Loading...
PC Minutes 7-21-09Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Lot # Lot Size - Acres Building Sq. Ft. Building Impervious Coverage 1 2.66 57,000 29% 60% Lot 1, Block 1, 1.92 19,100 23% 55% th CBC 5 Add. Lot 2, Block 1, 2.9224,90020%65% th CBC 5 Add. Subtotal 7.5 101,000 avg. 27% avg. 60% All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Laufenburger moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen th Business Center 4 Addition into two lots, plans prepared by McCombs, Frank, Roos th Associates, Inc., dated July 14, 2009, creating Chanhassen Business Center 5 Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1.Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be recorded for both parcels. 2.Any utility service that crosses over the other property must be within a private easement recorded against the property. 3.The properties must comply with the development design standards for Chanhassen Business Center as amended. 4.There shall be no direct access to Audubon Road.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: WEST ONE: MINOR LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE INDUSTRIAL LOCATED NORTHEAST OF HIGHWAY 5 AND SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF KERBER BOULEVARD AND PICHA DRIVE (LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WEST ONE ADDITION – 7900 KERBER BOULEVARD), PLANNING CASE 09-09. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report for this item. Larson: Any questions? 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Doll: Just one. Just as a learning thing here, the Met Council. What is their, why are they involved in this or why would they have been involved in this? Aanenson: Sure. A good question. They have jurisdiction over land use. That’s one of their, you know transportation, land use, sewer, water. Because this is a, what they consider a minor amendment that doesn’t affect any major systems because it’s already in place, they already waived off on any comment and will expedite that. When we do, if we were to do a significantly larger one, they may have comments on it or allow adjoining city, for example if we did a large subdivision with major traffic components, Chaska may want to comment on that and say how that affects their, either their utilities or their transportation system and what the Met Council does is kind of acts as a mediator if there’s a dispute between the two cities. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: Fortunately we have a good relationship on these minor amendments. Most cities are pretty expedient of signing off if they don’t see any impact to them. Doll: And they agreed with that and it was supposed to be zoned the way we want it now? Aanenson: Correct. Yes. Doll: Or you want it now? Aanenson: Yes. Yep. Doll: That’s all I have. Larson: Okay. Laufenburger: The property on which the service center is occupied immediately to the north. Aanenson: Correct. Laufenburger: How is that currently zoned? Aanenson: That is zoned, it should be General Business. That’s this piece right here. Laufenburger: Yeah. Aanenson: Yeah. I don’t think it’s PUD. I believe that’s General Business. I don’t have that. Laufenburger: Okay. Just one other question. The people who occupy this space at the present time, are they in compliance with the new proposed guiding? Aanenson: Yes. They were in compliance with what we believed was in place. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Laufenburger: Intended to be in place in 1993. Aanenson: Correct. Laufenburger: Had things proceeded, correct? Aanenson: Correct. All those uses based on the PUD that’s in place are consistent with that. Laufenburger: Okay. So as a result of this change, well you mentioned this that you polled all of the, not only these business but those in the surrounding area. Aanenson: Yes. Laufenburger: And you have no objection to this change? Aanenson: Yes. Mr. Hansen who is here representing the building is aware of that because they were actually the ones that approached us too and we kind of did the research on that. Laufenburger: Okay. Aanenson: But having said that, the application that we just did where we changed the underlying zoning district, at some point we’re going to have a discussion on that because we have a district that is silent on some issues when we did that PUD. So we’ll have to go back and kind of address that. Long term wise when they want to do something with the building. There’s, it’s a mix between general business and IOP so somewhere we need to figure out some, just some generalized landscaping, parking standards. But to be consistent and let them to kind of move on we wanted to get this cleaned up as soon as we could because obviously it was over 20 years in the making of that error. Want to fix that. If that makes sense. Laufenburger: Yeah. Thank you for that clarification. That’s all I had Madam Chair. Larson: Okay. I think it’s all been covered. That’s all I have. Would you like to come up and say anything? Mr. Hansen: I think we’re just fine. We agree with all… Larson: Okay. Well with that. Aanenson: You can open and then just close the public hearing just for the record. Larson: Okay. Open the public hearing. Nobody here. Close public hearing. We’re done. And we’ve already discussed it so I will entertain a motion. Undestad: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of re-guiding the highlighted property shown in Exhibit A from Commercial to Office Industrial. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Larson: Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of re-guiding the highlighted property shown in Exhibit A from Commercial to Office Industrial. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING – BOATS AND WATERWAYS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report for this item. Larson: Does anybody have any questions? I have one. On page 3 of the report. Actually 3 and 4 where it talks about no watercraft shall be moored or docked overnight on water of any lake unless it’s currently registered to pursuant to blah, blah, blah, blah. And then it talks about being a blood relative of the owner. Okay. My scenario here is what if it’s an adopted child of an owner? Aanenson: That’s fine. Larson: That’s not a blood relative then and that’s why I think the verbiage blood relative maybe should be modified to say something like legal relative or you know. Aanenson: I’ll have the city attorney look at that but we had made that change a number of years ago and I believe that’s the language that we were directed to give. It says relative or blood relative I believe so I. Larson: Well it just says blood relative here and that’s why I’m thinking and you know if there was a case where, and not that it would ever come up but if it ever did I would take issue with that. Aanenson: I’m looking for the exact language on that. Larson: Page 4 at the very top. Laufenburger: I think it’s the second page 4. Larson: Oh, is there two page 4’s? Laufenburger: Yeah. Larson: Sorry ‘bout that. Second to the very last page on the top. Which would be item 5(b). Oh whoops, yep 6(b), sorry. 10