Loading...
PC 2009 01 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2010 Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, Dan Keefe, and Tom Doll MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PENTEADO VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO USE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 6739 BRENDEN COURT. APPLICANT: CANDYCE & FRED PENTEADO, PLANNING CASE 10-01. Public Present: Name Address Candyce & Fred Penteado 6739 Brenden Court Jameson & Sarah Ritter 1809 Freedom Lane David Gestach 200 Chestnut Street, Chaska Troy Bader & Gina Sauer 2244 Lake Lucy Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Larson: We’ll start with Kathleen. Anything? Thomas: Um, I just trying to think if I do. Did this get flagged when they pulled the permit for the house? Is that what happened? Aanenson: I’m sorry, what? Thomas: Did this get like, did they get, or that you need the permit, did it get flagged like when they pulled the permit to build? Aanenson: That’s correct. Thomas: …would happen. Aanenson: Well yeah and also they saw that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Thomas: They had the extra refrigerator and all that? Aanenson: Yep. Thomas: Okay. That’s all I wanted to know. Larson: Okay. How about you Denny. Laufenburger: Thank you. I appreciate you getting the information on those other homes and I do have one question. Regarding, you said that this will be a combination of Lot 4 and Lot 5. The utility easement will be vacated between there. So does that mean that this single family home will be the only home that will get built on the combined lots 4 and 5? Aanenson: That’s correct. Once they’re combined, if they were to separate them again, they’d have to come back through a subdivision process. Laufenburger: Okay. Aanenson: It could be done administratively but it’d have to meet the underlying zoning district so however that house sits on the lot, the lot line on that back lot may have to be adjusted. If for some reason that lot in the back wanted to, they’d still have to meet the underlying 15,000 square feet and have to be a straight, so it’d have to meet that criteria. Larson: Tennis courts. Aanenson: Right, but once they’re combined then there would be another process to go back through it. Yeah. Laufenburger: Okay. That was my questions. Larson: Okay. And to you Tom. Doll: No questions. Undestad: No. Larson: Dan. Keefe: Just a quick one. Just on the orientation of the house. It’s a Brenden Court address, right? Actually the Lake Lucy elevation looks like it wants to come off the Lake Lucy. Just out of curiosity. Aanenson: I think the way the garage is represented in the artist rendering isn’t really true. If you look at the garage in this picture, it is more of a flat garage so I think the architectural rendering was a little deceptive. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Keefe: And then, so there could be another house built on that adjacent lot, is that or not? Aanenson: No. What we’re doing is combining the two. Keefe: Yeah, so it will be one lot. Aanenson: That’s correct. Keefe: Okay. Aanenson: And that is a condition of approval too. That the two lots. Larson: The only question I have is kind of regarding the lot two doors over to the right, if you’re looking at the map. That aerial map. Is that an outlot or is that a lot that will be built on at some point? That real long stretch. Generous: The City owns. Larson: It’s City owned. Okay. Alright. Well that’s all I have. Have we got an applicant? Would you please step up to the podium. State your name and address. Candyce Penteado: I’m Candyce Penteado. We are the property owners of 6739 Brenden Court and this is my husband Fred Penteado and our daughter Olivia. Would you like us to just sort of walk through our thoughts about the variance process? Larson: Sure. Candyce Penteado: Or answer questions. Larson: Yeah, why don’t, if you want to just give us a brief summary, that’d be fine. Candyce Penteado: Okay. When we went to pull permits for this lot we were informed that we had a variance request from the City that we are qualifying as a multi-family home. Well certainly we see ourself as a single family with my mom. This is a process that we wanted to comply with and do the right thing and so we are applying for this variance and we had asked the City about not just the letter of the law, which we had, or the policy which we walked through in the letter that I wrote hopefully saying how our home does not have separate utilities. Maintains one private entrance. One driveway. Car, a garage stall for every vehicle and is not endangering the health and welfare of our neighbors or our community. We also asked about the spirit or the intention. What’s the concern of having our mother-in-law have her own accommodations above the garage and what is the City trying to, why is this policy in place basically. And what they had explained was just the fact that, Sharmeen had used the example of in a college community or something like that where you have sort of this transient feel to a home where it’s able to be used by multiple people without accountability for the real estate or the property and certainly that’s not the intention of how we’re using that land. It’s really just to provide my mother with 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 independent living within our home and that was sort of the spirit of our usage and we have a condition included in here with this variance that no part of this property could ever be rented and that would be regardless of if we live there or anybody else lives there, which I think would be a concern if I lived in this neighborhood. Is that you know are they trying to build a rental property in this space and that is certainly not our purpose so we really hope that we’ve established criteria that would make you feel comfortable with both the spirit and the letter of this variance request. Larson: Okay. You guys got any questions? No? Okay, thank you very much. Okay with that I will open the public hearing. If there’s anybody in the audience that would like to come up and say something. Troy Bader: Troy Bader. My wife and I, her name is Gina Sauer. We have at 2244 Lake Lucy Road so we would actually be just adjacent to Lot 5. Really what we have is, we love the idea of what they’re doing in terms of combining the lots. We like the idea and absolutely respect what the applicants want to do in terms of caring for their mother and mother-in-law. I think that’s great. We just actually have questions and actually they hit on a primary concern and that is, what they’re doing is great but the question becomes the future. Once a variance is changed, the zoning is changed, it’s permanent. The applicants may not own the home. Their situation could change at some point in the future and our primary concern is, what happens in the future? What protections are there? What legitimate protections can be provided to us and for the community really to make sure that this doesn’t become a rental property. That’s our primary concern because the character of this neighborhood can change significantly and very quickly if in fact the situations that the applicants have becomes one that there is somebody else living there. Then it does become rental and what was a single family neighborhood with some homes that are at a level that people made some fairly significant investments. Chose the community for reasons that it was a single family residential neighborhood has now changed. That’s our primary concern and I don’t know what protections. There was a comment about putting a restriction on that would prohibit rentals. I don’t know if that’s appropriate. If I can get some assurance from the City then in fact that that type of restriction is legitimate, would be enforceable such that it would protect the neighborhood into the future, fantastic. We’d feel good about it. I just don’t have the answers for that and I guess I’m hoping the city or somebody else could help us with that. Larson: Okay. Would you like to address that? Aanenson: Sure, I’d be happy to answer the question. There are conditions of approval. One is, first of all let me, the staff’s point, that also they are making a significant investment in their property too. Whoever buys this one, it’s not typically one that you would find would be like a duplex or somebody renting in the fact that we require that they come through the primary entrance. It gives them, whoever it is, ownership to make sure who’s living there also is more than likely family related. In the past 20 years we’ve had, this would be our fourth one so we don’t have a preponderance of these. Not to say that there may be somebody renting that doesn’t have a license or, but they’re going through the right steps. The conditions that are in the staff report is that they apply for a building permit. That they combine the lots. That the exterior of the home remain as a single family, and that’s also one of the criteria too so there’s the one main 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 entrance so again there’s that control point for rental so if you have somebody just going in through your basement, there’s not the same maybe control. They have to use the same one. Then there’s no separate utilities so they’re all on one meter and then we do have that they comply with all building codes and that there is a condition in here too that we’ve already put in there that with a variance these are recorded with the County so it’s also being recorded that neither can it may be rented. Troy Bader: And that’s, so that will be a condition. Neither unit can be rented so this would have to be more of a family situation? Aanenson: Correct. And again, there’s a lot of different ways. If you look at the city code, just to be clear you know, you can have a group home in a residential district. That is also allowed by the State law. Six people living in a group home so there is a lot of different things. The experience that we’ve had, with having these, we don’t see them as a problem for the most part, again the way they’re set up because people are making a substantial investment in the home in the way that it’s laid out typically. It could be whether it’s a special needs child, as I stated earlier. An elderly parent or something like that. We haven’t had a problem with those but these will all get recorded at the County Recorders Office so anybody doing a title search on this would find this under the variance. What are my rights with this unit? If someone else, if they were to sell and someone else was to buy this, what rights do I have? Those would appear. Troy Bader: Okay because that’s the most important thing to your point, having had problems but you also had indicated earlier, we don’t have much experience in the city of Chanhassen with this so we really don’t know what happens when it’s the second, third owner or maybe another generation and that’s the you know, a lot of this covers the front end and that’s my concern is I like the fact that there can be a restriction put in. My concern is the enforceability of that down the road because once people are in, there can be a lot of different situations. The fact that utilities aren’t separated, all of these type of things. If I actually wanted to rent the property, I could work through most of those things depending on the circumstances. So I guess the key to me is the enforceability of that restriction on future rental of the property. That would give us the comfort that we’d be looking for. That it would more than likely be a family and fairly close family situation, such as that that the applicants have or it could be a child or something but we are very concerned if that’s not enforceable, that it is an expensive property. People can get in. It’s very easy to supplement that when you have a rental and obviously we have a very different situation in the neighborhood. So I don’t know what assurance we can get from anybody or if there’s, the attorney for the City, I would just like to know and I guess if you guys say yes it is, you guys have more experience than I do but that’s my primary concern. You see how these things go in. It’s great at the beginning and then 10 years later, whatever it is, that seems to disappear pretty quickly or is deemed unenforceable and we’re right back and the concern that we have now becomes a reality. Larson: Well honestly, just I want to address what you just said. We’re not a decision making. Troy Bader: I understand. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Larson: We’re just, you know we read the material and we advise based on you know what we see. And so the decision making is at the City Council and the law. Keefe: And the condition that’s required as a part of the variance is an enforceable condition… The question is who finds out and then you know ultimately if you were to find out that they were running, you would come back to the city or whoever… Aanenson: And I just want to preface this that whether, I understand your concern and again we’ve had four of these in 20 years. We haven’t had problems with the other ones because people, the people that do this are sincere in their motivation and the people buying them are looking for the same type of, to meet their needs. They’re making a substantial investment in the home. To me a larger problem would be somebody just renting their home, which is a problem. That they can’t sell it and they rent the home and we don’t know who’s in there. This, we have a contact person. We have a primary owner so we feel comfortable in managing that part of it. Troy Bader: And I don’t think, we don’t question the motives of the applicants at all, in any way. We’re just saying the applicants may not always be there. That’s where my, circumstances change and although we can just look at it today, and I understand we said, I definitely understand. This group isn’t going to render a legal opinion. I guess what I would ask and hope is that this committee itself though cares enough about that piece that the question would be asked such that of those that are appropriate, that this is an enforceable restriction on that property. If that’s the case then we become, then we’re comfortable with the situation. If it’s not, then I’m… Aanenson: Let me clarify. Because it is a variance, it gets a majority vote on this, the variance is deemed approved. Only if there’s not a majority vote would this go to City Council. And again I have to reiterate, you know we have stated in here and it will be recorded that it can’t be rented. Then our only enforcement is if we find out it’s rented, then we pursue action, which we would any other one that doesn’t meet city code. We’d pursue action on those. Laufenburger: Madam Chair? Troy Bader: I think really that was my concern. Thank you for your time. I very much appreciate it. Laufenburger: Just a moment. Larson: No, well actually questions for Kate. And I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. If they needed to say move to Utah and they can’t sell their house and they need to rent the entire house, is this stipulation saying that they would not be able to lease out their house to somebody? I mean is that an enforceable thing? Aanenson: What it says is neither dwelling may be rented. Yep. Larson: I see that but is that, is that a legal, is that legal? I don’t know if that’s legal. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Aanenson: Yep. Laufenburger: It would seem to me Madam Chair that if we stipulate that in the recording of the variance, then that would be the case. Aanenson: Right. Laufenburger: Mr. Bader, is that right? Troy Bader: Yes. Laufenburger: You play an important in this in that, not only you as a citizen but you have heard Kate say that if we hear about something, then we can enforce it. I think it’s important to recognize that Chanhassen is a community that looks out for one another and that also means that we look out to see if something’s not correct, and my experience, not only as a citizen of Chanhassen but on the Planning Commission is that when citizens are made aware of, or citizens pay attention to what’s going on in the neighborhood and they feel like something’s not right, it’s brought to the City’s attention and action is taken. So you’ve got the role of the enforcement in the variance but it’s only when we have knowledge or when the City has knowledge that something is not being handled properly, then we can take action. Troy Bader: Yep, absolutely but I hope the council also understands that’s not always the easiest position to take as a neighbor when we’re trying to develop relationships and those type of things. Just like it’s not fun for us to be here. I think the reality is, this is fine because we’re trying to achieve the same goal and I think we all want to put the same protections in. To your point, absolutely we would keep an eye on it and I doubt that there would be any question here. It’s just that circumstances change down the road that we’re concerned about. But obviously if that does happen and it’s not enforceable, that has a significant impact on the value of our home and many of the other homes that are adjacent to it. Thank you. Larson: Thank you. Fred Penteado: If okay just one question. Just a clarification. Larson: Can you state your name? Fred Penteado: Yes, sorry. Fred Penteado, the other owner of 6739 and to Mr. Bader’s question, just want to make sure we address. As we met with Angie last week on the planning commission there, in addition to the protections, the current association does restrict rental properties as well so you do have a second layer of protection there. And my understanding, if I understand Angie correctly is to rent in the city of Chanhassen one proactively needs a permit so there would be a prospective view. I’m not sure if that’s the City’s. Aanenson: That’s correct. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Fred Penteado: Planning Commission or council issue but I feel like there are several layers of protection there. Larson: Thank you. Alright, is there anybody else? Okay I’ll bring it back. Close the public hearing. And what do you think? Keefe: You know I think it’s fine. You know happy to see a house go up there. Happy to see people are thoughtful about you know, about the layout of the house and I don’t see an issue here. And from what I see of the protection, I think the variance and the statement in the variance is you know without a legal ruling on it, it seems to be pretty strong. Larson: Okay? No? Undestad: No, I’m good. Larson: Tom? Doll: Nice to see a house go in there. Larson: Yeah. Laufenburger: Same here. Love development. Thomas: Just fine. Larson: Well I have nothing either. I think it’s a beautiful home and I know exactly where it is because I drive by it every Sunday on my way to church. So very nice neighborhood. Okay, well with that I’ll request a motion. Anybody want to? Laufenburger: Madam Chair? I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves Planning Case #10-01 for a variance to use a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling on property zoned Single Family Residential, located on Lots rd 4 and 5, Block 1, Brenden Pond 3 Addition based on the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action. Larson: Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Laufenburger moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, approves Planning Case #10-01 for a variance to use a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling on property zoned Single Family rd Residential (RSF) located on Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Brenden Pond 3 Addition, based on the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Aanenson: I just want to state for the record then Madam Chair, if anybody appeals this decisions they have 4 days to appeal so that could be applicant or any of the neighbors. Otherwise the decision rests here unless there’s an appeal. Larson: Okay. Alright. PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN REZONINGS: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (BG) TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) ON TH PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 78 STREET BETWEEN KERBER BOULEVARD AND POWERS BOULEVARD (WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS NDRD 2 AND 3 ADDITIONS); REZONING FROM GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (BG) TO AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND MARKET BOULEVARD (OUTLOT A, CROSSROADS PLAZA ADDITION); AND REZONING FROM HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT (BH) TO AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND MARKET BOULEVARD (OUTLOT B, CROSSROADS PLAZA ADDITION AND LOT 3, BLOCK 2, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT PARK). APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 10-02. Public Present: Name Address Dick Klonbeck Investors Real Estate Trust (Owners of West Village Heights Center) Bob Generous and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Can I speak to this, what you’re showing us right now? Aanenson: Yes. Generous: Yes. Laufenburger: To me it feels like you’re opening up the possibility of space which is now covered for parking could potentially become, I even hate to use this word but almost a kiosk type establishment. I think they’re not even present anymore but maybe a small drive thru coffee. Generous: Potentially. Aanenson: Potentially. Or it could be, if you look at the size of, for example Jimmy John's is 1,500 square feet. So that’s what we, intensify some of that, maximizing that space and value that we’ve created in that downtown core and looking at the uses. Meeting with the property 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 owners. It could be bigger than that. I think we have some experience of looking at Villages on the Pond and the shared parking. Kind of what those peak demands are, and those would be some of the decisions looking in that, making sure, as Bob stated, on both those parking lots are maximized at certain seasons of the year. For example both those, both the Target site and the Byerly’s site have seasonal use. The garden center, which we encourage. It gets some visibility. Some line so we know that they can support that seasonally. It’s how you look at those mix of uses during the winter months full time. Sometimes that’s used for snow removal. Storage space and so we just think there’s an opportunity to capitalize on that and get those trips downtown so you’re right. We have to look at how that mix works and the right type of use. Not just to put something out there to put something out there, but compatibility. Laufenburger: Thank you. Generous: Yeah, and as Kate stated, we did do a comparison of the uses. I have the table in the book. They’re a little, or in the report. However the big change is the auto related uses are being prohibited from this district by rezoning it from general business to CBD. However additional uses are permitted including some multi-family and so as the city evolves in the future we think that this will provide us with a great opportunity to go forward. Aanenson: I just want to add one other thing. Just to be clear I think the other issue we looked at is, we’re not creating any non-conforming situations which was, which is critical for an owner of a building that has to worry about that cloud but this doesn’t create any non-conforming situations. Larson: Could I ask you to clarify that? You said it does not allow automobile related uses? Generous: Well auto repair shops for instance would not be. Larson: Well you’ve got a tire shop and you’ve got a. Aanenson: That would be in the business highway district. Generous: Yeah, that’s in BH. This is for. Thomas: This is for Byerly’s. Generous: This is, well the westerly side. Thomas: …to Office Max or Depot, whatever. Aanenson: The BG. Larson: I’m sorry. I apologize. Got it. Generous: And that’s, we believe that auto related uses are permitted in the BH district and then our industrial office parks but not in our downtown area. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Larson: Okay. Generous: So it’s just auto repair shops, things like that but any retail could go into our central business district or service uses. Things like that. Larson: Okay. Generous: And again, so this is what in essence will happen with the proposed rezoning of these properties. We turn additional property red on the west side of downtown and then the two areas on Highway 5 become green. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt a motion to approve the rezonings and as specified in the staff report. No conditions of approval on rezonings but there’s conditions of use that result of the rezoning. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Larson: Alright. Let’s start with you Dan. Do you have anything? Keefe: No. I’m in support of this. I think you know I think change is good. I think you’re going to get a chance to fun some things up a little bit. It’s not that dramatic change by any stretch of the imagination but I think you know adding some things can draw more people to downtown, which is what I think we’re trying to do here so I think it’s good. Undestad: I agree with Dan. Larson: Okay. Thomas: Same. Laufenburger: Concur. Larson: As do I. So do I. Alright. Well I will open the public hearing. If anybody out in the audience would like to come up and any questions or talk about it. Please state your name and address for the record. Dick Klonbeck: Good evening. My name is Dick Klonbeck. I represent Investors Real Estate Trust. We are the owners of the West Village Height Center. The Byerly’s center. Had the opportunity to sit down, meet with staff. Kind of go through these things and by and large I don’t really have any issues with what’s being proposed here tonight so I just wanted to identify myself. Say I’m here if anybody from the commission has any questions. I’m happy to answer them relative to our specific site area but I guess I’d just as a point of clarification, as I was going through the list and looking at the changes in the permitted uses, the garden center concept. How is that handled Kate with, I mean because I know the grocery store, Byerly’s technically would do a seasonal thing… Aanenson: Yes, we love that and actually that’s through a temporary use ordinance. What our temporary use ordinance allows is something that you sell already on your property that you 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 could just come in and get a temporary use ordinance to operate that, and that’s what we’ve done so we just look at whether you need any services. How it’s going to affect parking circulation and so that would still remain the same. Dick Klonbeck: Okay. Generous: Since you can sell inside, you have an event outside too. Dick Klonbeck: Okay. Aanenson: What we don’t want to do, if it’s not something you sell on the premise, invite all kinds of transient merchants in so we want to have some control with those users so, since they’re already selling flowers in there, that’s consistent. Larson: Okay. I have a question for you Dick. Have you got any ideas as to what you would like to see go in there being that it would be on the adjacent site of your property? Dick Klonbeck: Well this gets to be a little bit of a tricky issue. What I’d like to see and what market will allow me to you know put in there are really two different things. Current market conditions are a bit different from when this whole issue started and when they started this planning back in 2006. Much different world in terms of retail development. I guess what I would foresee that, I think something that’s important to remember here, this is cyclical and so we happen to be in a down period. We will come out of this and then we’ll be in a position at some point in the future to see future development here. I guess what I would envision would be, what I would call an outlot building. A small building of maybe 5,000 to 10,000 square foot th footprint in size that would occupy kind of the south end of our property, closer to West 78 Street. In terms of what uses are there, boy that’s. Larson: I didn’t mean to put you on the spot. Dick Klonbeck: Yeah. Well I mean I do have, I do have certain restrictions within my Byerly’s lease so it’s extraordinarily difficult for me to put in any kind of a food use out there. That’s a natural, and that’s actually the type of a development. I mean we have people who have indicated interest that they’d like to have space in a development like this. Larson: Okay. Laufenburger: I would just ask that you keep in mind the major occupancy that occurs on that th corner on July 4 every year. Dick Klonbeck: Yes. Laufenburger: Thank you. Dick Klonbeck: We are well aware of the influx of people and what happens. We’re happy to have people come. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Larson: Alright, good. Okay. Good, thank you very much. Okay, is there anybody else? No? Seeing that nobody else would like to come up I will close the public hearing and we’ll start with you this time Kathleen. What do you think? Thomas: I think it’s really, I think it’s good. It’s a good clean up. It’s, I think it will be good for when we get to that point eventually of being able to potentially develop the downtown or bring more influx of people in and different businesses in which is just all around good. You know like kind of the one stop shopping ability to be able to go and collect different things and walk places and it seems great so I’m completely in favor of it. Larson: Okay. How about you Denny? Laufenburger: As am I. No questions. Keefe: I’m in favor. Undestad: I’m good. Larson: Okay. I will entertain a motion. Undestad: I’ll grab this one. I make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of properties from General Business District (BG) to Central Business District (CBD) on property located on Lot 4, Block 1, West ndrd Village Heights 2 Addition and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, West Village Heights 3 Addition. Rezoning from General Business District (BG) to Agricultural Estate District (A2) on property located on Outlot A, Crossroads Plaza Addition and rezoning from Highway and Business Services District (BH) to Agricultural Estate District (A2) on property located on Outlot B, Crossroads Plaza Addition and Lot 3 in Block 2, Frontier Development Park. Larson: Have I got a second? Keefe: Second. Undestad moved, Keefe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of properties from General Business District (BG) to Central Business District (CBD) on property located on Lot 4, Block 1, West ndrd Village Heights 2 Addition and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, West Village Heights 3 Addition; rezoning from General Business District (BG) to Agricultural Estate District (A2) on property located on Outlot A, Crossroads Plaza Addition and rezoning from Highway and Business Services District (BH) to Agricultural Estate District (A2) on property located on Outlot B, Crossroads Plaza Addition and Lot 3 in Block 2, Frontier Development Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN PUD AMENDMENTS: REQUEST TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN: CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER, MARKET SQUARE AND WEST ONE. APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 10-03. Public Present: Name Address Doug Hansen 11969 No. Shore Drive, Spicer, MN 56288 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Larson: Dan. Keefe: I don’t have any questions. Undestad: And again, it looks good. Laufenburger: Just for the record Bob can you confirm this does not create any non- conformance. Is that correct? Generous: This does not create any non-conforming. Laufenburger: Alright. Larson: Nothing? Thomas: Nothing. Sorry. Larson: Nothing from me either. Okay, so should we open the public hearing. Would anybody like to come up and speak? All the masses of people. Seeing nobody would like to come up. Would you? Okay. Doug Hansen: I’m Doug Hansen. I live in Spicer, Minnesota. We built that building in 1980 and we were all alone down there. There wasn’t anything down that road except that building so, and we added to it in ’94 and that’s when it became a PUD. I had one question. You mentioned the car repair. I’ve got a Hispanic couple in that building that’s repairing cars. Does that apply to me now? Generous: No. We’re not rezoning the property to CBD. The uses are specified under the Planned Unit Development for this property. The reference to the CBD just relates to the setback and site coverage limitations so we wouldn’t be changing that. What the ordinance says, except as modified below. You follow the CBD standards and so, and the PUD for that we talk about industrial uses. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Doug Hansen: Okay. Aanenson: I was just going to say so the CBD kind of gives, is the platform. Then you modify that to whatever you want under that and as stated this is kind of, one of the older buildings in the downtown and I Sharmeen has talked to Steve quite a bit about the uses in there. Your son so again for the record that’s not our intent to make it non-conforming. Just to create more flexibility in the future. Doug Hansen: I have no problem with that so thanks. Larson: Okay. Thank you Doug. Okay, with that I will close the public hearing. And if anybody has anything to talk about. Well then would somebody like to tackle the next motion. Kathleen? Thomas: Sure. I will make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the following motions. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Chanhassen Retail Center, amending Sections a, c, d, and Lighting as stated in the attached ordinance and adopts the Findings of Fact. Do you want to just read them? Larson: Keep, I think we can do them all in one, right? Thomas: Alright. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Market Square amending Section 3 as stated in the attached ordinance and adopting the Findings of Fact. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for West One amending Section 6, Zoning as stated in the attached ordinance and adopting the Findings of Fact. Larson: Do I have a second? Doll: Second. Thomas moved, Doll seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the following motions: 1. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Chanhassen Retail Center, amending Sections a, c, d, and Lighting as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 2. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Market Square, amending Section 3 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 3. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for West One, amending Section 6, Zoning as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Laufenburger noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 1, 2009 as presented. Laufenburger: It seems like it’s been over a year since we met. Larson: Well thank you for noting those. I didn’t even have to ask. I bet you were one of those kids that always sat in the front of the class. Laufenburger: That was me. For the record. Larson: For the record. And it is still on the record. Okay. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Larson: Have we got any commission presentations? Thomas: I have a commission question. Did we ever find out about the Gleason Variance? Aanenson: It was tabled. Thomas: Like it was tabled and then has it been at all? Aanenson: It’s scheduled again I believe for next Monday? Generous: But then they asked to be. Aanenson: The second one, yeah. It’s… Thomas: I kind of figured but I thought I would just kind of check because I haven’t seen anything. Aanenson: Yeah, it’s the first one in February I believe. They sent a letter requesting continuation of that. Thomas: Okay. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Aanenson: Just to let you know that that advertisements are out for Planning Commission vacancies. There are 3 that are up. Dan, Kevin and Denny are all up, your terms so I’d encourage you to apply and those are out for advertisements so that’s scheduled on the agenda, th I’m sorry it’s not on this one but I believe we set that for either March, oh I do have it. The 16. Planning Commission interviews so those of you that are reapplying, you will not be part of the process. Everybody else will and then we’ll interview and then the City Council will also nd interview so those will be ongoing. The Lotus Retail Center will be on for February 2. Commercial site plan. We haven’t seen one of those for a while, and then some of the projects th that were scheduled for the 16 will not be on so you’ll probably have one variance on and then we’ve got the interviews but we’ll also do, we’ll continue as Bob showed you on the map, the PUD’s. Just clarifying those PUD’s. Getting the standards up to snuff. Some of those are maybe 10-15 years old so we want to bring those in to, to the standards that we have today. We’ll keep plugging away on getting those done. We shouldn’t take too many meetings on that so. That’s all I had. Larson: Okay. Bob, you got anything? We’re done. Okay, meeting’s adjourned. Chairwoman Larson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 17