get extra money for an individual parcel if they don’t set aside those trees in the conservation easement. If they have a larger Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 14 acreage for that each individual parcel but they are hearing what this community wants and honestly it’s very, very rare that a developer is so willing to work with the community so you know just from I haven’t reviewed the details so this is not intended to be a formal support of the plan but generally I think it looks really great and I would strongly support this density transfer concept. Thank you. Conrad Fiskness: Good evening. My name is Conrad Fiskness. I live at 2385 Bridle Creek Circle which borders right up to Galpin. I’m about, between a half a mile and three quarter miles south of Highway 5. Been a resident of Chanhassen since 1966. In 1969 I was appointed to the Park and Recreation Commission and very early on, actually our chairman at the time came to the meeting all excited. He had discovered this piece of property that would make a wonderful park and within a few days as a group went to look at it and it was remarkable. Anybody driving down 5 thought it was just a field of cabbages. Where the ballfields are now and I had no idea that there was a lake behind that hill. We actually commission, park and rec commission, there were 7 of us decided that we did want to go ahead with the park. The council supported us. We put together a plan. Council let us go ahead and promote a bond issue. We bought 60 acres out of 120 that was available. We proposed to buy that and it went, the cost was $3,000 an acre. The comment was made earlier about opposition. I went to 3 different organizations to present the plan. I was told that we were the dumbest people on the face of the earth to consider paying $3,000 an acre for land. Unheard of. And probably if you were looking at it in terms of growing corn, soybeans or cabbage probably that was true but we did proceed. We passed the bond issue. We constructed the park during, I guess it would be 1970 and ’71 and it’s something that I feel very good about having been a part of. I think the fact that Chanhassen has been the number 10, number 4 and number 2 best city under 50,000 in which to live in the country that Lake Ann would have something to do with that. January of 1972 I was appointed to represent this area on the Riley-Purgatory, Bluff wasn’t a part of it yet. At the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District. At the time I came on I, excuse me let me back up. While I was on the Park and Recreation Commission there was a developer that either owned or had option to this land and was proposing building right up to the lake. The park and rec commission, supported by the council promoted the idea and it was accepted that Lake Ann would be the one lake in Chanhassen around which there would be no houses built. In other words there would be a public area all the way around the lake. And so we, that position was accepted by the council and has been to the best of my knowledge supported by park and recreation commissions and councils ever since so we have virtually half a century of support for Lake Ann, the park and the way it has been managed. While on the watershed district board of managers, when I came on Lake Ann was the second best quality lake, well it was the best in Chanhassen. The second best in the district. The only other lake that was better was Round Lake in Eden Prairie. However in Eden Prairie substantial development took place to the west and to the north of the area and the water quality deteriorated rather significantly. Excuse me. To the extent that we spent a lot of effort, time and resources trying to improve the quality of Round Lake. The watershed has supported Chanhassen during the, and I was on the park and rec, I mean on the watershed district for 34 ½ years and during that time we did what we could to maintain and enhance the quality of Lake Ann and that’s where we are today. I checked yesterday and Lake Ann is still the best lake in Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 15 Chanhassen and so it would be a shame in my opinion to do anything that would be possible and deterioration of that quality. And the 50 some acre wetland that is proposed for the density transfer is a very high quality wetland. It’s not something that should be given up without great consideration. And to the extent that, and I don’t know from this plan where the stormwater discharges will go but certainly the straight zoning plan brings houses awfully close down to that west shore of Lake Ann. So I guess in conclusion I would say that I have a lot of years of being involved, either directly or indirectly with Lake Ann and the park and it’s something that I look back on with satisfaction that I was a part of it and maybe even a little bit of pride. And I would be sorely disappointed if a decision was made to negate all that half a century of work that poses a greater jeopardy then might be necessary so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Brenda Darkow: Hello, my name is Brenda Darkow. I live at 2198 Red Fox Circle which puts me pretty much directly across from the gate house so for the last really for 15 years I have had my family have had a great view. We’ve enjoyed all the trees. We’ve seen plenty of turkeys and deer and everything. Even when as they cross that corridor. I teach my teenagers to, when there’s one deer there’s always more to follow so, but we’ve enjoyed that. We love living in Minnesota for what Minnesota gives us. Not just the city of Chanhassen but the state of Minnesota. We have parks. We have trails. We have woods. We have wildlife. We have so many things that not everyone gets to have and appreciates and I’m happy that my kids have been able to grow up in a place that they’re not so confined. That they have room and that maybe 10 percent of the time that they’re not looking at a screen for whatever reason but my kids have gone to Tanadoona. They’ve played at Lake Ann. You know they’ve been everywhere. It’s great so, which leads us to our Mr. Rogers. Ideally he would have left us a will and Marnie says that it’d be great if we could do nothing but that is not realistic and it’s not reasonable. Anyone who thinks, in my opinion that just nothing can happen that’s not going to happen so on the premise that something will happen we need to make the best of it. I do commend Lennar for listening to residents. I know that I, I think have talked to you as well as other people and one of the things that I’ve emphasized is nature so I appreciate in hearing that we’re taking more steps, as many steps as possible. It just tears me apart to see new development and the first thing they do is rip out all the trees. They grade everything out and it’s frustrating for me to look at all of that and it just goes away and the fact that you plant 60 more trees to replace just doesn’t replace a 30-50 year old tree when you have a 5 year old tree. So I appreciate those efforts that have been made to make that. So I guess as you’re probably getting there I have been thinking a lot about it and looking at the main conceptual. Thinking for the map. I do support the PUD because I think it gives, it’s a compromise. It’s a compromise that you know Lake Ann gets more park and that it feeds into things that we as Chanhassen residents love and residents in the state of Minnesota love. We have woods. We have more trees and landscaping and everything like that so we’re trying to follow the grade and do all those things because I love my view. I know my view is going to change and so this is the compromise I think with getting, preserving as much nature and trees as possible. Adding to the parks and just sort of minimizing that and as Mr. Aller knows he’s an attorney, compromise is not, you know if everyone walks away a little Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 16 unhappy it’s been a good day because it’s what you can live with because not everybody’s going to get what they want. I know that I won’t get what I want which is nothing to happen so in this case I’m trying to, you know as a resident and as a resident that’s more directly affected than some and I’m sure as many others that are more directly affected as well this is the compromise that I think will hopefully work. Have more nature. Less houses and hopefully will not have such a long term effect onto the neighborhoods that surrounds and Longacres and Ashling Meadows and everyone as we have brand new houses that are being built and we all have 20 year old houses that are being built and sometimes that causes a conflict so I’m hoping that the proposed PUD is a compromise for everyone. Thank you. Josh Kimber: Hello, good evening. I’m Josh Kimber. 2060 Majestic Way. I’ve kind of been the opposition mascot for this development but I want to start by saying I want this to be a conversation. If you guys have additional questions I know this is public comment I also want to just open it up to questions if you have any for me so I’d be open, willing to do that. When Joe was talking earlier about Majestic and he was pointing out the elevation of this one house. This is actually my house. I had a really good meeting with Joe. I agree that Lennar has done a really good listening to, well at least in my opinion, listening people on the southern end. This, the water in our area is a major concern. It has been a major concern. Even he spoke when the two entry lots, I mean if you picture the land it slopes down towards us and specifically if you look at my lot, I really don’t have a lot of topography in my back yard and this was intended to have the water leak out the back and what as happened is water doesn’t leak out the back and it basically sits in our two yards and makes it way down to my basement and that’s why I’ve been flooded a couple times. So as you know I’ve been to every meeting since January about this listening and I had a really good meeting with Joe and he went over in detail the plan that he went over. I won’t go over it again but I will say that I do feel a lot better about it because of the location. I mean the development is doing basically what we would ask of it. The property from where it is will go down and will slant towards the new houses and not towards my house. It was really good to understand this hill and how the water is supposed to go and how they plan on doing that so I mean Joe did a really good job and I thank him for taking the time for him doing that. So then you may be saying well Josh it really sounds like you’re in agreement with this plan. What are you doing up here? Well the reality is we on Majestic don’t have an option. These are 90 foot lots on both plans. Both plans are the exact same. So regardless we’re going to be losing a significant amount of tree loss. They’re going to be moving a significant amount of dirt. I believe this will probably be one of the most destructive developments in the city of Chanhassen that will lose 80 percent of the tree cover. It will lose 90 percent if you do both plans and I agree that there… I’ve been to every meeting. I don’t think this is an either or situation. I think there are other options out there and I believe with the Mayor that we should be pushing developers to come up with a different plan that just treats the land differently. I completely agree with the Tanadoona comments that nature is of utmost importance and we should use it but I don’t this plan, either plan does that. The topography, the character that’s in the land. It just, we shouldn’t touch it or we should do something different with it. Whether we put 180 homes there or you spread the 180 homes over a great piece it’s both poor use of land in my opinion. That was some of the comments you guys had in July. This is a poor use of land. Commissioner Tietz said Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 17 there’s a complete disregard for natural resources on both plans and that’s why I don’t have a vote. I’m not going to pick one over the other but I did bring up a couple of additional points. A lot of people are talking about the park. The park would be fantastic. When we moved into that house, we’ve been there almost 10 years this year, we did our homework. We looked and we say hey this is going to be zoned low density. Man look there’s going to be a park there. Man that’s going to be great. What we didn’t ask is how is the City going to get that land so in the past the City has gone through a bond and actually did purchase park space. Even he said they were ridiculed or you know commented about how that was a poor decision to do at the time. Why doesn’t the City do that again here? Put together a bond. Let’s buy the land. Then you don’t have to have a trade off. We don’t have to have a density transfer. We can buy the land outright. Sorry, we can buy the land outright. Use it as we’d like and to me that’s what we should do. That’s what we’ve done in the past and we should look at doing it again. In terms of this park space I’d like to remind people that the park space is really in the middle of nowhere. There’s going to be three walking paths. One would involve over a one mile walk around the lake. The other two would be requiring you to park in city neighborhoods to get to that land so yes it’s a great park but there isn’t a way to get to it. Either the guard shack, I question if there are going to be cross walks for people to cross Galpin there safely. There’s not a walkway that goes from Longacres down to the guard shack so the trail head really connects nothing and you wonder if kids are going to cross in the middle of nowhere there. It’s of concern. Learning more about the Galpin…element I think would really appease residents. I know the turn lanes are there but we’re talking about two blinds intersections that both come up hills and I would recommend regardless of what the plan is, even though we haven’t seen anything that the City looks at reducing the speed limit on Galpin. It’s a dangerous cross way. You’ve got to play Frogger just to get across the street and some intersections it’s unsafe. The last comment I have would be about the density units. I know you got creative with numbers but if you look at what the lot sizes are in general and you look at what these property owners are going to have it isn’t in comparison to anything in the area. I believe the math that’s being used would be something along the lines of me buying 2 acres from the Gorra property and then selling my house at 2 ½ acres. Well it doesn’t work like that. The lots that are going in this space are significantly smaller than the south, on the north and the west and that’s really what we oppose in this development is there’s a density transfer and this fits with nothing that’s in the community and that’s why I believe we should be pushing all developers, including Lennar and maybe coming up with a different plan. Everyone has asked for a different plan to come forward back in, even when we were in the concept phase. I think there were 2 people that said we should be looking at a concept 3. City Council members said we should, 3 City Council members at the time said we should be looking at 3 different options here. That didn’t happen so I know that there is great turnout here tonight and I know that there is a lot of people who are passionate about this but I don’t think this went down the right path. I think we should have been looking at alternative plans to use the land better. There’s better use for this land than either plan and that’s really where I stand so any questions for me? No. Aller: No, thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 18 Josh Kimber: Awesome. Now I’m going to leave but I have to go get my daughter and I’ll be back so, I’m not leaving because I’m upset or anything so thank you. Tijuana Burton: Hello, my name is Tijuana Burton. I don’t live in Chanhassen but I served a lot of time here being a fan, supporter and volunteering at Paisley Park. Probably half of you haven’t listen to his music, current music or been to his late night parties. Morning parties. He has expressed, Prince the former owner. His name is Prince Roger Nelson. He stated in his music that the most important thing is not the building but the land that the building is on and the reason why after he tore his house down after his second divorce he didn’t want to build anything on it because everybody was like what are you going to build next? What you going to build next? And he said nothing and everybody was like why? He was like for what? I’m cool living in Paisley Park. I don’t need a big house. I’ll just let the land be the land. I enjoy it how it is and the neighbors said thanks. We appreciate you not building anything. We enjoy you know not having anything on the land. We enjoy the wildlife and you know the habitation and the way it is. He left it the way it was so if he wanted something on there he would have built something on there. Okay I knew eventually after we wished him heaven that somebody was going to end up buying it and when I heard the news this morning that somebody bought it and was going to put some houses on it I’m like oh Lord, and when you all said your meeting was at 7:00, I put it on Facebook. I’m coming. I was going to chew you out because I thought you was going to be you know the regular contractor. Tear all the trees out and concrete everything, whatever but as I listened to you and some of the neighbors I’m like huh maybe he ain’t half bad. But when I found out you all had meetings before this and everybody was trying to come with a, that things falls a hundred times a day child. Thank you. That you all were trying to work together and at least leave some type of you know natural habitat or whatever like the woman was saying, you know teaching her kids about nature because that’s the problem. Why do people think bears are in their back yard? They don’t have nowhere to go. All of this development, everybody get a little piece of land and they want to put something more on it but when bears and deer come knocking on their door they’re like why is there deer in my back yard? Because they don’t have nowhere to go. But if you leave some at least they won’t be at your back door not as often so I don’t know the right answer because I don’t live here but I came to support the residents because I know that street. I’ve been up that street. I’ve been up that driveway. I know that shack and if, that street needs to be widen. If you’re going to build, because you’re going to do whatever you want to do anyway, so if you, when you do build your houses there that poor little street is going to get so worn out. You’re going to have to repave that street. You’re going to have to widen that street. The turning lanes. That would be fine going this way but if somebody want to make a left turn to go up in that property that traffic going to get backed up. The school buses is going to get jammed up. It’s going to be a problem and you’re going to be back here and all these people are going to be back here and I’m going to be back here. So I don’t know what to tell you but you all continue to converse and you all going to have to come up with agreement but I’m here to say I know and I know what he wanted and he would appreciate this and you all coming together and he liked wildlife you know. I know you bought it and you had buildings in mind and homes and what not. It’s too late like the gentleman just left here saying. If we could have left it alone but it is what it is but you all continue to come to a Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 19 compromise and communicate. It sounds like you know you’re taking huge consideration on you know how to do the natural plumbing and what not and everything but please continue to respect the residents. Please keep Prince in thought and mind even though he’s the former resident. He’s not the Artist Formerly Known as Prince. His name still is Prince so please continue to take their thoughts in consideration because they live here. I mean the guy that’s been here since ’66. I was born in ’67. I wasn’t even here yet. So they know okay. Alright thank you guys. Aller: Thank you. Just a quick reminder to all present. I know people like to turn their back to me so that I can’t tell them their time is up but if you speak into the microphone the City Council is going to get a better hear of what you actually present and say so if you can speak into the microphone, again let us know your name, address, representational capacity if any. Matthew Myers: Matthew Myers, 7421 Windmill Drive. I’m on the south edge of the property representing myself. I don’t think it’s an either or. I think when these gentlemen talk about they’ve been here for 60 years and I’m only 20 years so I’m new compared to them but the City took a chance and bought Lake Ann. They bought it. Why didn’t they buy the whole thing? Take the deal. Put in a stage there. Have music concerts instead of here in the city. Let’s really honor Prince. Let’s really buy this. Let’s step up like the City Council did in 1969. They’re saying they stepped up and they bought that part of Lake Ann and now this is the best compromise. Why do we have to compromise? Chanhassen is never going to see the piece of property like this again. There’s plenty of open farmland that they can build 200 houses on sometime in the future but the rolling hill and the wetlands and the Lake Ann access, it’s never going to be available again. What we’re going to run out of is open land like this. Beautiful piece of property… I see pheasants every day coming out of there. The turkeys, the deer, all the wildlife. It’s a wildlife preserve. Let’s keep it for the generations. I’m old….it’s for 20, 30, 40 years like they said. Let’s say in 40 years when people come back and say hey in 2019 they stepped up and they bought that piece of property. Referendum. Work with the County. Work with the State. Get the whole piece and do it right. Be bold like they were in ’69. Not the ’69 they did a great job and now you want to compromise to add to that? No let’s be bold and do the whole thing and leave it all green. It’s not an either or and nothing against Joe. Joe’s done a great job of listening but we don’t have to cow cow to a billion dollar corporation and to heirs that never lived here and the millionaires, the money they’ve made off of Prince. No work of their own. Why does Chanhassen residents need to work with them? We can say no to it all. Be creative. Find a way to work with other agencies, other foundations and preserve this land for the next generation of Chanhassen so when I come up and say I’ve been here 60 years and say hey I was part of stopping the development of 200 homes and doing it right, preserving this land for everyone. Steve Scharfenberg: Steve Scharfenberg, 1470 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Chairman Aller, members of the commission, I’m here tonight as Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission and I’m speaking in favor of the revisions to the proposed Galpin property. At the most recent City Council work session the developer presented their updated proposal. Mr. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 20 Jablonski has gone through some of that tonight. They’ve revised the plan to reduce the number of houses to 181. They’ve changed and modified the lot sizes. They’ve made revisions to both the north, south and the Galpin property. I believe that those revisions were made after listening to the public. Following the January session of this commission the revised plan is now back to you tonight to review and I understand that you will not be voting on it per se but recommendations will be made to the council. As a Park and Recreation Commission we refer back to the recently completed 20 year Park Recreation System Plan. We received feedback during the completion of that plan to expand Lake Ann’s open space. In addition citizens expressed the desire to continue the existing trails around the lakes. The Park and Recreation Commission shares the community’s desire to preserve as much open space as possible. The proposed density transfer to the west will preserve 50 acres of forested public area with the remaining 44 acres as a wetland. I don’t believe that anyone here wants to see that 50 acres developed along Lake Ann or along Lake Lucy. It would be a shame if that were to happen. However that may happen as indicated by Mr. Jablonski and the council does not, if the council not take the necessary steps and action this evening and later on on March 11th. There are additional goals that should be considered in reviewing the plan and those include the following. Helping to protect the water quality of both Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Preserving undeveloped shoreline. Allowing the City to complete the trail system around Lake Ann. Allowing additional trails to be constructed connecting the surrounding neighborhoods to the area. Those connections will be made. The people both in Longacres and to the south will have and to the north will have those connections to that large 50 acre development and that trail will now almost go all the way completely around Lake Ann. This development plan has been a work in progress to say the least. Changes have been made and I believe the public has had the opportunity to bring forth their concerns. Tonight we have one last chance to comment on this proposal. I know that our two commissions look at different aspects of this proposed development. However I believe as a community our goal is to preserve as much beautiful open space that we can. The Park and Recreation Commission would encourage the council to adopt this revised development plan. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. John Garry: Excuse me, my name is John Garry. I’m at 1460 Knob Hill Lane. Live about a mile away from this. Wasn’t planning on saying anything tonight but sat here listened and appreciate what everybody has to say. I appreciate the work staff has done. Lennar as well especially probably in this situation. I’ve gotten a little selfish. I got 3 boys that live a mile from here so 50 acres of woodland is probably in favor for me personally and my kids. But I do have a history for 10 years owning probably one of the biggest ecological restoration companies in the Midwest and it’s pretty rare working with developers and with cities to see a piece of property like this that’s available to the city. Not necessarily for purchase but for free and as a citizen I would say it wouldn’t be very financially responsible I don’t think for the City Council to try and buy this when they’re getting the prime ecological aspects of the property for nothing. I think it sounds crazy to me. I’m under the belief that this area will be developed, whether it’s now or unless you know one of us wins the lottery and wants to buy the whole thing and leave it. It’s a Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 21 lot of money and I think it’s a lot of money for the whole of Chanhassen to eat if we think that we’re just going to purchase it. But what kind of drove me to say something is I’ve seen a lot of these plat maps and I agree with the first gentleman who spoke about the wildlife corridor and you know it’s extremely rare to find 50 acres of upland woodland on the edge of these lakes that you can preserve. And I’m really impressed with what you guys have done by closing off the roads. By changing this so everybody kind of gets the advantage of the best parts of this property. I you know I put a hockey rink in my back yard every year and my neighbor looks at it like you going to flood my basement in the spring so I don’t disagree with the neighbors but I’ll also say as a guy who worked around erosion and these developments that Lennar knows damn well they can’t flood anybody out and they’ve you know, Lennar has lots bigger pockets to go after than I do from my neighbor so I understand that and I think the neighbors should too. But I think it’s a great plan and I would be in full support of it and I just, you know the gentleman who said it’s going to be tough to get back to those woods and you’ve got to walk a mile and there’s only a couple trails, perfect. That’s exactly what it should be so thanks. Todd Simning: Todd Simning, 2145 Wynsong Lane. I probably come with a little bit of a different perspective and really ask the City to, I’ll say honest to goodness you guys have done a really good job of revamping your plan but I want to throw it back at the City to say truly do you need 50 acres over here? Okay so across the street on Wynsong Lane we did the same thing and didn’t destroy the environment. Didn’t destroy the wetlands around. We really preserved a lot of the area. I developed that property. I live there myself and we, we’re very sensitive to what the area was and I don’t see how or why you can’t develop some of the 50 acres there. There’s o reason why you can’t have the trail system connect. I mean whether you go to Eden Prairie or whether you go to Chanhassen I mean you guys are all connecting your trail systems and what not. I mean it’s really a phenomenal system that we all have to really enjoy. Whether you’re in Minneapolis. Whether you’re in Plymouth or whatever, cities are really doing a great job of connecting their trail systems and that. This right here, you’re not going to destroy an entire 50 acres. You might take some of it out of there, okay. You may take some density transfer from the area where you’re completely taking out almost every tree and moving it over to the east side. You know when you look at the emails and what not that have been sent to the City there’s so many, what do you call it? Residents that from Utica and everything else on the east side that were very pro I don’t want anything to happen on the west side. Well why? I mean I don’t want to look at houses. They’re afraid that every tree is going to be taken out but if you guys do a good job of helping the developer, helping the builder develop a good plan you will have a great project. You don’t have to throw density over to one area all the time. You can have a balance. And it’s disappointing to see the City on so many different levels and I think that we did a good job and maybe Kate, Todd and whoever, Erick wasn’t here at the time, maybe they didn’t think that we did a good job balancing out what we did over on Wynsong Lane but we took a 10 acre parcel over there and only subdivided it into 4 lots and granted I make my living building and developing so I’m so cognizant of you’ve got to make money because that’s why we’re in business but you can also be cognizant about what you’re doing with the land to make it beneficial and just to say that we need to transfer everything over to the west side and we need to take out pretty much every tree and God bless us we’re saving this wetland which you’re not Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 22 going to destroy anyway and with all the ecologically sound practices, business practices that we have as developers today you can’t just destroy everything anyway. So to say that they’re doing something better than somebody else is not truly what’s happening. It’s the City has some choices to make and if you say that gosh darn we want to save 50 acres just because we want to save 50 acres, well so be it. You can do that. But on the other hand if you say that we want to take 50 acres, we want to balance everything out and we want trees over here. We want to protect this land. We want to have our corridor system coming through so the trails line up, I mean goodness. My kids will run through there. I mean I’m just on the other side of the road. We’re always outside. My kids are out on the ponds all the time. I mean we have what, 3 natural ponds with Lake Harrison just behind us. You can do a good job making a good project. It doesn’t necessarily have to be just density transfer. It can be a balance. I don’t have anything other than that to say but truly if you guys can just take that into consideration. You’re acting like it’s one of the other and it really isn’t one or the other. It can be a good balance working with the developer because he needs to make money. We want him to make money. We want him to build houses because we want houses to be in Chanhassen. We want the tax revenue and everything else. We want Lennar to make money. I don’t care if you’re a billion dollar business or 10 billion dollar business. You need to make money just like me. Just like you guys when you go to your jobs. Every one of us has to make money. But you can make a good decision about what you really want to balance out with the project and it doesn’t necessarily all have to be over on one side. That’s all I have to say, thank you. Aller: Thank you. John Yanta: Hi my name’s John Yanta. I’m a Chanhassen resident. 365 Pleasant View Road. I think you did a great job with your plan and I have seen my taxes increase every year since I’ve lived in Chanhassen. I enjoy Chanhassen but I’ve seen taxes increase. Therefore I recommend the City to not buy this piece of ground. If people want to come up and step up as private citizens God bless them but this is not a way to buy this site and I think they did a nice job with this new plan. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Scott Dewing: I’ll be quick. Scott Dewing, 6735 Mulberry Circle. I live just on the other side of Lake Lucy. 20 year resident. Born in 1966. I’m excited about this plan. I’ve been following this pretty closely. I believe that Lennar’s done a great job of allowing us to enjoy that area. I drive, walk, run, bike around that area almost daily. I’m very much in favor of this new plan. Thank you. Cheree Theisen: Hi everybody once again. Cheree Theisen. I live at 2072 Majestic Way and I’m in the Royal Oaks development which is the immediate south side of the property. I was the second house in there 25 years ago. I’ve been there all this time. Now I’m looking at our entire back yards being totally demolished. You talk about this wonderful walkway around this lake. Well no one realizes that there’s a big piece of private property still that you’re not going to be Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 23 putting a walkway through so that’s going to be like maybe three quarter walkway to get there as Josh said is going to be a mile walk to get around to your new property. For me on Majestic Way there if I want to go and get on the walkway system I have to walk down Majestic Way, get on Galpin. Go north hopefully down to maybe they’ll put a crosswalk in where the guide track is or I’ll have to go even further but I have go down there, cross again okay. If I had children I’d be very concerned about that. To get down into the nice little walkways that are going to be down to get me and my family down to the lake. That’s a lot. And then the biggest thing I want to say is I wish somebody would put out for these people of Chanhassen, it’s easy for you to come in here and say we need the park. We need the park. Okay but it’s not at a cost to the City of Chanhassen. It’s a cost to us who have been there for 25 years. 30 years or even longer because we’re losing. We’re losing a lot and I don’t think that that’s fair. I would like to see somebody put out a graph so everyone in Chanhassen can see, this is what it’s going to look like and then another one that shows this is what it looks like with every single tree that’s there and then you could realize the impact of what you’re doing to that property by ripping out those trees and putting 5 foot little spruce trees in and I look out my yard I’ll see the top of a fence and I’ll see the roof tops of houses. That’s what we’re going to see there in a beautiful development that we created. Just saying. I think it sucks. Aller: Thank you. Barb Klick: Barb Klick, 7196 Utica Lane. I’m a resident of Chanhassen for 32 years. First of all I want to say I’m glad that this session is being taped. We could send it to the federal government and tell them how the government in the community and the private sector can actually work together to get a good outcome. Number one. Second of all Prince has been a great neighbor for 32 years for all of us. What a great person who let us use that land. He never posted it and we’re all grieving the loss. I mean I don’t want it to change. None of us want it to change but it’s going to change so we’ve got to make the best of it and we’ve seen what the outcome is and how we’ve pulled together and we do need to preserve the 54 acres and they need to be preserved intact, not split up. I’m a big nature lover. I’ve taken gray horn owls to the Rapture Center. I’ve seen deer die from getting hit by cars in my front lawn. We need some land for the nature and I’m telling you as a nurse we do need to walk so people we do need to park our cars and walk down and see the nature. I’m telling you we need to move. We do. It’s part of it so I’m a huge supporter of this high density transfer. It’s our brutal reality that things are changing but accolades to everyone for coming together. It’s the best of the worst situation and if this slips out of our fingers and all these other developers will come in and do exactly what they want shame on all of us. Laurie Susla: Hi my name is Laurie Susla. I live at 7008 Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen. I think that I very much appreciate the Planning Commission listening to the public again tonight. I think this is a very important topic for the whole town but certainly everyone here and over in the senior center. It’s packed over there so a lot of people are very, very passionate about this. My concern I think there are a lot of people who are in favor of the density transfer. My concern is that the number of homes that are being transferred from the east to the west at 54 homes. That Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 24 seems to have been a matter of negotiation. I as of yet haven’t seen any actual engineering plat that says this could work this way. There was a landscape architect plan that was given to you all but no real hard facts that 54 is the number that we should be dealing with and when you take those 54 homes what ends up happening as you well know is the hard cover in the 181 homes gets very, very high. We have two thirds of those lots are at 40 percent hard cover or higher. Over a quarter are at 50 percent hard cover or higher and that’s not including the streets so when you take a look at all the stormwater that’s going to be coming off all of this new hard cover and where is that going? That’s going into Wetland 1. It is a Preserve wetland. It’s going into Lake Ann. It’s going into Lake Lucy. It’s going into everything that we all want to preserve so my comment is to re-examine that 54. Is 54 the right number? Is that what we really should be talking about transferring to the west? Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Shane Waskey: Hi Shane Waskey, 1925 Topaz which is on the north end of the development there and I’m just, I live otherwise tonight I kind of have a unique perspective because I’ve been going back on that land for quite a few years and if it’s okay I’ll grab the mouse. I just feel like this picture really doesn’t represent reality at all. So this swamp or wetland or whatever you want to call it, I think everyone knows pretty well or is well documented, what it doesn’t show is the water flows out here into Lake Lucy and then you cross over here and it goes north out on this peninsula here. You know in the summer we’ll hike back here but we’ll put up a, you know a lot of people lay down logs and things like that but it’s flowing water so, and then all along this area it appears to be trees. This is all, I mean it’s so low that I can’t imagine that, I mean unless they’re allowed to excavate and bring in a lot of dirt, you could not have a home with a basement through here. It’s very low. As you come through here I would agree that there would be some nice property, you know houses that you could probably align but I would say 5-6 or something. When you come in here it gets very tall and steep like it’s like Split Rock Lighthouse sort of thing. Put a tower up here and very steep down the edges. No way you could build so I just, I think that these concessions and these nice things that the builder has offered, especially you know starting off at 55 foot lots and oh we’re going to be nice now and go bigger is a bit of smoke and mirrors so I just wanted to mention that. That I feel like a lot of us are negotiating from a place of weakness when really this property I really question the ability to do anything with it. Furthermore if there was houses put out here, correct me if I’m wrong but I think there’s already well documented plans that there would continue to be a trail through here so if we lost some of this area we still have the trail. There’s already a park on the other side of the lake. I mean how many lakes do you have a continuous park all around. I don’t know that it makes a lot of sense so in turn you know all these houses are getting blitzed over on this property as a result of just some weird you know messaging in my mind. Thank you. Greg Stewart: Hi my name is Greg Stewart. My wife Gerry and son Ian live at 1893 Topaz Drive and I guess I’ll be one of the naysayers as my property abuts the northern edge of the forest of the Prince property. Just so it’s clear that the impact this development will have on the neighbors that adjoin this property. The construction project will take 2 to 4 years which means Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 25 for 2 to 4 years everybody that has property along this area will suffer from noise pollution, air pollution, traffic and noise. Our property values will be greatly depressed and will remain depressed first because nobody will want to buy a house seeing what’s being built behind it. Nobody will want to buy a house perhaps afterwards when all the homes are in and our property values are devalued because of the new home sales and the prices that they may bring so I’m really concerned you know. There really are tangible impacts to the neighbors that adjoin this property. I must say that I was dumb founded at the comments of Jerry McDonald in the paper that residents apparently aren’t supposed to have a voice in City Council so I’m very pleased that tonight we’re demonstrating our ability to speak out and speak our mind. However if this plat is going to go through I guess one observation is everywhere you see a house crammed to the left of that wetland is now forest or other wetland and so you’re destroying half of the forest to save the other half. I’m not sure that that’s a reasonable trade off but again unfortunately because Prince didn’t leave a will we’re in the situation we’re in so I guess the one thing I would ask the council to definitely consider is that there are provisions put in place to ensure that there truly is a conservation of trees, as Mr. Jablonski mentioned earlier, and that there is additional buffer line built into the north. And so I just want to make sure that if the PUD is approved that these provisions are also firmly put in place and that we bring together some kind of standing committee between Lennar and the City and the neighbors so that we can hash out some of these details in a more open venue than these types of meetings that obviously are not a good setting for doing that. Anyways those are my thoughts, thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward at this time? Anyone from the senior center that would like to work their way around? Jeri Sorensen: I’m Jeri Sorensen. I live at 8121 Maplewood Terrace. I’ve lived in Chan for 28 years. Love Lake Ann Park. We spend a lot of time there. Doing every form of recreation that you can enjoy and it’s been a gift to our family and I thank the founders of Chanhassen for setting aside. I love the idea of the north side of the lake being preserved because it’s a beauty. Can’t think of anything more that I enjoy in the town but kind of thinking compromise. What can we do that you know there is, as I’m looking at that similarly dense areas. What about the City purchasing some small areas in some of those dense things on the west for neighborhood parks. Leave the big park. The compromise would be…smaller parks in the neighborhoods. And maybe a small tree buffer between the adjacent neighborhood to the south…just a little area of compromise. Just a thought. I would not want to give up the Lake Ann Park area but I sent a letter in earlier saying what about you know not putting the path in right away to have some money to put in some additional park space. And don’t build anything more in Lake Ann Park until that property is paid for. And then like thinking 50 years from now. Not just about our families or our kids or what’s in it for me. I think there’s way too much of that kind of thing going on. But what if after it’s paid for then you make a memorial path through Lake Ann and it’s built by you know, where are we going to put people when they die? What about using that money like I would like my name along that path or think of parkland as a memorial for the people who love the city and love the lake so put in a couple more small parks. I wouldn’t want Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 26 to ditch the whole deal. I want to keep Lake Ann but if there’s an area of compromise that’s where I see it. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Greg Andrews: Hi, Greg Andrews. I’m at 6895 Ruby Lane. Ashling Meadows. Prince…from what I’ve kind of written here is Prince may have loved this land but he didn’t will the property to the city and he’s got some heirs and they want to monetize this and they’re going to monetize it to the highest bidder and that’s going to force any developer, and I do believe this will be developed, to need to build more houses to make money because they’re not charity organizations. I don’t believe the City’s going to buy this land. They’re not going to get that through. When I originally heard about this project last summer I contacted the Sierra Club. We’re going to fight for the trees. They really don’t care. It really surprised me. That’s a small project. They really don’t care. They’ve got bigger things to fight. I contacted the watershed district. They’re like look, if the builder follows the rules, City’s on board, this is going to go through. Not going to happen. News to me. I thought there has to be some preservation laws to protect this. Watershed district’s going to do their job and follow the rules, so will the builder, et cetera. There’s not enough million dollar donors in our community willing to pony up a lot of money and buy this. It’s reality and I tend to try to live in reason. My original concern was building next to this lake because Lake Ann is a gem. It’s crystal clear. But if you build near a lake you’re going to get phosphorus leakage from the soil that comes up from developing land and guess what, I know the builders on Lake Lucy Road didn’t intent that to happen but it happened. All the drainage over the last 3 years of building up there has come down the storm drains and for those people on Lake Lucy Ridge who built a dock a couple of years ago on north Lake Lucy, their beautiful lake right there is green muck and weeds and they can’t use their dock anymore because they put, the builders up in Lake Lucy Ridge, who probably didn’t intend it to happen, polluted the lake. I do believe that if that goes in there and building is still next to the lake, Lennar’s not going to try to do that. You know there’s no builder would want to pollute a lake but it could happen. Maybe, I don’t know. I’m not a landscape engineer etcetera but it happened on the north end of Lake Lucy so I saw it here. So I think this development’s going to happen. You know I was like originally I don’t want it to happen but I think it’s going to happen so my question to all of you is what if we run Joe and Lennar out of town and say nope, you can’t do it? My question is since Prince’s heirs want their money, what’s next and so that’s my question to you. Maybe it’s been said. Maybe people know. Does it go back to them and say okay open up for bidding? Next builder please give us your highest bid and we start all over again? So I don’t know the answer to that question. That was my question. Do you have an answer for that? Aller: I can’t answer that. Greg Andrews: Anybody? Anybody got a good guess? Aller: Only the heirs with title can. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 27 Greg Andrews: Okay, what do you think’s going to happen Joe? Joe Jablonski: I think it will get approved. Greg Andrews: No, no but if, but if we run you out of town? You know who’s going to say what’s going to happen here, next bidder right? Joe Jablonski: Correct. Greg Andrews: Because they’re yeah, that’s why I think it’s, and Lennar’s listened to a lot of people. They’ve made a lot of changes here and I do believe that creating an area that’s unencumbered by houses, not houses weaving in it is better for nature and the animals and everything, etcetera and if you want to traipse through there yeah it’s, that’s you have to walk into it. You just don’t go next to your house etcetera. So I guess you know there’s been a lot of conversations and they’ve done, my biggest concern was safety. Running roads right through Ashling Meadows so if that ever changes call me. Because that I mean that could be, that’s a bee line and that was my concern as a father that cars were coming right down Ruby Lane or going right through Lucy Ridge etcetera so with that said this is not going to be perfect. Guys on Majestic Lane I feel for you. Like you said it kind of sucks. It really does but I don’t know. I guess we just don’t know what we’re going to get if we kick this to the curb. Does the next builder come in and follow the rules and get to build whatever they want within the guidelines next to Lake Ann? I just don’t know so right now I’m tending towards this. It’s not perfect but that’s kind of what we’ve got. Aller: Thank you. Joe Myss: Hi I’m Joe Myss. I live at 2419 Hunter Drive. I’m representing my kids and my family. So first off thank you to the City Council. Thank you to Lennar for you know taking, you know listening to everyone here. Taking the matter seriously and clearly putting forth a good effort because clearly the development of some form is going to happen. I do want to make sure that it’s noted I am actually pro development. I am just anti development in it’s current state. Right now I live in Longacres as some of the others that are here also do. Specifically on Hunter Drive. The issue’s been brought up numerous times. I personally have nearly been run over by a car speeding through my neighborhood. I felt it appropriate to follow up the last speaker here and thank you sir when he brought up safety. And as we put in much larger densities of population it’s critical in order to manage that traffic. As we brought it to the City Council’s attention before you know we need something whether it be a different methods to manage the traffic. Speed bumps would be great. I do understand there are challenges with that but when we put the safety of our children of our residents at risk and we have issues where we’re now adding additional housing, specifically dropping the entrances to a new development that is you know a fairly significant size that goes right into Longacres and as well as some of the other neighboring communities, I kind of feel it’s very irresponsible and I would hold you guys Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 28 really personally accountable when, because it’s not a matter of if. It’s a matter of when a child or an adult gets hit by a car just because we have so much traffic going through specifically on Hunter because it doesn’t have even a sidewalk. So that’s really the big message that I wanted to communicate through because I am confident that that will happen. Otherwise one other item I did just want to note, and I appreciate that it’s been somewhat discussed in the last couple of speakers is that, that piece of land there that they have given us isn’t developable. It’s pretty clear. You know while I understand that there are people who may look at it and say it can be developed for a cost, Lennar is not choosing to cut from 195 single family homes. Giving away property and land to the City in order to cut it down to one, whatever it is. 81 or I heard 17 off of whatever they were at, whatever. But that would technically be a loss of revenue and I’m sorry but I don’t buy it that Lennar’s in that business so that’s all I got. I appreciate your time and thank you for your consideration. Kurt Oddsen: My name is Kurt Oddsen. I live at 7325 Moccasin Trail in Longacres. What I’m concerned about is I think this will be developed. I truly believe that. Don’t want to see it but I believe it will happen but I’d like to see the project and property managed in a way that is respectful of the land and the density. I think we kind of need to get a one time shot at this in Chanhassen. I don’t want to see that land murdered for the profit of a developer. I understand the cost factors. I understand return on investment. I would ask people to go up on Highway 19 to a little par 3 golf course that used to be there called Red Oak. It had nice beautiful oak trees. It had some ponds and it had topography. It was bought by Lennar who developed it and in my opinion if you go in there now they murdered the land to accommodate the housing. They’re nice houses. It’s a nice neighborhood but I’m not sure that I want to have that happen to this project across the street on Galpin. I think the density is a little too high. From what I’m seeing we have two access points onto Galpin Boulevard. Longacres goes by my house. Not directly but down a block away, a house away from it. I think that Longacres will get to be a cut through street and I think if you have 181 units, if you only take one car per unit coming out in two directions on Galpin I think there’s going to be a lot of traffic. And I believe that people coming from the north on 41 or coming south on 41 can cut through Lake Lucy Road. I think people coming up from 41 to the north can cut through Longacres. I don’t know whether people will take 5 to Galpin and go up there. I have not done a traffic study obviously. Maybe somebody has but I just think that’s a lot of traffic coming out of two points of a development. And I’m just afraid looking at this density that they’re going to be right on top of one another and I like the idea of having the wetlands to the east of the development preserved but I’m, this land density and transfer it does appear to be smoke and mirrors because I don’t know whether that can be developed or not but I do know that it does increase the density on the west side of that property and I’m very concerned about what that’s going to look like when it’s done. And when it’s done we can’t say wait, maybe we should have looked at it a little differently. I don’t have the answer. I just don’t want the density to be there to affect the neighborhoods around it. Wherever they are. I just think that it’s a lot of houses and a limited access in and out of there and that’s my concern. It will be developed. I think the City of Chanhassen needs to really look at it and say is this what we want it to look like when it’s done? Somebody said can we see a mock up of what it’s going to look like when it’s done. That’d be great. I don’t think it’s going Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 29 to happen and therein lies another concern is when it happens we won’t get to say, we won’t get a do over. I’m not sure what I, I don’t have an alternative for this but I think we ought to really consider it. I think Lennar is been cognizant of what some of our concerns are but they are in it to make money and they have to have a density and I’m concerned that we as the city are going to suffer for that. Thank you. Mark: Mark…Hill Street. I have zero vested interest in this. I live like 4 miles that way and so I don’t have a strong opinion. I was just kind of watching and I thought there’d be more fireworks but everyone’s been pretty cool. But and I was starting to take tallies. So it looked like for the PUD was kind of weighing in and then anti PUD came up and it’s about a tie ballgame now so, but I think we have to be cognizant. Everyone of us has agendas. That’s human nature. We have agendas so I don’t think we can discount the people who are on that property. Now I live right off 101. When you guys start to come at my 101 and want to tear down my house I’m going to bitch big time but I’m not but I respect the people on that, on the side. I don’t think we can discount it and I don’t think, I’m tired of hearing the word gift and there’s no gift here. And Joe not to pick on ya, you’ve been on the hot seat but we’ve been asking for a third option for about 6 months and that was asked by the mayor and by other people. We’ve been asking for a third option. That’s the one thing I got out of this meeting is that we need an alternative and…buying it out is probably not feasible but we need a third option. We are not, we’re at 50/50 right now. We are not agreeing so we need another option and I know that’s the last thing you want to do. I wouldn’t want to tell your graphic artist to build a new one but it’s got to be done so, anyway just when you think about, because I guess it’s pretty easy to say if I’m 4 miles away it’s pretty easy for me to say yeah let’s have another park in town. But put yourself in their shoes and it’s going to happen in your back yard and just be cognizant. That’s all I have. Dan O’Connor: Hi Dan O’Connor, 7124 Northwood Court in Chanhassen. I do live on the other side in Longacres so that road does go by my house. I do have concern about the traffic that’s going to flow right through that the gentleman back there mentioned. It will be a direct corridor to 41. It definitely will be. It will be the quickest access from that development to 41 and it will go right by my house and cars already come over there going too fast. I’ve seen a lot of kids almost get hit. It’s very dangerous. The other thing I’d like to point out is the last election was very much a referendum on the development in Chanhassen and with the new mayor and a couple new council members because of it. And they won pretty overwhelmingly and I think if you look at some of the development that’s gone on over the last several years I’ve heard a lot of meetings like this. There’s a lot of voicing opinions against some development and it still just seemed to kind of go through. This land is a gem as a lot of people have said. I can’t imagine there’s a better chunk of land in the metro than this. That’s this close to the metro. To Minneapolis. I just don’t understand the rush. I understand Lennar’s rush. I know they’ve got to participate in a timeline they’ve got to hit. They knew that risk when they put this bid out and put the work into this. I respect that but I do not understand why Chanhassen has to rush in the notion that some Joe’s going to come next and another guy and just develop this. I’m sure somebody will at some point in time. I’ve got to think there’s an awful lot of people who would love at some point in time in the future to develop this in a very, very good way that really does Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 30 honor the land and does honor the citizens of Chanhassen. And someone pointed out the article in the Villager a week or so ago and the council member kind of wondered why the citizens of Chanhassen kind of had a voice in some of these developments stuff the other way. This is our city. I mean this is, this is our city and it’s really critical that we understand these voices and if there’s this much debate and there’s this much voicing I think of concern we don’t have to say we got to pick one of the two. We have to do that today. We don’t. We can pause. We can hit the pause button and take another look down the road when the next developer comes around with the next proposal and do what is best for this city in the eyes of the residents of the city. And again I’d like to point out I do believe that that last election was very, very much a referendum on the development that has gone on in this city and the changes that have taken place in Chanhassen the residents of Chanhassen isn’t really a big of so thank you. Peter Polingo: Peter Polingo, 1981 Topaz Drive representing Ashling Meadows and it’s like answering the teachers question. You’re the 29th person up. There’s so many good things that have been said. So many things about the safety and the congestion in the, kind of the plan that Lennar put together and their strategy towards starting with a Plan A and then making a Plan B when realistically you know they never thought Plan A would work anyway so the Plan C idea that the gentleman had has been what we have been pushing for for quite a while. The opportunity for them to have routes out of these developments without creating a safety hazard is ridiculous. There are so many opportunities right now with Galpin for our security issues when going up and down there from a traffic point of view so it is real to parents. It scares us and we also have a, in the proposal a pass through Ashling Meadows down Topaz Drive which is already like a little raceway so to add more homes and to add more people coming from up above it scares us because we have a private park that we have our kids play at so our biggest challenge is again to have you listen to what we’re trying to achieve and thank everyone for all the comments on support of doing the right thing for Chan. Thank you. Aller: Anyone else wishing to come forward? We’re not getting married here but speak now or forever hold your peace. Anybody from the senior center wishing to come forward? Jessica Landon: My name is Jessica Landon and I live at Fox Hill Drive so I’m actually also pretty far away but my main concern just looking at this is how many homes are there. I think it’s too many. Too much population especially living of the border Carver County and Minnetonka schools. I worry about the number of incoming families and how many kids would be attending you know whichever schools and things like that. Even pollution just around the lakes. A lot of things that have already been covered but the traffic that like many people have already said is already there but it’d be nice to see because unfortunately as everyone is saying it’s like it’s gonna get developed. I prefer to just see it as it is but seeing how it is and what is eventually going to be it’d be nice to just see it with less homes. Kind of how it is on the east side where people can actually enjoy their back yards versus living on top of one another. Thanks. Aller: Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 31 Alan Nickolai: Alan Nickolai again. One point that hasn’t been brought up and that is with the Galpin being, proposed to be redone here in a few years. Let’s be careful about wasting taxpayers dollars and redoing things twice. They’re going to have you know exit lanes. Let’s put them in that section, so we’re not redoing it 3-4 years from now. Wasting the taxpayer’s dollars. I think that’s critical. Little bit just…3-4 years. Do it once, not twice on those turn lanes. Whatever needs to be done so it’s done safely because I’ve got to believe some of the people safety is a issue but I’ve seen it with other developments. They did it at two stages and frankly it was, they wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s our money. Not your money. It’s our taxpayer’s money so just spend the money wisely when the turn lanes etcetera off of Galpin. By the way I remember when Galpin was a gravel road and our biggest concern was not to hit the horses because there used to be 20 to 30 horse back riders there every Saturday morning so I’ve been around a little bit so anyways, do it safely. Spending money wisely on the turns. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. And I don’t want it to turn into point counter point but if somebody hasn’t had a chance please come up and speak. If somebody wants a second chance now is the time to get in line. Judy Bolstad: Hi I’m Judy Bolstad. I live over on 1101 Lake Lucy Road but I grew up on Lake Lucy. My parents still live there so I’ve been familiar with this area since I was 8 so 1972 so I have concerns about the Lake Lucy getting polluted and where the drainage is going to go and what that’s going to do to that lake. I like a lot of the ideas of, I obviously want that land preserved. I’ve been walking that land since I was a kid and I love it and I you know I think that’s a good idea but I think that even the traffic that people are talking about, I’m over on you know Powers and Lake Lucy and we have trouble getting out now and so adding another 150 homes or whatever it is is going to, it’s not going to just affect the people in that area. Those neighborhoods. It’s going to affect everybody in Chanhassen and like I said I don’t know what you, if you have plans to change how some of the roads work or what the speed limits are but right now I can’t get out of my neighborhood as it is so if people start to use you know Lake Lucy to get out to Powers to be able to go to 5 I’m just wondering what the plan is I guess for traffic so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Jean Burke: Good evening. My name is Jean Burke. I live at 225 West 77th Street. That’s on old Chanhassen. Tom Klingelhutz’ house. Tom is the brother to Al Klingelhutz. The old homes. Should I be excited about a new park for the citizens of Chanhassen? Absolutely not. In my opinion when I look at this, this is a park for the new development. It will be like Greenwood Shores Park with signs saying do not park here and a bar across the road. There’s a gazebo, lake access, picnic area but only the people in Greenwood Shores can use it. How am I living in old town Chanhassen going to benefit from this park? As I look at the drawing it appears that the people that are going to buy the houses and build the beautiful homes, their Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 32 children will be able to take a trail and access Lake Ann. For myself and for other residents of Chanhassen I know the City paper said it’s close to downtown Chanhassen. No Tom it isn’t. It isn’t close to those of us that live in the area other than the Lennar development. Even this woman who talked about living across the road, she’s got to cross the road. Go down and around and navigate to get on the trail and get out to the lake. Obviously the density of one side just blows me away that they would crowd that many houses in an area that has been so pristine and undeveloped. It’s going to have to have water runoff, pollution. And speaking of pollution of Lake Ann we do fireworks over our clear lake every year which pollutes Lake Ann terribly with sulphur so if we citizens want to give up a few things and buy some property over here, let’s not do fireworks for a couple years. Sacrifice for our future and leave the trees and say to Lennar hey sell us part of your development so we can leave it. And maybe the citizens can come and park a car and actually access the trail from the other end of Lake Ann. Otherwise I…thank Lennar for the gift of a park that is really like somebody said, it’s in the middle of nowhere for those of us that like Lake Ann Park the way it is so that’s my opinion. It’s not beneficial for those of us that want to see parks built for Chanhassen and what to see developments that make our city proud. Aller: Thank you. Art Roberts: Art Roberts, I’m in the…association at Vasserman. Property at Galpin and 5. I’ve got one thought. People are saying we need a third alternative and the following has occurred. We need to ask the expert from Lennar, what if you took the lots in the middle that are 65 feet wide and got out your slide rule or drawings instruments here and made those 80 foot lots or 75 foot lots. What would happen of course is that the larger lots would go for a higher dollar value. And we’ve have a few fewer homes but you’d have maybe a lot more space. A lot more trees you could leave so if I was looking for a third alternative to ask him to look I’d say spend a day. Do a what if and then run the numbers. How much more expensive could you sell 80 foot wide lots versus 65 so I think this is basically the right plan but I would just say hey, could you enlarge those lots a bit to make it a little bit more liberal? A little bit more roomy and leave a few more trees. That’s what I would do at this point is say I think there is a third alternative but it’s not redesigning the whole shebang. It’s just widening the 65 foot lots and saying what if. Please try that in real numbers and tell me, Lennar who, would that work. Sharon McCotter: Hi my name is Sharon McCotter. I live at 7000 Utica Lane and in the last 10 years as I’ve been preparing to retire this summer I’ve been getting involved with the watershed and learning more about how it operates and as they try to do their plan and you know they had a lot of opposition to some of the rules and I think it was really great to have public hearings to get input from both sides. Listening to everybody tonight you know I can sympathize and empathize with all of the parties that are speaking. I think what I’ve learned in these last 10 years working with the watershed is there’s no perfect plan. Some people will be, most people will be inconvenienced and I think one of the first people talked about a good day is when nobody feels like they left totally mutilated. Somebody, you got something out of it so I feel like at the last City Council meeting the mayor quoted out of the City’s 2040 plan I think it was or 2020 plan Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 33 and she quoted about how the City is charged to preserve green spaces and preserve the trees and things like that and be very environmentally conscience and she put that back to Lennar to say you know what can you do to keep helping us to meet the goals of our city plan and seeing that they’ve done some things I think it’s great but I also can empathize with the people that are living there. But I would ask that we step back and say sometimes you have to look at the bigger good. So not what’s good for any one neighborhood or any one district but what’s good for Chanhassen and I do believe that this transfer density plan does have the best interest of Chanhassen as a whole in preserving the most trees and the most, we heard that this plan would preserve the most trees and be the most environmentally friendly so I would just say you know if we have to choose I think we’ve got a good option and like people have said, this is a concentrated dense space that you won’t get back so it’s not like we have another opportunity to do a do over so I just, I know some people will not like it. I live on the other side of Lake Lucy and we now look across at a big gated steel thing that went in a dock that people said they can’t use because it’s all socked in over there so we all have to make compromises because the world’s moving forward but I do think this plan of preserving this larger space is really in line with the 2040 city plan. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item tonight? Paul Theis: Good evening, I’m Paul Theis. I live at 6520 White Dove Circle. Been a resident of Chan for about 27 years. My wife is here. She was going to speak because she’s usually not known for being too quiet but anyhow I certainly agree with the lady that last spoke and I support the density transfer. You know a lot of the earlier speakers talked about the other option developing lots and I don’t know if the topography’s right. The soil compaction is correct not to have the density transfer. The other plan that would build close to a shoreline but I certainly don’t want to see that. I certainly want to see this bigger strip of land saved. I want to thank the earlier speakers that talked about some of the earlier citizens here that went into the planning. The watershed people. Planning and zoning. City vision over the years. Retain that area around the lake. We live a little bit north of, northwest of Lake Lucy and you know we look forward to being able to walk from our place along Lake Lucy and around the lake but other residents of the city would like to see if possible to have Lennar put some parking in. You know maybe to give up a lot or something here or there so people that aren’t immediately adjacent can use it. Also I do have some sympathy for the drainage issues but I would hope between Lennar’s engineering, I know they’ve made some attempts to fix the problem for the folks in the south end and maybe there can be some access put into the plat to also help those people gain quicker access to the park area I’ll call it. So I say a little bit additional minor tweaking and I think it’s a terrific plan and I would support what’s been presented in terms of the density transfer. Thank you. Aller: Any additional speakers? Are you sure? I’ve been pretty good every time I say that somebody comes up. Alright seeing no one come forward I will close the public comment section of this meeting. Before I move to any additional actions or comment I just first and foremost would like to thank you one and all for sharing your thoughts with us and with the Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 34 council and with each other. I said before and I continue to say that I believe that we as a commission and a city are at our finest when everybody shows up and participates and whether they’re on one side of the issue or the other they voice their opinion and make themselves heard and participate in the process. Regardless of the outcome I think that the final action, which will be taken again on March 11th by the City Council, is better with rather than without your input. I would like to thank the City Council for providing our residents with the additional opportunity tonight to voice those opinions. I’d like to again thank staff for being present and for working diligently with Lennar and with the public and covering the many different items that were put together in the plans and keeping them up and available for everyone to again see on the website and so all those items are available for your viewing. And then I would, I’d like to thank Lennar Homes and their representatives for recognizing what we already know. Chanhassen is a wonderful place to live and for both their past efforts and continuing commitment to listen to the citizens input and offering what they believe are economically viable win/win developments for the City Council’s consideration. So with that I’ll open it up for any additional comments at this time from the commissioners. We’re not here to make any formal recommendations but if you have a comment or would like to say anything now is the time. McGonagill: Go ahead Steve. I’m following you. Weick: You sure? McGonagill: No I’m fine. Weick: I’d be happy to speak. And gosh this one, this doesn’t get any easier. The more we talk about it that is for sure. There’s big issues at hand and I think one thing that I struggle with personally is, I don’t, and this is just me. Yeah I don’t see a pause button out there because it is land that’s for sale with a buyer with regardless of how many homes you can put on that 50 acres could come in and build a really significant amount of homes. On that property and can take out a very significant amount of trees with or without our input. And I, you know that’s one thing that’s on the table. I would love to be able to not do that. I don’t believe that’s an option because you have, we have a seller and we have a buyer and we have codes that could be followed to build single family homes on that property in a well over 150 homes I think. In my opinion which is a lot. So in light of that, and I’ve been fairly consistent in my opinion that a density transfer to protect that wetland and make it a park would be better than just you know filling the space with homes on as much buildable property as you can because I do think that there is a difference between building a path through a neighborhood and having truly you know 100 plus acres to be able to use and this land is accessible from Powers. I mean if you imagine all those folks that live on Powers and on that side can access it through the neighborhoods there off of Powers. You can access it from 5. You know people park in Lake Ann Park to go to Prince’s museum. Can you imagine the ability to be able to go to the museum and then walk several miles on his land and that’s possible as well. One of the things that is a positive to me that’s been mentioned as a negative is the fact that it is miles of paths and land and I think that’s a positive. Where else can you go and do that in a wooded area so I think that’s a gem of an Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 35 opportunity for the city and again based on, unless somebody can explain it to me differently but based on the really limited options that are out there based on having a seller and a buyer and code that allows homes to be built, with or without our opinion, I still believe and I have believed and I still believe that a density transfer is the best option for the city of Chanhassen. Aller: Comments? McGonagill: Yeah. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: First off I again as Chairman mentioned we appreciate everybody coming and I would also encourage you to, as you feel led to write a thank you note to the mayor and the council for allowing this meeting to occur. They heard the feedback and they came back and had this session which is different. It’s unusual and so it’s very, very positive for that and I think it was as a referendum from the election and they’re trying to listen to everyone so I really think that is important. Just some facts for folks that may be listening or online. Again I always talk about this. You need to read the Comprehensive Plan and if you did what you would see is the amount of growth that’s going to, projected to occur in Chanhassen over the next 20 years. Basically we will see about a 37 percent increase in population here. By 2040 the city will be built out. I mean it basically will with the amount of land that’s available so our objective, our charge that, the trust you’ve put on us and on the council is to do that buildout in a pragmatic and wise fashion. What we’ve heard over and over, and we have in our Comprehensive Plan the thing that people want to maintain and it’s in the plan, again if you refer to it, is to maintain the small town appeal of Chanhassen. That’s what people want. It does have parks. It does have lakes but it’s the small town feel. So when you put that together with the amount of increase in population we’re talking you know basically if my numbers are right, Kate will correct me, about 2,000 homes that have to go in here somehow over the next 20 years. We’re talking about only a tenth of that so we’ll be talking about these issues over and over again so I think it’s important to understand that and set a precedent of how we want developments like this to occur. And so with that what should they look like to be done to maintain the feel. What I appreciated about the mayor’s question and the council to come back here really there’s two questions that we’re talking about tonight really is one is do you have a PUD or not. That’s the first question. And the second one does this PUD work? I’ve separated those in my mind and so we’re not voting on it tonight. I’m glad we’re not in some ways but at least we can express our opinions on that. On the first question as far as having a PUD or not. I am not crazy about density transfers. I never have been. You know we’ve talked about this. I like the feel. Small town feel. It has larger lots. If the density was coming in more like 1.7, 1.8 as opposed to 2 I can be there but with a density of being north of 2 I’m not in favor of that. But that being said it is, and because of that there’s a lot of transition issues around with the neighborhoods in the area. Longacres, north Lake Lucy, Ashling Meadows, those numbers are more like 1.2 to 1.9 so that’s where I come from on density. This is a 48 percent increase in density over the average for those and that does give me some pause. You know also too if I look in the Comprehensive Plan again the Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 36 ownership values map it, you can look at it. It’s 3-31. I look at that and go is this consistent with that and it is inconsistent and with the land use map so again I’d kind of, that’s where I kind of come down on the side that I would rather see the density less but that may or may not be possible. I still believe we can do better on that density transfer as it occurs and I’d like to see that. So let’s go with the next question about the PUD itself. Is this PUD acceptable that we see? I’m still of the, I’m first off grateful and glad that we did not approve that or vote in January because I think Lennar came back with a better deal. It looks, it has better opportunities. There’s more trees. There’s more of that. We made the right decision there. So a couple of these, I’ve got really 3 major issues that I would challenge Lennar to work with the City Council on. The first is both concepts, both whether you have a PUD or not are inadequate for park access. One of the individuals tonight talked about that. There is really no way to get to that park. You’ll be parking on the street. That is, there has to, we need to come up with a solution to that as this development’s getting done, particularly as you’re starting in the south and you work north there needs to be some area like Sugarbush Park or somewhere where people can park. If they’re not they’re going to park on the street and you’re going to have conflicts between citizens. That’s not what we should do. There needs to be an area where people can park. Access the trails and go through there. And we all walk. We’ll get those miles in anyway but the ability to go there and take your car, park your car and take your bikes off, do what you need to do, there needs to be an area like that and I would encourage the City Council to work if the PUD is pursued to work very aggressively with Lennar to get that so there is some sort of access so that we can live in harmony with our neighbors. The second thing I would look to Lennar on the designs. One of the concerns that I have if the density transfer goes forward is actually the design or the construction itself of Lennar. Particularly on the higher density deal. You showed us the proposals. I would encourage you to continue to vary those designs such as varying setbacks. Varying 1 and 2 stories. Varying, you know everything you can to do this to make this the neighborhood as I think Commissioner Tietz talked about, the place to live in Chanhassen. I think you can build a lot of culture and character into it with some thought. Side loaded garages. Front loaded garages. You know doing all that you can, working with the Planning Commission and staff to really make this, if this is where we go, to make it look really nice. What I don’t, this is a jewel of a piece of property. I’ve said that before. It’s a jewel of a piece of property. I don’t want it to turn out like costume jewelry. I want it to be a jewel. You know so when I come back here 20 years from now when I’m 85 I can see that. I want that. That would be my, as a citizen I would say. The last point, one of the speakers talked about tonight and I totally agree with is to be very careful about impervious surfaces. As this density goes up the impervious surface issue becomes more and more and we’ll have more and more variances come to the Planning Commission to be dealt with. What I don’t want to have is a development where someone builds a home and suddenly he has to get a variance to build a patio. Or a deck. Or another parking area. We have too much of that even now and so I really don’t want that box to be built. That is why when I again I go back to this whole question about density. Particularly in the 65 footers that you have in there. How are those people, they won’t, they will want to live there. They’ll want to grow. They’ll want to have their deck. How’s that going to happen under the current guidelines and so again that’s where my concerns come from the density and I would like to see that addressed. In other words don’t build a box that you have Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 37 a hard time getting out of. I do still believe there’s room here to get better on that and I would challenge the council and the Lennar to come up with that. I do appreciate what you guys have done. I do like the monuments. I do like what you’ve done on some of the other stuff but that’s, those two issues are the issues where I land on Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to comment. Aller: Additional comments? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I just wanted to thank everyone for their input this evening and also for the input that they provided last January and then the previous summer as well. I think with all that input the City Council and the Planning Commissioners if I can speak with them really listened to your concerns and I think changes were made to address that. I also want to thank the people who gave the input into the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and people gave input to that plan through open houses and through public meetings and gave input to the Planning Commission and one of the items that they told and it came through in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was that the Galpin property was identified as a priority expansion area and so, and a goal of the parks is the elimination of the trail gaps and creating trails within the preserves so that people can have better access. I’m not sure about the parking and all the access points but I just wanted to thank everyone through all these various processes for their input and for the City Council to give that opportunity for it and I think because of that we hope to come up with a better plan that will work out best for all the citizens of Chanhassen and that’s it. Aller: Great, thank you. Commissioner Randall. Randall: Again I second that on the, everyone’s input was great tonight. I have 4 pages of notes that I took down. Lot of new ideas. People brought up new concepts. Things on the fly and there weren’t any fighting, or what was the quote from, I think I got it here. When he came over and said that it wasn’t getting too heated over here. That was good and I was glad to hear, or glad that everything went well tonight. I got a lot out of it tonight and I appreciated everyone’s input. Aller: The Comprehensive Plan is designed to be a flexible tool that we look at and we take a look at all the projects that come before us and we look at what the citizens and what the Planning Commission, who’s spent along with the City Council the better part of a year in creating and getting public input on all the different sections and how that applies. In this case when we apply the project and we look at what kind of trade off’s we need to make based on the plan and based on the Comprehensive Plan simplistically stated it’s park versus density and that’s really what I think the City Council was digging into to hear from the citizens tonight and I think they got a really good indication that yes we’re going to be split on that but I think because of the hearing itself they are going to be better informed. They’ll be more strategic and more deliberate about that decision that the make come Monday. We’ve seen during tonight’s presentation that the proposal has changed over the past year based upon the back and forth between Lennar and the community and the City and it’s staff and as a resident I want it all. I Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 38 want to have the park and I want to have zero zip density. I love the lakes. I live on Lotus Lake. I don’t want to have anything impact Lake Ann. At the same time I have to live in the real world and so on a reality based decision I know that developers are going to come in and they’re going to need to be developing and make a decent profit from what they have and what they deliver to us. And when I look at that desire I look back at the proposed PUD and what it does with regard to the plan and I look at the land use goals and I think that one of the goals was to enhance preservation of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy by limited development and I think that the transfer creates development on one side but it does limit it and create a buffer for the lake. There’s a reduction in total impervious surface throughout the clustered environment because you don’t have roads going through that additional parkland but yes the density location is going to have more hard cover. What happens later after a decision is made I trust that the watershed, that the City is going to come in and enforce the rules and regulations. That they’re going to make sure that based upon the impervious surface that’s there, the runoff and the storm drainage that we’re going to comply with the rule and that there will be a zero impact and of course with every plan it’s imperfect. I hope that that’s the case. With regard to the trails and open space. Preserving the public, for the public over 100 acres of unique natural open space, 50 acres of upland around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy that could otherwise be built on I think fulfills that need. Providing land and connections for the trails to eliminate trail gaps and the better connection to the community and it’s areas. I think it fills that goal. Allowing for the expansion of the Lake Ann Park and enhancing it’s role with Chanhassen’s premiere community park and in fact I think it will be a destination park for Carver County and the State. In looking at it it’s not a perfect plan. Again I would love to have zero density. What plan is especially when we all bring biases. You know people that live right next to it are going to have a different view point than me who lives on a different lake. But at the same time I think that the community has come together. Has expressed it’s opinions in these hearings and I think it’s important that they do so and as someone came up and stated that there’s value and we should respect the desires and the thoughts and the intent of the individuals who both are homeowners next to the development as well as the rest of the community and I think that’s what the City Council did when it pushed this back to us to have more input so they could look at it again thoughtfully and strategically. Tonight wasn’t about listening with the intent to respond. I too took a thousand notes but I think the intent of the City Council was just to hear what your voices said and I think they have the ability now to look at the record. To look at the tape. To listen to your voices and over the next week consider your opinions. And I think that we’ve created that record and I hope that, and I know that they’re going to consider that record thoughtfully. Additional comments, questions. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated April 2, 2019 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: E.3. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from their work session on April 2, 2019. ATTACHMENTS: Summary Work Session Minutes CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM SUMMARY MINUTES April 2, 2019 The meeting started at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Doug Reeder, Michael McGonagill, John Tietz, Mark Undestad and Steven Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Randall, Laura Skistad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator; Sara Flagstad, Administrative Support Specialist; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Young- Walters, Associate Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: None A. WORK SESSION ITEMS 1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Mark Undestad nominated Steven Weick as chair. Michael McGonagill seconded. The commission voted 5-0 to approve the chair. Mark Undestad nominated Mark Randall as vice-chair. Michael McGonagill seconded. The commission voted 5-0 to approve the vice-chair. 2. Adoption of Bylaws Mark Undestad moved and Doug Reeder seconded a motion to approve the Planning Commission bylaws. The commission voted 5-0 to approve the bylaws. Kate Aanenson advised the Planning Commission that they have a joint meeting with the City Council on April 22, 2019. This meeting provides the Planning Commission an opportunity to discuss the city with Council. It would include a discussion of the 2019 work plan from the memorandum dated February 5, 2019. Kate asked if the Commission wanted to add anything. Michael McGonagill proposed that the Planning Commission conduct a lessons learned discussion of larger projects after they have completed the public hearing process to review and evaluate project outcomes. Mike McGonagill suggested that they want to hear the best engineering recommendations. John Tietz asked whether the city should permit accessory dwelling units. John Tietz also asked how they could be informed of changes to projects after they have gone through the public hearing process. He requested that they be provided with additional updates on the status of the larger developments. There was a general discussion of the possibility of “work sessions”. Kate Aanenson provided an update of the Galpin development (“The Park”). 3. Development Review Process Discussion Kate Aanenson discussed the comprehensive plan process including the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update and that other amendments to the comprehensive plan are reviewed by the Planning Commission including text, land use and special plan studies. Kate Aanenson discussed the zoning amendment process including rezonings and code amendments. Such amendments must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. MacKenzie Young-Walters went over some recent code amendments (bee and chickens). MacKenzie Young-Walters discussed variances from City Code: zoning, subdivision and sign. Each has separate standards that must be met, which are specified in the City Code. He showed two examples of a variance; one met the criteria for approval, the other did not. Bob Generous discussed the subdivision process. There are three types of subdivisions: Preliminary and Final Plat, Metes and Bounds and Administrative. An example of a metes and bounds subdivision on Forest Avenue was shown. Metes and bounds subdivisions are limited to the creation of two lots and must meet all the requirements of the City Code and be accessed via an approved public or private street. All the information for a plat may be required. Metes and bounds subdivisions go to City Council for a public hearing. Administrative subdivisions are not technically subdivisions of land as defined by State Statute and City Code. A lot line adjustment was shown along Lake Minnewashta where a neighboring property owner purchased a portion of a neighbor’s lot to add to their own. Other examples of administrative subdivisions are when a commercial parcel is split into two parcels, each of which is five acres or larger with a width of 300 feet and when a residential or agricultural parcel is split into two parcels each of which is 20 acres or larger with a minimum width of 500 feet. Administrative subdivisions, as the name implies, are handled by city staff and are not reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council. The Arbor Glen development was shown as an example of a preliminary and final plat. City staff requires that an extensive list of plans be submitted as part of the required review. The Arbor Glen development included a rezoning to PUD-R, a Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor, Subdivision review and a Variance for a perimeter setback requirement. Kate Aanenson reviewed the Wetland Alteration process. She showed an example of The Preserve at Rice Lake development. The review included requirements to avoid wetlands, if possible, minimize impacts, when necessary, and mitigate any wetland impacts. The city is in the process of amending its wetland and stormwater ordinances so it can again become the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) for wetland and stormwater issues. This will streamline the development review process. Renae Clark presented her view of wetland and stormwater issues based on her background with the Watershed District. Bob Generous discussed the Site Plan Review process. Site plans are required prior to construction of buildings except for single-family and duplex homes, expansions of buildings by less than 10%, remodeling of a building, construction of agricultural buildings and accessory residential buildings. Site plan reviews are governed by Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6 of the City Code and must meet the findings in section 20-110. The Control Concepts site plan was shown as an example of a site plan. Conditional Use Permits and Interim Use Permits were discussed by MacKenzie Young-Walters. Conditional uses must meet certain criteria or conditions as outlined in the City Code. Interim Use Permits are reviewed in the same fashion, but have a sunset date to the use. Conditional Use Permits run with the property and are for the use, not the person. Conditional uses do not expire, but if not used for six months or longer or if the property is subdivided, the Conditional Use Permit is voided. Kate Aanenson noted that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation/Decision are a critical component of city review because it provides the basis for the city’s decision on a project. The findings of fact are used if the city’s decisions are ever challenged. Kate Aanenson showed a sample of the jurisdictional review document (agency review request) that is sent out for every development review application. Kate Aanenson reviewed the environmental review process. Chanhassen is classified as a Second Class City. She noted that environmental reviews, specifically an Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Alternate Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) are only required for large projects. The city’s normal review process already reviews many of the issues that would be required for an environmental review. She showed an example of the 2005 MUSA AUAR, which was required to be updated in conjunction with the Avienda development. Kate Aanenson opened the meeting for questions. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 16, 2019 and will include review of city code amendments for designating front yards, permitting boarding kennels in the industrial zone, and requiring tree diversity based on the 30-20-10 rule. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Bob Generous, Senior Planner g:\minutes\pc\2019\summary\4-2-19 work session-pc-sum.docx Agenda •Election of Chair and Vice Chair •Adoption of Bylaws •Joint Meeting with the City Council Monday April 22, 2019 •Status of Galpin “The Park” Galpin Preliminary Plat, PUD and Wetland Alteration 169 lots Planning Commission Work Session April 2, 2019 Comprehensive Plan •Update of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 •Comprehensive Plan Amendments •Text •Land Use •Special Studies “61 Corridor” Zoning Amendment Staff continually reviews the zoning code to make sure it is up to date and meeting the Cities needs, additionally the City Council asks staff to investigate potential issues and changes. In both cases the process is as follows: •Staff prepares an issue paper and presents it to the City Council at a work session. •If the City Council feels a change may be advisable, a public hearing is scheduled and staff prepares and presents a full report before the PC. •The PC recommends either approval or denial of the proposed amendment and the City Council takes final action. Zoning Amendment Examples of recent zoning amendments: •Chickens and bees •Residents reach out to staff and council members requesting that the City examine allowing chickens and bees in residential districts. •Staff reviewed literature, other municipal ordinances, spoke with other cities, and prepared a report and proposed ordinance amendment. •The Planning Commission held a public hearing, and, in the case of beekeeping, instructed staff to bring back a revised proposal addressing several concerns raised during the meeting and, in the case of chickens, voted to recommend approval with a minor change. •Subsequent action by the City Council approved both of the zoning amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. Rezoning •Must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Uses •Low-density residential areas can be either zoned RSF (Residential Single Family), R-4 (Mixed Low Density), RLM (Residential Low and Medium Density), or PUD-R (Planned Unit Development Residential). •Medium-density residential area: R-4 (Mixed Low Density), RLM (Residential Low and Medium Density), R-8 (Mixed Medium Density), or PUD-R (Planned Unit Development Residential). •High density residential can be zoned R-8 (Mixed Medium Density), R-12 and R-16 (High Density Residential), and PUD-R (Planned Unit Development-Residential). Zoning Appeal Sec. 20-28. -Board of appeals and adjustments. (a) Board designation. The planning commission shall act as the board of appeals and adjustments. (b) Powers. Pursuant to M.S. §462.357, subd. 6, the board shall have the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of this chapter; (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulty because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter; and (3) To grant permits or approvals for appeals authorized under M.S. §462.359. Variance•Three Types: •Zoning Standards (setbacks, lot width, design standards, parking, etc.) •Subdivision Standards (flag lot, private street, street width, etc.) •Sign Standards (display size, height, setback, etc.) •Each of these types of variances have their own criteria that determine if the variance should be granted. •Staff will explicitly address each individual criteria within the “Findings of Fact” •Variance applications can appear as stand alone cases (a homeowner requests additional lot cover) or as part of a development application (a new commercial building wants to use an entirely metal façade). •A single project can have all three types of variances (i.e. a developer wants to subdivide a parcel to create a flag lot with 40% lot cover and a monument sign located 1’ from the lot line). •Note: The City cannot issue variances for uses (i.e. cannot grant a variance to building an apartment building on a lot zoned for single-family use) Variance For any variance that comes before you staff will prepare and present a report containing the following: •The Request •Applicable Regulations •Background •Board Of Adjustments Requirements •Recommendations In order to grant a variance, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals must find that it meets the City’s criteria for issuing a variance. Different types of variances (zoning, subdivision, and sign) have different criteria. Variance 1.Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 3.That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. 4.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 5.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 6.Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in M.S. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. Variance1.With an application: Commercial Industrial 1.Parking standards, 2.Height 2.Subdivision Sec. 18-22. -Variances. •The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: (1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; (2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; (3) The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; (4) The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. 1.Residential lot performance standard 1.Hardcover, setbacks Variance Did not meet criteria Met criteria Subdivision Meets and bounds Preliminary Plat-final plat Administrative Subdivision •Streets/Access •Landscaping/Tree Preservation •Grading/Drainage/Erosi on Control/Storm Water •Utilities •Easements •Rezoning/Comp Plan (if required) •Wetlands/Bluff Creek Primary zone •Compliance Table •Recommendation Wetland Alteration Permit•Typically done in conjunction with a development •House remodel •Subdivision Preserve at Rice Lake Subdivision -2013 •Site Plan .32 acres of impact Site Plan Review •Commercial, Industrial, Institutional and Multi-Family Site Plan *Project *General Site Plan/Architecture *Access *Landscaping *Grading/Drainage/Erosion Constrol/Storm Water *Utilities *Lighting/Signage *Rezoning/Comp Plan (if required) *Compliance Table Site Plan Conditional and Interim Use Permits For any CUP/IUP that comes before you staff will prepare and present a report containing the following: * The Use/Request *Background *Criteria/Standards for the CUP/IUP *Findings of Compliance The City does have the ability to impose reasonable conditions to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associated with CUP/IUP on the permit. If the use fails to meet these conditions, their CUP/IUP can be revoked. Finding of Fact and Recommendations/Decision •As specified within the City Code the criteria is defend the recommendation or decision •These findings are to hold up challenges to the decision Jurisdictional Review Environmental Review •Mandatory EAW •For construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing or light industrial facility equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, the local governmental unit shall be the RGU: 450,000 •For construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional facility, other than a warehousing or light industrial facility, equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, the local government unit shall be the RGU: 300,000 •Residential development. •250 unattached units or 375 attached units in a city within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has adopted a comprehensive plan under Minnesota Statutes, section 473.859, or in a city not located within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has filed with the EQB chair a certification that it has adopted a comprehensive plan containing the following elements: •a land use plan designating the existing and proposed location, intensity, and extent of use of land and water for residential,industrial, agricultural, and other public and private purposes; •a transportation plan describing, designating, and scheduling the location, extent, function, and capacity of existing and proposed local public and private transportation facilities and services; •a sewage collection system policy plan describing, designating, and scheduling the areas to be served by the public system, the existing and planned capacities of the public system, and the standards and conditions under which the installation of private sewage treatment systems will be permitted; •a capital improvements plan for public facilities; and •an implementation plan describing public programs, fiscal devices, and other actions to be undertaken to implement the comprehensive plan, and a description of official controls addressing the matters of zoning, subdivision, private sewage systems, and a schedule for the implementation of those controls. The EQB chair may specify the form to be used for making a certification under this item. •Mixed residential and industrial-commercial projects. •If a project includes both residential and industrial-commercial components, the project must have an EAW prepared if the sum of the quotient obtained by dividing the number of residential units by the applicable residential threshold of subpart 19, plus the quotient obtained by dividing the amount of industrial-commercial gross floor space by the applicable industrial-commercial threshold of subpart 14, equals or exceeds one. The local governmental unit is the RGU. Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2005 AUAR Questions? PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Subject City Council Action Update Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: G.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No: ATTACHMENTS: City Council Action Update City Council Action Update MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2019 Approval of a Two-Lot Subdivision with a Variance for Approved Reducing Lot Frontage at 3800 Red Cedar Point Road MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2019 Galpin Site Preliminary Plat & Rezone PUD – 169 Lots Approved with modifications Chapters 4, 5, and 20 Code Amendments re: Approved • Permitting backyard chickens in residential districts. • Revising the Community Commercial District Section’s formatting. • Allowing Continuing Care Retirement Facilities in High-Density Residential Districts. • Update Sign Design and Construction Standards Reference (Building Code). • Clarifying Trash Storage Enclosure Exemption. MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2019 Avienda: Extend Preliminary Plat and Extinguish Final Plat Approved Extension to December 31, 2019 The minutes for these meetings can be viewed from the City’s website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. g:\plan\forms\development forms\city council action update.docx