Loading...
PC 2011 01 04 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 4, 2011 Acting Chair Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Tom Doll, Mark Undestad and Kevin Ellsworth STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Angie Kairies, Planner ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. Aanenson: If I may, according to your Bylaws you elect, typically we do this in April but because we’ve had a change we will, I think it makes sense to do it at this point and then the two new members probably wouldn’t want to be in the Vice Chair or Chairmanship role, but as, by your Bylaws you would recommend or nominate a Chair person or two and then you would vote. I’ll collect the ballots. Those should be a part of the record and then a majority would win. After we approve the Chairman then we would vote for the Vice Chair so I’ll leave it up to the Acting Chair to go ahead and call for nominations for a Chairperson. Aller: Calling for nominations for the Chair. I’ll nominate myself. Any other nominations? Nominations are closed. Aanenson: So if you want to go ahead and vote and then I’ll collect the ballots and again it’d just be the majority. It’s supposed to be our permanent record. Ellsworth: Are we supposed to put our names down? Aanenson: You don’t have to. There is a majority then so Commission Aller will be then the Chairman so now if you would like to go ahead and. Aller: So I’ll open the nominations for Vice Chair. Doll: I’ll nominate Kathleen Thomas. Thomas: Oh thank you. Aller: Any other nominations? Hearing none, nominations are closed and we shall vote. Aanenson: Again we have a majority so congratulations Chair and Vice Chair. So with that your next, that’ll be changed on the official record at the City then too. Aller: Thank you. And then we will move on. Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING: MINNETONKA MIDDLE SCHOOL WEST INTERIM USE PERMIT: REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING FOR TENNIS COURT CONSTRUCTION ON PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL (OI) LOCATED AT MINNETONKA MIDDLE SCHOOL WEST (6421 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD). APPLICANT: INSPEC, PLANNING CASE 2011-01. Public Present: Name Address Cliff Buhman, Inspec 5801 Duluth Street, Minneapolis 55422 Fauske: Thank you Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Tonight you have an interim use permit request before you, Planning Case 2011-01 and it’s scheduled to go to the th City Council on January 24. The site is generally located east of Highway 41. Highway 7 lies to the north. The site is currently used for a middle school in the Minnetonka school district, and just for a point of reference on this slide. You can see north of the parking lot there’s a pond and 2 tennis courts directly north of the pond. That’s the area that we’ll be looking at tonight. The proposal includes the reconstruction of the 2 existing tennis courts located north of the pond and the construction of 5 new tennis courts for a total of 7 tennis courts in the project area. The application is for a grading interim use permit. The reason it’s being held before you this evening is that the estimated grading is over 5,000 cubic yards. Anything over 1,000 cubic yards requires a public process through the interim use permit. As you can see on this slide here, there are some areas that the applicant is proposing to do some infiltration areas directly east of the tennis court areas. The reason the infiltration areas are being included as a part of this proposal is that the existing pond was not sized for the additional impervious surfaced associated with the 5 additional tennis courts and they also needed that to comply to the National, to the Non Point Discharge Elimination System permit dealt by the Minnesota Pollution Control Association. So the City has worked with the applicant’s engineer on the infiltration requirements. There are some conditions of approval associated with the vegetation that staff would like to see within those infiltration basins to promote infiltration, as well as looking at the applicant to come up with a long term maintenance plan to make sure that the infiltration areas are working to the best capabilities. The applicant did do some infiltration tests through a soil testing company in conjunction with this. One of the conditions of approval included in the staff report was a realignment of some of the drain tile system. As you can see at the bottom of this slide in the X area, that is the drain tile that staff has requested by removed and relocated to the new solid red line seen near the middle of the slide. The reason for that is two fold. One is, it’s always staff’s intent to try to minimize the number of discharge points into a pond. It helps for maintenance purposes. It also helps when it comes to the function of a pond, if you can minimize the number of points entering the pond it also decreases the amount of stirring as the water enters into the pond. And the other reason we’ve requested that too is, city staff has been working with the school district to relocate a, the Melody Hill water tower which lies east of this site and this is one of the potential sites that we’ve been looking at so we just wanted to be a little forward thinking that in the event that the water tower is relocated to this site, that we wouldn’t have to, that the applicant wouldn’t have to move any of the drain tile. With that staff is recommending 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit for the grading for new tennis court construction located at Minnetonka School West, plans prepared by Inspec dated December 3, 2010, subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I would be happy to answer any questions that the commission has at this time. Aller: Mark, do you have any questions? Undestad: Not right now. Aller: None? Tom. Doll: It’s an interim, let’s see. What’s the word I’m looking for? Fauske: Interim use permit? Doll: Yes. Meaning that it has a short period of time that it expires? Fauske: It would be a one year period. Doll: Okay. One year period. Fauske: And we do collect an escrow from the applicant to ensure that all the erosion control measures are adhered to as well as the revegetation plan. Doll: Okay, and then they’re expected to complete construction of the tennis courts in the summer? Spring? Fauske: The applicant is present to answer that question. He would be able to give you a better idea of their schedule. They do have some other projects scheduled for this site so he can talk a little bit more about that. Doll: Are these City, is it public tennis courts then or? Fauske: Again the applicant can talk a little bit more about that. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: Can I just make a point of clarification too? Because it’s over 1,000 cubic yards, that’s why it needs to go through the interim use process. Otherwise if it’s under that amount, engineering would just work through their permitting process so that’s why, you know because of the amount of dirt being moved it requires a different level of review so I just wanted to make sure that that was clear too. It’s the amount. Doll: Yep, I was just wondering about the time period and why it doesn’t kind of go with the construction permit. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Aanenson: Yeah, typically when you see a grading permit, usually they’re with the construction of another project so grading’s a part of that. Because they’re only doing grading at this time, we still want to have some control over that it’s not causing erosion and maintaining that so that’s why the conditions are put on there. Yeah, it’s a separate process. Doll: Okay. Aller: Anyone else? Thomas: I don’t have any questions. Aller: Kevin? Ellsworth: No Mr. Chair, thank you. Aller: In the report it looks like the infiltration tests were performed 60 feet west of the proposed area. Infiltration area, and also there was a comment that it appears that a rain event exceeding the 10 year might flood the courts. Has that been addressed or looked into? Fauske: That’s one of the, one of the recommendations to be moved so that, and lower the rim elevation to try to keep that temporary flooding at a minimum. The anticipation is the courts would not be in use during a 10 year rain event, and the temporary inundation would damage the courts. Aller: That’s what I have. Thank you very much. Fauske: You’re welcome. Aller: Is there an applicant present? If you could come up to the podium and state your name and address. Cliff Buhman: Good evening. My name is Cliff Buhman. I’m project manager for this project with Inspec and I’m here to answer any questions. I probably could answer the one previously stated. As far as the intent for the facilities, they will be shared with the community besides the school, but because of the demand for tennis within the Minnetonka school systems, not only this project but there’s another project where they’re proposing to add some more tennis courts at one of the other middle schools. Doll: I was just curious and when I went to middle school, tennis was not one of the, they weren’t building tennis courts so I was just kind of curious. Aller: And then the other question we had was regarding the time line. Cliff Buhman: Yes, it’s anticipated or hopeful that we can construct this, have it constructed it this summer, 2011. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Aller: Any other questions? Thomas: No. I don’t think so. Ellsworth: No. Aller: Alright, thank you very much. Appreciate you coming. And now we have time for a public hearing and I’d invite anybody that’s here on this matter to step forward to the microphone. State your name and address and make comment if you would. Is anyone here on the, Minnetonka okay. So having no one come up we’ll close the public hearing. Comments. Ellsworth: No comments Mr. Chair. Thomas: Looks good. Aller: Discussion. Okay, entertain a motion. Undestad: I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit for grading for new tennis court construction located at Minnetonka Middle School West, plans prepared by Inspec dated December 3, 2010, subject to conditions in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Aller: A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit for grading for new tennis court construction located at Minnetonka Middle School West, plans prepared by Inspec dated December 3, 2010, subject to adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation and the following conditions: 1.Adequate sediment and erosion control practices must be installed prior to any earth- disturbing activities. 2.All silt fence shall use metal t-posts and shall be consistent with City Detail Plate No. 5300. Include detail on sheet 5. 3.Rock construction entrance locations shall be shown on the plan and should be placed such that construction traffic does not cross the proposed infiltration areas. Rock construction entrances shall be consistent with City Detail Plate No. 5301. Include detail on sheet 5. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 4.Infiltration areas shall be protected from sediment deposition and compaction resulting from construction equipment throughout construction. This must be noted on the plans along with all other areas to be protected. 5.Category 3 erosion control blanket shall be used on all disturbed slopes with positive flow to the pond unless sod is to be placed and staked. 6.The applicant is responsible for procurement of the NPDES General Permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity prior to any earth-disturbing activities. A full SWPPP will need to be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to any earth-disturbing activities. The SWPPP must include all components identified in Parts III and IV of the permit. 7.Redundant erosion control measures shall be included at the two new inlets to the pond. Floating silt curtain should be used at the more southerly inlet but a second line of silt fence may be adequate at the other new inlet. 8.The infiltration design and maintenance shall be consistent with the 2008 Minnesota Stormwater Manual; in particular Chapter 12 and Appendix D. 9.Protection must be provided to assure that construction equipment is not tracked over the proposed infiltration areas, materials are not stockpiled in this areas and sediment deposition does not occur in these areas. This is most commonly accomplished through the use of silt fence. Further, this should be noted on the plan set, in the SWPPP and within the project specifications manual. 10.Infiltration features must be separated from the ground water by a minimum of three feet. Provide boring data to confirm this separation. 11.As the infiltrometer tests were performed approximately 60 feet west of the proposed infiltration area and the infiltration rates are under the optimal conditions, and likely to decline over time, a margin of safety shall be built into the design to account for a diminished infiltration. 12.To assure that the area drains in 48 hours or less, the system shall be designed with an underdrain and coarse aggregate storage as depicted in Appendix D of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual – “Bioretention/Infiltration/Filtration Facility”, page 723 of 885. This would likely satisfy the above condition. 13.CBMH 1 shall be moved northerly on the site and lowered so that the rim elevation is below 1060 feet. 14.The applicant shall relocate to proposed drain tile outlet for the four most easterly tennis courts. The new outlet shall be between the most southerly court and the next most southerly court. This shall then be connected to CBMH 2 and the outlet for this manhole shall then be sized accordingly. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 15.A stable emergency overflow shall be provided from the easterly basin to the pond. 16.The applicant shall demonstrate how the filtration swales are to be vegetated. At a minimum, fescues and/or other deep-rooted grasses should be used to promote infiltration. 17.The new outlet elevations are shown to be 1046 feet. It appears that the ordinary high water level (OHW) is at 1045.4 and the normal water level (NWL) is at an unknown elevation but likely at or around 1043.5. The newly proposed outlet shall be set at the NWL. 18.The applicant or their consulting engineer shall develop an operations and maintenance manual for the infiltration/filtration features and that this includes some type of vegetative filter to provide pretreatment of the water entering the system. 19.The applicant shall provide a security in the amount of $4,000 to guarantee erosion control. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHES MAR REZONINGS AND PUD AMENDMENTS: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY WITHIN CHES MAR TRAILS FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUDR); REZONING OF ND PROPERTY WITHIN CHES MAR FARM 2 ADDITION FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUDR) TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR); AND AMENDING THE CHES MAR FARM AND CHES MAR TRAILS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2011- 02. Public Present: Name Address Geri Eikaas 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road Tom Dyvig 7250 Hazeltine Boulevard Kairies: Yes Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The item before you nd tonight is the proposed rezoning of Ches Mar Farms, Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition and Ches Mar Farm Trails. The properties are bordered by Minnewashta Regional Park to the north, Camp Tanadoona to the south, Highway 41 to the east and Lake Minnewashta to the west. On the side, the way, I just want to point out how each plat is broken up. The blue parcels are part of the Ches Mar Farm Addition. The green property is, which is kind of hard to differentiate, the nd property most to the west, or I’m sorry to the east is Ches Mar Farm 2 Addition, and then the properties in yellow are part of the Ches Mar Trails Addition. The reason for the request before you tonight is that staff noted that there was a mapping error and did some research and upon that research it was noted that there were some inconsistencies with the approved plats and that they’re inconsistent with the actual zoning map so the intentions were not consistent with one 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 another. The proposed rezonings before you tonight is to clarify the zoning and the uses within the planned unit development in each of the districts. Also to specify that the Rural Residential zoning district would be the underlying district and back in early 2010 I believe it was, we did this with all of the planned unit developments in the commercial district so that if there was an issue or something that the planned unit development was silent on, there was an underlying zoning district to go back to and those standards would then apply. And also to permit, excuse me private stables as an accessory use within this planned unit development rather than require a conditional use permit. And just as a note, here are the existing conditions and the layout of the acreage within the entire Ches Mar area. As you can see that the reason for the planned unit development is because the properties are less than 2 ½ acres. Some of them are. Some of them are larger. And they’ll include 3 outlots, one of which is a beachlot and has a conditional use permit for that beachlot. And again just to clarify, the properties that we’re rezoning, again the nd blue is the Ches Mar Farm Addition. The very light green is the Ches Mar Farm 2 Addition and the yellow is the Ches Mar Trails. I’m going to go ahead and give you a little background on how this all began. In April of 1986 the Ches Mar Farms plat was approved and it was approved for rezoning from R1A, which is Rural Residential to a Planned Unit Development. And the purpose of this was because there was a single 12 acre parcel with 4 principal structures and 4 accessory structures located on that parcel, and what happened was the parcel was subdivided so that each principal structure had it’s own lot and that brought that non-conform, or the non-conformity went away by doing that. Unfortunately there is no record of the rezoning of that property and that is one of the reasons we’re here today so that we have a record of that. In nd October of 1989 the Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition was approved and it was approved as a Rural Residential zoning district, and the purpose of that was to subdivide 22.8 acres into 2 lots and again those lots met the Rural Residential standards. And in the striped, I hope you can see it, in July of 1991 the Ches Mar Trails Addition was approved and what that was a combination of the nd Ches Mar Farm PUD and the Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition Rural Residential properties. There was also an amendment to the Ches Mar Farm PUD as a part of this and this created 4 single family lots and one beachlot, and again there is no record of the rezoning of these properties to Planned Unit Development. As stated in the staff report the intent is to eliminate the inconsistencies between the intent of the zoning and what the zoning map actually portrays. So Option A is to rezone Ches Mar Farm and Ches Mar Trails to Planned Unit Development as was nd intended originally, and to rezone, what do I have here? Rezone Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition to Rural Residential. Currently it’s shown as Planned Unit Development and the intent was to leave it as Rural Residential. Upon further research staff found another option that may be nd viable which would be to leave the Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition as a Planned Unit Development and incorporate it into the entire Planned Unit Development so that all of the Ches Mar area would be consistent. It would all have the same underlying zoning district of Rural Residential. It would all allow horses as a permitted accessory use and it still incorporates the smaller lots. None of the lot lines are going to change. Everything physically on the site will remain the nd same. So again that would be just leaving Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition as a Planned Unit Development. And here I just wanted to put up so you can see the differences. Unfortunately this is a little lighter but again in Option A would be to rezone everything to PUD except for, nd except for the 2 Addition which would be rezoned to Rural Residential. Or Option B, keep everything as Planned Unit Development and rezone those first two. So there are two recommendations before you tonight. The first again is Option A. Rezone Ches Mar Farms and nd Ches Mar Trails to Planned Unit Development and rezone Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition to Rural 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Residential and adoption of the Findings of Fact. Or Option B which would be to rezone Ches nd Mar Farm, Ches Mar Farm 2 Addition and Ches Mar Trails all to Planned Unit Development and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. At this time I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Aller: I’m going to jump in and just make sure I’m clear on the point that the actual use of the properties, regardless of A or B will not be changed? Kairies: Correct. Aller: So there’s no impact to the actual residents or owners of the property by our rezoning at this point? Kairies: Correct. Aller: Okay. Aanenson: And maybe Angie didn’t give you this in the background but a letter went out ahead of time to the property owners informing them of this. Again the legal implications of the zoning map is our official tool and in researching this we came up, we discovered the problem so a letter went out to the, to all the property owners ahead of this hearing to tell them about the direction that the staff wanted to do, because we’re the initiator of it. The City is to fix this problem with the map so, so that letter went out to the neighbors explaining just exactly what you said Chairman. Is that the intent is not to change anybody’s lots. Anybody’s use but to clarify the zoning map and make sure that it’s correct. So if someone was to do research on a piece of property for example there are some non-conforming structures out there and that’s why the PUD was put in place. So if someone was ever to sell that, you want to have that record in place. Aller: So in fact it will actually make it easier for those individuals and property owners now… Aanenson: Correct. Correct. And to show that they are legal non-conforming. They have that right. Aller: Thank you. We’ll start on the other side. Kevin. Ellsworth: Thank you Mr. Chair. Angie this, I read this a couple times and I’m apparently not very bright because it’s kind of confusing to me. Aanenson: It’s complex. Ellsworth: I guess you had the history here and trying to describe what had happened. It seems the one parcel was listed as a PUD and it shouldn’t have been and the other parcel was listed as Rural Residential and should have been PUD. How, how could that happen or where is the original documentation that talked about the requirements of a PUD? Isn’t there quite a few different things you have to go through to get a PUD and all kinds of requirements and things? I 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 didn’t see any of that and it seems like we’re just going to go ahead and approve this and we just created a PUD without a whole lot of discussion. Kairies: As part of the original PUD it was lacking a lot of that documentation and so what we did is we took anything that outside of the Rural Residential standards, because that would be the underlying, and incorporated those into what would be the new permitted uses. So that would include the stables. That also includes this lot here, which is Lot, call it C. Thank you. Which doesn’t meet the 2 ½ acres and it also contains an existing two dwelling unit, so that is a permitted use as part of the PUD. And that was original and that will stay in but there really wasn’t very, there really wasn’t documentation for standards for the original Planned Unit Development. Ellsworth: So do we by this action have to create and document those standards that will be in place now under the new PUD or the PUD that should have been there? I didn’t see those in the packet. Kairies: It should be an attachment. Ellsworth: Maybe I just didn’t recognize it. Kairies: And it doesn’t look like the typical Planning Unit Development because it doesn’t have a lot of variation from the Rural Residential standards. Ellsworth: So where in here would it be? I mean I did read this front to back and I guess I didn’t recognize it as such. Aanenson: It’s actually the ordinance. Kairies: Right. Aanenson: It’s actually the ordinance and so what happened before is there’s history, just to be clear. There is record of the Minutes that it went to the meeting. What we’re missing was the ordinance and the rules that, so you know there’s a record that there was a public hearing. There’s a record that there was a public hearing and there was a record of Minutes but what you need to do is adopt your ordinance and within that ordinance, as Angie said, like when we did the, all the industrial ones, there needs to be an underlying zoning district that sets up the standards. So we’re acknowledging that those uses are in place. They’re non-conforming but we’re saying that they still have to meet the RR setback except for the exceptions that Angie stated and that would be for the stable and the other one already has a Conditional Use Permit. Right now horses in the Rural Residential are, would need a Conditional Use Permit so we’re taking that burden off of that one. But the rest of them would still follow that so whatever they have legal non-conforming, even if it was Rural Residential, it would be legal non-conforming. So the PUD what it does is takes all those mix of uses as was put in the background and record them as there are on the record. And I think the timeline is really where you find out the detail and that’s where Angie spent most of her time is putting together the whole timeline. It shows you the history of the documentation that’s out there. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Ellsworth: But wouldn’t the ordinance then need to spell out what those exceptions or grandfathered items are, and I don’t see that in the ordinance. Kairies: If there were separate motions for a Conditional Use Permit, that’s it’s own thing. If there was an exception for a variance, that’s it’s own thing. It doesn’t need to be part of this PUD. Ellsworth: Okay. Those exist elsewhere? Kairies: Right. Right. They’re their own motion and those are still existing and will remain the way. Ellsworth: Alright. Very helpful, thank you. Aanenson: Yeah, and that was part of the purpose of putting the time line in I think just to show you all those things too so. Again when someone’s financing some of this is where the record the bank’s going to go to to say what’s on the property? What do we have documentation of so this is something that we just need to get fixed so. I just want to make one more clarification. So when we looked at the two options, I think Angie did a good job explaining the difference between and, we’d have a donut hole and typically we don’t like to see that. Leaving the one RR so rethinking, we came back and said we should really just make the whole thing PUD because whether it’s still going to have the underlying Rural Residential standards and if they wanted to have horses on that property they could too but it just makes the whole neighborhood consistent you know for, again so we don’t have the Scribner’s or interpretation area that it’s all PUD with the underlying zoning district of RR. So the one change on that one was a permitted use which allowed. Kairies: Which allowed for the duplex on this property right here. Aanenson: And that was called out specifically for that one lot. Kairies: Correct. Aanenson: That they could have a duplex so then everything else is, that kind of tracks Commissioner Ellsworth what your issue was. That that was documented then in Option B. That that could be legitimized as non-conforming. Kairies: Right, so you should have Option B. That includes the duplex and just not rezoning Lot nd 1, Block 1, Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition. Aller: And because of the way this is done as Option B, my understanding would be, and I’m asking this as a question. We don’t need to re-notice this. Aanenson: No. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Aller: Because it’s really just leaving it as it is. Aanenson: Correct. That’s correct. Yes. And re-thinking that, that’s kind of where, it is complex because you had some uses that didn’t meet the underlying zoning district that wanted to make some changes so incrementally they were made. Instead of looking at it holistic so now we’re stepping back and saying really let’s look at all three plats and make some sense out of all three. Without penalizing anybody but just clarifying it. Aller: Sorry I jumped in Kevin, did you have anything more? Ellsworth: No, that’s it. Thank you Mr. Chairman. That’s all. Aller: Thank you. Kathleen. Thomas: I don’t think I have any questions but I’m happy we came up with Option B because when I was reading it and I was trying to figure out how we were going to do this and have one outlying property that was going to be different and I was thinking is there any way we could combine so I’m happy that there’s an Option B now. Aller: Tom, any thoughts? Doll: Of letters that went out, what was the response from the residents? Kairies: I received phone calls and the majority of them were just making sure that we were not changing anything physically to their properties which includes no further development. Connections with sewer and water. Just making sure that nothing physically was going to change to their site. And I believe that there are some homeowners here that may want to speak to that as well. Doll: Nothing further. Undestad: No. Aller: Okay. Thank you very much. With that we’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting and anyone that wants to come up and actually speak on this. If you’d come to the podium and state your name and address, that would be great. Tom Dyvig: My name is Tom Dyvig and I own the property just to the south. Right there, 7250 Hazeltine Boulevard. I rent that property out but it’s going to be developed down the road. That’s kind of my plan 5 years out that I was just clarifying. I think you stated that it’s not going to affect, there’s not going to be any changes in the surrounding there. It’s just kind of a clarification. I think I was the one that called today so. That was the only question I had. Aller: Thank you Mr. Dyvig. Thank you for coming. It answered all your questions? Tom Dyvig: Yep. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Aller: Great. Anyone else? Ma’am, if you could come forward and state your name and address for the record. Geri Eikaas: Geri Eikaas, 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road. Just came here to get clarification and I’m very glad for what I heard. Thank you. Aller: That’s always nice to hear. Thank you. Aanenson: It’s confusing but it makes a lot of sense. Doll: So she was for this? Aller: For this. Anyone else? Okay, we’re going to close the public portion of the hearing. Comments. Ellsworth: Mr. Chair, a question for Angie. We talk about no underlying change to the physical area. Does that mean the Rural Residential piece prevails and the current structures and the current platting can’t change? So when I see PUD I immediately envision you know 30 homes and all kinds of development. None of that’s changing. That was kind of the comments I think I heard. Kairies: Right. So if what’s there that does not meet the 2 ½ acres is legal non-conforming or part of the PUD. Anything new would have to meet the 2 ½ acres or it would have to be a PUD amendment to decrease or to deviate from the RR standards. Ellsworth: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: And just another point of clarification. So we don’t anticipate any of that happening unless something was to change down the road and that would maybe being sewer and water. Then somebody may want to urbanize that area but right now it’s not in the near future plans. Ellsworth: That’s all. Aller: Okay we’ll entertain any motions. Thomas: Okay I’ll motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City nd Council approves the rezoning of Parcel 1, Lot 1, Block 1, Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition and Parcel 2, Ches Mar Trails and Parcel 3, Ches Mar Farm to Planned Unit Development and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Doll: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Thomas moved, Doll seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the rezoning of Parcel 1, (Lot 1, Block 1, Ches Mar Farms nd 2 Addition), and Parcel 2, (Ches Mar Trails), and Parcel 3, (Ches Mar Farm) to Planned Unit Development and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Doll noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 7, 2010 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. None. Chairman Aller adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 14