Loading...
PC 2009 10 06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2009 Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Larson, Kathleen Thomas, Denny Laufenburger, Tom Doll, and Kevin Dillon MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Angie Kairies, Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: ANDING VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A HOME ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 3625 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD (LOT 11, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT: BAY CLIFF HOMES, PLANNING CASE 09-15. Public Present: Name Address Gary Peterson 3632 Hickory Road Angie Kairies presented the staff report on this item. Larson: Tom, let’s start with you. Doll: Don’t have any. Larson: Kathleen. Thomas: I don’t think I have any questions of staff at the moment. Laufenburger: Are there plans, is this going to be a two story construction as far as you know? Kairies: Yes. Laufenburger: Okay. So are we, is part of this approval process that we’re approving it as a two story construction or are we only approving the footprint? Or the variances that gives the footprint. Kairies: Right. It’s for the footprint. I don’t believe the actual plans are set in stone. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Laufenburger: Okay. I also noticed that you said that the Red Cedar Point Road encroaches on the property. Kairies: Yes. Laufenburger: Is there an easement on that property? Kairies: There’s not an easement. I’ll let Alyson answer that question. Laufenburger: Can you speak to that please. Fauske: Certainly Commissioner Laufenburger. Excellent question. There are no easements that staff could find on this property that would cover the portion of the road that’s encroaching onto the property. In this situation, talking to the city attorney, the city’s position in this particular case would be something that’s called, that we have a right to have the road there. Since the road has been there for a period of time that we have rights to maintain the road and at that location there is no paper easement for that. Laufenburger: Okay. So there’s also a comment related to anticipated reconstruction of this street in 2010 so is it anticipated that because the road has been there and it’s, I don’t know what the legal word would be but does that mean the road will be constructed at the same place or will it be diverted to go back to the property line? Any thoughts on that? Fauske: Certainly we can elaborate on that. The legal term for the condition that exists right now is prescriptive rights and that means that the City has, a road exists there. It’s been maintained there for a considerable period of time. It’s obviously of knowledge of the property owner that the road exists there. As far as the projected 2010 street project, typically we do not move the roadway in these circumstances. This particular area, the right-of-way is incredibly narrow. We have a challenge in that respect and there’s a lot of retaining walls in the area. So at this we do not anticipate shifting the road but we can certainly take a look at it when we get deeper into the design phase of that project, if it proceeds. Currently we’re in the feasibility stage of the project which means our consultant is taking survey information in the area and then at that point we’ll get a cost estimate, meet with the neighborhood and continue with the public process at that point. If there’s an opportunity to shift it we would like, we would certainly take a look at it but then of course it impacts the neighbor to the north. A perceived encroachment into what they would perceive as their property. Laufenburger: Just one last question. Notice of this variance hearing has gone to the neighbors, is that correct? And have you heard anything from any of the neighbors, specifically the neighbors to the east and to the west of the property? Kairies: We have received a few letters from the neighbors. Laufenburger: Were they, I’m terribly sorry. I didn’t realize… Doll: There were 4 letters in here. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Laufenburger: Let me rephrase that. Have you heard any negative comments about this plan? Kairies: We have not heard any negative comments. Laufenburger: Okay thank you. That’s all I had. Larson: How about you Kevin? Dillon: I don’t have any questions at this time. Larson: Okay. I think that pretty much covered everything I had with the exception of having the driveway so close to the edge, I went out there today and it seems like there’s a lot of bushes and trees and such. One of the trees that they want to save, is that one of the ones that’s right adjacent to where the driveway is going to go? Kairies: One of the trees they’re talking about saving is this large ash tree, right there. And then the other is this tree. Larson: Okay. So the other ones are just scrub trees or whatever because there was quite a large tree that was close, it would be pretty close to, it looked like maybe there was I don’t know shrubs of some sort and then there was one tree but I am assuming, I couldn’t tell if it was on the neighbors property or their’s or if they’re going to have to cut it. I know there was reference to that in the report. Kairies: Right. I believe where the stakes are, those trees are actually, and bushes are actually on the neighboring property. Larson: Okay. So in order to put in a driveway, do they have to dig down and cut roots from that tree? Fauske: It would depend Chairperson Larson on the type of tree. The type of bush. There’s certainly construction techniques that they could use that would not damage the tree. As far as our jurisdiction over damage to the tree we have, you know we’d certainly encourage any techniques but it would actually be between the two property owners to determine you know if there’s any damage. Larson: So there’d be no issue as far as you know? Fauske: Not that staff is aware. And you know one of the issues that staff at least, this is certainly a very challenging property but the proposed setback on the west property line there, in order to maneuver a vehicle into the proposed garage they really need that encroachment on the west side to be able to make the turn into the driveway and then into the garage. It’s tight. Very tight. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Larson: Okay. Nobody else has anything else? Have we got an applicant here? Please step up to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Bill Worms: Madam Chair, Planning Commission members. My name is Bill Worms and I’m with Bay Cliff Homes and I was hired by Betsy Anding at 3625 Red Cedar Point. We’d like you to consider this and approve the engineer’s recommendations with the exception of the front yard setback. Angie alluded to. We had asked for 16 feet. The front yard setback, the variance request was 12.5 feet and what we’re asking for is 14. Or 15.5 on the variance request and on the proposed it’s 17.5 and we wanted 14.5. Originally it was 6 feet from the street, or the property line to the home and we’d like to split that difference and go to the north 3 feet, thus giving us the 14.6 and the 10.6 from the street to the edge of the garage. And the purpose of that is a 10 by 20 garage stall with an 3 foot door. It only has 1 foot on either side for the car to open. There’s no space for a stair to get up from the garage to the home nor is there storage for garbage and recycling. Also in addition the front entryway, we need a little bit of a separation between the front plane of the home and the garage so like you can imagine that the house is all the way up here. The garage would be right where the front door is and again we need steps or something to get up into the house. So in addition to moving that setback we would decrease the hard cover by rearranging the driveway and making more of an arc. There’s also an opportunity over here by the entry to get some hard cover back, as well as a shed that was in the calculations of about 60 square feet. And ultimately what we’re asking for as far as the hard cover is probably 20 square feet more and then less, roughly 80 over here, 60 for the shed and possibly another 24 here. So even if we do it, I believe the hard cover will go down but it would help us to have that 3 feet given the whole floorplan that we do have, and we’ve looked at different options of rearranging the stair and everything but everything’s right now to a minimum as it exists. 3 foot corridor, or hallways, etc. This is a little blown up. A little easier maybe to see this area. Aanenson: It’s a little hard for us to look at architectural renderings. If we could just use the site plan I think it, then I think we’re kind of all using the same. I don’t know if you want to go to that Angie and maybe just explain. So if we look at the garage, the original garage was requested to be a little bit larger. Bill Worms: Correct. Aanenson: And it was the staff’s opinion that it really wasn’t a single car garage. It was single car plus so from what I understand they’re willing to kind of split that difference to give them some useable space and make the design work. Our goal is to reduce, to find a reasonable use of the property and minimize the hard cover. So if you could show from that drawing, or maybe explain so Angie if you could just show the difference of what was the original proposal and what. There you go. I’m sorry. Just it was. Kairies: So rather than, this is the 16 foot width and then staff recommended 10 feet. Then there’d be 13 is what the applicant is requesting. Aanenson: So splitting that 6 foot difference for the 3 additional feet. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Bill Worms: Correct. Aanenson: To meet the architectural features that was represented. Larson: So this is halfway between what you’re showing us here? Aanenson: Yeah. Yep. And to meet the features that he represented, if that makes sense. Larson: I’m sorry, did you say that the shed that you were talking about, that’s not going to, you’re not going to do that? Bill Worms: Originally we wanted, there’s an existing shed on the property and we wanted to keep it but in order to help with the hard cover we would concede it and… Larson: Is that the one that’s kind of close to the street right now? Bill Worms: Correct. Larson: Okay. Bill Worms: The white one. Larson: Yeah. It’s so cute. Okay. Bill Worms: So I guess really depending on what you did and how we ultimately came to a number and if we were to keep it and we rearranged the driveway and we got to some hard cover percent that was agreeable, ideally we’d like to keep it but we would concede it if we had to. Larson: Okay. Alright. Well let’s, Kevin have you got any questions for him? Dillon: I don’t have any questions of the applicant. Larson: How about you Denny? Laufenburger: None. Thomas: None. I don’t think so. Larson: No? Doll: I don’t have any. Larson: Okay. And I don’t either so thank you very much. Bill Worms: Okay, thank you. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Larson: And now let’s see here. We’ll now open the hearing to the citizens. Does anybody have any questions or comments? Please step up to the podium now. State your name and address. Don’t all come at once. Okay, seeing that nobody’s there, we’ll close the public hearing and we’ll discuss. Dillon: So I think this represents a good collaboration between the city staff and the applicant and coupled with all the other variances that was given in the area, I mean I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t go through with the proposal that the applicant wants, because like you’re in for a dime. You’re in for a dollar. I mean these variances are pretty significant so like what the heck. Just like give them what they want because I mean it’s little, in terms of the surface coverage, it’s a little over the top already I mean so what’s a little bit more. Laufenburger: I’m inclined to agree with that and I think the fact that the applicant recognizes the importance of hard cover. He asked for a variance on that but he and the applicant are prepared to cut into the proposed driveway with some, you know removing the hard cover. I think that’s good. This, I think this is somebody who’s trying to make good use of a very non- conforming lot so I, the fact that they’re willing to have the front of the house in line with the other neighbors, I think, so I like the collaboration and I would, I’d go along with the 3 additional feet. I think that’s what it is. 3 additional feet that they’re asking for on the garage. But I, I would like to hear from the staff and see if they’re amenable to that as well. Larson: Okay. Go ahead. Kairies: I think that’s something that staff would be in favor of working with the applicant to meet both of the, his needs as well as reducing the variance requests. Larson: Okay. Kathleen. Thomas: I also think it’s a well put together proposal. The extra 3 feet does make sense for myself as well. Just the aspect of what they’re trying to accomplish within the house and it’s a very tight property so the fact that they’ve been able to work with city staff to get so much done and accomplished on the property is good to see so, that’s about it. Larson: Tom. Doll: I just like the fact that they involved the neighbors in the consideration of what was going on and it seems like a slam dunk to me. Larson: Okay. My thoughts on it are, certainly it’s improving the property. It’s tight but just what I’ve seen in the neighborhood, the house that they may, I don’t know, one of the renderings we have in here of the house looks like it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and the fact that, I mean you know working with the city and trying to come to a compromise that just makes the property a little bit more user friendly. It’s good to be able to get out of your car and not have to bang the doors I suppose. So I certainly would be in favor of meeting them halfway on that as well. So at that I will take a motion. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Laufenburger: I’ll try. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves an, and give me a little latitude here staff. I think what the applicant is asking for is a 14.5 foot front yard setback. Is that correct? Aanenson: It’s 15. Kairies: 15.5. Laufenburger: 15. 15.5? Okay. So let me begin again. Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 15.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 6.5 foot east side yard setback variance, a 9 foot driveway setback variance along the west property line, a variance from the two car garage requirement for the construction of a single car garage, and a 13.4%. Now that may adjust. Aanenson: Yeah, I think we need to put in there, with removal of the shed. With the removal of the shed. Maybe just, yeah. Laufenburger: Okay. 13.4% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot of record, Planning Case #09-15 and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Action subject to conditions 1-3, 1 to 3 as specified on pages 9 and 10 of the staff report. And consideration of removal of shed. Aanenson: Yeah, I think at this, clarification on the motion if I may. Because this may stop here if he doesn’t want to appeal. If the applicant’s satisfied. Just for the staff’s perspective we’d like to get clarification of that so our agreement would be, or staff’s recommendation is we’d like to reduce the hard cover so if they want to remove the shed, then I think we leave out that 13.4. I’m not sure what that square, unless you have the math right there Angie. Kairies: I don’t have it with the driveway. If we do just the shed I can come up with that. Aanenson: Because we have the driveway and removal of the shed. Laufenburger: Right. So we’re adding hard cover by extending the garage but we’re reducing hard cover by taking away the shed and also taking away the, a curve of the drive. Aanenson: Right. So I would say to not to exceed but reduction in the driveway hard cover and removal of the shed and whatever that number is, it is so. I’m not sure we have that. Laufenburger: So moved. Larson: Are you done? Okay, have I got a second? Thomas: Second. Larson: Okay. Shall we vote on it? 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Laufenburger moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a 15.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 6.5 foot east side yard setback variance, a 9 foot driveway setback variance along the west property line, a variance from the two-car garage requirement for the construction of a single-car garage, and a hard surface coverage variance that will include the removal of the shed and a portion of the driveway, for the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot of record, Planning Case #09-15, and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Action, and subject to the following conditions: 1.Building Official Conditions: a.A building permit is required. b.Any portion of the structure less than five (5) feet from a property line must be of one- hour fire-resistive construction. c.Any retaining was greater than 4 feet in height must receive building permit approval. d.Retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 2.City Forester Conditions: a.Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits on the entire east, west and south sides. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. b.The roots of neighboring trees must be cut by hand or a vibratory plow. c.No equipment may be stored within the tree protection areas. d.If no trees are present in the rear yard, two overstory, deciduous tree are required to be planted. If the existing ash tree is preserved, one overstory, deciduous tree will be required to be planted. Trees must have a minimum diameter of 2 ½” when planted. 3.Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a.The plans shall be revised to indicate the placement of silt fence or other approved perimeter BMP as well as incorporate any applicable Chanhassen standard details for erosion and sediment control. This should include, at a minimum, 393-5301 and 393- 5302B. All erosion and sediment control features shall be installed prior to any earth disturbing activities and shall remain in place until at least 75% of the property is permanently stabilized. b.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies where applicable and comply with their conditions of approval. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACHLOT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOTUS LAKE ESTATE BEACHLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES. APPLICANT: LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, PLANNING CASE 09-16. Angie Kairies presented the staff report on this item. Larson: Okay. Let’s start with Kevin. Dillon: You know I don’t have any questions. I guess I would, it was kind of hard for me to see why anyone would be against this. I mean… Aanenson: It’s a formality. Dillon: Okay. Larson: Okay. How about you Denny? Laufenburger: So really the, you’re amending the location of the fire pit to where it is right now? Kairies: Correct. Laufenburger: Thank you. Larson: That’s it? Anyone else? Thomas: I’m good. Larson: I don’t see any problem. Okay, have we got an applicant? State your name and address for the record please. Lois Anderson: Good evening Madam Chairwoman and members of the commission. My name is Lois Anderson. I’m the current President of the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association. I live at 145 Choctaw Circle and just wanted to tell you a little bit about our neighborhood so you could understand why this is important to us. We are requesting that it become permanent so we don’t have the anxiety of whether we’ll be removed or not and also to get the amendment for the fire pit. Our neighborhood consists of 44 homes. Many of the neighbors have been there since the inception of the neighborhood and we have a number of families moving in with young children. We range from empty nesters to virtual newlyweds. We have a lot of interest in the lakeshore area. It’s kind of the center of our neighborhood. That’s where we have neighborhood 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 picnics. Where we have a fishing derby in the spring. Where we do winter and summer time activities. And it’s been something that people have been remarkably willing to get very involved in. I have been delighted as the president this year to see how many people have been willing to come down and get their hands muddy. Planting new plants to take the place of the buckthorn that we’ve pulled out. People work to put the docks in. Take them out. It’s a very engaged, active neighborhood. We use the beach individually and family groups. As a whole neighborhood. People swim, waterski. Somebody plows the lake and, in the wintertime, and makes a skating rink down there. We have become involved with other organizations such as the Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization. Paul Dryke is here tonight has been very persuasive. We have 95% membership in the Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization in our neighborhood. We have attended meetings of the watershed district to see what we can do to help improve our lake and make it a better place. We have talked to Terry Jeffrey and Jill Sinclair about not only the kind of plantings we need but what we can do to reduce erosion and runoff, and we have been delighted with the support and recommendations we’ve gotten from them. We are looking at putting in some rain gardens on the outlot so that we can reduce any kind of runoff that we might be producing from the hard cover above the lake so that we can clean up the lake as much as we can. As I said this is, this is important to us. We have been involved in cutting and pulling buckthorn. Replacing that with native grasses, ferns, sedges, things like that to try and improve the quality of the growth on the outlot as much as possible, and we’ve had a lot of donations of both time and materials in doing that. The involvement of the City in this effort has been also wonderful. I’ve been delighted with the kind of help and advice we’ve gotten from Terry Jeffrey and Jill Sinclair and then the help we’ve had from Angie Kairies in going through this renewal process so we thank you very much for your assistance with this and we look forward to continuing to work with the City to make things better yet. Thank you very much for your time. Larson: Thank you. Okay, at this time I will open the public hearing. Is there anybody that would like to step up and make a comment? I guess not. We will close the public hearing and talk about it. What do you think Tom? Doll: I’m fine with it. No questions. Larson: Okay. Kathleen. Thomas: I’m good with it too. I think it’s a good idea to make it easier and less having to come back year after year after year. Larson: Okay. Denny? Laufenburger: Same. Dillon: I, it looks pretty straight forward to me. I’m in favor of this. Larson: Okay. As am I. I would say I agree with you. I don’t know why this was even an issue so at that I will entertain a motion. Dillon: I’ll make a motion. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Larson: Okay. Dillon: That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amended and restated Conditional Use Permit 79-6 for the Lotus Lake Estates beachlot property located on Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Planning Case 09-16, subject to the conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation as specified on page 5 of the staff report. Larson: Have we got a second? Thomas: Second. Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amended and restated Conditional Use Permit 79-6 for the Lotus Lake Estates beachlot property located on Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Planning Case 09-16, subject to adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation and the following conditions: 1. Outlot B must comply with conditions of the Amended and Restated CUP 79-6. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING: BLUFF PROTECTION. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Larson: Do you have any questions? We’ll start with Tom. Doll: Does this, did people in these areas, are they aware of this change? Aanenson: We have a lot of non-conforming setbacks and they’re in place right now. There are people that are built to the edge or close to the edge right now so they are non-conforming. If they go to alter it then often we have, we’re working with some right now that are, have retaining walls into that bluff impact zone, or into the bluff already. Those are non-conforming situations so, in those circumstances they have to be over time they may deteriorate and we require that they come back and engineer them and it’d be difficult to try to pull those out. You know say you can’t replace them because there’s integrity issues there so we would continue to work with those people and try to minimize those impacts. But this would be different than somebody that’s coming in new. Especially along, if you go down the southern part of the city where there’s some pretty steep bluffs so. Doll: Okay, that’s all. Larson: Kathleen? 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Thomas: I don’t have any questions. It makes sense. Laufenburger: None. Dillon: No questions here. Larson: Okay, no questions here either. Okay. Well since you’re the applicant. Aanenson: We are the applicant…any more questions. Larson: Alright. Well let’s take a motion on this then. Aanenson: There is a public hearing, I’m sorry. Yeah. Thomas: You have to open it. Larson: Oh. Open the public hearing. Nobody’s here. Close the public hearing. Alright. Now I’ll take a motion. Thomas: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code as outlined in the staff report. Larson: Have I got a second? Dillon: Second. Larson: Alright, let’s take a vote. Thomas moved, Dillon seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to bluff protection as outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING: SIGNS. Angie Kairies presented the staff report on this item. Larson: Kevin. Dillon: You know I think these make good sense. I don’t have any, I just validate that it’s on the right track. I don’t have any questions. Larson: Okay. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Laufenburger: None. None here. Larson: Kathleen. Thomas: I’m good with the sign change so nope. Larson: Tom. Doll: Just out of curiosity, who is keeping track of how many times they put a temporary sign out? Kairies: I am. Doll: Alright, no more questions. Larson: I just one question here. So our logo here, this Jimmy John's that you’re showing here as an example, that entire thing is their logo. Kairies: That’s correct. Larson: So that’s just, that can be a flat surface and then their letters, if they put Jimmy John's in addition to that has to be letters as it’s lined out here? Kairies: Right. They have to be the big channel letters for their main part of the sign. Larson: Okay, and I’m not seeing it but that’s because I’m blind tonight. What’s the, how big can that logo sign be in conjunction with the letters? Kairies: That can be 30% of the overall sign. Larson: Okay. That’s all I have. So do I open up for another? Aanenson: Sure. Larson: Let’s open this up to the public. They’re all rolling in. Thomas: We’re in a tie now. Larson: Oh I guess they all chickened out. Let’s close the public hearing. Visit amongst ourselves. Thomas: Good deal. Larson: Good? Good? Good? 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 Dillon: I think it shows good responsibleness on the part of city staff to make those changes and be flexible to the needs and the changing times so it makes sense. Larson: Okay. Denny? Laufenburger: I concur. Larson: Well I guess the only thing I can say is, you know adding the temporary, adding a fourth temporary sign per year is very helpful, especially in the difficult times for businesses and I know it helps them and perhaps if things change in the future they could make, re-approach that at some point if it seems to be too much and we can back it off but other than that, that was the only comment I have so. Alrighty, I will, do we entertain another motion here for this? Laufenburger: Madam Chair, I will move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code as outlined in the staff report. Larson: Is there a second? Dillon: Second. Laufenburger moved, Dillon seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to Signs as outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 15, 2009 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Aanenson: Maybe one update. We agreed that we would do a tour at our next meeting which is th October 20 and we agreed to start at 6:00. I’d like to leave promptly at 6:00 because we’re going to try to visit a few sites that you’ll be seeing on your agenda later. We will end up at Kwik Trip at 101. Laufenburger: Are they going to feed us? Aanenson: Yes. Laufenburger: Are they really? Aanenson: …LEED certification so that’d be interesting to see some of the architectural elements that make, so the architect will meet us on site so the fact that it’s getting dark then, 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2009 we’ll be okay because we’ll be in a lit area there and we’ll go through the elements that make up the LEED certification. There are some other projects going on in that area so we’ll kind of do a drive by those. So we’re going to try to see 3-4 sites before we head down there. So if we can leave promptly at 6:00 and try to get here by you know, 5, 10 minutes to and then we’ll head out. It’ll be a little bit shorter meeting. Be done probably 8ish. A little after 8:00. 6:00 to 8:00 if that works for everybody. And I’ll send an email reminder of that, and then we do have items on for rdth the November 3 and we’ll have a pretty busy meeting on the 17 too. We’ll also probably have three big projects on, all including subdivisions and site plan. Some housing and some commercial projects so. Chairwoman Larson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 15