Loading...
PC 2012 08 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, and Bill Colopoulos MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathleen Thomas and Kelsey Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner, and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CANINE CLUB & SPA EXPANSION (SUPERDOG II): REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,281 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING EXPANSION TO THE APPROVED 21,020 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AREA ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) NDRD LOCATED AT 2910 82 STREET (LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 3 ADDITION. APPLICANT/OWNER: KAREN JACKSON, PLANNING CASE 2012-06. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated the item before us is a site plan review for Canine Club and Spa, also known as Superdog II. It’s Planning Case 2012-06. The approval is for a 5,281 square foot expansion to the approved site plan for a total of 26,301 square feet. Back in 2008 approximately 21,000 square foot building complex was approved for this site. City code only allows a 10% expansion on what’s approved to be done administratively. The proposed expansion they’re proposing is approximately 25% of the building area so we need to come back through the public nd hearing process. The property is located at 2910 82 Street. It’s in the Arboretum Business Park. It’s on nd just east of Highway 41 and 82 Street. Just to the south of it is the city of Chaska and city of Chaska provides sewer and water service to the site so they’re connections will actually be into their system and they’ll have to pay their fees to connecting to the unit. The City does provide stormwater services for this nd and there’s a regional pond at the corner of Century Boulevard and 82 Street that their storm water is being sent to. To the north of this site is the City’s water tower, Arboretum Business Park. That site is approximately 23 feet above the base elevation for these buildings on this site and it’s significant due to the noise implications that we’ve discovered as part of reviewing this project. The new building itself is proposed for 8,410 square feet and there’s a 11,180 square foot of garage that’s adjacent to that. The existing building is 16,711 square feet. As you can see they’re building this one story building to the west of the existing kennel. As part of it there’s a portion that’s proposed for a veterinary clinic and the rest of it would be additional kennel spaces, and I’m sure the applicant will explain that a little more the operation of this. In the center of this is a complex would be a plaza area where they take dogs outside. There’s also an area to the east of the building. The site plan is pretty straight forward. There are significant retaining walls on the west, north and east side of this new building. The tallest one being on the north side of that new kennel/vet building which would be approximately 8 feet tall at it’s highest point. The building materials are similar to the existing building on site. They have rock face or they have veneer rock and then also brick veneer on the front of the buildings. Store front windows, it does have an attractive presentation. The main entrance is on the west side of the building because of the length of it. It complies with all the requirements of the PUD standards as well as city code. The building is one story in height and there’s a 2 foot step in the parapet to accentuate the building entrances. Again the grading of the site, they will match into the existing hill slope to the north. They’re digging out, currently they have a grading permit to remove some of the fill that was put in as part of the original development. With the rest of this project they will be adding retaining walls and connecting the two Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 halves of the property together. The landscaping plan, they don’t meet the minimum requirements for our buffer yard. They are proposing relocating some existing trees on site. However the forester went out and the trees weren’t in very good condition so we, while we let them shift them on site we won’t count them towards their buffer yard, or their planting requirements. Additionally we’re looking at providing additional, some landscaping to the north of the court yard area or the dog outdoor play area. As we tried to research different ways that we could address some of the noise issues that came up and while it’s not the most effective means of noise attenuation, it does provide an ability to diffuse it and we’ll watch this over time as the evergreens that we’re proposing be installed there, if they can diffuse the barking enough to remove the noise from the neighboring property. We have received complaints about the dogs barking. We undertook a study over several days to go out to the site 3 or 4 times a day to see, hear or see what we could find out. I provided you with a copy of, a summary of that and the actual log sheets from what we saw. Aller: If I can just interrupt here for a second. We have received an addition to the packet which is on the website. The City website and one is the report that you’re just discussing dated 8-21-2012 and the second is a letter from Mike Schlangen, the owner of the Audubon Tire and Auto regarding noise, both of which were received by all the commissioners and are a part of the package and have been reviewed and we’ll continue to discuss so thank you. Generous: Thank you and we’ve also provided a copy over for the public if anyone would like to look at that. What we did discover is that the noise, the dog barking is not heard directly from the dogs but actually it’s from reflective of the sound off the water tower. Because you can stand just to the north of the berm on the water tower site and you can’t hear anything. If you walk over a little farther you hear it and it sounds like the dogs are behind you. We believe that diffusing the barking by putting the landscaping close to the problem area right at the top of the retaining wall in this area will help to diffuse it. We want to try to make it thick enough so that we’re recommending that 15 evergreens be provided in that area and that that be staggered so in either 2 or 3 rows so that they can fill in over time and give you a more complete coverage on the property. And additionally we will continue to monitor this issue and see if there’s any other thing with the, that the city can do as a part of our water tower maintenance to help reduce the off site impacts of the dog barking. Also we have contacted the applicant and advise them that this is a concern with the running of the dog care. The proposed site plan is consistent with city code and the planned unit development standards for Arboretum Business Park. The design of the project subject to the recommendations, conditions of approval we believe creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features and staff is recommending approval of the site plan amendment if you will subject to the conditions of the staff report. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Does anybody have any questions at this point? Colopoulos: I’m not familiar with the facility here. Are the dogs behind a chain link fence in the enclosure? Karen Jackson: Yeah, do you want me to stand up and kind of help out with the questions Bob? Generous: Well this one, there is a chain link fence around the enclosure area for the dogs. There’s a retaining wall on the north side and chain link on top. On the south of this area is a privacy fence so it’s a solid wood one. And we believe that the site location is great. It’s done everything we want it to. It forces the noise up. However it doesn’t continue to go up. It starts to come down once it hits that water tower so we’re looking at a means to mitigate that. Colopoulos: Yeah I was just wondering if there was, if dogs can see out of the enclosure they’re in, they see movement or anything outside of their enclosure, that does increase their tendency to bark. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 Generous: Right. What we saw, observed when we were out there is that the, most of the barking was the dogs in the kennel wanting to come out and play with the dogs that are out in the open area and so, and it was very, it wasn’t constant. It was, there’s a lot of it. It wasn’t real loud but it was continuous at times and so. Hokkanen: And all this observation was done from outside, not inside the buildings. Generous: Right. Aller: Have we discussed with the applicant the possibility that there might be different materials that could be used to sound proof or is the exterior noise problem really what we’re dealing with and it’s going to be resolved with some form of outside buffer? Generous: From what we heard there was only outside noises that generated the problem. We didn’t hear anything directly coming out of the building so. Aanenson: Chairman, if I may. Just maybe after we take the testimony circle back to two issues. One is that while you received additional information regarding noise, there’s not a condition in the staff report to address that. And also in the Findings of Fact number 6, I think if you do choose to do something else you’d probably want to modify the Findings of Fact for number 6 that states if these things would happen the proposed site plan would protect so I think what we’re saying right now we’ve received letters to the contrary so I just want to make sure that those are reconciled so maybe after the testimony you might want to circle back to those two points. Aller: Okay. Any further questions at this point? Would the applicant like to step forward and perhaps give us a better picture of what you’re intending on doing and please state your name and address for the record. Karen Jackson: Okay my name is Karen Jackson. My home residence is 10104 Indigo Drive. The Superdog Country Club is the business and then the Canine Club is doing business and spa at 2982, is it 2982? nd Generous: 2910 82. nd Karen Jackson: 29 82 Street so that’s where the proposed building is to be going up. We’d like to present that this is going to be, you know we’ve studied for the last 2 years and what the community and what we really think would be of not only a fun but mostly a very important part of Chanhassen in the developing areas because nobody has really brought this type of facility to the immediate area. We’re looking to put in a multi-tenant office building with a veterinarian and the primary tenant will be an animal hospital. Very little boarding will be done there. It’s more on a wellness schedule meaning that we’re not going to be in taking the quantity of dogs that we have at the pet hotel. That will continue the way it is and of course you know if we can have buffers and help out with the noise situation we definitely will. The new facility will not be anything like the current facility. It’s, everything is basically maintained indoors where the outdoor pet boarding is you know in and out. The newest facility will mostly be indoors and taking care of older pets, diabetic animals, etc. There’ll be two tenants. One is ourselves and the other one we’re looking for an affiliated medicine of veterinarian group that is qualified to meet the specifications of the current standards. Let’s see there’ll be you know enclosures for the gas that’s being used and those will all be met up to inspection and we would also like to present that we also have a general contractor on board as well who has built many facilities and award winning as well and 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 this is Rick Scott so I’d like to introduce you to him because he can also help you out with any further detailed questions you may have. Aller: Great. Before we let you go, has anybody brought these noise complaints to your attention before? Is this the first you’re hearing of it? Karen Jackson: No, Bob Generous did mention that we had a complaint. I guess I was, we try, you know being summertime too the pets are going to be out a little bit more. They’re excited and knowing where the noise is coming from and how it’s being objected you know throughout the hill, we certainly can resolve that problem by you know keeping the most animals inside. It’s the gorgeous weather so we feel that you know everybody wants to be outside as much as possible and get the fresh air. If we’re getting complaints we’ll certainly abide by any complaints and we don’t want to have anything you know obstructing or even you know causing other businesses around us not to enjoy what we have to offer so we’ll definitely look into that and now we have a specific area so we can really kind of you know concentrate on that. Aller: Thank you. Karen Jackson: You’re welcome. Aller: Mr. Scott, were you going to come forward? Rick Scott: I would be delighted to come forward. Aller: State your name and address. Rick Scott: Rick Scott. I am from Buffalo, Minnesota. Scott Builders is the name of the company. We are out of Buffalo, Minnesota as well. We were just recently selected as the general contractor for the project. It’s been rather intense the last 24 hours kind of coming up on speed where they are in document development. We’re well on our way. Final architectural meeting was today. I’m glad to hear what the Planning Commission and staff have to offer here as we go into final document development. There are some existing concerns with barking. My firm has done approximately 17 veterinary kennel facilities over the last 10 years. Barking dogs is nothing new to us. There are other ways of dealing with it as well and I actually mentioned to Molly earlier today in our design meeting that there are some things that can be done electronically to help control sounds so there are some ultrasound things that can be done that when barking is heard it emits an ultrasonic sound that causes the dogs to stop barking and we’ve had success with that in other kennels as well so there’s some alternatives that I think that we can bring to the table and certainly go over with Karen and Molly and I see absolutely no reason why we can’t resolve what might be the issues. It could even be some attenuation panels off the top of the solid fence so. Aller: And you’ve had a chance to review the report? Rick Scott: No I haven’t. I haven’t seen the report yet. I didn’t know I was coming here until 3:00 yesterday afternoon so. Aller: Congratulations on surprise. Rick Scott: Well no, that’s fine. That’s what we’re here to help the flow so. Aller: From what you’re hearing do you think there would be any difficulty in meeting requirements of putting in trees? More under and over story trees on the lot? 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 Rick Scott: No I don’t think that that’s an issue. Again while that was being read by Bob I go, well what size because you know when people talk about trees and somebody thinks they’re 4 feet high. Somebody thinks they’re 14 feet high so I think that’s going to depend on what you’re trying to achieve and how fast you’re trying to achieve it because if you, if you have a year like this year the trees are not gaining greatly in height. They’re gaining a little caliper but they’re not going very high with the lack of water we’ve had so I think we’d like to be able to work with staff to determine what the height of those trees has to be and without having seen exactly now where this situation is, it might be critical. I mean I don’t know if 15 trees is enough or not. I would certainly recommend to my client that if it takes 17, do 17. Don’t do 15 because that’s what staff said. Let’s eliminate the problem and be the good neighbor that I know she wants to be so. Aller: Great. Questions for Mr. Scott while he’s available? Okay. Thank you very much Mr. Scott. Rick Scott: You bet. Aller: Okay with that I’ll open the public hearing portion. Anyone wishing to come forward to speak for or against may do so at this time. Sir. Come, state your name and address for the record please. Mike Schlangen: I’m Mike Schlangen and we have the Tire and Auto right up on top of the hill from the Canine Club and we hear the barking pretty much all day long. I mean it’s a constant thing and my concern is a couple fold. Number one is I don’t know if the trees are going to really help because what’s happening, what was stated earlier is that the sound is going up and it’s bouncing off the water tower and then coming down and we have a retaining wall in our building and you just hear that barking all day long. But the second issue is, if that barking noise would stay there, what would be, what could we do about it long term I guess? Aller: Bob, you have an answer to that? Generous: …Mr. Scott recommended some alternatives that could be used. The electronic ultrasound to get the dogs to stop barking. Karen mentioned not having as many dogs out at a time or reducing the amount of times out there so this is something that yes, we will need to continue to monitor and if it remains a problem work with them to see if they can alter their operations to make it work. Mike Schlangen: Okay, I guess my question is a year down the road or whatever if it would stay or maintain at this level or get worst, is there anything that can be done? Aanenson: Yes, I guess that’s why I wanted to tighten up on the Findings of Fact and what the expectations were because I think clearly the Findings of Fact should be that they have to be a good neighbor and not provide that and if that means the dogs can’t go out or you just let one out, they have to make it operational so I think we need to establish you know between now and when this goes to council clearly what the expectations are and how we’re going to get there and it might be something that the commission directs the staff to work out but the council needs to have something more quantifiable and what the expectations are so I think we do between now and the City Council need to kind of have a little clearer understanding what that would be. And I think that goes back to how it’s being operated too. Aller: And as I understand it, even if we were to deny the variance today, you’re having a problem with noise which has just been brought to her attention and she’s indicated she wants to work with you and the community to be a good neighbor so regardless of what happens here, whether it’s granted or denied, that’s an issue that you want addressed and that’s what I’m hearing and I think that if you work with staff 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 and with the applicant that you should be able to come to sold resolution on those noise levels and some way to resolve the issue so they don’t get escalated like most things do with neighbors. Aanenson: Yeah, let me just clarify. We understand what the issue is. I think Mr. Schlangen has made that clear. I think we need to make sure we communicate that and put that in writing what the so the expectations are because the site plan is a little more difficult to rescind so I think we need to put the expectation out there. There are other ordinances which include the nuisance ordinance and the like so I think we want to clearly state you know what are, what we’re going to try to achieve to make that and then like maybe it’s a sequencing thing. If that doesn’t work then the next step and kind of work our way through that. Colopoulos: Yeah and I think that’s the important thing to stress here. Irrespective of the outcome of this hearing relevant to the application, as Chairman Aller, this is an issue that needs to be pursued to solve the problem. A dog kennel is going to produce a certain amount of noise. Mike Schlangen: I guess I understand that and that’s why. Colopoulos: It exists there so regardless of whether it’s added onto or not this is you know, is 20 dogs much different than 30 dogs? Well I don’t know you know. Mike Schlangen: No I guess I understand that. That’s why I haven’t said anything the last how many years. I understand it’s a challenge running a small business but. Aller: And that’s why the zoning area is for that purpose. Keep the noisy businesses in the same area so. Colopoulos: Hadn’t thought of the ultrasound thing though. That sounds like a good. I wish I had thought about that one with my two hooligans. Aller: Anything further? Mike Schlangen: No, thank you. Aller: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Close the public hearing. Comments from commissioners, and I’ll just state that I misspoke. This is not a request for a variance. It’s a site plan approval so the requirements are different. Comments. I think we do need to address item 6. I think we need to put a condition on indicating that there’ll be some reasonable noise, either abatement and/or level cap that can be placed on as a condition. Aanenson: Yeah, that’s a Findings of Fact so if I may Chairman, if we go back to the Planning Commission conditions which is on page 11 of your staff report. The planning conditions. You’d probably want to add number 5 that addresses that the staff work with the applicant to provide, you know before it goes to City Council a buffering or noise attenuation plan. Whatever that may be. It might be a series of a couple different things so that would be a condition for that. And then what I did want to address was the Findings of Fact and that was number 6 and the Findings of Fact I think should be the proposed site plan would meet the buffering if a mitigation plan was put in place. Something to that effect. If that makes sense. So that would be in the last page of your report. What you’re saying is, what it’s saying is that it’s protecting and what we’ve heard from the testimony that it’s not without some mitigation. Aller: So I would take out sound. Strike that and then add that to the proposed site plan. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 Hokkanen: And include noise abatement. Aanenson: What you could say is with an adequate noise plan. Hokkanen: Noise abatement plan. Aanenson: Exactly. Then it would protect. Without that plan it’s. Hokkanen: Who determines if this business where it’s a nuisance? The noise. I mean it’s a kennel. It’s zoned for. Aanenson: Right. Right. Hokkanen: I mean I get my car fixed over there. I sit outside. I mean I’m not there all day but who determines that level and? Aanenson: There isn’t a noise ordinance for frequency and duration. Hokkanen: Right, right. Aanenson: So we did. Hokkanen: I know you did. Aanenson: Yeah, right so it is. It’s, what’s an acceptable level based on the nuisance ordinance but there are going to be some. Hokkanen: But it’s a kennel. Aanenson: Yeah and there are going to be some peak times where it’s going to be more than others but you try to keep it to as good a neighbor as you can. Hokkanen: Right, okay. Colopoulos: And I think there is a neighbor to neighbor issue here. I mean Mike’s crews work there with open bays in the summer too and it’s like all day long. They’re going to hear the sound. Aanenson: And the dogs are going to be louder in the summer. Hokkanen: In the winter it’s different. Aanenson: So those are the things that you just need to as a management try to work through those issues to say in the summer we’re going to be more vigilant, those sort of things so that’s what we’re asking. Some how we. Aller: So then we would amend the Finding number 6 to start with a with. I hate to start things with a preposition. With an additional noise abatement plan the proposed site plan protects adjacent neighborhood properties for drainage, sound. Hokkanen: Or we could add sound too. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 Aanenson: Noise. Aller: Because I don’t want to lose it in the sauce. And then on our conditions, under. Aanenson: Number 5 on page 11. Aller: Page 11, number 5. Planning conditions. An additional noise abatement plan. Hokkanen: Number 5. Noise buffering. Aanenson: And if you’d like to just say something like staff to work with the applicant between now and the City Council meeting to prepare a noise, yeah noise abatement plan. Tennyson: Is it strictly abatement or is it mitigation as well? Aanenson: Abatement/mitigation. Aller: You know because we don’t know what can reasonably be done yet. Aanenson: I’ll leave that to the attorneys to decide. Aller: Then we’ll be here all night. Okay so then we’ll just do the additional noise abatement/mitigation plan as required. Hokkanen: Well I do want to say to the applicant thank you for bringing this because, although I don’t bring my dog there my friends and neighbors do and they talk very highly of it and you know it’s nice to see another veterinary clinic come into town too so thank you. Karen Jackson: Thank you. Aller: So is that all we need to do paperwork wise? And are there any other additions, comments, deletions? Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion? We’ll do the same motion as the Findings of Fact and the conditions have been changed. Hokkanen: I’ll make a motion. I move the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a 5,281 square foot expansion to the approved site plan for a total of 26,301 square feet of building area subject to the conditions and subject to the changes of conditions. Generous: Revised conditions. Hokkanen: Revised conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Now should we state these changes now? Generous: As revised. Aanenson: As recorded. Hokkanen: As recorded, okay. Colopoulos: Okay, I’ll second that motion. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hokkanen moved, Colopoulos seconded that the Planning Commission approve a 5,281 square-foot expansion to the approved site plan for a total of 26,301 square feet of building area subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Building Official Conditions: 1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 4. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 5. Any work on existing utilities on site will have to be coordinated carefully with the affected utility to insure there is no interruption of customer service. Engineering Conditions: 1. Additional information and calculations must be submitted to determine if the regional pond can accommodate the proposed additional impervious areas. The applicant shall work with staff on revised calculations. 2. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 3. The developer will need to work with staff to minimize the height of the retaining wall on the west side of the proposed parking lot. Currently, the finished wall is outside the drainage and utility easement, but the structural support will likely be located within the drainage and utility easement. All structural support for the wall must be located outside of the drainage and utility easement. 4. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Due to the height of the retaining wall, a fence must be placed on the top for safety at any location that the vertical separation of the ground is greater than four feet. 5. The City of Chaska will be providing sewer and water service to this site. Approvals, permits, and fees for sewer and water will be with the City of Chaska. 6. The sanitary sewer along the west property line, storm sewer along the east property line, and storm sewer along the south property line shall be publicly owned and maintained. All other utilities within the property boundary will be privately owned and maintained. 7. Details must be provided for all proposed storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain crossings. Actual elevations of existing utilities shall be verified for accuracy. A minimum vertical separation of 18 inches is required at all storm, sanitary, and watermain crossings. Contact Gordy Stauff at 952- 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 227-1166 with the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department 48 hours prior to connecting to the storm. 8. Each new building is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. Sanitary sewer and water hookup fees are unknown at this time, but will be need to be paid to the City of Chaska. 9. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to provide the City with the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $9,000.00 to guarantee the installation of the storm sewer, erosion control, and seeding. The applicant must also notify the City after installation of the erosion control and 48 hours prior to the commencement of grading. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA and the Dept. of Health. 10. Encroachment agreements will be needed for the fence in the drainage and utility easements. 11. The applicant shall work with staff to make changes to plans according to staff redlines. Environmental Resource Specialist Conditions: 1. Increase plantings for bufferyard areas in order to meet ordinance requirements. 2. Transplanted trees will not be accepted as quantities to meet minimum landscape requirements. 3. At least 15 spruce trees shall be planted in staggered line groupings within the northern area of property. Final planting sites will be field located by applicant with city approval. Fire Marshal Conditions: 1. A three-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of the fire hydrant per MSFC Section 508.5.5. 2. Nothing shall be placed in a manner that would prevent operation of the fire hydrant by firefighters. MSFC Section 508.5.4. Planning Conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. Mechanical equipment shall be screened through the placement on the roof, the use of parapet walls and the use of low-profile equipment. 3. The applicant shall extend the sidewalk on the west side of the building to the south to connect to the sidewalk across the south side of the buildings, and to the north to the sidewalk along the north side of the building. 4. A separate sign permit is required for each sign. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 5. The applicant shall prepare and implement an additional noise abatement/mitigation plan. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: Surface Water Drainage and Treatment 1.While it does not appear that the site will exceed the maximum 70% hardcover as allowed by §20-505, calculations must be provided. These calculations shall include the artificial turf areas. 2.The submittal shall indicate if there is an underdrain system for the artificial turf areas. If there is, show how this is connected to the public conveyance system. The applicant must also describe how this system prevents animal wastes from entering the storm sewer system. 3.The landscape plan calls out non-woven weed mat. This should be changed to reflect that -1 the fabric must have a minimum permittivity of 0.7 sec as described in ASTMD -4491 and an apparent opening size maximum of 0.25 mm. If this is not acceptable for the landscaping purposes, this area shall be calculated as hardcover for both planning and stormwater modeling purposes. Erosion and Sediment Control 1.The applicant shall provide the NPDES Permit number prior to commencement of earth disturbing activities. 2.The SWPPP shall be amended such that under Project Contacts, the City contact is Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator 952-227-1168 and Chip Hentges, Carver County SWCD, 952-393-1146 shall be added. 3.That portion of the SWPPP with the heading “Responsibility Requirements” shall be completed in full and submitted to the City and included in the on-site SWPPP prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activities. 4.Per Part III. A. 3 of the NPDES permit, a narrative describing the timing and placement of all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs must be included in the SWPPP. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-R) AND REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-R) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF): REQUEST TO AMEND THE SUNNYSLOPE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) TO INCORPORATE UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REFERENCE THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT; THND AND REZONE SUNRISE HILLS 4 ADDITION, WALDRIPS 2 ADDITION, FOX CHASE, ORCHARD HILLS AND WHITETAIL RIDGE FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT- 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF). APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2012-04-06. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a proposed planned unit development residential. It’s the sixth group that we’re bringing forward. This is the stuff that we thought we were going to be able to get more of when we started this process a year and a half ago. These are the only ones that we found that we could rezone from planned unit development to single family residential because they all except for the Sunnyslope comply with the standards. We had a th neighborhood meeting on July 10 to review these, this group. We sent out approximately 85 notices and we have 4 people attend our meeting. The meeting notices did contain information on website contact and planning contact for individuals and we did receive some calls and I’m sure people used the City’s website to see the information. Because this was sixth group we have everything in line and we were able to cover most of the questions that we had heard throughout the process. Again we discovered through this whole series of PUD amendments that a lot of the projects, because they were older, the homes may not specifically comply with the standard. However the standards were there and we’re not going to go and make people change anything but as they go forward they’re going to have to comply with the minimum regulations. So through this process we did not try to upzone any of the properties. What they were approved for is what they’re getting right now so that’s where we stand. Again the projects that th we’re looking at tonight are Fox Chase, Orchard Hills, Sunnyslope, Sunrise Hills 4 Addition, Waldrips nd 2 Addition and Whitetail Ridge. We’ll start with the only one that will remain a planned unit development and that is the Sunnyslope development. This was actually approved as a part of subdivision #77-05 approved in 1977. The underlying zoning for the development is RSF which is Single Family Residential. While the lots do not meet that minimum standards, as part of the PUD they’re developing their unique standards for this development. There are 12 single family homes in this project and they will remain. They do have a common open area within the center of the development and this association has a recreational beachlot. There’s a non-conforming use permit for that recreational beachlot. The minimum lot size in this PUD is 11,300 square feet. The standard for single family residential is 15,000 for non-riparian properties. The minimum lot width is 75 feet at the building setback line. The RSF standard is 90 feet of property width, and the minimum depth in this development is 110 feet. The standard in the RSF is 125 feet. The front setbacks within this project are 20 feet. The standard in the RSF district is 30 feet. The side lot setback is 10 feet and the rear lot setback is 30 feet and those, and the hard cover is 25% for this development and those are all consistent with the RSF district. That’s it. Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance to amend a PUD to adopt those standards which were incorporated as part of the development contract for this project. Again what we’re proposing is that we take them all together. Do the public hearing and at the end have one motion to approve the project so with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Great. Questions? Comments. After six of these there won’t be many. Colopoulos: No. Aller: Okay, we’re going to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward on Sunnyslope, for or against. Seeing no one come forward, closing the public hearing. Discussion. Motion. Colopoulos: We’re going to take, yeah we’ll take all at once? Aller: Moving on. Generous: The second project is Fox Chase. This is located on the northeast, northwest corner of Lotus Lake. This is the one where I discovered as part of the research that in the70’s any project that had more than 25 units had to be processed through the planned unit development process so. However we 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 discovered that this development met all the minimum standards in the RSF district so even the riparian lots meet the 20,000 square foot. However the minimum lot size for non-riparian is 15,000 square feet. Minimum lot width is 90 feet. Minimum lot depth is 125 feet and it’s 25% site coverage. So those are all thnd the single family districts. Fox Chase, Orchard Hills, Sunrise Hills 4 Addition, Waldrips 2 Addition and Whitetail Ridge all meet those requirements. Here we go back to the Fox Chase which is PUD 79-04. 52 single family lots. Comply with all the standards in the RSF district. We’re proposing that this PUD be rezoned to RSF which is Single Family Residential. So that’s it for that one. There is an ordinance to do that attached to the staff report. Aller: Questions, comments. We’ll open the public hearing regarding Fox Chase planned unit development. Anyone wishing to come forward, please do so. Seeing no one come forward, closing the public hearing. Moving on. th Generous: The next one. Sunrise Hills 4 Addition. The final plat for this project was approved in 1973. We believe that it was by mistake that it was even picked up as a part of a PUD but since it’s been published in our zoning map for so long we thought it was better to go through this process. It was actually part of the development to the north that we replatted which is Sunrise Hills and just because of the road connection, that may have given people the impression it was part of the PUD to the south of that. There are 5 single family homes in this development so, and they do comply with the RSF district regulations so we are recommending the ordinance be adopted to rezone them from PUD-R to RSF. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. th Aller: Seeing no questions, opening the public hearing on Sunrise Hills 4 Addition planned unit development. Anyone wishing to come forward please do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, close the public hearing. st Generous: Okay, we have to step back. Outlot A of Waldrips 1 Addition is actually, well the land that nd was incorporated as Waldrips 2 Addition and Whitetail Ridge and Orchard Hill so we believe and we haven’t been able to track it down but that’s when the zoning was incorporated. However each of those nd projects then met the RSF district regulations. The one hiccup is in Waldrips 2 Addition. There is a non-conforming use in that development but we’ll start on the north side. Orchard Hills is Subdivision 84-18. It was approved in 1984. It was 5 single family lots. There is a wetland on the back part of it. Each of the lots exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district. There were no unique standards as part of this so we’re recommending that it be rezoned from PUD-R to RSF which is single family residential. So there’s not a lot to say. They all comply. Aller: We had one non-conforming and again we’re not upzoning so any questions? With that I’ll open the public hearing. Orchard Hills planned unit development. Anyone wishing to speak on the matter either for or against please step forward. Seeing no one come forward, closing the public hearing. nd Generous: Okay, Waldrips 2 Addition. There are 4 single family detached housing units in this. This is the one non-conforming use is this building on the south end. It was an existing, I believe it was a farmstead. It was built in the 1800’s and over time they’ve added, I believe there’s 7 units within that building. However all the other lots are single family detached homes. They comply with the standards for the RSF district. This plat was approved in October of 1982. We’re recommending that it be rezoned from PUD-R to RSF. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Hearing none, open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against please step forward. State your name and address. Seeing no one come forward, closing the public hearing. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 Generous: Whitetail Ridge is on the south end of the Waldrips Addition. It’s Subdivision 87-02. It was approved in 1987. There are 6 single family detached houses. At one time Whitetail Ridge Court was proposed to be Lake Lucy Road when it connected to the east but that never happened. I believe there’s some wetlands east of this and so we all know that Lake Lucy Road now curves down to the south. Six single family detached houses. All the lots comply with the minimum standards of the RSF district. We’re recommending that the ordinance be adopted to rezone the property from PUD-R to RSF. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Having no questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Whitetail Ridge planned unit development. Anyone wishing to step forward, please do so. Speak for or against. Seeing no one stepping forward, closing the public hearing. Generous: And that brings us to our recommendation. We recommend that you approve the rezoning ordinances for, to incorporate the unique development standards for the Sunnyslope PUD and keep that thnd PUD-R and rezone the Fox Chase, Orchard Hills, Sunrise Hills 4 Addition, Waldrips 2 Addition, and Whitetail Ridge from PUD-R to RSF, single family residential and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation with each of the reports. Aller: Would anyone like to make a motion as stated? Colopoulos: Certainly. I so move. Aller: Having a motion, do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: Discussion. Colopoulos moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the attached ordinance rezoning the Sunnyslope Planned Unit Development- Residential to incorporate the development standards and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation; and that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve thnd the attached ordinances rezoning Fox Chase, Orchard Hills, Sunrise 4 Addition, Waldrips 2 Addition and Whitetail Ridge Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R) to Single Family Residential District (RSF), and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 17, 2012 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Aanenson: Thank you Chair, members of the commission. There were two meetings with the City Council since your last meeting and all the action items on there are related to your PUD’s so you just approved the last one so now it’s up to the council to finish off, and that was a big task so thank you for bearing with us and getting that done. I think it’s going to be very helpful for our residents. Aller: Well for the record I’d like to commend staff because the way that it went through, it was a lot of work but I think the residents of the city of Chanhassen got a good opportunity to see what use their 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012 properties could be used for and you made it a lot easier for them to market or use their properties and come in and be able to say just how can I use my property so I think it was a worthwhile project. Aanenson: Thank you. I did have one other thing I would like to just show you on your planning commission future items, if you have that schedule in front of you. We do have a tour set for September th 12, and that’s with the Environmental Commission and the Park Commission. We’re going to start at 6:00 and just to entice you we’re going to end with a bonfire so. So yes, and you know some treats at the end so, so we’ve got a couple of sites we’re going to go look at and I think it’ll be very interesting. A great way to cross populate some ideas of the different groups so I hope you all share when we go look at these projects. We’re going to go 101 and then we’ll be up at 41 looking at some stuff that’s happening along Highway 41 so. Colopoulos: What time is that? Aanenson: That was 6:00. I’ll send you a, we’ve been working on kind of finalizing, make sure we’ve got all the items that we want to make sure. Terry Jeffery will also be along and probably invite the council too so I think, because we want to make sure there’s different topics at each location so, so I’ll get th that agenda out to you right away. And I know that we had talked about, because we put on the 12 that th we’d cancel the 18 but we have a lot of projects that are going to meet between now and the first of the year. People that want to get their approvals done so they can close on their property and be ready to go. Some of them are smaller subdivisions. Some of them are quite a bit bigger so we do need to keep that th September 18 day on that so hopefully that works with everybody’s schedule. I know we have someone that might be out in September. Yeah, so if you just give me a heads up on that. We need four so if somebody’s traveling or just if you could let me know but some of the projects, so for sure we have a th couple items. One that was tabled tonight will probably go on for that 18 meeting, and we do have nd another one that may come in too. And then October 2, one of those items that moved down for the th October 16 but we’ll probably add a couple other ones there too and because of the election we won’t have a meeting that day so we’ll try to get those through. And we really try hard to space them out so we don’t have one that we go til 11:00 and then you know just an hour the next night. We work really hard. It just depends on when they come in so, for example we were hoping to get that senior housing one on sooner but they’re working through the engineering so just try to make sure we don’t keep you here really late. So again if you’d just let me know if you have any conflicts so we can let the applicants know in time, appreciate that. Aller: Great, thank you. Anything further? Motion to adjourn. Colopoulos moved, Tennyson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 15