Loading...
PC 2012 06 05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 5, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Kim Tennyson, Bill Colopoulos, and Kelsey Nelson MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Hokkanen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Ashley Mellgren, Planning Intern PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-R) AMENDMENTS: REQUEST TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: MISSION HILLS (WITH REZONING TO RSF), SARATOGA ADDITION, SOUTH LOTUS LAKE, SOUTH LOTUS VILLAS, TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, WALNUT GROVE, WESTERN HILLS, AND WILLOW RIDGE. APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2012-04. Generous: As you stated this is the third group of planned unit developments that the City’s reviewing as part of this process that we’ve been going through for the last year. There are 8 developments that are included as part of tonight’s review. The first item was the Mission Hills development, which originally th came for public hearing on April 17 and it was requested at the, at the request of one of the property owners that this item be delayed until this meeting so that they could review the proposed ordinance. th Little background. We held a neighborhood meeting on May 8 at the Chan Rec Center for a majority of these planned unit developments. We sent out approximately 1,000 postcards and of that we had 20 people that showed up at the meeting. The notices did contain directions to the City’s website so people could see what the proposed ordinance amendment was about and what the actual language was in it. We also had contacts with the City staff that they could call and I think most of the questions were answered for the residents through that way. Some houses, as part of this update may not meet the standards even of the original PUD because the City’s practices have changed. Prior to 2004 we did not require anyone to do any permitting for like patios and things like that and so we have numerous instances where hard surface coverage may be exceeded from existing ordinance. However it’s not our intent to require anyone to make any improvements or to take out any improvements that they have at this time but as they move forward we would show that they’re regulated by this ordinance. Notice that our intent as part of this process to up zone any of the property. We’re just trying to move into the zoning ordinance what was approved originally by City Council. The Mission Hills development, here’s the location. We were doing these geographically. We’re trying to get the north eastern portion of the city. The previous one we did right along the border was the majority of them. Now we’re moving a little bit south. Again the Mission Hills development pulls this off because it was part of a different group as we started the process. stnd Walnut Grove, Willow Ridge, Triple Crown Estates, the Saratoga 1 and 2 Addition, Western Hills, South Lotus Lake and South Lotus Villas and the Mission Hills developments are the ones that we’re reviewing tonight. And the first one is Mission Hills. It’s PUD #93-04 which was originally approved in 2004. The underlying zoning that we’re proposing as part of this development are R-8 for the mixed medium density residential for the townhouse portion of the development. BN neighborhood business district for the commercial portion of the development, which is Outlot E and we propose to rezone to single family residential those single family detached homes on Blocks 2 and 3 of Mission Hills development. This property is located east of Highway 101 and north of Highway 212. In the southwest corner of this development is where the commercial portion is. The townhouses are both north and south Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 th of West 86 Street and then the single family homes on either side of Mission Hills Lane. And here’s an aerial view. As you can see the commercial portion is still vacant right now. All the residential has been developed. Like I stated we are requesting to rezone approximately 7 acres of the detached single family residential from PUD-R to Single Family Residential. All these homes meet the minimum requirements in the RSF district so the only reason they were included in the PUD originally is because they were part of the larger parcel and so they didn’t break it out. For the minimum requirements under the Mission th Hills portion, which is south of West 86 Street, we’re stating that it is as platted because these properties have been turned into condominium units and so we want to keep those in place. If anyone would want to change anything on that they would need to come through and amend the ordinance as part of any new ndth development. Mission Hills 2 Addition are the townhouses north of West 86 Street. The minimum lot size would be 2,100 square feet with minimum width of 46 feet and minimum depths of 47 feet, and that was based on our review of the plats for these developments so we looked to make sure that they’ll comply with that. The PUD overall project approved 194 units and 31 structures. All the stuff was in place as part of the original PUD. In this instance the only parts that we were changing are the minimum lot sizes and then the interior lot line setback requirement because they weren’t stated but they were inferred as part of the site plan review process and so we wanted to make it explicit what those setbacks are. The other amendment that we’re proposing for the Mission Hills PUD was to allow LED lighting. The City has amended it’s code but this one was limited because it specifically addressed the high pressure sodium only so we would add that. And as we learned in the past we’ve tried to take these projects, each of them individually so that we can have comments and then at the end we would have a motion for all of them to go forward. Staff is recommending approval of this. Aller: I just want to clarify a couple things. So on the LED lighting… Generous: Yeah, more efficient area lighting for the development. Aller: Okay and I understand… Generous: Correct. Aller: It doesn’t sound… Generous: That’s correct. The only real changes we’re referencing underlying zoning for the overall project. I said for the medium density to R-8 and for the commercial to the neighborhood business district. Aller: … Generous: Correct. And also the uses of the individual units. For instance under our supplemental regulations the City regulates home occupations that you can have up to 25% of your dwelling unit as an office space in your home and it limits you know what type of equipment you can have. The number of vehicles that can come to it and things like that so we want to be able to say that those ordinances also apply in these instances. Aller: Based on those questions does anyone have anything further to ask? Okay. With that I’ll open up the public hearing portion so anyone that wishes to speak regarding the proposed amendments with Mission Hills, could you please step forward. State your name and address for the record. Mike Klingelhutz: Mike Klingelhutz, 7940 Airport Road. I’m one of Al Klingelhutz’ sons. Aller: Welcome sir. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 Mike Klingelhutz: Pardon? Aller: I said welcome sir. Mike Klingelhutz: Thanks for letting us speak. Al owns the, that’s the last remaining vestige of his family farm there, the PUD. The neighborhood commercial and there’s some stuff that we’d like to discuss with you and I was wondering, Al’s attorney has been acting with the City and do you guys have copies of that? Aanenson: Yeah, in fact we did, I did respond to your attorney and we did include both letters in the packet so they have this. Mike Klingelhutz: So including the pictures? Aanenson: Yes, they have that. Mike Klingelhutz: And the letters. Aanenson: Yes. Mike Klingelhutz: You know Al’s been around a while and lots of people ask him if he misses the rolling hills of his farm and he says I do but a lot of nice, reasonable people have moved in. But his experience with the last piece of property there, he had a buyer for it and the interaction with the buyer and the City didn’t go well and the buyer took off running and it was mostly centered around the setbacks and when MnDOT condemned, well under the threat of condemnation MnDOT took quite a bit of property and they wound up having a large chunk between the actual asphalt of the road and it goes way out in the field and I’m here, I’m a farmer and my farm machinery gets tangled up in the right-of-way signs out in the middle of the field and it just seems that the right-of-way is excessive and I have a map here showing this. An aerial view that I got off the Carver County GIS and we went out there and measured it and along the south portion, along the south wall it varies between 70 and 50 feet that MnDOT owns to the property line and along the 101 side it varies from 50 to 35. And with, if you read the letters from the attorney the setbacks along the south wall and Highway 101 are, he’s a fair minded guy and they are, and I don’t know why you’d need a setback from the south wall that already has 50 to 70 feet. MnDOT own property line and the setback along 101 is probably meets the requirements already what MnDOT owns and if you, when I was looking at that aerial photo I dug up this other one with the Kwik Trip in the southwest corner of 101 and 212 and either I’m mistaken or they were allowed to use the MnDOT right-of-way for their setback because the sidewalk is 10 feet and the building is about 15 feet at most from the property line. Aller While that’s being passed out, just for your information we do have two letters. One dated May stth 21 and one dated May 29, as well as photographs that are a part of the record. Mike Klingelhutz: Thank you. Good. So what Al is asking for is consideration of perhaps using the MnDOT owned I don’t know for lack of a better word call it buffer that they purchased as part of the construction to reduce his setbacks to a minimal amount. Keep in mind we’re not asking for anything th along the residential side or along the West 86 side because those make sense and I don’t know what vehicle you guys could use to facilitate this. If you were in favor of it. Maybe a letter that Al could give to the developer or direction to the staff or, there’s nobody on board to develop the property right now but just to facilitate things if somebody does express an interest in it. If you guys would have any consideration for perhaps reducing those setbacks along the south wall and along 101. I don’t know what options are available to you. Al in his younger days probably could have told you. He served as mayor 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 and council person and county commissioner for a number of years so there needs to be some discussion about it. Al’s not happy and you know there might be a little tension there between the planning department and him, and it’s not necessary so I mean if we could just have an intelligent discussion about it, that would suit him and so if you guys have any thoughts about it. Aller: Alright, great. Well I haven’t heard anything as far as problems between any of the homeowners and planning. I did receive the review along with the rest of the commission. They are part of the record. We have, I have read them. I’m sure other commissioners have read them. I don’t have before me the Kwik Trip so perhaps somebody could enlighten me on that a little bit but no, as far as the history of the Kwik Trip. Whether or not it’s something that was a variance or part of a PUD. Aanenson: If I may…I don’t think there’s any animosity. I hope not on that development. We’d love to th see his property develop. There was a large user on this property and if you can see how West 86…it’s th very narrow at that. There’s no right-in/right-out. It’s very narrow right on with 86 Street so the stack up on that, based on the user that was going in there, it would have been what we consider a situation F. It wouldn’t have worked. The only other exit coming out of that neighborhood, you’d have to go all the way up through the residential. Up, going up north so that was our concern is you know the trips. I think the other thing that wasn’t brought up is the attorney wanted us to consider, you the Planning Commission to consider going to a Business Highway zone. The comprehensive plan did guide this for neighborhood commercial and I think that’s what we’re looking at right now. Not to say that we wouldn’t consider something if something came in and it seemed to work with the traffic and was a good transition for the neighborhood but I think just to give it Business Highway, the only place we have it is on Highway 5 and the Kwik Trip site is neighborhood commercial and they’re…so it’s similar to what we gave this property so they don’t have a higher zoning than you would have on this piece. I think the biggest issue there is just trying to make sure we have something that fits based on traffic, but certainly we’d be willing to look at the buffers. The issue that came up was not the buffers. The issue that came up was the traffic being generated by the use. Aller: So the use that was being applied for, which was problematic. Not the zoning. Aanenson: That they met with the staff on. Nobody ever applied because they found a different site but we’re certainly always willing to look at that when a project comes in. Aller: Which goes back to my question to Bob, and I just want to make it clear in my mind at least that from my understanding if we take action today, and this is approved, it doesn’t change the rights of the owner. It would be the same rights. In fact it would be a little clearer for you and other individuals as to the use of the property hopefully making that so that someone could come in and take a look at it and say yeah, I can use it now. Before I didn’t know so it takes some of the questions out and maybe they’ll come forward and I think what I’m hearing from planning is that if we have somebody, somebody does come forward that we’d certainly take a look at that use. It would come before us and we’d look at it either in a variance situation, creating new PUD or modifying the zoning. Mike Klingelhutz: It’s not possible to come up with anything more concrete than that? Aanenson: Well I think, the intention I think is that to see a commercial use there. We’ve sent a lot of other projects that we think are viable that meet the traffic counts and those have been well received because they’re maybe a different consideration for value so I think you know the buffer is not the issue. I think it’s really more the use and how that relates to being able to access the property, and the residents. I think we’re up to close to about 200 that exit. Some of them can go north but if you want to go south to get on 212, they would be backed up at peak intervals so depending on what use would be there, if it’s a commercial use for example before the Kwik Trip went in, it was contemplated for a gas station there. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 th That would be problematic because those people on 86 and other people exiting that neighborhood so all we’re saying is we want to take a careful look. We would love to see the property develop but just to make sure it works for people that already live there and for the buyer of the property so that’s successful. We always are willing to look at those situations and meet with somebody. Mike Klingelhutz: I did hear you right that Kwik Trip is also Neighborhood Business? Aanenson: Yes. Mike Klingelhutz: Okay, how did they wind up with a building so close to the property line? Aanenson: I can’t comment on that. I don’t have that information in front of me. If you would direct to staff to look at that and present that information to the City Council, we’d be happy to do that but I don’t have that information in front of me right now. Aller: I think that would probably be appropriate because it is before us and so, what I will do at this point is direct staff to go ahead and look at that so it’s presented at the meeting for City Council which is th set for June 25, and regardless of what happens today, again we’re an advisory so our, what our decision is a recommendation and they can accept it, modify it or change it. Mike Klingelhutz: Okay. I have another question. Aller: Sure, any comments. Mike Klingelhutz: It relates to uses. There was specified uses as part of the original PUD and now it says as Neighborhood Business churches are an interim use and interim means temporary and I don’t quite understand that. Generous: In the Neighborhood Business district does it have listed. Oh yes. Mike Klingelhutz: I’m quite sure I saw it in there. I’ve got to read through it here. Aller: I think you’re right. Generous: Yeah, we put a comparison of the BN district and the BH district as part of the ordinances. Aller: Right. Generous: It was more directed towards to look at if you open it up to the Business Highway type uses, you generate more auto related uses and I think that’s part of the concern that Kate has expressed about th that site because of it’s, primary access is 86 Street which is limited commercial roadway as opposed to Highway 101 where I believe they still have a right-in/right-out reserved as part of the acquisition through MnDOT. Mike Klingelhutz: The interim use thing has a very end of the BN thing. Aller: That’s Section 20-696 for Interim Uses. So a church. Mike Klingelhutz: So is a church then a permissible use or not? Aller: As an interim use. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 Aanenson: For a short period of time. Mike Klingelhutz: For a short period of time. Aanenson: Yes. Typically they would be. Generous: Store front. Aanenson: Yeah, like they’re looking for a permanent site. It might be a start up. Often they’re in a, they might be using a space in an existing center and then they’re building a…so interim uses typically have a timeframe established with them. For 2 years or something like that. They’d have conditions on it. It might be how big they could get. We have those that start up at schools or other locations and then when they get a big enough congregation they will try to find a permanent site. Aller: And my guess is that we would have to take a good look at the traffic flow and the hours of the traffic and the hours of services and things like that for them to use the property. Aanenson: And Chair I think what we’re thinking is they’re building a new church. This could be an existing center that someone wanted to lease some space out of too so. Mike Klingelhutz: I would certainly categorize a church as a neighborhood business from a facility as a neighborhood business. Aanenson: Well it depends. We have some churches that draw from a significant area. Just depending on the size and you know the traffic. But we can certainly look at that too if you direct us to between now and the time it goes to City Council. Mike Klingelhutz: Alright. Well thanks for listening. Aller: Thank you sir. Any additional comments on Mission Hills? Anyone else like to speak? Okay, we have someone else coming forward. If you could please state your name and address for the record please. Jeff Samuel: Hi, I’m Jeff Samuel. I live at 442 Mission Hills Way East. Aller: Welcome. Jeff Samuel: And I’m really new to this process but I guess as a resident in Mission Hills I do have a concern about traffic any future use of that property would generate. You know as a resident that could be, make things a lot different than they are now so if things are developed, how are we going to find out about that? What’s the process for that? Aanenson: You’d be notified for a site plan review so everybody within 500 feet gets notified. We also put a sign up on the property that tells you that there’ll be a hearing and you can look at the staff report. It will be developed some day. Jeff Samuel: Oh yeah I’m sure. Aanenson: And you know again it’s just trying to find the right scale. We certainly want you know to see them do something with the property but there’s a whole range of potential opportunities so, but we 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 would notify all the residents within 500 feet and then you’d get a chance to come in and comment during the public hearing, just as you are now. Jeff Samuel: Okay, super. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you and for those individuals watching or present, all these items and all the information is found of the City website at ci.chanhassen.mn.us and you can see agendas, minutes, and actual documents that are presented with the reports so if you keep your eye on that on a regular basis you’ll see things as they come up. Brian Klingelhutz: Can I ask… Aller: Sure. Just state your name. Brian Klingelhutz: Brian Klingelhutz. Aller: And address sir. Brian Klingelhutz: 8860 Klein Drive in Waconia. Aller: Thank you very much. th Brian Klingelhutz: I was just wondering, you know there seems to be so much concern about that 86 traffic going in and out of there. Why when those other people were looking at it, why didn’t we look at the other access? I mean it has another access going in and out. Why wasn’t that brought up at that point? Aanenson: What other access? Brian Klingelhutz: When my dad sold it to MnDOT there was another access that goes with that property. Aanenson: That’s in MnDOT’s jurisdiction. It’s my understanding that they were not granted one so again we can talk to the City Engineer regarding that issue and bring that forward when it goes to City Council with the other issue. We’ll address those… Brian Klingelhutz: But that would solve that issue. Aanenson: Yeah. Brian Klingelhutz: It could solve it. Aanenson: It could solve it, yeah. It could and yeah, so that’s something that MnDOT would decide. They have restriction control when you’re within so many feet of the 212 interchange but we can certainly see, we can address that when it goes to the City Council. Brian Klingelhutz: See because when my dad sold it to them he was promised that in and out, you know I mean and now it doesn’t seem like nobody wants to give it to us, you know what I mean. You know so, because of some rules and so. That would solve a lot of problems if we could get that. Then it wouldn’t bother the people in Mission Hills. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 Aller: It’s really not before us today but what we could do, and I will do and I think it’s appropriate is to th go ahead and direct staff at their suggestion to go ahead, at least get you that answer by the 25 so it’s before the Council appropriately and they can look at it and take that into consideration. Okay. Brian Klingelhutz: Alright, thank you. Aller: Okay. Any additional comments? Okay with that I will close the public hearing. Comments. Questions… Generous: Thank you Chairman. The second development is Saratoga Addition Planned Unit Development as PUD number 77-01. It was approved in 1977. The underlying zoning we’re proposing for this is R-4 Mixed Low Density Residential District. This property is located just north of the City Center Park here on the north side of Santa Vera Drive and Saratoga Circle. I should point out that this plan shows all the development but these lots are actually not part of the planned development. They’re currently zoned R-4 so we’ve taken them out on the aerial view. They’re existing twin homes on those properties. They’re zoned R-4. They follow those regulations. Again what we’re doing is trying to establish the minimum lot requirements for this development. Single family homes are 10,000 square feet. Two unit structures are 6,000 square feet minimum. Lot dimensions are 60 feet and 120 feet per unit. Setbacks here are 25 feet for the front, which our standard single family R-4 setback is 30 feet on the front. The rear is 30 feet and the side setbacks are 10 feet. Hard surface coverage for this development would be 30% and it would be averaged over the entire project because we know that individual lots tend to exceed that. So that was it. It’s a very short ordinance. It’s just minimum standards for this and as I stated before we’re not trying to take anything away from anyone. We’re just trying to put into ordinance form what was approved as part of the development contract. Aller: …we’ll open the public hearing portion for Saratoga First Addition, Saratoga Second Addition. Anyone wishing to speak please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one come forward. Oh, would you like to speak on the Saratoga Addition? Are you here for that? Generous: She’s on Western Hills. Ramona Kerber: …I live in both Additions. My driveway is in Saratoga but my. Aller: Why don’t you come on up and state your name. Ramona Kerber: I’m Ramona Kerber. Pat Kerber’s wife and we are the exception and our home and our property taxes are Western Hills and our driveway is the Saratoga Addition. Aller: And for the record what is your street address? Ramona Kerber: Oh, 7489 Saratoga Circle. Aller: Thank you. And what do you have to say about what we’re doing here? Do you have, are you just coming to check us out and? Ramona Kerber: No, we were, well we had talked at the Planning Commission and we found out when our official driveway was closed off from Laredo and we had to go onto Saratoga, we were told that we, because we had two tax statements and we were told that we cannot annex our driveway, Saratoga driveway cannot be annexed onto Western Hills. The County won’t allow it. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 Aanenson: If I can. At the open house we had the opportunity to meet with Mrs. Kerber and we learned a lot. We actually have an anomaly in another place in the city. The County’s reluctant to combine lots from two different subdivisions so they actually have an outlot and part of another lot so she actually gets two tax statements and so this property does have the ability to subdivide in the future so we just briefly spoke about that and looking at the new standards so, someone may buy it and keep it. It’s a beautiful piece of property. Someone way want to subdivide it but we went through that. At sometime in the future if they replatted it, and we might be able to get it all into one ID but for right now she’s okay with the way it is… Ramona Kerber: No big deal to me. I get a tax statement. You know I get two of them. It doesn’t matter but like she’s saying, it is an acre plus. I think everybody knows where it is. It’s right on the Kerber Pond Park and it’s an acre plus. We have no desire at the present time to subdivide it. I, we realize that it would be very advantageous to the City of Chanhassen for somebody to come in and subdivide it because I’m sure you’d be getting more tax dollars for that property and we have no desire at the present time. My husband was born there and he said he’s going to be carried out there so we have no problems. No qualms. No nothing. But what we were just concerned, the reason why I came, I kind of talked to her, with this attaching and transferring. I mean we cannot annex our driveway onto Western Hills but it’s no big deal to us. Aller: Okay. Ramona Kerber: We’re satisfied with it. And I believe it was determined that we could, the property could be divided into 2 lots. Aanenson: It looks like it could be at least 2 but we’ll see that when it comes through. Ramona Kerber: But there would be kind of inquired about it and discussed it previously. There is a possibility that if a dwelling is removed, and we have the farm building there, it is potential 3 lots. Aller: Okay, which is what I was going to get to. I just want to make it clear why you’re here. My understanding would be that any action that we take on either one of these districts won’t impact your ability later on to do what you want to do with the property. Ramona Kerber: That’s just kind of what we were just you know. Aller: Right, so that’s our understanding as we go forward. Ramona Kerber: We’re fine. Aller: And we’re glad to have you here and we appreciate your input. Ramona Kerber: Right but that was just what I wanted to do the input on, I really don’t know this much…and I trust you people. You know but that was just with the, we had discussed it earlier with the annexing. You know we thought maybe we could transfer you know but you cannot annex so. Okay, thank you. Aller: Thank you very much. With that seeing no one else coming forward I’ll close the public hearing portion. Comments. Discussion. Hearing none we’ll move on. Bob. Generous: …zoning for this development is single family residential district. This property is located off of 101 at South Shore Drive. It has 4 riparian lots and then the rest of it is a single family detached, either 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 off of Erie or South Shore Drive and South Shore Court. Again we’re not trying to change anything. We just are proposing that the minimum lot standards be approved as part of the PUD ordinance and for this development the minimum lot size is 11,700 square feet with 90 feet of frontage at the building setback line, which was the old standard for single family residential. South Lotus Lake, the lot depth would be nd 96 feet and South Lotus Lake 2 Addition is 97 feet so it’s just a slight difference in it. Setbacks are the standard single family residential district standards. 30 front and rear and 10 sides and hard surface coverage is 25% within the shoreland district which is within 1,000 feet of the OHW of Lotus Lake and then 30% for the rest of the development. There is wetland on the lake side and it’s a 75 foot setback from that, and this one has a perpetual easement for all land below the 902 contour. We’ve incorporated that as part of the development so staff is recommending approval of the PUD amendment. Aller: I’ll open up the public hearing portion of…Anyone wishing to speak on that matter please step forward. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. Comments. Questions. Hearing none, let’s move on. Generous: Okay, this South Lotus Villas is an adjunct to the South Lotus Lake development. It’s PUD #89-04. It was approved in 1989. The underlying zoning is R-12 which is a high density residential district. There are 14 townhouses that were approved as part of this development and it’s because it was an outlot of South Lotus Lake that it meets that density. As you can see it’s tucked into there. It’s right on Highway 101. The common area is driveway for the development. There is a city park on both the northeast and the southwest side of this project. As I said it’s two buildings. One 6 unit townhouse and one 8 unit townhouse. Minimum lot sizes are 11,084 square feet. Minimum lot width is 32 feet and minimum lot depths are 35 feet and that was based on review of the approved plat for these developments. Setbacks are 25 feet front, 10 on the sides and that’s only on the end buildings not, because there’s a 0 setback for common walls and there are no rear setback requirements. The hard surface coverage for the development is 54% so that’s the high density is usually at 50% so that’s even expanded as a part of this specific project. That’s again we’re just recommending approval of what was amended to the PUD for what was approved so. Aller: …We’ll open the public hearing portion for South Lotus Villas. Anyone wishing to discuss the matter before us, please step forward. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one step forward, I close the public hearing. Comments. Questions. Hearing none, we’ll move onto Triple Crown. Generous: …approved in 1985. The underlying zoning for this development is RSF which is single family residential district. This property is located on the Kerber Boulevard. It’s a little bit north of City Hall. This whole area, if you would look at a zoning map is a planned unit development. There are just a bunch of different names in it. Again it’s single family detached housing on slightly smaller lots than would be in the RSF district. The lot requirements, the minimum lot size is 11,300 square feet. Again our standard lot size is 15,000 square feet for RSF district. Lot width is 70 feet and minimum lot depth is 108 feet. The front setback in this development is 25 feet. Side yard setbacks are 10 feet and the rear is 30 feet. The hard surface coverage for the per lot would be 30% and that’s all the amendment that we’re proposing for this PUD. Aller: Okay, I’ll open the public hearing portion on Triple Crown Estates. Anyone wishing to discuss this matter please step forward. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one step forward, I close the public hearing. Hearing no questions or comments we will move forward to Walnut Grove. Generous: Chairman, this development is PUD #96-04. It was approved originally in 1996. It is a rather unique development. It has single family detached housing, cottage homes which are like detached townhouses, and then you have attached townhouses as a part of the development. The underlying zoning 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 would be RSF for the single family detached housing on the north side of the project. R-4 Mixed Low Density Residential for the cottage homes and then R-8 for all the townhouse units within the th development. It’s located north of West 78 Street and east of Galpin Boulevard. It does connect to two single family developments to the north and that’s this area is the detached single family homes along here. These smaller lots in the middle transitioning are the cottage homes and then all the townhouses are located on the south side of the project. There are a couple associations. The property to the east is currently vacant and farmed and when this area develops we are looking at extending, there’s a trail system that runs right in here to get it over to the lake trail that will be developed when those properties develop in the future. There are 168 townhouses within the development, 44 cottage homes and 35 single family detached lots. The single family, minimum lot size are single family 10,400 square feet, cottage homes 3,400 square feet and townhouses 1,000 square feet. Minimum lot widths for single family are 70 feet, for cottage homes they’re 47 feet and for townhomes they’re 26 feet and the minimum lot depths for single family are 125 feet which is our standard RSF. For cottage homes they’re 78 feet and for the townhomes they were at 39 feet. The single family have our standard setback requirements. 30 front and rear and 10 sides. The cottage home and townhomes have a zero setback requirement because there’s a lot of common area within this project and as part of that the overall development maintains a 30% hard cover. And then Lots 4 through 17 of Block 2, which are these ones. Block 2’s here, have a 25 foot front yard setback because of this stormwater pond that we put into the rear yards so we wanted to allow them to have a little relief on the front setback so they could have a little bit of back yard. With that we’re recommending approval of the PUD amendment. Aller: …open the public hearing portion of Walnut Grove. Anyone wishing to be heard please step forward. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one come forward, I close the public hearing. Questions, comments. Hearing none we’ll move forward to Western Hills. Generous: Western Hills. PUD #79-06 was originally approved in 1979. The underlying zoning for this development is RSF which is single family residential. There are three additions in this project. This, Western Hills is actually it also includes this lot which is Mrs. Kerber’s property. It did show up on this plat but we did add it for our overhead so that people are aware that this is part of this development and the standards would apply to that parcel. The minimum lot size is 10,400 square feet. Minimum lot width is 80 feet at the building setback line and minimum lot depth is 125 feet for Western Hills. For the First and Second Additions it’s 10,800 square feet for the minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot width is 90 feet and minimum lot depth is 125 feet. The front setbacks are 25 feet except for there are some 20 foot setbacks that are allowed and we pointed those out as part of the ordinance around cul-de-sacs. Side setbacks go from, on the garage side 5 feet and on the house side 10 feet in the Western Hills development and they’re 10 foot setbacks on Western Hills First and Second Addition so you can see how confusing this all gets if you don’t have it in one spot. And the rear setbacks are 30 feet in both instances and the hard surface coverage is 30%. So we’re recommending approval of these amendments to the PUD for Western Hills. Aller: Okay, with that we’ll open the public hearing portion for Western Hills. If you wish to be heard on Western Hills, Western Hills First Addition or Second Addition, please step forward. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one step forward, close the public hearing. Comments or questions. Hearing none we’ll move forward to Willow Ridge. Generous: …that was approved in 1991. The underlying zoning for this development is RSF, which is single family residential. This property is located off of Lake Lucy Road just west of Powers Boulevard. Mulberry Circle is the access into this development. They’re all single family detached homes. There’s a large pond in the middle of the development and you can see that’s related to some of the front yard setbacks that are part of the overall project. The minimum lot size is 14,000 square feet. Minimum lot width is 80 feet and minimum lot depth is 125 feet. The front yard setback is 25 feet. Again we’re trying 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 to give them a little bit more room so they have some rear yard. Side setbacks are 10 feet and the rear is 30 feet. However you have a wetland buffer and buffer setback required as part of the project. Hard surface coverage is 25% in the shoreland district and 30% outside of the shoreland district. And then this is one of the instances in the ordinance. We actually have a table that shows you what the buffers are for the individual lots and they’re based on the legal descriptions rather than an address because an address may change. The legal description won’t so it’s a way to track the property. Aller: We’ll open the public hearing portion of Willow Ridge, Willow Ridge Second and Third Additions. Anyone wishing to be heard, please step forward. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one step forward, closing the public hearing portion. Questions or comments. Hearing none I believe that concludes the presentation. Any discussion? Otherwise the staff is recommending a motion. Anyone like to make that motion? Aanenson: Commission, Chair if I may just a reminder that…Mission Hills to direct us. One to look at the right-of-way setbacks and compare that to what the Kraus-Anderson project… Generous: And the access. Aanenson: And the access. Aller: With the access. So with those modifications. Would somebody like to make a motion that the staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the attached ordinances rezoning the Planned Unit Developments at Mission Hills and RSF for Blocks 2 and 3, Saratoga, South Lotus Lake, South Lotus Villas, Triple Crown Estates, Walnut Grove, Western Hills, Willow Ridge and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations along with those three additions to the Mission Hills. Do I have that motion? Undestad: I’ll make that motion. Aller: Thank you. Motion being made. Do I have second? Tennyson: I’ll second that motion. Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinances rezoning the Planned Unit Developments at Mission Hills and RSF for Blocks 2 and 3, Saratoga Addition, South Lotus Lake, South Lotus Villas, Triple Crown Estates, Walnut Grove, Western Hills, Willow Ridge; and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations with direction to research access, setbacks to TH 101 and the south property line, and right-of-way setbacks on the commercial property in Mission Hills compared to Kwik Trip. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENTS: CHAPTER 20, ZONING CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUD’S), NON-CONFORMING LOTS, SIGN ILLUMINATION AND INFLATABLE SIGNS AND SEARCHLIGHTS. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, Planning Commission members. We did discuss that at a couple of work sessions. thth Most recently February 7. The City Council also discussed it on their May 14, excuse me February 7 thth and 27 and the City Council on May 14 also discussed this. Again there’s two issues we wanted to address. One was process and then one was the single family PUD’s which some of those you’re seeing tonight and the low density specifically we wanted to address. There isn’t a minimum lot size in the 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 multi-family so it gives us a lot of flexibility if we look at the product. You’ve seen some through the hearings tonight that are more the cottage homes that can be really small lots. We have some that are attached back to back so that gives you a lot of flexibility. The single family detached lots we discussed in the past, you have to average. You go from 11,000. No smaller than 11 and they have to average 15. When these were originally done wetland was included so some of the lots actually appear larger than they really were. As far as upland they weren’t, were probably equal to what we’re looking at now in some of the older parts of town where we have lots as small as 9,000, 8,000 down to 6,000 were the smallest so the discussion that you had, and we took that over to the City Council and discussed that and they felt that they want to have a minimum. We talked whether it should be 9. Whether it should be 11. I think the council was really leaning more towards 11. There wouldn’t be averaging anymore but 11 seemed to be the minimum so in your ordinance what I did, gave you the whole PUD ordinance and then I highlighted what we were going to change and so the first section on page 5 of the ordinance, Section 20-506 would be the minimum lot size so all it is then if you just change it to say a minimum of 11,000 and then we’d just struck the word averaging out. There’s two other then factors that are going to affect that and that would be the minimum lot width at the building setback line needs to be 90 so what we know from experience that would accommodate a 3 car garage which tends to be the typical building lot. Whether it’s one with a tandem or just a triple… Then the other minimum would be the 100 foot depth so we just using those two factors you’re going to get to the 9,000 then the flexibility comes in when they’re designing it. Whether it’s deeper lots or maybe making a lot wider…so that would be the change there. And then the other change we talked about is the process of the PUD and how we want to change that and that would be bringing application. Again now that we’ve got the RLM, the low density medium would allow those lots to go down to 9,000 if they demonstrate that they’re dedicating some open space, for example on the Preserve they dedicated everything down by Bluff Creek so there’s a reason to look at that, and that’s a discretion that you have as the Planning Commission to recommend whether or not you feel that merits that and that would still hold true with the PUD. You have the discretion to say whether or not there’s a trade off. Is the City achieving some goals that they have. Higher architecture. Preservation of natural features. Those things are still in play. So then the first thing would be that an applicant would meet with staff and say you know why do you want to get a PUD. What are you pursuing? What are your goals and at that point whether we agree or disagree they could come to the Planning Commission and make their pitch. But then the big changes then come into the process and that starts on 20-517 on page 12. So the Planning Commission would certainly hold a public hearing because the goal of the public hearing is also to get comments from the neighbors. We have our idea but we also want to hear from the neighborhood because that’s going to make sense. Does it fit into the neighborhood? So we certainly want to hold a public hearing but we’re not going report the findings. It’s really just to listen so it’s not going to be as formalized and then following receipt, we’d make recommendations from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Again they’re not going to be findings. They’re going to be just recommendations… And then after they do that the other ambiguity was to do the development stage it said you had to have a formalized concept hearing. We’re going to take that off. They can go right to development stage because it seems like… So those are the changes that we are recommending that you pass on to the City Council. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Thank you. Based on the presentation, any questions or comments? I have none. We’ve had several work sessions on this and everything I think that we wanted to accomplish is in here. Hopefully the City Council will feel the same way. Anything? Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Aanenson: I didn’t create a motion for you but I do have a motion… It’s in the staff report on the cover sheet. Proposed motion. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 Aller: So I’ll entertain a motion at this time. Thomas: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code as outlined in the staff report. Undestad: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second. Discussion. Thomas moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Article VIII Planned Unit Development District, of the Chanhassen City Code as outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aanenson: On the non-conforming lots…we discussed this actually at your last variance where we had 3 lots that were non-conforming so the goal is, when people have a separate PID that they try to split off, this is the example of a non-riparian lot. There was actually 3 lots. In this instance because they wanted to do an accessory on the lot, we don’t allow that so they had to combine them. It forced the issue. But let’s say that they wanted to put a house on one of the lots, or both the lots with separate homes. You know that’s without, they can ask for a variance and you have to decide what’s reasonable but they might want to try to put it on, combine the 2 smaller ones to get a house so the goal is that we just talked about that 11,000. Is to try to work our way through those smaller lots. In your staff report we actually compared a riparian lot and a non-riparian so riparian is adjacent to a lake. They have to be a larger lot. They’d have to be 20,000 square feet so we used the 60% rule which would make a minimum lot at 13,000 consistent with what we just talked about with the PUD. But if we use that same 66% for a non- riparian lot, which the lot we just talked about, you can go back to the other slide. So this would be a lot that is a riparian lot and this lot actually is big enough that it could get the two 20,000 square foot lots. But there’s a lot behind it that could be split and it may not meet the non-riparian so in putting this together we originally had the 66% but since we went on the PUD for the 11,000 minimum…maybe we need to go towards 75% which would bring you just slightly over that, instead of the 9,000 if we went with lot area 75% would bring you slightly over the 13,000 minimum. Or excuse me, there it is. 11,250 so I think if we’re trying to be compatible on that. We don’t have that many that can be split. What we have is a number of lots in the older area of town that are separate lots of record and the DNR has a regulation and we’re trying to tie our ordinance in that too so if you have lakeshore, you have a lot of little cabin lots…try to build houses on each on those. Somewhere there needs to be an assemblage of what’s a reasonable lot. You know we took the approach that said well you always, if you split your lot off you’re at your own risk and you can apply for a variance but in thinking that through it’s not really very pragmatic in the fact that someone stuck with a lot. They bought a lot. There’s an expectation they have a right to do something so you say hey, you lost in that purchase so I don’t think that’s the right way to go so we want to try to say, instead of allowing somebody to split those off or sell them off independently, that they keep those assembled. So we’re kind of between that 66 and 75 percent kind of leaning more towards the 75% again to get that neighborhood standard. Now certainly as we were going through these in some of these areas certainly the 9,000 would be, or you know the 9,000 would be…I think having said that you know I think staff is very comfortable if you kept the minimum at 75. A little bit at the higher end there and again that would be for non-riparian. And again we do have a few of those up in the Minnewashta Red Cedar Point area and then in the Carver Beach area where we have the older lakeshore lots. So with that we do want to get this resolved. We do have these transactions are happening all the time and trying to get this ordinance reconciled so we’re just looking for you to either, if you want to give a range to the City Council or if you want to give a strong affirmative of either 65 or 75 percent because our motion just says that we’re recommending the attached ordinance so I guess you know we need to be clear on exactly what you want to do. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 Aller: So one of the reasons that we’re doing this is that we’re trying to give the homeowners an opportunity to clarify what they can do with those contiguous properties without creating a self induced hardship where we turn them down for a variance and they can’t use the lots the way they want to. Aanenson: The way it’s set right now if you have a separate PID you can go to the County and transfer that title to somebody else if it’s a separate PID so if we change this, when you would go to transfer the County would block that and say you’re at the minimum. You don’t need it because right now as long as it’s a separate PID it’s transferrable. And so if you look at this circumstance you know you could have somebody try to buy those two smaller lots and try to put a house on there. And I’m not saying that’s bad but you know what we’re trying to do is kind of get a uniform standard. An expectation of someone in the neighborhood what’s going to be next to me. Aller: And then what is the major difference between the two percentages? The 65 and the 75 percent. If we were to make a recommendation on one or the other as a determination as opposed to the range. Aanenson: Sure. I guess you know if you look at the 11,000 square foot minimum lot size that we know for sure that we could get a 3 car garage which seems to be today’s standard. Not that it always has to be that way and enough open space but certainly we have areas which we’ve already demonstrated in the City that are closer to the 9 and these are in the older areas so they would fit in and I guess that’s where we struggle. We originally put the 75 and then we kind of thought well maybe we’d better give you the option so that’s what the City Council…I guess we could look for your guidance on that. Aller: Are we finding that the smaller lots have the accessory structures anyway? Aanenson: No. Some people have assembled, it’s kind of in those neighborhoods if someone’s going to sell their property you might inquire about buying one of the lots so you can add onto your’s or have that availability in the future. It might for an addition as long as it’s under a separate PID you also have the ability to sell it so we’re saying if you acquire it, which is what the DNR, if you acquire it and it’s under a separate PID and you own both parcels you have to keep them together. You can’t now sell it off. Let’s say someone had more than what they needed. They met the minimum and they wanted to sell their 20 by 100 to the neighbor, then they couldn’t and they were undersized, if specifically if you’re under 5 lots then you couldn’t transfer it again. Aller: Thank you. Questions. Thoughts. Comments. Tennyson: What would be our concern that if we were to stay on the 66 percent and say fine, we could have a smaller lot of say the 9,900. That people would come in and try to do more of the standard building of the 3 car garage and hard surface coverage. Aanenson: That’s a great question. You know we really don’t think that’s going to be that big a problem because people and some of those may just end up with a tandem, you know 2 car garage and if you look at kind of the neighborhood that’s standard down there is a little bit smaller in those two neighborhoods so but there are…assembled and put together a little bit bigger homes. I think what we always look at too is the quality and the value of the home and I don’t think that’s an issue here. Most people that are buying some of those smaller lots if they’re going to tear down or add on are creating more value so that’s kind of how we would look at it. Aller: Is there a difference in the access between the two or would it matter at all? Aanenson: Access? 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 Aller: Access to the lots. In other words are we going to have greater traffic flow or less traffic flow based on the number and the square feet for the units? Aanenson: No, I don’t think so. We kind of know what single family person per household is. It’s pretty standard and trip generation. You know whether it’s a young family or older family I don’t think probably is a big issue. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Aller: …have to learn this system. So we might as well give them the range and give them the flexibility at this point and if they want to fix it at 65 or 70 or 75 they could. They can do so anyway so at this point I think it’s appropriate we move it forward so I would request a motion. Aanenson: So the motion would be modified to say approve the attached ordinance with a range of the 66% to 75%. Aller: So would anybody like to make that motion? Commissioner Colopoulos. Colopoulos: I will make the motion. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval. I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached ordinance with a range of 66% to 75% amending Chapters 20 zoning of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to non-conforming lots of record. Aller: As outlined in the staff report? Colopoulos: As outlined in the staff report. Thomas: I second that motion. Colopoulos moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 20-73(c) and adding Section 20-490 Non-Conforming Lots with a range of 66% to 75%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Generous: I guess I’m up now Chairman Aller. This is the next code amendment regards sign illumination. Currently if you have an illuminated sign it must be back lit and that’s all the ordinance says. However we’re looking at allowing people to use LED lighting or exposed neon and we’ve learned through the motion signs that you can limit the intensity of lighting by limiting the amount of Nits that they have during the daytime and during the nighttime hours. So we are proposing that we amend the sign illumination to allow both exposed neon and LED lighting. And also if someone wants to use goose neck lighting or architectural lighting to do it as long as it’s downcast, we’ve added that too. I should point out that as a part of the ordinance that we drafted attached to this report, under Section (b) we have if a neon sign is illuminated we should eliminate the word neon there. If a sign is illuminated then it could be either exposed neon or LED subject to these standards or it could be backlit as a current one or they could use decorative lighting, down lighting. Aanenson: Do you have a few slides…? Generous: Oh yes I did. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 Aller: I remember them from the work sessions but individuals who weren’t at the work session that are watching would probably like to see, for the record. Generous: For the record. And here’s our standard backlit lighting. It has the case lighting and the lighting is inside the lettering. The next one, exposed neon has the neon actually outlining the words or being the sign itself. The Mexican Grill is a great example down here. It shows how it stands out and becomes a little more vibrant and provides different opportunities for business to advertise. And then the LED lighting is the new thing that’s coming out because it’s very efficient lighting and all of these we can control the intensity of the lighting through the requirements on the amount of light intensity. Nits that they’re allowed to have at night. And then we’ve added the gooseneck lighting opportunities or downcast lighting so if someone had a sign that has no back lighting on it, that they could provide this illumination. And here’s another example. The citing for the line is downcast. We just, we circled this as a part of this image because the City of Chanhassen would not permit this because it is not shielded so if they wanted to have area lighting like that would actually have to have a hood on the front and be pointed down too so we’re very cognizant of the amount of night lighting that we have in our community and we’re trying to control that. So staff is recommending approval of the attached ordinance with that modification to Section (b) to eliminate the word neon before sign. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Questions or comments from the commissioners. No? Okay. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion if anybody would like to make one. Thomas: Sure I’ll make one. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends the approval of the attached ordinance amendment Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to illuminated signs. That was really hard. Just so you know. Aller: Okay I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tennyson: I’ll second that. Aller: Having a motion and a second, discussion. Thomas moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 20-1267, Subsection (a)(2) pertaining to illuminated signs with the modification to (a)(2)(b) deleting the word “neon” before the word “sign”. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Now to inflatable signs and search lights. Generous: And on this one I do not have a visual aid but it was in 2009 the City amended the temporary sign ordinance and we were changing Section 4 of the ordinance but as part of the codification we dropped that subsection number and we inadvertently deleted the balance of the ordinance which relates to inflatable advertising devices, flashing or blinking lights, and the use or searchlights which were included in the City Code before this amendment. At the present time we’re proposing that these sections of the ordinance be reinstated in the Code especially, well the inflatable is usually like the tire guy. The Michelin guy that tire people like to have that. We haven’t had the big gorilla lately but, but you know all our businesses are always after us to provide opportunities for them to provide attention to their businesses and so by eliminating that element we deleted something they have. The prohibitions in here 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 against flashing, blinking and portable signs, streamers and pennants, I was under, until I found out that we lost it, I knew that we had prohibited it and so I’m glad that that’s coming back. It tends to get, it becomes a problem if it’s strung out all over the community and so we’d like to control that. And then the large flag one is just in case it becomes an issue for neighbors. We don’t have a restriction on the size of a flag that they can have but if it becomes, we receive complaints we want to have a mechanism to make people remove those signs. And finally the searchlights. Again this was an opportunity. Usually it’s for grand openings that you may get this but it could be for a special event if someone wanted to provide some night lighting and that’s the only time that we allowed them to point it into the sky, except if you’re shining it on the flag of the United States of America. So with that we’re recommending approval of the ordinance amending Section 20-1256 to add Subsection 5 through 8 back into the City Code. Aller: Okay. So just to clarify this is mostly a put back in what we took out erroneously. Generous: Correct. Aller: Which allows for us to be more business friendly and yet have the ability to have our residents have some ability to control the flare and flamboyance of some of the advertising. Generous: Potentially yes. Aller: Comments or questions? Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Aller: Would anyone like to make a motion? Undestad: I will make a motion. Aller: Thank you. Undestad: Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code regulating permits for temporary signs. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Colopoulos: Second. Aller: Thank you. I have a motion and a second. Discussion. Undestad moved, Colopoulos seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 20-1256, subsections 5-8 pertaining to permits for temporary signs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 15, 2012 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 5, 2012 Aanenson: As was stated earlier we went through the PUD ordinance, which you just saw and then we also did a second actual iteration of the PUD amendments. I’ll go ahead and move to the Planning Commission’s schedule. As I stated earlier the Canine Club, I’m not sure when that’s going to come back th but we do have three items that were noticed for the June 19 meeting. That would be yet even more rd PUD’s. Lakeside Beachlot and a variance on Troendle Circle. We will not have a meeting on July 3. thth I’m hoping everybody’s doing something for the 4. Then we’ll be back on for the 17. I also wanted to note that Jill Sinclair has scheduled a tour of the seminary fen with the Environmental Commission and th anybody is welcome to tag along. I’ll send out an email and that’s actually set for June 18 at 5:30. I’m sure we’ll have water and bug spray available but it’s a very interesting opportunity to see this if anybody’s interested in going. And then we are including in your packet new businesses for new signs so that’s kind…but I did want to note that Applebee’s is doing just a slight exterior remodeling. A new entrance. A new canopy and so again… So with that Chairman I do not have any other items. We do have, go into our work session and we’ll go through that last item. Aller: Great. Any comments from the commissioners? Hearing none I’ll accept a motion to adjourn. Thomas moved, Nelson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 19